Looking for a flow meter...

[hydroxyNUT]

Sorry to all the MENTORS, but it was meant to be a wake-up call. I was very interested to see mileageseekers post on your forums, and I'd hate to see another good poster leave this forum. As soon as I can scrape up the money, I'm buying one of mileageseekers lower volume calibrated flow meters.

And regarding taking that POLL, I'll be the first to vote FOR the accurate technology measured in "real-time"... what can be better?

[hydroxyNUT]

I've got a question for the mileageseeker... Is it true that another reason for inaccuracy in HHO volume measurement with the pop bottle is steam volume even if you run the gases thru a good bubbler and desiccant? I know the measurements I've observed with the pop bottle method produced from my 4N4 dry cell have an MMW efficiency calc too high to be true. I've seen many experimenters claim ridiculous MMW's... What MMW efficiency would be considered AT UNITY?

Thanks for your reply, in advance.

[Roland Jacques]

You know, I think the so-called "mentors" of this site totally missed the point that "mileageseeker" was making, and that is we must take advantage of the most useful tools available to us. I personally saw the mileageseekers flow bench in action at the HHO Games in Florida back in November, 2008, and the flow meters used were factory calibrated for and does accurately measure HHO gas volume. They took the time to show that the measured gas and calculated volume match when testing an efficient cell design such as with a dry cell. I watch all the online forums to learn as much as possible, and believe that this time you guys have your blinders on. I would suggest a poll be taken to see what other forum members think about remaining in the dark ages, opting for a "horse & buggy pop bottle" instead of a tool that could help any cell builder determine whether minor changes in a cell design make a positive or negative effect on its efficiency... but what do I know, I'm not a mentor.

Did you ever wonder why true HHO players such as Smartscarecrow have stopped posting on this site? Let's applaud people like Smartscarecrow, ZeroFossilFuels & MileageseekersHHO for having the foresight to make advances in this exciting new technology.

The mentor thing just means someone has done 100 posts.

I don’t know it all when it comes to HHO, not even close . But I think this is a forum to openly share ideas, opinions, and objections and ask questions. If you think we should not comment on subjects because of the risk of offending someone, well then we could just agree to disagree. I think we would be doing a disservice to everyone, including ourselves if we let thing we see as untruths stand. We should all feel welcome to share our thoughts, offending or not. Maybe we should clearly state opinions as opinions, ideas as such, and things we know as facts, as facts. This is my opinion, no flame, just sharing my opinion.



That said, I think I have something to share when it comes to testing flows…. A few months few mechanic technician schools. Two years of Airframe and Powerplant School. Many advance courses and training in aviation pneumatics and hydraulics. That combined with years of full time pneumatic testing makes me comfortable with this subject. I’ve used more kinds of flow meters than most builder of HHO equipment will ever see, so on this subject, I'm not bragging just clarifying, I actually might have something worth sharing. If you think I should not comment on this subject unless i have a real cool name then you can just call me ZerosmackcrowHHO-Bro


No one should think for a moment that this cheap and easy method of testing (bottle method) is somehow inadequate or inferior to $$$ flow meters … in ways that they are not. I personally have 4 of my own RMA & RMB Dwyer flow meters and enjoy using them. They do have good use applications but they are affected by a few more things than the bottle, this is my opinion and I believe I can prove this. Now this I can state this as a fact “ I get more accurate readings from my pop bottle than my flow meters.” What I stated in early post as facts, are indeed facts, I am willing to openly discuss them with anybody. If you think I’m wrong, I would love to hear why, and discuss it further. But try to be more constructive and point out where you think I'm wrong, instead of just saying I live in the dark ages...

I did not knock Milageseekers method of testing, or his flow meters. I was specific about certain parts of his statements. Me and my horse and buggy are simply rebutting his false statements. His stated inaccuracy about the bottle method are wrong! My statement about pressures are facts, Not opinions, Facts, and I am prepared to back them up even with my blinders on. There is more than enough BS in this industry; we need to make every effort to stay factual and honest. I have no vested interest in what you or anyone uses and I'm not selling anything this is my hobby.

Roland AKA ZerosmackcrowHHO-Bro

[Roland Jacques]

bottle bouncing off the sides of its cylinder as it rises, water surface tension, the changing buoyancy of the bottle as it rises. I believe these effects are VERY minor, Less the 1% effect on values.
Actually quite a bit more than 1%, varying between 5 & 10%.

Its actually Far less than 1 %. Even if you did not allow a 2 little bottle to move at all, it would be only off by 3% max. apply Boyle's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws


larger bottles being less effected by start stop times than smaller bottles.
Larger bottles having much more error due to buoyancy and mass.
already addressed this is not true. refer to Boyle's law





I think the most overlooked factor is temperature and this can make a big difference, weather you use bottles or flow meters. Did you get any adjustment factors for varying Temperature's?
Temperature has less effect then you think, you should run your test gas through a bubblier and a dryer before measuring. Typical flow meters are calibrated at 70 F, a 10 to 15 degree temp difference makes virtually no measurement difference.

Ok i had time to look at this temp issue. We disagree on this point also. According to Charles' law gas temperature makes a BIG difference. 15 degrees = over 20%.

A cell putting out 2LPM @ 104 degree gas, is 3 LPM @ 140 degree That's 50% !


Its been a while since I've done this kind of math so you might want to double check my math.



Edit Correction to my figures I used temperature in Celsius when i should have used temperature in Kelvin so volume difference is closer to 15% not 50%

Gas laws calculator
http://www.1728.com/combined.htm

[HHO BLASTER]

So are you saying if i take the output of my cell and run it into a tee, of copper one copper leg i heat, and the other i don't, and both legs are measured, the heated one, will have a higher output

Gary

[Q-Hack!]

Sort of... What you have is the same number of molecules attempting to take up more space.

*Taken from wiki*
Boyle's law states that P1V1=P2V2
Charle's law states that V1/T1=V2/T2
Gay-Lussac states that P1/T1=P2/T2
When you combine them you get (P1V1)/T1=(P2V2)/T2

P=pressure
V=volume
T=temperature

Using your example of running the gas through a Tee and each feed a 1 litre bottle. The hot gas will have a higher pressure and displace the water faster. However, as that gas cools the water would be sucked back into the bottle and show less gas.

Man, that sounds like a really cool high school science project.

[HHO BLASTER]

Sort of... What you have is the same number of molecules attempting to take up more space.

*Taken from wiki*
Boyle's law states that P1V1=P2V2
Charle's law states that V1/T1=V2/T2
Gay-Lussac states that P1/T1=P2/T2
When you combine them you get (P1V1)/T1=(P2V2)/T2

P=pressure
V=volume
T=temperature

Using your example of running the gas through a Tee and each feed a 1 litre bottle. The hot gas will have a higher pressure and displace the water faster. However, as that gas cools the water would be sucked back into the bottle and show less gas.

Man, that sounds like a really cool high school science project.

Does this mean cells that run cooler are giving truer readings and if so the tube going into the meter should run into a coil that's in ice water to make everything a fair playing field like apples to apples

[Painless]

Does this mean cells that run cooler are giving truer readings and if so the tube going into the meter should run into a coil that's in ice water to make everything a fair playing field like apples to apples

Absolutely, Gary. This is why temperature readings taken at the cell and of the gas temp should always be included in an MMW test for it to be meaningful.

[Roland Jacques]

So are you saying if i take the output of my cell and run it into a tee, of copper one copper leg i heat, and the other i don't, and both legs are measured, the heated one, will have a higher output

Gary

I think you get the picture. But-- Let me add to Q-Hack's "Sort of..." part of that answer.
Sort of , but not really
Not really because the tee would keep it still a closed system, the pressure will be the same though out the system (provided theirs is no resistance is your lines... remember resistant is what makes pressure). so using a tee both would measure the same.

Does this mean cells that run cooler are giving truer readings and if so the tube going into the meter should run into a coil that's in ice water to make everything a fair playing field like apples to apples

To keep it apples to apples, yes all gases should be measured at the same temperature. (or adjusted to a standard by math formula)

That one thing that Alaska Larry does in his testing. he measures his gas temps.

[Roland Jacques]

I believe you can factor out temp differences and even factor out water vapor using a modified bottle testing.

If you fill your 1 litter bottle with your HHO gas from your cell. then disconnect the hose. let that bottle stand for a few hours. the gas temp will become room temp (which 70 degrees should be our standard) AND the vapor will condensate out of it's gas state. then measure the contents. from this...