Flowmeter vs regulator? Interesting results.

[Josey]

I admire You for standing up for Your experiment when everyone is so determined to prove your theory wrong.
I scrapped my flowmeters and went back to regulators a while ago too.

[MinnesotaDave]

I think you forgot to include the Coriolis Effect on gauge needles regarding their north/south orientation.

I considered the Coriolis Effect since there is a high likelihood that one of the instruments was in a different hemisphere.

But I discounted that theory on the basis that only one of his flow devices has a rotating needle and I decided it was unlikely to affect only one device enough to notice.

Now, two devices with needles pulled in opposite directions during initial calibration, that could contribute highly to uncalibrated plain balloons.

I prefer balloons with gorillas on them for experiments. It's been my experience that gorilla balloons give repeatable results.

[Kelvin]

I can't believe barometric pressure and altitude weren't accounted for.

And, let us not forget the roles played by parallax; quantum mirroring; the placebo effect; and the long history of institutionalized racism in -- well, everything.

[MinnesotaDave]

I should also put together a spread sheet for the error of the peashooter when not held vertical.

Maybe vectors and some trig can handle the changes.

This will help us pounce on the OP when the new tests are made for not using a perfectly vertical holding device on top of a Grade A Granite Surface plate (from an ISO/IEC 17025 certified lab) that has been leveled to within ±3 minutes of arc.

[Kelvin]

It's also important to take all these measurements through telescopes, lest the heat from your body cause thermal expansion and size changes of the balloons you're measuring, which ain't no joke since the volume of those balloons is based on the cube of their radii...all kinds of slop in this protocol that needs to be cleaned up!

I think we're gonna need to call in some PowerPoint Rangers to make up a slide deck to cover all these changes in the measurement protocol...also gonna need to assemble a committee to review all the procedures.

What's our budget, again? Anyone got a call into Natl Academy of Sciences?

[12V71]

It's also important to take all these measurements through telescopes, lest the heat from your body cause thermal expansion and size changes of the balloons you're measuring, which ain't no joke since the volume of those balloons is based on the cube of their radii...all kinds of slop in this protocol that needs to be cleaned up!

I think we're gonna need to call in some PowerPoint Rangers to make up a slide deck to cover all these changes in the measurement protocol...also gonna need to assemble a committee to review all the procedures.

What's our budget, again? Anyone got a call into Natl Academy of Sciences?

The budget is about $2.35 at the moment. Maybe $2.39 (ish)

[Mach_Zero]

Wow you guys really hated this thread. Noted.

Seems like you also want to make fun of someone's attempt to figure things out in a cheap and simple way. Not sure why that was such a big sin on here.

I tried to have some discussion and I approached this with an open mind and listened to everyone that gave me a genuine explanation.

I gotta say it's pretty disheartening to see how poorly this has been received.

[Mach_Zero]

Must have took the OP 3 days to even turn the machine on after figuring out if his electrical supply is compatible with the machine. Sorry but this has to be one of the most ridiculous threads ever posted where the OP isn't just being stubborn but trying to justify it. Curious why he didn't use a durometer to check if each balloon is the same hardness.

3 days? No way. It took my electrician a week just to get out here to help me figure out how the pokey bits at the end of that black wire were supposed to go into the wall outlet. That was a tricky one.

Then I had to hire an insurance adjuster to write up a new life insurance policy for me. That took a few days.

Then I had to get a contractor to make sure my garage floor was level to set the machine on a level surface. You never know. If it's slanted it might cause some of the electrons to fall more towards one side of the machine and the whole calibration is invalid. The contractor took forever but he got me sorted in a few weeks. Brought his level over and stuck a piece of folded up piece of cardboard under one side of the machine. Good to go now.

Then I had to send out a sample of my argon to a local lab to verify the purity. The was expensive but you never know right?


So yeah it's been a while. I bought the machine 5 years ago and I just turned it on a couple weeks ago. Still haven't tried starting an arc though. I gotta wait at least another few months for that.

_____________________

But seriously. You guys are being dicks. I bought a new flowmeter. The flow was COMPLETELY noticeably different than my original one. Instead of buying a peashooter (which itself may be just as innacurate), I spent zero dollars and got my answer. I don't know why that's so ridiculous. I posted it for some discussion and I engaged with an open mind with those who actually tried to engage in good faith.

I've enjoyed the back and forth with those of you that actually helped me learn some new information.

Those of you that see no value in this and just want to make fun of me, well I'm glad you got to have some fun too.

[G-ManBart]

I bought a new flowmeter. The flow was COMPLETELY noticeably different than my original one. Instead of buying a peashooter (which itself may be just as innacurate), I spent zero dollars and got my answer. I don't know why that's so ridiculous.

The thing is, you didn't really get your answer...you just got an answer. The reading on a peashooter may, or may not, match the actual flow rate, but it will show the relative difference between two flow meters/regulators.

You filled a ballon using a supply pressure of 100PSI and then a supply pressure of 50PSI and the one from the 50PSI supply pressure was smaller in diameter for the same length of time. Just think about that alone for a second.

There are actually very long, technical discussions about the physics of inflating balloons and the short, short version is that there is an initial pressure spike early on, then decreases until shortly before you get to where the balloon will fail and it increases again. Most seem to suggest that a typical balloon requires several Psi just to get started inflating. Initially the balloon is at atmospheric pressure, so around 14.7psi give or take. It takes more than that to start expanding at all, even before the early spike. Going off how much pressure it takes to make the balloon expand, and other documentation saying flow meters don't work properly with even 2psi of back pressure I think the answer is pretty obvious....another method of testing is needed.

[Mach_Zero]

The thing is, you didn't really get your answer...you just got an answer. The reading on a peashooter may, or may not, match the actual flow rate, but it will show the relative difference between two flow meters/regulators.

You filled a ballon using a supply pressure of 100PSI and then a supply pressure of 50PSI and the one from the 50PSI supply pressure was smaller in diameter for the same length of time. Just think about that alone for a second.

There are actually very long, technical discussions about the physics of inflating balloons and the short, short version is that there is an initial pressure spike early on, then decreases until shortly before you get to where the balloon will fail and it increases again. Most seem to suggest that a typical balloon requires several Psi just to get started inflating. Initially the balloon is at atmospheric pressure, so around 14.7psi give or take. It takes more than that to start expanding at all, even before the early spike. Going off how much pressure it takes to make the balloon expand, and other documentation saying flow meters don't work properly with even 2psi of back pressure I think the answer is pretty obvious....another method of testing is needed.

I see what you're saying about the regulators being sensitive to 2psi backpressure and I agreed with you when you posted that earlier.

I acknowledge this and admit it's not a great methodology. I still don't think it deserves the hate I received.

I actually did look up the pressure in typical party balloons and found some discussions estimating the pressure to be right around 1psi above atmospheric. But it doesn't even matter anymore. I could rerun the test with a better methodology that doesn't exert backpressure. But what's the point? This really was never meant to go this far anyway.

Thank you G-ManBart for joining in this discussion and helping me learn some new information. Responses like yours are precisely what I was hoping for when I posted. I appreciate it.

[Kelvin]

All in good fun, Mach Zero, all in good fun. Good to see you're taking it (mostly) like a man. You'll get over it...it's kinda like a fraternity initiation and hazing....

[danielplace]

How would a solenoid opening up a 50 psi pressure to a balloon not fill less than a solenoid opening up 100 psi of pressure into a similar balloon. The initial burst bleeding off these pressures before the flowmeters are even working is the start of a VERY flawed test.

Watch the ball when the solenoid dumps. Yea exactly it bounces up at the top of the flow gauge because of the massive discharge flowing massive amounts of gas upon opening.

How would you expect a 50 psi and a 100 psi release to be the same amount of gas initially.

[MinnesotaDave]

Wow you guys really hated this thread. Noted.

Seems like you also want to make fun of someone's attempt to figure things out in a cheap and simple way. Not sure why that was such a big sin on here.

I tried to have some discussion and I approached this with an open mind and listened to everyone that gave me a genuine explanation.

I gotta say it's pretty disheartening to see how poorly this has been received.

No sin and not hating the thread. Just goofing off - aimed at the craziness that testing can lead to.

My only real point is the "peashooter" flow checker is really a great item to have. I think it should come standard with every tig welder, mig too.
Fast, easy to use, repeatable - even shows the relative gas surge when the solenoid opens.
The gas surge has been timed and quantified by various people in the past - it's pretty substantial.

The balloons are a fun diversion for those interested in testing.
The initial gas surge can be easily compensated for by allowing the gas flow to normalize before attaching a balloon.
The error involved of attempting to do that while timing it (manually) could be high.
The error involved in different PSI upstream feeding the flow meter and regulator could be high.

[Welder Dave]

Not hating the thread but a peashooter flow checker could have saved it from being a 64 post thread about some crude alternative testing. Most would just adjust their gas flow till they got a good weld.

[G-ManBart]

I see what you're saying about the regulators being sensitive to 2psi backpressure and I agreed with you when you posted that earlier.

I acknowledge this and admit it's not a great methodology. I still don't think it deserves the hate I received.

I actually did look up the pressure in typical party balloons and found some discussions estimating the pressure to be right around 1psi above atmospheric. But it doesn't even matter anymore. I could rerun the test with a better methodology that doesn't exert backpressure. But what's the point? This really was never meant to go this far anyway.

Thank you G-ManBart for joining in this discussion and helping me learn some new information. Responses like yours are precisely what I was hoping for when I posted. I appreciate it.

I'm not sure it's hate as much as either tough love or not missing an opportunity to bust somebody's chops...both aren't exactly rare here

I found it interesting, even if it isn't going to change the way I do things. It made me think of stuff like what happens to the ball in a flow meter if you put your thumb over the torch end (recessed tungsten) to increase back pressure....I think I know what will happen, but I'm going to find out for sure now!

[MinnesotaDave]

I'm not sure it's hate as much as either tough love or not missing an opportunity to bust somebody's chops...both aren't exactly rare here

I found it interesting, even if it isn't going to change the way I do things. It made me think of stuff like what happens to the ball in a flow meter if you put your thumb over the torch end (recessed tungsten) to increase back pressure....I think I know what will happen, but I'm going to find out for sure now!

Calibrated thumb?

Rule of thumb?

[M J D]

Calibrated thumb?

Rule of thumb?

Thumbnail sketch?

[Mach_Zero]

All in good fun, Mach Zero, all in good fun. Good to see you're taking it (mostly) like a man. You'll get over it...it's kinda like a fraternity initiation and hazing....

Yeah I get it. I guess I get too defensive sometimes. I know my testing was flawed but it's not like I was gonna submit it to an academic journal. I know there are many professional welders here and what I did is a complete waste of time. But for a hobbyist, tinkering around and wasting time is kind of the point. Still it was fun to talk about it and learn some more. If I wouldn't have done this test, I wouldn't have all this additional knowledge about regulators. As ridiculous as it was, I did learn quite a bit from posting and talking about it with you guys. Thanks

Not hating the thread but a peashooter flow checker could have saved it from being a 64 post thread about some crude alternative testing. Most would just adjust their gas flow till they got a good weld.

Saved a 64 post thread? I mean, this is what forums are for right? I'm not paying by the post. I know most would adjust their flow until they got a good weld. But would you say the same if my welder was off by 40 amps? If I set it to 120 and I measured the current at 80? There's got to be a limit to how far off you would allow your equipment to be before you wondered if something was wrong with it.

I'm just saying I paid some of my hard-earned money for the regulator/flowmeter. I'd expect it to work well. You can't fault a guy for at least trying to investigate it (even if the methodology was flawed).

Also, not sure why people assume I haven't been practicing welding during all this time. People saying "practice will help more than science experiments" and "it must have taken me 3 days to turn the machine on" lol. Like I can't practice welding and tinker around with the equipment? This test took me like 3 minutes to do. I'm not going to spend all of my waking time with the hood down laying beads man. I do weld and practice, but I took 3 minutes to mess with a flowmeter.



Anyway, this thread was fun. Definitely learned some things that I wouldn't have if I hadn't posted. Thanks everyone!

[M J D]

Yeah I get it. I guess I get too defensive sometimes. I know my testing was flawed but it's not like I was gonna submit it to an academic journal. I know there are many professional welders here and what I did is a complete waste of time. But for a hobbyist, tinkering around and wasting time is kind of the point. Still it was fun to talk about it and learn some more. If I wouldn't have done this test, I wouldn't have all this additional knowledge about regulators. As ridiculous as it was, I did learn quite a bit from posting and talking about it with you guys. Thanks



Saved a 64 post thread? I mean, this is what forums are for right? I'm not paying by the post. I know most would adjust their flow until they got a good weld. But would you say the same if my welder was off by 40 amps? If I set it to 120 and I measured the current at 80? There's got to be a limit to how far off you would allow your equipment to be before you wondered if something was wrong with it.

I'm just saying I paid some of my hard-earned money for the regulator/flowmeter. I'd expect it to work well. You can't fault a guy for at least trying to investigate it (even if the methodology was flawed).

Also, not sure why people assume I haven't been practicing welding during all this time. People saying "practice will help more than science experiments" and "it must have taken me 3 days to turn the machine on" lol. Like I can't practice welding and tinker around with the equipment? This test took me like 3 minutes to do. I'm not going to spend all of my waking time with the hood down laying beads man. I do weld and practice, but I took 3 minutes to mess with a flowmeter.



Anyway, this thread was fun. Definitely learned some things that I wouldn't have if I hadn't posted. Thanks everyone!

Without mentioning any names there are plenty of threads much longer than this that not much of anything is accomplished. In all honesty setting gas flow is pretty simple. Set it a little higher than you think you need , then dial it back to where you notice an issue. At that point bump it up 2 or so cfh and see how it works. If not try again. Nothing is set in stone, it's what works. For example, an outside corner requires more gas flow than an inside corner. Higher amperage, generally more flow is needed as well.

[Welder Dave]

The problem with long drawn out threads that weren't really necessary is people get bored of going over the same thing again and again, especially when the OP tries to justify their point of view and doesn't appear to be listening to what is offered. This can be really detrimental to the OP in future threads he posts because people might just skip right over not wanting to be part of another long drawn out thread going over the same thing ad nauseum. Some threads can be long if the topic appeals to the masses and isn't going over the same thing over and over. You don't want to be the guy who when people see you posted, shake their head and think oh no... another long pointless thread.

[danielplace]

The problem with long drawn out threads that weren't really necessary is people get bored of going over the same thing again and again, especially when the OP tries to justify their point of view and doesn't appear to be listening to what is offered. This can be really detrimental to the OP in future threads he posts because people might just skip right over not wanting to be part of another long drawn out thread going over the same thing ad nauseum. Some threads can be long if the topic appeals to the masses and isn't going over the same thing over and over. You don't want to be the guy who when people see you posted, shake their head and think oh no... another long pointless thread.

Yes sir the man has a point for sure.

Without mentioning any names there are plenty of threads much longer than this that not much of anything is accomplished. In all honesty setting gas flow is pretty simple. Set it a little higher than you think you need , then dial it back to where you notice an issue. At that point bump it up 2 or so cfh and see how it works. If not try again. Nothing is set in stone, it's what works. For example, an outside corner requires more gas flow than an inside corner. Higher amperage, generally more flow is needed as well.

And MJD has made the scale on the flowmeter not even necessary and I suggest others listen and quit worrying about what numbers are reading EXCEPT after you learn YOUR reg/flowmeter and torch setup then of course they are useful for going back to known setting that works on YOUR setup. It is the only way to be honest and not be wasting extra gas that isn't doing you any good much.

Treat your flowgauge numbers like you would your amps and look at results it is giving you FIRST not what the number really is other than after the fact reference as I already mentioned.