PTS Flowbench Forum

This shows the difference in the designs SF600 Rotating orifice at a 45° in chamber and the SF1020 Horizontal Fixed orifice I truly believe the issue with the high flow falling off on the 600 is due to nan laminar flow through the orifice.

Rick

PM308 I do not think i would fool with your calibration any further but explore the issue with all motors and the pressure taps to see if you can better that issue.

1960FL wrote:This shows the difference in the designs SF600 Rotating orifice at a 45° in chamber and the SF1020 Horizontal Fixed orifice I truly believe the issue with the high flow falling off on the 600 is due to nan laminar flow through the orifice.

Rick

PM308 I do not think i would fool with your calibration any further but explore the issue with all motors and the pressure taps to see if you can better that issue.

I totally agree with this Rick!!!

Chad Speier wrote:

1960FL wrote:This shows the difference in the designs SF600 Rotating orifice at a 45° in chamber and the SF1020 Horizontal Fixed orifice I truly believe the issue with the high flow falling off on the 600 is due to nan laminar flow through the orifice.

Rick

PM308 I do not think i would fool with your calibration any further but explore the issue with all motors and the pressure taps to see if you can better that issue.

I totally agree with this Rick!!!

Didn't your DIY bench have the orifice plate at an angle?

larrycavan wrote:

Chad Speier wrote:

1960FL wrote:This shows the difference in the designs SF600 Rotating orifice at a 45° in chamber and the SF1020 Horizontal Fixed orifice I truly believe the issue with the high flow falling off on the 600 is due to nan laminar flow through the orifice.

Rick

PM308 I do not think i would fool with your calibration any further but explore the issue with all motors and the pressure taps to see if you can better that issue.

I totally agree with this Rick!!!

Didn't your DIY bench have the orifice plate at an angle?

The first bench, yes. The one I have now, no..

Didn't your DIY bench have the orifice plate at an angle?

The first bench, yes. The one I have now, no..

OK...in comparison to Darin's bench, which of your 2 DIY benches did you have dialed in so close to Darin's bench? The MSD style or the new bench?

larrycavan wrote:

Didn't your DIY bench have the orifice plate at an angle?

The first bench, yes. The one I have now, no..

OK...in comparison to Darin's bench, which of your 2 DIY benches did you have dialed in so close to Darin's bench? The MSD style or the new bench?

The new..

However I have a curve with the his SF w/Audie vs manometers. This is with my new calibrated numbers for the bench.

The .500 number worries me.

LIFT ME/HIM

.200 148/152
.300 194/193
.400 241/244
.500 278/284
.600 298/300
.700 305/305
.800 309/306
.900 310/309

don't worry too much.... It will match some 600..somehwere

thanks for putting time and effort in to helping me guys, much appreciated

the motor situation is what bothers me as maybe certain combinations may have an extra motor on possibly showing a higher number at one lift, this is something i will work on

is there any need to check flow with the head stand, the way i see it is that it just adds another variable when trying to compare to other benches as not all bore diameters will be the same.

PM308 wrote: is there any need to check flow with the head stand, the way i see it is that it just adds another variable when trying to compare to other benches as not all bore diameters will be the same.

That's another matter entirely. Some would argue pro and others con. Mostly con.

Big Blue long ago established that when checking "functionality" [not calibration, mind you] on their benches, their "test" [not calibration] plate is bolted to the bench top with no stand used.

Since anything upstream of the cabinet holding the calibrated orifice could be a variable [size difference, etc], it could impact the "functionality" test. So, with that thought in mind, "most" people tune their ranges with no stand on top of the bench.

BTW... did you ever get the opportunity to test the 100CFM plate in the 100CFM range, against the 600 CFM range that goes as low as 40CFM?

I'd be VERY interested in those particular results. It's a personal issue that I'm trying to run down some data on.

i havent checked the 100cfm plate on range 1 since the new correction factor but when i checked it the 1st time it was within a cfm or 2 i cant remember if it was higher or lower so it should ( i think ) be about 2% lower this time as my correction factor has gone from .994 to .972 after dialing it in on the 300 plate,

i will recheck and let you know