PTS Flowbench Forum

Chad, it looks like the turkey feast didn't slow you down any.

blaktopr wrote:Chad, it looks like the turkey feast didn't slow you down any.

No rest for the wicked! I even talked to Harold Bettes today! I'm serious about this shit!

Chad Speier wrote:

blaktopr wrote:Chad, it looks like the turkey feast didn't slow you down any.

No rest for the wicked! I even talked to Harold Bettes today! I'm serious about this shit!

Good guy....but he still works for the other enemy.

blaktopr wrote:

Chad Speier wrote:

blaktopr wrote:Chad, it looks like the turkey feast didn't slow you down any.

No rest for the wicked! I even talked to Harold Bettes today! I'm serious about this shit!

Good guy....but he still works for the other enemy.

I'm not so sure about that. He flat told me NOT to buy a bench and forget the people. That the PTS is viable option for flow data and don't let anyone tell you any different. But,,, I had something to find out on my own and I jumped. However, nothing is of worth if it isn't seen or learned for yourself!

65mustang393 wrote: All my data shows is why your DIY bench may be reading a little high (if it is) compared to the guy in the next town with a SF bench.

Or our data showing why the SF is reading a little low.

It may have been missed in all the discussion. The way the SF changes the air direction to the manometer wears and can cause a leak to the manometers causing a false reading that is usually lower than reality. Or it may be caused by manufacturing tolerances. By the art of science and math we know how much air should flow through an orifice at a certain test pressure. My home made bench is pretty much spot on.

Sometimes when the first guy out of the chute, in this case SF, introduces a product, the flow bench, it becomes highly sought after. They get popular and in high demand. The company does make a good product, but it does not mean it cannot be improved upon. Sometimes when you making a product for profit the dollar gets in the way and you may cut a corner here and there. Production demands also cause you to "hurry" the production process. Also people get stuck in a paradigm and cannot see any other way of doing something.

This forum has been working on this DIY bench for a long time. Many people of different views and education batting back and forth ideas and trying many different things. This is where the improvements have come from. This home made bench has evolved to what I would call the industry standard. Very simple to make, inexpensive (relatively speaking), accurate and repeatable.

Bruce made me a calibration orifice in his shop in Pennsylvania and calibrated it on his bench. He marked that on his orifice and sent it to me. I received it here in Salt Lake City, threw it on my bench and it read within .2 (yes 2 tenths) of a CFM that he had marked it. My bench was built from his plans and calibrated from the discussions here on this forum. I have faith that these benches are accurate.

John

So tonight on the way home from a good turkey dinner at my sister's, my wife decides she wants a sub for later as we had no left-overs so, we stop at a local mini-market that has a sub/deli and order our subs (or what ever you call'em in your location) . . . so getting to my point . . . while she is paying (she's the only one with cash) I look over and spy a copy of Drag Racing "something" in the magazine rack so I walk over and have me a look, on the cover they have an article listed about CNC porting heads so I find the page and have a look, hey one never knows might show a picture of a PTS Flowbench in there! Nope no picture of a PTS Flowbench but what do I see a SF1020! Now the picture is clearly taken to show the manufacturers logo prominently in the picture, the guy in the picture even looks like he is standing out of the way so it clearly shows SF1020.

Not sure what this really adds to this discussion but I found it interesting and it does show magazines are nothing more than an advertising medium anymore . . . sorry on one of my ramblings . . . damn Rick and his agitation!

Still wondering why Harold made no mention of my parts in his book as he clearly used my plates for some of the pictures and I know they are being used in other commercial places

Bruce, are your plates being supplied to Jamison and shipped with a Sanez bench?

blaktopr wrote: I'm talking ability. It seems anyone interested in making sure their stuff is right or even build their own bench, seem to create better ports. (Shape and flow). Its how much one "looks" at the science around them. I can tell you that even one of my ports on a "competitor's" bench, even if it reads lower than mine, will still be higher than their best. And I will be showing them too much other vital info regarding cross sections.

I think I do all right in the ability area. BT 3.6 head that moves 390 cfm, an iron GT40 with a 1.94 valve that moves 250 cfm. Throw in the PTS 3-4% factor and now you're talking 405 for the BT 3.6 and 260 for the GT40 head. Respectable enough.

I have my own fully tooled VGS20, my own IDL (VR7000) centerless valve grinder, my Dakota Instruments sonic tester and of course, Bruce's pitot tubes. I'm serious about having the right equipment to do the job. Those of you that have similar equipment know what I'm talking about.

I'm also serious about having apples to apples flowbench comparisons. If the SF benches are consistently low, for whatever reason then you can't realistically compare readings.

Can't Harold shed some light on the SF bench calibration? He used to work there, correct?

Get the bench calibrated properly then you have fixture, clay radius vs a Brezenski, vs a proper 1"/.750 radius plate. Then you have valve openers, and blah blah blah. So at the end of the day it all equals out and I know when I put my plates on my bench, that part is correct. I can't find it in me to intentionally make the bench read low because it doesn't match a flawed system.

My bench doesn't read 3-4% high, the rest are 3-4% out of calibration.

I haven't even started on how the bench reads velocity yet!