PTS Flowbench Forum

I believe that's correct about the manometers and the oil swap.

I'd be curious to see a flow test conducted on the PTS bench with PTSDM against the SF bench but on the SF, use the ranges to keep the manometer in the sweet spot and use the stock manometer.

Ultimately, it's probably more worms in the can to untangle but it would be interesting to see the results. And a third test of the same head using FP1 on the blue bench with a single orifice used to test.

I will predict there will be more minor variations between the 3 tests at various points in the lift cycle.

I still have my FP1 and have been going to take the time to do a 1-1 against the PTSDM but just haven't gotten around to it. Both units work great on my bench BTW...

larrycavan wrote:I believe that's correct about the manometers and the oil swap.

I'd be curious to see a flow test conducted on the PTS bench with PTSDM against the SF bench but on the SF, use the ranges to keep the manometer in the sweet spot and use the stock manometer.

Ultimately, it's probably more worms in the can to untangle but it would be interesting to see the results. And a third test of the same head using FP1 on the blue bench with a single orifice used to test.

I will predict there will be more minor variations between the 3 tests at various points in the lift cycle.

I still have my FP1 and have been going to take the time to do a 1-1 against the PTSDM but just haven't gotten around to it. Both units work great on my bench BTW...

I will post the results tomorrow as I have done just that!

Chad Speier wrote:I will post the results tomorrow as I have done just that!

Then compare the cost to each other

Brucepts wrote:

Chad Speier wrote:I will post the results tomorrow as I have done just that!

Then compare the cost to each other

I will tell you this. When I calibrated each hole with plates on the SF, and made my own factors, my numbers matched perfect. The calibration numbers on the bench, not so much.

There is a difference between the FP and DM on my PTS bench as well.

Big ole can of worms...

Here is the data I have this far. I can't hook the FP to the SF because we are in a major blizzard and I'm not going to do any work today!

The PTSDM is factory setting w/3.200 orifice and .59cd. What I have found with either processor vs. the SF is I can get the numbers to match down low or up top, but not both. SF issue? I think so...

The head is a 195cc Pro-Filer with a 2.02 valve on a 4.060 fixture. The PF numbers are what they advertise..

PTS is PTSDM on PTS bench
MAN1 is factory marked calibration. #3= 149.5, #4= 294.9, #5= 442.2
MAN2 is my calibrated calibration. #3= 150.0, #4= 298.0, #5= 451.8
PF= factory curve from Pro-Filer

LIFT PTS/MAN1/MAN2/PF

.200 134.2/141.0/142.2/145
.300 200.6/206.4/208.6/209
.400 245.2/251.3/253.9/254
.500 273.2/276.1/278.2/273
.600 274.2/272.5/274.4/274
.700 278.6/273.7/276.2/276
.800 278.5/274.8/277.1/276

I do know for a fact Pro-Filer uses a SF600 with manometers and no electronics. Also remember I have had 2 weeks of tweaking this SF600. I've had the manometers off, the back off, new hose, been all over this thing.

Chad Speier wrote:Here is the data I have this far. I can't hook the FP to the SF because we are in a major blizzard and I'm not going to do any work today!

The PTSDM is factory setting w/3.200 orifice and .59cd. What I have found with either processor vs. the SF is I can get the numbers to match down low or up top, but not both. SF issue? I think so...

If all measuring gauges are testing on the same bench it rules out cabinet design variations. We have to remember that electronic sensors have calibration processes also. Bruce delved into that a while back in this thread I think.

Some quick number crunching shows me a possible error in your process. Analogue manometers like to be in the 60% and up range to yield greatest possible accuracy. If I'm looking at this correctly, you need to use 3 ranges rather than 4 when you flow the full lift range. The lower lift flow doesn't demand the larger orifice.

134.2 / 294.9 = .455% That's below the range of greatest accuracy from that gauge. The next range down should be used instead.

In my experience with SF benches, if you flow a head and get xxx CFM using one range, then flow it again using the next larger range, you'll get bigger numbers.... Generally

Not trying to be a dickhead ....just trying to achieve as fair an evaluation as possible by using the analogue gauges as they are designed to be used. Let the results speak for themselves

Let's try this graph upload one more time...

Here's some more numbers.

Using you results and using the calibrations for Range 4 on your SF bench, it shows me you can test from .250" lift on up with Range 4 only and not even need Range 5. Maybe you did....that's not stated. This should be the manometer percentage readings if the testing was conducted in Range 4 only.

Again..using your numbers but assuming Range 5 being used.

As can be seen from your testing all through this thread. There are no extreme variances to be seen anywhere with any of the benches or gauges being compared.

However, when it comes to analogue gauges, the range selected can muddy the waters

It's possible that if you use the correct ranges with the water gauges that the numbers might fall in better.... maybe...

It may also show the PTSDM handles the scope of a large range even better than I already found that it does.

As you can see with these numbers, at .200" lift, Range 5 would put the gauge way out of the sweet spot. I also reveals the trend that I found with such gauges...to yield bigger numbers when the range is too large for the orifice being measured. I refer to that possibly as the reason for the differences at .200" lift. It's not proven by those numbers....just a hunch