Finding flow rates for different gases

  • Thread starter Thread starter kylemorley
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flow Gases
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of converting flow rates between different gases when using flowmeters calibrated for specific gases. Users have noted significant discrepancies in conversion factors from various sources, leading to confusion about which values to trust. For example, argon conversion factors vary widely, and helium values appear inconsistent across different sites. While some participants suggest using factors derived from actual measurements, there is concern about the lack of clarity regarding the types of flowmeters used in these calculations. The conversation highlights the need for standardized conversion methods and clearer guidelines for gas flow measurements in welding applications.
kylemorley
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
(Please excuse me if this is not the right forum for this question)

I have been setting up some old regulators for use with welding gases and need a simple way of converting flow from one gas to another since I often find myself trying to measure flow of one gas with a flowmeter calibrated for another. I assumed conversion tables must exist for this purpose and did not think it would be a problem. However once I got doing it I found that there are vast differences between the results to be had by using the conversion factors to be found on different websites on the net, weirdly so.

For example, a Dartmouth Engineering site says this:
Flowmeters are calibrated for a specific gas. To calculate the flow rate of another gas, multiply the reading by the ratio of the conversion factor of the desired gas to the conversion factor for the calibration gas.
GAS FACTOR
Air 1.00
Oxygen .996
Argon 1.443
Helium 1.454

Matheson Gas, on their Basic Flowmeter Principles page
gives these flow rate conversion factors

GAS FACTOR
Air 1.00
CO2 .92
Oxygen 1.05
Argon 1.18
Helium .37

The Omega Instruments site gives this;
Air 1.00
CO2 .74
Oxygen 1.05
Argon 1.45
Helium 1.45

And another site whose name I lost
Air 1.00
CO2 .85
Argon 1.52
Helium 3.97

Another welding site, Scottgross, gives the flows differently, as SCFH through a .032 (the standard size used on welding regulators for flow measurement) orifice at 30 psi, but we can convert those to conversion factors:
Air 37 (conversion factor)
CO2 30 .81
Oxygen 35 .94
Argon 32 .86
Helium 100 2.70

Most of these pages caution that they factors should be considered accurate only within 10%, which is good enough for my purposes, so minor differences are understandable. But look at argon, which drifts from .86 to 1.53 And what are we to make of the helium numbers? It's hard to avoid thinking that someone just did their math backwards.
I am tempted to go with the scottgross factors, as they appear to be derived from actual measurements using the same size orifice as I will be using, but it is odd that those numbers seem be be the inverse of everyone else's.

I know there are formulas that would let me figure this out for myself, but my math skills are prehistoric and I can't believe there isn't an easier way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It may be that the various instruments use different methods to measure gas flow, which is why the various factors are so different.
 
A good point, and there are indeed two common systems, mainly, pressure-based flowmeters which use an orifice and a pressure gauge, and vertical tube flowmeters that have a floating weight in a transparent tube. In the welding world they are used interchangeably. But if there was is a significant difference between the readings the two produce, it seems odd that conversion charts and recommended flow charts such as I quoted don't ever specify what kind of flowmeters they apply to.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top