Measuring high velocity airflow

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around measuring high-velocity airflow from a fan with a 12-inch diameter and a nozzle with a 3.5-inch throat. Initial calculations suggested an air velocity of 9.5 m/s, but some participants reported higher velocities, with one measuring 32 m/s. Commercial anemometers typically have a maximum measurement of 40 m/s, leading to suggestions for alternatives like DIY Pitot tubes or specialized hot-wire anemometers that can measure up to 75 m/s or more. Participants emphasized the importance of accurate calculations and provided links to products that could assist in measuring airflow. The conversation highlights the need for proper tools and methods to achieve accurate airflow measurements.
T C
Messages
353
Reaction score
10
I have a fan that consumes 60 W and blade diameter is 12 inch. If it's just 60% efficient, then the velocity of air coming out of it is around 9.5 m/s. I also have a nozzle inlet of which fits the fan and the diameter at the throat cum exit is 3.5 inch. I want to know how to measure the velocity of the flow coming out of the nozzle as market available anemometers can't measure velocity more than 40 m/s.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You can bend some tubing and make yourself a pito-static tube.

However, I did almost exactly this experiment as a kid. Have you actually tried a commercial anemometer yet? I think you will find you achieve a much lower velocity than you expect.

[edit]
Btw, I'm getting 32 m/s. How did you calculate 9.5 m/s?
 
Last edited:
Are you sure? 60 seconds of search found this on Amazon for $40. It says 0-40 m/s range.

1618489158012.png
 
anorlunda said:
Are you sure? 60 seconds of search found this on Amazon for $40. It says 0-40 m/s range.

View attachment 281565
He's asking for higher than 40m/s.
 
OK, here's one that claims 100 mph (44.7 m/s)
1618495090390.png


This one claims 50 m/s
1618495145026.png


Here's one using a hot wire, claims up to 68 m/s
1618496394967.png


Searches for airspeed sensors in aviation sources should easily find more products with ranges higher than 40 m/s.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
anorlunda said:
Searches for airspeed sensors in aviation sources should easily find more products with ranges higher than 40 m/s.
The alternative to an anemometer I suggested above is a DIY pito-static tube, but for a commercial version of it, you can buy a pito-static tube and digital manometer. I have these:
https://www.grainger.com/product/3T...B7B3hGjN16pzGI4HwXwaAvwuEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
https://www.grainger.com/product/EX...YRgWJgI5r4n6ghsHozMaAsDYEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

The one I have will give me a range of up to 75 m/s, but you can buy a manometer with a wider pressure range and measure up to perhaps a 100 before compressibility starts to be a factor.
 
russ_watters said:
Btw, I'm getting 32 m/s. How did you calculate 9.5 m/s?
How? 12 inch diameter means 6 inch radius and that means 15.24 cm i.e. 0.1524 m. Therefore area is 3.14 X (0.1524)^2. 65% of 60 W is 39 W. Now, it's (39/(0.5 X 1.2474 X 3.14 X (0.1524)^2)^(1/3). Calculate it yourself.
 
T C said:
How? 12 inch diameter means 6 inch radius and that means 15.24 cm i.e. 0.1524 m. Therefore area is 3.14 X (0.1524)^2. 65% of 60 W is 39 W. Now, it's (39/(0.5 X 1.2474 X 3.14 X (0.1524)^2)^(1/3). Calculate it yourself.
Don't be so aggressive, I'm trying to help. Of course I calculated it myself. But yep, you're right, I did a conversion wrong. 9.5 m/s is correct.
 
anorlunda said:
Here's one using a hot wire, claims up to 68 m/s
View attachment 281575

Searches for airspeed sensors in aviation sources should easily find more products with ranges higher than 40 m/s.

I've used hot-wire anemometers to measure air flows upwards of 900 m/s before. Mind you, it was technically a COTS system but not one that is particularly cheap.

russ_watters said:
The alternative to an anemometer I suggested above is a DIY pito-static tube, but for a commercial version of it, you can buy a pito-static tube and digital manometer. I have these:
https://www.grainger.com/product/3T...B7B3hGjN16pzGI4HwXwaAvwuEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
https://www.grainger.com/product/EX...YRgWJgI5r4n6ghsHozMaAsDYEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

The one I have will give me a range of up to 75 m/s, but you can buy a manometer with a wider pressure range and measure up to perhaps a 100 before compressibility starts to be a factor.

I have used Pitot tubes to measure velocity of upwards of 900 m/s before. It simply requires a different set of equations that account for compressibility. For example, see the Rayleigh Pitot tube formula.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #10
Measure the force of the air hitting a flat surface and use an online wind force calculator.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wind-load-d_1775.html

That one is in metric so if you use a square of cardboard 3 inches on a side the area is 0.0058 Sq. meters. plugging that in, a 40m/s wind would yield a force of 5.57n, or 1.252lbs, or 20oz.

There are probably other websites that use English units and can convert the other direction, but I had to leave SOME of the work to you! :wink:

Cheers,
Tom

p.s. Please let us know the measurement/calculated results you get.
 
  • Like
Likes anorlunda
  • #11
Tom.G said:
Measure the force of the air hitting a flat surface and use an online wind force calculator.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wind-load-d_1775.html

That one is in metric so if you use a square of cardboard 3 inches on a side the area is 0.0058 Sq. meters. plugging that in, a 40m/s wind would yield a force of 5.57n, or 1.252lbs, or 20oz.

There are probably other websites that use English units and can convert the other direction, but I had to leave SOME of the work to you! :wink:

Cheers,
Tom

p.s. Please let us know the measurement/calculated results you get.

That calculator isn't even correct. Who makes these things?
 
  • #12
boneh3ad said:
That calculator isn't even correct. Who makes these things?
:cry:

Ouch! Do you know of one that is accurate?

As for who makes them, a WhoIs lookup shows: "Registrant Name: Registration Private"
 
  • #13
Tom.G said:
:cry:

Ouch! Do you know of one that is accurate?

As for who makes them, a WhoIs lookup shows: "Registrant Name: Registration Private"

I mean, technically it works under a very specific set of circumstances I suppose.
 
Back
Top