Question about gas leak engineering units

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the engineering units used in leak testing for hermetically sealed electronics, specifically regarding helium bombing. The standards from NASA and the American Society for Nondestructive Testing specify leak rates in unreduced forms like Atmosphere-Cubic Centimeters per Second, despite the mathematical reduction to power units. This choice is likely due to the practicality of measuring gas flow rates directly, making the units more user-friendly for leak detection without complex calculations. Additionally, some standards use the abbreviation STD to denote leak rates under standard conditions, which may omit pressure units as they are implied. Ultimately, the use of unreduced units serves to facilitate easier application in real-world scenarios.
MichaelY
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have a somewhat mundane question that I hope somebody can help me with. I am working with several standards for performing leak testing on hermetically sealed electronics packages using helium bombing. The question I have is about the engineering units used in the leak test specifications. Both the NASA Leakage Testing Handbook (NASA CR-952) and the Nondestructive Testing Handbook - Leak Testing, 3rd Edition, published by the American Society for Nondestructive Testing indicate that the units to be used for specifying a gas leak are Pressure (P) x Volume (V) / Time (t). Pressure x Volume reduces to Energy (see, for example, the Ideal Gas Law, which is an energy balance equation: PV = nRT) and Energy / Time is Work or Power. This being the case, I would expect the units for a gas leak specification to be in terms of Power (Watts or other Power units). Instead, in every standard I have seen, the units are left in their unreduced form such as Atmosphere-Cubic Centimeters per Second, Pascal-Cubic Meters per Second, or Millibar-Liters per Second. To add to the confusion, some standards employ the abbreviation STD to indicate a leak rate at some "standard", sometimes unstated, conditions. An example of this would be STD cm^3 / sec. In this case they seem to have dropped the units of Pressure since, I am assuming, the Pressure is defined as part of the standard conditions (STD). Anyway, bottom line, I am looking for an explanation as to why unreduced engineering units are universally used in gas leak standards.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
the reason might be that most measurements relate to the rate of flow of gas, such as the increase in concentration over time measured by a concentration-based sensor , or calculated from the ultrasonic sound signature of a leak, so an unreduced expression is more directly 'usable' without any calculations needed... the pressure should have already been known inside the pressurized chamber, and it is unlikely that a gas leak investigator will need to know the power output as a result of the gas leak, unless the gas is being mechanically used i.e. pneumatic system leaking leading to power loss, etc
 
Last edited:
Torr-liters per second is equivalent to mass flow per second. For example, since 22.41 liters of helium at 760 mm is 4 grams, 1 torr-liter per second of helium is 2.3 x 10-4 grams per second.
 
Just saw this post and no nothing about this topic...but, I just wanted to say that sometimes units for certain quantities are given a set of units different from their reduced form just to be able to tell them apart. Or, like carmatic says, just to have them ready for their use in a rather practical manner...easy mental operation, easy look up tables, etc.

For example...what do you get when you multiply volts and amps?

Well, I am an electrical engineer and when it comes to generators, there are 3 popular quantities that have the same fundamental units, yet, they are given 3 different units just so that we know what we talking about...

Apparent Power
Real Power
Reactive Power

they are all powers and bascially volt-amperes or (mega volt-amperes), yet, we talked about them in units of

MVA mega volt-amperes
MW mega watts
MVAR reactive MVAs

so, sometimes it is just a convenience thing and that's it.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top