Quote:
Originally posted by Since87
I didn't really expect my suggestions to enable you to do more useful analysis than you already do Ben.
|
Well actually, it's quite useful, because "adding" curves is a manual process, and your method is just as accurate as mine, but much simpler: I can do it in Excel now! I'll just have to watch out for the error margin, that's all.
Speaking of which, I believe that the difficulty at lower flow rates comes from the lack of accuracy of the measurement: if we throw figures around as x.x (ex: 1.3), then there's an assumption of an accuracy of +/- 0.1, or at least, that's the resolution used. At lower flow rates, where I stated that the dP was 0.3 psi, that would be 0.3 +/- 0.1, which is a 33% margin of error, where at 1.6 psi, it's ~ 6%.
I didn't expect the formulae to be so simple, and I thought that the progression would not follow a defined pattern, like the electrical resistance of a lightbulb filament (to bring back the electrical analogy
).
Nice tip, thanks!