Hi Mark, Bert told me we already have 3 of them, 1x300psi, 2x3000psi. I'm planning on verifying what we have in the rocket room after work tonight.
If what Bert remembers is true then we would only need you to order two: Part number: PX119-150GI Quantity: 2 I will confirm this for sure tonight. Thanks, Kristin On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Musil Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey all, I need to know which of the transducers to order before Tuesday > at 11 am or nothing is getting ordered. > > Thanks, > > Mark M. > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Musil Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Kristin, I'm not sure I can afford to buy all 5 of these considering they >> are $100 each and that I have to also budget for the rest of TSAR's needs. >> We only need two right now correct? Which of two following are the correct >> items? >> >> PX119-1KGI >> PX119-600GI >> PX119-150GI >> PX119-150GI >> PX119-150GI >> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Kristin Travis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I put my best guess on the "Injector_TestStand_BOM" document in the >>> google drive. Do we already have some of these pressure transducers? >>> They are numbered 1-5 per the "Cold Flow Test Setup.pptx" document in >>> the google drive. >>> >>> Here are links to the documents I'm talking about: >>> >>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_UoEC2JRzY2DLnE0AtKBU7LnNo >>> Ws0JkLJEzGzN2dxwE >>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UYHwrgAT7fKGPJ_pPsm12rLELb >>> gulF4_oiMuiKvGqQQ >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Kristin Travis < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> What time are you ordering them on Tuesday? >>>> >>>> I'm not sure if we already have some that we can use. We need a total >>>> of 5, and they will be for different pressures. Yes, different >>>> pressures/part numbers can be ordered from that pdf >>>> >>>> It would be great to double check with Jacob, Bert and Erin first to >>>> confirm which pressures/part numbers to order. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Kristin >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Musil Mark <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am going to order two of those next Tuesday when I meet with my >>>>> advisor. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Mark M. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kristin Travis < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rob and I figured out the coefficient (~0.36) for the McMaster >>>>>> orifice (https://www.mcmaster.com/#2712t47/=1agjtnf) and the hole >>>>>> size (3/8") we need to drill in it. (drilling the hole will change the >>>>>> coefficient but this is the most conservative). This will result in ~200 >>>>>> psi drop across the orifice at the 3 lbm/s flowrate. If we use two of >>>>>> these >>>>>> transducers https://www.omega.com/pressure/pdf/PX119.pdf the error >>>>>> should remain significantly below 10% leaving us room to add error by >>>>>> drilling the hole in the orifice. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Bertrand DeChant < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Undesirable conditions should result in failsafe(likely shutdown and >>>>>>> Purge). Mitigation of sensing error(extreme) should be considered. This >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> not an issue for pintle testing where pressure data can be calibrated >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> used only for water. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2017 12:55 PM, "Joseph Shields" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > If all else fails in this regard, we're out about $100 as >>>>>>>> opposed to $$$ for a gox safe transducer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you got misleading pressure measurements from it, what other >>>>>>>> parts might get damaged? Like, say you got a low measurement and opened >>>>>>>> some upstream valve in response. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2017 12:49 PM, "Bertrand DeChant" < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Absolutely, the ones that were previously specc'd for the engine >>>>>>>> should work well in this pressure range. These would be recycled for >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> igniter (engineer chamber pressure) and the engine (fuel manifold >>>>>>>> pressure). I'll look at the specs and point out expected factors of >>>>>>>> error >>>>>>>> this afternoon or evening. As for an oxygen environment it seems the >>>>>>>> previous plan to standoff/pack is the industry standard and reasonable >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> our budgeting needs. If all else fails in this regard, we're out about >>>>>>>> $100 as opposed to $$$ for a gox safe transducer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2017 12:40 PM, "Erin Schmidt" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>>> I'm sick and won't be coming to the meeting tonight. For what it >>>>>>>>> is worth here are my thoughts: >>>>>>>>> -I think we should aim for <10% measurement uncertainty. >>>>>>>>> --This probably is expensive to achieve over our range of flow >>>>>>>>> rates with most kinds of flow meters (though we could do more research >>>>>>>>> here). >>>>>>>>> --The dP tranducer has error +/- 5 psig, if we pick the larger >>>>>>>>> orifice we will have 50% measurement uncertainty at the 1 lb/s >>>>>>>>> flowrate. If >>>>>>>>> we want to lower the uncertainty by increasing the pressure drop, >>>>>>>>> then we >>>>>>>>> need to factor in the added expense of the higher-pressure dP sensor >>>>>>>>> (note >>>>>>>>> that even the 260psi dP sensor would have ~17% error @ 1 lb/s). >>>>>>>>> --Probably our best bet is to use 2 transducers in lieu of a >>>>>>>>> single dP transducer. Some of the ashcroft/omega ones easily meet our >>>>>>>>> requirements and we can move to a bigger pressure drop to improve >>>>>>>>> accuracy. >>>>>>>>> I also like this because the sensors won't be 1-offs and potentially >>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>> be recycled into other projects. Bert and/or Jacob, was there a >>>>>>>>> sensor you >>>>>>>>> liked for LFETS applications? If so can you send me a link to the spec >>>>>>>>> sheet? >>>>>>>>> --An alternate option is to relax either our range of flow >>>>>>>>> rates or measurement accuracy requirements. Thoughts about this >>>>>>>>> Kristin? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ad astra, >>>>>>>>> Erin Schmidt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Kristin Travis < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> dP presure transducers get pretty expensive if you go above 250 >>>>>>>>>> psi. Maybe a flowmeter costs less than the orifice + the dP >>>>>>>>>> transducer + >>>>>>>>>> the fittings and tubes for the dP transducer? Or if we drill out the >>>>>>>>>> orifice to have a larger hole, can we drop the dP below 250psi >>>>>>>>>> (assuming >>>>>>>>>> it's 250 psi dP across the transducer)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let's go over this on Tuesday >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Musil Mark < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I will await your modified order. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 23, 2017 11:27, "Erin Schmidt" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The dp treasurer will not work for the range of flow rates >>>>>>>>>>>> required (either the pressure is too high for the sensor, or the >>>>>>>>>>>> measurement error>50%). Let's respec it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 2017 7:14 PM, "Mark Musil" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The current purchase order is attached. Nothing has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> ordered. Let me know what needs changed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 2017 5:04 PM, "Kristin Travis" < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Erin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The dP transducer we spec-ed is this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.omega.com/pressure/pdf/PX26.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cc'd Mark Musil, did you order this yet Mark? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Erin Schmidt <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW have you guys ordered any of the 'general purpose' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure transducers yet? I'd like to have a look at the spec. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad astra, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erin Schmidt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Erin Schmidt < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want your feedback on this orifice: Brass, 2712T47, 0.047" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diameter, 1/2"X1/2" NPT ($24.69) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *https://www.mcmaster.com/#2712t47/=1ad0hiu >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.mcmaster.com/#2712t47/=1ad0hiu>* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gets us a 30 psi drop at the low end of our flow range >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (still not sure if 30 psi is too much for flow measurement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accuracy, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding drop will be 120 psi @ 2 lb/s and 260 psi @ 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lb/s😑). This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implies we need a maximum tank pressure of around 344 psi. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we go up to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 0.063" diameter the range is a bit more reasonable (10, 35, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 80 psi @ 1, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2, 3 lb/s). Have we had any luck speccing the delta-p >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transducer yet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowing the accuracy of the measurement will help us make a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more informed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision about the orifice... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad astra, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erin Schmidt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Erin Schmidt < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://neutrium.net/fluid_flo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w/discharge-coefficient-for-nozzles-and-orifices/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ad astra, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erin Schmidt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> psas-airframe mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-airframe >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> psas-airframe mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-airframe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Mark Musil >>>>> >>>>> Bachelor's of Science Student >>>>> >>>>> Electrical Engineering >>>>> >>>>> Portland State University >>>>> >>>>> (503)-744-9965 <(503)%20744-9965> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Mark Musil >> >> Bachelor's of Science Student >> >> Electrical Engineering >> >> Portland State University >> >> (503)-744-9965 <(503)%20744-9965> >> > > > > -- > > Mark Musil > > Bachelor's of Science Student > > Electrical Engineering > > Portland State University > > (503)-744-9965 <(503)%20744-9965> >
_______________________________________________ psas-airframe mailing list [email protected] http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-airframe
