Take a really big bucket. Flow water into it for sixty seconds. Empty the big bucket using a bucket calibrated to one gallon. Count how many times you emptied the calibrated bucket for gallons per minute.
Take a really big bucket. Flow water into it for fifteen seconds. Empty the big bucket using a bucket calibrated to one gallon. Count how many times you emptied the calibrated bucket. Multiply that number times 4 and you'll have gpm. Weigh the really big bucket empty. Weigh it again after filling it for fifteen seconds. Deduct the empty weight from the full weight, convert that number from pounds to gallons and multiply times four. Fill the really big bucket for fifteen seconds. Measure how deep the water is in feet. Measure the diameter of the bucket if round or the number of sides necessary to get area if square or rectangular. Multiply the area (pi times radius squared if round OR side A times B if square or rectangular and then the result by the height of the water to get cubic feet. Then convert cubic feet to gallons and multiply by four to get gpm. The first method only involves counting. The second some counting and multiplication. The third requires doing some conversions. And the last a little solid geometry. The problem is not that are simpler ways to do this than with a pitot and the formula Q=(29.83)(d squared)(square root p) (note no tables are required). The problem is a really big bucket is an unwieldy thing to take to a hydrant test, and even if you have to catch the water used a velocity pressure measuring device (pitot with the proper gauge (don't use air speed or anything else besides gpm or the metric equivalent) is more convenient. With HydrantPro (not an advertisement) from Pollard since 29.83 is a constant (29.84 if you're Ken) and c and d are fixed a k can be arrived at turning the device into what is essentially a big sprinkler head and so you're down to the familiar Q=K times square root p and the gpm can be extrapolated for any increment of p on the gauge. This allows the gpm to be written on the gauge and you don't have to do any math. Remember you are taking a reading from open system (other people in your pressure zone are using and unsung water during the test), it's a snapshot of general usage at whatever season, day of the week and time of day the test is happening, you're averaging your gauge (even your fluid filled one), you may be trying to hold a pitot in a 90 psi stream exactly in the center of the stream one radius away from the opening, the maths then has a constant (average), a c based on who knows what (FM used to downrate NFPA so Brad's smooth and round corner in the hydrant bore opening was 0.8 and not 0.9), the diameter can be 2 7/16, 2/1/2, 2 9/16 so you're again averaging (unless you're an anal engineer that is trying to find exactness in a single equation full of possible variances), and then when you complete all the information gathering and math you round off to the nearest 50 gpm. We are not in a controlled laboratory when we're doing this. On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for staying on me about this Travis. > > Like I said, this is so subtle as to not be accepted, by Sprinks anyway. > > For example, I took two measurements; height and length. > Where is the 'stopwatch' in that? > In fact the 'clock' is in The Law of Falling Bodies, well know for qite a > while. > > How about we meet halfway on this? I'll concede the Q,P,K, and "29 point > something times this to the that" formulas are simpler and quicker for > everday use, if you'll concede that, just like it does not hurt a training > to learn hand calcs first, it does not hurt an experienced designer to > 'see' the natural beauty at the root of sprinkler calcs, OK? > On Oct 2, 2016 8:08 AM, "Travis Mack" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Keep it simple. You are trying to tell us that it is easier to measure >> the time it takes for stream to hit ground and distance when you "lost the >> chart?" >> >> Honestly man, learn to keep things simple. Remember the old saying, "Just >> because you can do something doesn't mean you should." >> >> If you are trying to determine flow this way because you forgot >> something, reschedule the test. Your methods are far too complicated for a >> simple task. You have way too much room for error. >> >> So be like the Disney princess: "Let it go!" >> >> Travis Mack, SET >> MFP Design, LLC >> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/ >> 92218417692 >> Send large files to MFP Design via: >> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Oct 2, 2016, at 5:15 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Just one more thing and then I'll quit. >> >> "how to estimate the gpm of a flow test by yourself because you've lost >> the pitot that came with the kit, and there are no formulas in the >> standards or aps for that" >> >> t = SQRT (2h/g) >> where t is the 'time of flight' in seconds and h is the height of the >> butt in feet. >> Say h = 4ft. t=(8/32)^.5=.5 sec. >> Say the length of the stream is 20 ft. If the water went 20 ft in .5 sec >> it is going 40 ft/sec. >> A 2.5" C=.9 butt is .0307 ft^2, * 40 ft/sec=1.228 ft^3/sec, *7.48*60= 551 >> GPM. >> >> No one in their right mind would avocate basing final calcs on this. >> >> So it's an open question as to wether or not I would. . . >> >> ;) >> >> Brad >> On Oct 1, 2016 4:30 PM, "Brad Casterline" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Trevor. >>> I like graphs. I'm a slow learner but i dont let that stop me. >>> On Oct 1, 2016 4:11 PM, "Brad Casterline" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Wow Ron thanks! >>>> That pow thing blows my mind but that's ok. >>>> I might seem overly sensatitve about this but it is one of the two or >>>> three 'light bulb' moments I've had in my sprinkler career. I don't know if >>>> you have heard designers say things like, "suddenly it just clicked", or >>>> not. I have, but I guess I'm the only one who heard gravity click with >>>> sprinkler calcs. Before that Q,K,P was so mysterious, although I could >>>> sleep at night, it was fitfull. >>>> >>>> Thanks again man, >>>> >>>> Brad >>>> On Oct 1, 2016 3:54 PM, "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Brad- >>>>> >>>>> 919gpm using the standard formula by hand. The only trick is the >>>>> square root of P which may have to be bracketed if it's not one you know. >>>>> I >>>>> can use a simple calculator for that though. Took about 45 seconds with a >>>>> calculator with a square root function. A couple of minutes if i need to >>>>> bracket and less than the 45 seconds if its a square root I know (like for >>>>> 30). >>>>> >>>>> And here is the calculator tape for the truly annal: >>>>> >>>>> pow(30,1/2) * 6.25 * 0.9 * 29.83 >>>>> = 919.04421883382455 >>>>> >>>>> 2.5 squared is just one of those I have memorized. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Trevor Spain <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If you need to be able to print a report or save a report as a pdf, >>>>>> download the free hydrant flow test program from here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://igneusinc.com/files/files.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Trevor Spain >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/1/2016 2:03 PM, Mark Phillips wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.firehydrant.org/info/hycalc.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Love it and used it for years >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid >>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2016 2:52 PM, Travis Mack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Follow the formula in the standards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 29.83 x hydrant coefficient x pumper modification x diameter x >>>>>>> diameter x sqrt (pitot pressure) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keep it all simple. No need to overcomplicate everything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are even several apps to put in your phone to do this stuff. >>>>>>> Keep it all simple. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Travis Mack, SET >>>>>>> MFP Design, LLC >>>>>>> "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages >>>>>>> /MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 >>>>>>> Send large files to MFP Design via: >>>>>>> https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My pleasure Jeff, thanks for saying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2016 1:32 PM, "Jeff Normand" <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks for sharing Brad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Brad Casterline < >>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Say it's a 2.5" butt (small, smooth and well rounded my personal >>>>>>> favorite) so C=.9. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ((2.5/24) ^2) * PI = .034 ft^2. >>>>>>> .034 * .9 = .0307 ft^2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Say pitot = 30 PSI. >>>>>>> 30/.433=69.284 ft (h). >>>>>>> v=(2gh)^.5=(2*32.2*69.284)^.5=69.8 ft/sec. >>>>>>> .0307 ft^2 * 69.8 ft/sec = 2.05 ft^3/sec, * 7.48 * 60 = 920 GPM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not too shabby! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brad >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:Sprinklerforum >>>>>>> @lists.firesprinkler.org> >>>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f >>>>>>> iresprinkler.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:Sprinklerforum >>>>>>> @lists.firesprinkler.org> >>>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f >>>>>>> iresprinkler.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:Sprinklerforum >>>>>>> @lists.firesprinkler.org> >>>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f >>>>>>> iresprinkler.org >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f >>>>>>> iresprinkler.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f >>>>>> iresprinkler.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ron Greenman >>>>> >>>>> 4110 Olson Dr., NW >>>>> Gig Harbor, WA 98335 >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> 253.576.9700 >>>>> >>>>> The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. >>>>> -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera >>>>> director (1942-) >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f >>>>> iresprinkler.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum- >> firesprinkler.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum- >> firesprinkler.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org > > -- Ron Greenman 4110 Olson Dr., NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 [email protected] 253.576.9700 The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera director (1942-)
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
