Theres two windows in the year where I will do that kind of stuff, and this is one of them. Otherwise it is either too damn hot, or too damn cold......It's about freaking time. Jeez....
Theres two windows in the year where I will do that kind of stuff, and this is one of them. Otherwise it is either too damn hot, or too damn cold......It's about freaking time. Jeez....
Nothing really, tried two experiments, still not getting stable readings once I inject the vapor, the readings just steadily climb until they are eventually over-range. Perplexed I am, but I have more ideas to try.What's news, Mike? Any appeteasers on the kitchen table these days?
First test will be to just blow a Clinton mouth puff into the container and see what happens.If you could use the syringe and draw that 55ml over a three second time period, consistently, that might better simulate a real draw rate and "control" volume simultaneously. Maybe some kind of actuator...control circuit...Rube Goldberg setup might do the trick.
The big question is, of course, is whether or not the draw rate is the culprit. A lot of work if it isn't.
The challenge with an actuator on the syringe is that the syringe resistance, ie how hard it is pull the plunger, varies from one to another. I would abandon the syringe and just use an air cylinder with the appropriate volume, and an airflow restrictor to time the actuation of the cylinder.If you could use the syringe and draw that 55ml over a three second time period, consistently, that might better simulate a real draw rate and "control" volume simultaneously. Maybe some kind of actuator...control circuit...Rube Goldberg setup might do the trick.
The big question is, of course, is whether or not the draw rate is the culprit. A lot of work if it isn't.
blow a Clinton mouth puff
Just don't do a LewinskyFirst test will be to just blow a Clinton mouth puff into the container and see what happens.
The challenge is that my sample puffs are about .01g. Enough that sometimes one puff doesnt register at all on the scale, and then the next puff registers 0.02g after the 2 puffs. The resolution of 2 decimal places just isnt good enough for me to get reliable results.Heck, Mike, the scale I use for DIY, .01gm resolution, is effected by drafts, too. I have to shut off the ceiling fan while I'm mixing or it wobbles a few hundredths constantly. Can't breath on it either, same thing happens. I can imagine what would happen with one that goes down to .001gm, worse than a balance beam for powder measuring.
I have not automated the puff. I may go there but I am hoping I wont have to. I am only trying to prove/disprove the point, not publish in a scientific journal. I do believe I can get sufficient data to accomplish that goal.Yeah, something like that or from Mettler, same thing. But you can also weigh across say 10 puffs, average and divide to per puff. No, not as precise, but perhaps more convenient. The amount drawn off a single puff is way small to try and rely on the weight change of a single sample, even with the best scale, as unless you're using a mechanical device to assure every single puff is identical in volume drawn.
I have not automated the puff. I may go there but I am hoping I wont have to. I am only trying to prove/disprove the point, not publish in a scientific journal. I do believe I can get sufficient data to accomplish that goal.
It might "if" I control my thumb lag well enough. I.e. not fire before/after the sample is drawn.So maybe the "10 puff, reweigh and divide the weight differential by 10" might be good enough for average puff juice volume.