TECHNET Archives

August 2013

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:12:35 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (468 lines)
Inge,

 

I was thinking of a speckle pattern.  A descrete pattern of dots.  Very much
along the lines of std photolith work for semiconductor applications.  Step
and repeat - just a more macro scale.

 

Was thinking along those lines because Wayne likely knows the size of the
soot particles themselves and those should be resolvable
photolithographically.  Just a matter of working out the density/number of
dots required.  Once done, repeat scales would be a no-brainer.

 

Could either be additive, or subtractive deposition.  Similar to the way
they make calibration slides for microscopes where the scale is deposited on
glass, or the pattern is left when all the rest of the metallization has
been removed.

 

Wild thoughts for the day

 

Thanks for the articles on trees.  

 

Steve C

 

From: Inge Hernefjord [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:59 PM
To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Steven Creswick
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

 

The idea is splendid. With a built in piece of thinfilm, you can do like
when you depress 'tara' on a balance. However, I doubt you can deponate such
a extremly thin layer of metal on a substrate, at least repeat it on
thousands of substates.I have been little involved in sputtering and vacuum
depostion, and one of my friends nearby is a professor in that technology. I
can ask him, if necessary. Or connect you and him together. He has been in
the game for decades. Moreover, I have a friend who is specialist on laser
range and atmosphere measurements. If he can't give advice, noone can. 

 

The attenuation and  reflection curves for a given laser wavelength, usually
IR, will be quite different between those two candidates. 3D smoke and 2D
film.  But, sure, one can solve anything.

Q: why do you not try these handhold particle counters that we use for
cleanrooms? I had an old one, will see if I threw it or not. They have
built-in reference. They have a very large sensitivity  range. If I smoke ,
pass the airlock, take on my blue 'space overall' etc, the instrument will
beep because I breathe out smoke particles the first minute.

 

If you mean that every household shall have one, then forget it.

Inge

 

Inge

 

Inge

 

On 29 August 2013 11:10, Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Raye - Excellent!

Along that line, how about a neutral density filter that you can buy for
photography work?  Too dense?

Possibly, just go out and photolightographically define whatever density you
want on a glass wafer and have it diced into whatever size you needed?  You
could define sizes and density of 'particulates'.

There should be many thin-film places that could make these up.

Steve C


-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rivera, Raye
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

If this is an optical detector, why do you need actual smoke? Put a piece of
tinted plexiglass in the detector as a calibration standard in the field.
You can figure out what density of particles it is equivalent to in a lab
with a particle counter.

Best regards,
Raye Rivera


QA Manager * Canoga Perkins * 818-678-3872  * [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

I think what I'm going to try next is two wirewound resistors glued together
with some ceramic paste, or maybe just build a hammock between them with
some aluminum foil.  Then try a drop or two of the liquid they use on model
trains to simulate smoke.  If that doesn't get me anywhere, then maybe the
heating element from an e-cigarette.

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Creswick
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

Wayne - agree.  That's why I pointed you to Gentex.  It's optical.  Used to
be that all commercial aircraft had these detectors from Gentex

Steve C

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

In an ionization-based detection system (technically illegal in my
application because of the radioactive source required), you can check
sensitivity by looking at the leakage current through the ionization
chamber.  Most of these "in circuit test" systems simply put a resistor
across the ionization chamber and measure the time it takes set off the
alarm.
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Creswick
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

Wayne,

That is a good point about the smoke detectors, since there are two types -
the ionization types and the particulate types that work by scattering of
light.

Look at FAQ #3 at this site -
http://www.gentex.com/fire-protection/technical-support
It would appear that they have the calibration and degradation issues worked
out.  I may still know some people there, but not sure how much help that
would be in this situation.

We used to ignite a ribbon of Mg to coat the inside of an integrating sphere
with white powder.  If you can combust tiny performs of Mg, or nanofoil as
someone else suggested, that seems like it might satisfy your combustion
quantity issue - although may create another issue with transport and
handling....

Steve C

-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wayne Thayer
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

Hi Dennis-

Yes, as you and Richard have pointed out, calibrating particle sensors is
not un-mapped territory.  The systems are accurate and worthy of
withstanding the rigors of lawsuits.

But we can all see that there is a huge gulf between that kind of
calibration and the other end of the spectrum, such as seeing whether a
smoke detector is working OK.

Another point in that gulf is a counter designed to control a HEPA in a room
where a person has allergies.  For that, they don't use a laser for
illuminating the particles, they just use an IR LED.  Hence they don't know
if they are looking at one giant particle or a bunch of tiny ones.  But they
actually appear to be useful anyway, and the cost for the sensor from
DigiKey is $12.  Sharp tells you right up front on the data sheet that the
LED will fade over time, by as much as 50%, with a corresponding drop in
sensitivity.  Also, the calibration curves provided in the data sheet show a
very wide range of "typical" calibration slopes.

So my gut tells me there should be some way of making a repeatable
experiment that could be used for comparing these cheap sensors to each
other and to watch the degradation in performance vs. time.  I need to
vaporize a defined amount of material in a closed volume.  Turns out to be
more challenging than I thought!  It seems the diffusion of the vaporized
material is actually the easy part.  Complete combustion of a defined amount
of material is hard.

Wayne

From: Dennis Fritz [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:27 AM
To: Wayne Thayer
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

Good luck on this one, especially the "The idea is a cheap sensor" part.

Particle measurment in either air or liquid is pretty well developed. IEST
is the standards organization and there are also IEC international
regulations/certifications

I googled "air particle counter calibration" and a lot of stuff came up -
most all probably too complicated for what you need - "cheap".  However,
this link gives some background on your problem and a bit of "who certifies
what".

http://www.particle.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/02/WP-MET-ONE-ISO-
<http://www.particle.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/02/WP-MET-ONE-ISO
-21501-Calibration-of-APC-from-Metrology-Perspective-US.pdf> 
21501-Calibration-of-APC-from-Metrology-Perspective-US.pdf

Good luck.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: TechNet <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 10:06 am
Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke

To answer previous question:



The idea is a cheap sensor.  3rd world homes are notoriously smoky due to
the

cooking fire and due to kerosene lamps.  Most of the smoke is carbon.  There
are

lots of ideas for improving these homes (like LED lights with solar
rechargers)

so we can "improve their lot" by making it more healthy for kids to study
inside

(or maybe so they can buy stuff on the internet?).  Anyway, the aid groups
want

a way to see what the bang for buck is in improving the indoor environment,
so

they need a sensor.  These sensors work by shining an LED or laser through
an

air stream, and measuring the amount of light which is reflected off-axis by
the

particulates in the air.



How does the bicycle pump (actually I'm imagining a disposable plastic
syringe)

pick up a defined amount of cigarette smoke?  Maybe arrange a fixture which

leaves the cigarette burning and allows the smoke to just rise into the open
end

of the syringe for a set amount of time, then put the plunger in.  Might

work-cheap to try!



As to the other suggestions, such as the nichrome wire, I keep coming back
to

needing some kind of heated basket so I can make sure I burn 100% of
whatever I

put in there.  A circulating fan and Brownian motion should make the
environment

pretty uniform, although with the tests I've been doing, I get a spike with
an

exponential decay as the particles settle.  Still, the interior of the 5
gallon

bucket appears pretty uniform, even though the peak duration is only about
40

secs.



Wayne



From: Inge Hernefjord
[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]

Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:45 AM

To: TechNet E-Mail Forum; Wayne Thayer

Subject: Re: [TN] Blowing Smoke



Don't laugh now, I am serious. A kind of cycle pump, but with a very small

diameter nozzle. Pull the handle and suck a second sniff of cigarett smoke,

continue pulling handle until pump is filled with air/smoke mixture. Now
press

handle slowly and you get a constant stream of mixture. Simple and cheap.
Guess

the nozzle should be fractions of a millimeter.



Inge



On 28 August 2013 08:07, Wayne Thayer
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
om<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>

wrote:

OK, here's another problem I've been playing with (although it has little to
do

with IPC mission, it might be related).



I am trying to build a system for measuring airborne particulates for

humanitarian organizations looking for inexpensive ways to measure/monitor

indoor air quality.  There are cheap sensors available which might do the
job,

but they would need periodic re-calibration.



So I need a controlled, extremely small amount of smoke.  At first, I
thought

this would be trivial:  Find a cheap part at DigiKey and put too many watts

through it.  Way too much smoke and too little control.  Then I tried
burning

thin wires.  Too irregular because sometimes they incinerate completely and

other times they find a tiny defect and just burn that until the wire stops

conducting.  Then I tried just heating the wire enough to burn off the

insulation.  Still too irregular!  I did just a few experiments and got 30%

variation.



Now I'm starting to think maybe a tiny piece of paper on an automotive
cigarette

lighter.  That's a lot of power to get that glowing, and it is not
convenient to

attach to.  Any other ideas?



Wayne



______________________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:hel
[log in to unmask]>>

______________________________________________________________________





______________________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.

For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________

 



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2