Quite different solution: ask HANNA if they can't make a cheap turbdity
meter. They should, if you tell them the lots of meters needed .

http://www.amazon.com/Hanna-Instruments-Turbidity-Technology-Compliant/dp/B002NX0WJG


On 29 August 2013 15:59, Pat Goodyear <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Optical detector rings a bell, 20 years ago we had a Forward Scatter
> Meter, we used it at the plant to measure the density of the fog.    Had
> nothing to do with humidity but it was for visibility.    If I remember
> correctly it had a shielded IR light source on one arm facing a shielded
> photo detector array on an opposite arm about 2 meters separating them. I
> think they use a similar device at airports.    Maybe a device of that type
> may work on a smaller scale.   Zero point would be no interference, high
> level would be the point at which the air quality is uninhabitable, and
> possibly a logarithmic scale in between.
>
> Pat
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Wayne Thayer wrote:
>
>  That's different thinking!
>>
>>
>> -----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] 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<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
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]<mailto:w**[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
>> >>
>> To: TechNet <[log in to unmask]<mailto:TechNe**[log in to unmask] <[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:w**[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
>> ><mailto:wt**[log in to unmask] <[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:helpde**[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>><mailto:helpdesk@**ipc.org<[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:helpde**[log in to unmask] <[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]
> **______________________________**__________
>


______________________________________________________________________
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] 
______________________________________________________________________