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- > 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] ______________________________________________________________________