How to build a home CO2 carbonation system (the nozzle part)
in [Repair]
|
Prev: How to build a home CO2 carbonation system (the nozzle part)(was: How to biuld a home CO2 carbonation system (the nozzle part))
Next: Jeff Liebermann Radio Ham FUCKHEAD & TROLL
From: Dean Hoffman on 3 Apr 2010 23:02 Allodoxaphobia wrote: > On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 01:02:24 +0000 (UTC), Elmo wrote: >> I'm sure I'm missing something simple ... > > Indeed! > Like posting in an electronics newsgroup instead of a pneumatics newsgroup. Are you suggesting there will be a shortage of hot air?
From: Elmo on 4 Apr 2010 09:33 On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:22:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > I built a carbonator once and made several huge mistakes, some of > which I see in the article. > The carbonation bottle, as shown, is upside down. Hi Jeff, I solved the problem after reading your response! I thank you for taking your time to help others. I like the upside-down idea and I understand your points about the internal pressure and the need to bleed it off separately - but I wanted to make the right-side-up idea work first. The original article said, I had to bubble 4 volumes of carbon dioxide into the bottle so I had to figure out how to bubble 4 liters of co2 into a 1 liter bottle. It worked when I removed the stem of the tire valve (pictures here): http://yfrog.com/13updatehomeco2carbonatiojx My problem was there is no measurable laminar gas "flow" in either system (1) tire valve with stem, or (2) tire valve w/o stem. But, without the stem, the c02 molecules continue to "infuse" into the liquid until there are 4 liters of c02 in the 1 liter of liquid. So, I think the word "infuse" would have been better than "flow". Now I have really good tasting seltzer water, grape juice soda, orange juice soda, etc. Thanks all!
From: Elmo on 4 Apr 2010 09:35 On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:02:19 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote: >> Like posting in an electronics newsgroup instead of a pneumatics newsgroup. > Are you suggesting there will be a shortage of hot air? Since google sucks at newsgroup searches, I searched both Newsparrot and Giganews to find a pneumatics newsgroup. I didn't find any.
From: Elmo on 4 Apr 2010 09:41 On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:22:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > Some maniacs have gone to 100 PSI and up by reinforcing the > bottle with duct tape, but methinks 50 PSI is a good safe limit. The article suggested 150psi (and says 100psi is generated internally if you drop any common soda bottle); so, as an experiment, I donned welders garb (helmet, bib, and heavy gloves) and pressurized the 1 liter seltzer bottle filled with orange juice to 150psi ... and ... nothing happened. Well, the orange juice was really fizzy when I removed the pressure and removed the cap; but what I mean is the bottle held 150 psi with aplomb! I was too scared to go higher than 150 psi though (I had ammo of 800 psi of c02 available). I remember reading somewhere they test automotive tires by filling them to 200 psi of water to see if they'll blow (the water apparently lessens the danger). Anyway, it's amazing how well engineered a 10 cent throw-away soda bottle is!
From: Engineer on 4 Apr 2010 11:34
On Apr 4, 9:41 am, Elmo <dcdraftwo...(a)Use-Author-Supplied- Address.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:22:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > > Some maniacs have gone to 100 PSI and up by reinforcing the > > bottle with duct tape, but methinks 50 PSI is a good safe limit. (snip) > I remember reading somewhere they test automotive tires by filling them to > 200 psi of water to see if they'll blow (the water apparently lessens the > danger). (snip) Yes, there's no danger because, being incompressible, it does not store energy like a pressurized gas. The only stored energy with water pressurization is strain energy in the vessel, usually quite small. If the vessel ruptures the pressure instantly goes to zero and the water just runs out. Cheers, Roger |