Oxygen LPM

[SilverSage]

I'm sure this is an easy question, but I'm a little confused on all the psi and lpm figures. The propane psi I understand. The oxygen psi I understand. What does the oxygen lpm determine and how do you know how much you need?
Thanks,
Julie

[jaylee78]

From Divers Alert Network:

LPM -- Liters per minute. A measurement of a flow rate of gas or liquid.

PSI -- Pounds per square inch; a measurement of pressure

On my minor I usually have my Oxy Concentrator at 3.5 - 4 lpm.

[Emily]

Are you using tanked oxygen or a concentrator? LPM comes into play only if you're using a concentrator/generator. If you're using tanked oxygen, you just set the regulator for the psi you want.

For our purposes, LPM is essentially the measurement of the capacity of the concentrator or generator. It's the "size" of the concentrator/generator -- that is, how much oxy the concentrator will put out running at full capacity. LPM is how much oxygen the machine will put out, and psi is how hard it pushes that oxy through the hose. To run a Minor/Bobcat/Piranha/MiniCC-size torch, you need a concentrator of at least 5 LPM. The psi of the 5 LPM concentrators varies, but not all that much. Some may give you more pressure than others, but any 5 LPM concentrator that you get will have enough pressure if it's functioning properly. When you get your concentrator, you'll set the flow -- the LPM -- once, and then after that, you'll do all your adjusting with the oxygen valve on your torch. There's no control of the psi on a concentrator -- the machine does what it does.

And Jen, thumbs up for the cite to DAN -- they're a good organization. (Possibly the best friend you can have if something awful happens to you underwater, not that that has anything to do with lampwork. Just another way to have fun with big cylinders of compressed gases...)

[SilverSage]

Thanks for the responses. I have a mini cc and am toying with a lynx on a concentrator. What would be the optimum LMP for each of them? Is there a maximum LPM for the torches? I know you can't do it on a concentrator but is there an LPM that is too much for the torches or should you give them all the oxy they can handle?
thanks,
Julie

[kbinkster]

You really need a 10 lpm machine (or two 5 lpm machines) to run a Lynx.

You should supply a torch with as much oxygen as you can. Your needle valves control how much actually gets to your torch. It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

There is a point where adding more oxygen won't do you any good, but you won't approach that with a concentrator.

[CarolinaDreamDesigns]

Can you hook together (y connection) a 8-10 psi, 5 lpm machine with a 15 psi, 10 lpm machine? Where would that get you?

Martha

[MythBuster]

Originally Posted by SilverSage

I'm sure this is an easy question, but I'm a little confused on all the psi and lpm figures. The propane psi I understand. The oxygen psi I understand. What does the oxygen lpm determine and how do you know how much you need?
Thanks,
Julie

You need all the oxygen the torch was designed to take, to get the maximum performance out of any torch.

For example... BUT, before I get to that...

Back in the good ol'days we used cubic feet per hour (cf/h)... that's before the advent of inexpensive used medical concentrators. The torches were (and still are) made to use up to a certain flow of oxygen, measured in cf/h, to produce a lot of btu's (didn't ask about btu... so we will skip that). Well, the concentrators brought in the term "lpm" versus cf/h (it's a doctor thing - medical obfuscation). So we either convert lpm to cf/h, or cf/h to lpm. The trend has been to use the term lpm.

So I'll quote the cf/h for the oxygen, for the Bobcat (I have that data immediately available)... and then convert that to lpm.

Bobact: Oxygen cf/h = 40; converts to... lpm = 18.8...

hmmm...
so that's why there is such a buzzing interest in an affordable oxygen concentrator system that can put out more than the 5 lpm most do today. You would need to gang at least three 5 lpm machines together to even get close to the max potential of the Bobcat.

For any torch you are seriously considering, contact the manufacturer and ask what the oxygen cf/h is for optimal performance for that torch. Some are as high as 65 lpm. Get the word straight from the horses mouth. There are a lot of myths floating around about torch performance. Only the manufaturer knows for certain. (Note: the data shown for the Bobcat came direct to me, from Wally at GTT, by email on 10/21/04).

You state you understand the psi... also ask the maker about that too, the psi is different for different brands. Ultimately you want to match your oxygen system (and fuel system) to your preferred torch, or potential torch upgrade... which is obviously what you are doing. (You can even ask them to convert the cf/h to lpm and save a math step).

Blessings.

[Justin L]

Originally Posted by CarolinaDreamDesigns

Can you hook together (y connection) a 8-10 psi, 5 lpm machine with a 15 psi, 10 lpm machine? Where would that get you?

Martha

15LPM and 15 PSI

[SilverSage]

Originally Posted by MythBuster

You need all the oxygen the torch was designed to take, to get the maximum performance out of any torch.

For example... BUT, before I get to that...

Back in the good ol'days we used cubic feet per hour (cf/h)... that's before the advent of inexpensive used medical concentrators. The torches were (and still are) made to use up to a certain flow of oxygen, measured in cf/h, to produce a lot of btu's (didn't ask about btu... so we will skip that). Well, the concentrators brought in the term "lpm" versus cf/h (it's a doctor thing - medical obfuscation). So we either convert lpm to cf/h, or cf/h to lpm. The trend has been to use the term lpm.

So I'll quote the cf/h for the oxygen, for the Bobcat (I have that data immediately available)... and then convert that to lpm.

Bobact: Oxygen cf/h = 40; converts to... lpm = 18.8...

hmmm...
so that's why there is such a buzzing interest in an affordable oxygen concentrator system that can put out more than the 5 lpm most do today. You would need to gang at least three 5 lpm machines together to even get close to the max potential of the Bobcat.

For any torch you are seriously considering, contact the manufacturer and ask what the oxygen cf/h is for optimal performance for that torch. Some are as high as 65 lpm.
Blessings.

65LPM? Yikes! And I was thinking two concentrators would be a pain Too bad there is not a simple list someplace where you can just look it all up. I suppose that means the lynx would need more Not the answer I was hoping for. So does that mean that there are a lot of people using under powered torches? And will it hurt the torch in the long run? Or does it simply mean you are not getting the full potential from the torch?
Thanks again,
Julie

[MythBuster]

Originally Posted by SilverSage

65LPM? Yikes! And I was thinking two concentrators would be a pain Too bad there is not a simple list someplace where you can just look it all up. I suppose that means the lynx would need more Not the answer I was hoping for. So does that mean that there are a lot of people using under powered torches? And will it hurt the torch in the long run? Or does it simply mean you are not getting the full potential from the torch?
Thanks again,
Julie

It means there are a lot of torches being used below the full btu potential of the torch...possibly the full flame control of the torch. I don't know if will hurt the torch at all. I would suspect not, but only the torch manufacturer would know for certain.

As for the lynx... don't suppose... ask the manufacturer what you need to feed it (fuel/oxy; psi; lpm) to get all the power and control that fine torch can give you. Then prepare to feed it.

[pam]

Hi Julie, I think what you have to understand is that very few people making beads use a torch to its full potential. There are lots of people using torches with one 5 lpm concentrator that are extremely happy because it works for them for what they do. Maybe to another person that torch running off 5 lpm would be underpowered. And some people don't mind running a torch slightly under-powered so that they have the convenience of a concentrator. It's all your outlook. If you want to run almost any torch to its full potential, then I honestly believe you have to go with tanked oxy.

[SilverSage]

Hi Pam,
I remember reading a few of your posts elsewhere. Actually, it was one of your posts that pushed me over the edge and made me decide on the OG20 (not that it's your fault, but I am completely delighted with it ).
I already know I don't need to run a lynx to its full potential to do what I need it to do. I just have an insatiable curiousity. Makes my husband crazy sometime - ok - well- often.
I sent my lynx in to Willy and Wally last week (it was used and after I talked to Wally he said he thinks it needs a tune-up). I'm working on a mini cc while I wait for its return. The experience is good and it's a nice torch, but I have a hunch I'm already hooked on my lynxie. Nothing wrong with the cc; I just like the lynx better. I do like the torch mount marver on the mini cc though. Will have to look and see if they make something like that for the lynx.

Hi MythBuster, Wally had me list my questions and send it in with my torch so I should here something back in a couple weeks. I did remember to ask about care and feeding of the lynx with the OG20. He said he would call back after it was done and talk to me then. I will have to remember my new questions for him.

Thanks a bunch,
Julie

[kbinkster]

Originally Posted by MythBuster

You need all the oxygen the torch was designed to take, to get the maximum performance out of any torch.

For example... BUT, before I get to that...

Back in the good ol'days we used cubic feet per hour (cf/h)... that's before the advent of inexpensive used medical concentrators. The torches were (and still are) made to use up to a certain flow of oxygen, measured in cf/h, to produce a lot of btu's (didn't ask about btu... so we will skip that). Well, the concentrators brought in the term "lpm" versus cf/h (it's a doctor thing - medical obfuscation). So we either convert lpm to cf/h, or cf/h to lpm. The trend has been to use the term lpm.

So I'll quote the cf/h for the oxygen, for the Bobcat (I have that data immediately available)... and then convert that to lpm.

Bobact: Oxygen cf/h = 40; converts to... lpm = 18.8...

hmmm...
so that's why there is such a buzzing interest in an affordable oxygen concentrator system that can put out more than the 5 lpm most do today. You would need to gang at least three 5 lpm machines together to even get close to the max potential of the Bobcat.

For any torch you are seriously considering, contact the manufacturer and ask what the oxygen cf/h is for optimal performance for that torch. Some are as high as 65 lpm. Get the word straight from the horses mouth. There are a lot of myths floating around about torch performance. Only the manufaturer knows for certain. (Note: the data shown for the Bobcat came direct to me, from Wally at GTT, by email on 10/21/04).

You state you understand the psi... also ask the maker about that too, the psi is different for different brands. Ultimately you want to match your oxygen system (and fuel system) to your preferred torch, or potential torch upgrade... which is obviously what you are doing. (You can even ask them to convert the cf/h to lpm and save a math step).

Blessings.

Well, there are a couple of things amiss, here.

First of all, the Bobcat needs about 10 cf/h (the Lynx needs 14 cf/h) for maximum output. I got this straight from the horse, himself. 40 cf/h sounds more in line with a Phantom.

Second, it wasn't Wally who emailed you anything back in October 2004 as they did not have their email up and running then. They did not have control of the website. So, it is possible that the webmaster took it upon himself to reply to a question through the website. But if he did, it was not with Wally's knowledge or blessing. I'm sure Wally would be very interested in seeing that email, if that is the case.

Anyway, as far as the Bobcat running on a concentrator...

1 cubic foot = 28.316 liters
10 cubic feet = 283.16 liters
10 cubic feet per hour = 283.16 liters per hour
There are 60 minutes per hour, so 283.16 liters per hour = 4.7193 liters per minute.

A Bobcat will run at maximum output on a 5 LPM machine.

The Lynx would require 6.6 LPM, but keep in mind that the Lynx is not a standard torch. Once you start passing more volume through a Lynx, you will need a higher pressure to force that oxygen through the little injector tubes. I run a 10 LPM machine at 9 psi to get about 90% performance out of a Lynx. I don't need that top end for the majority of applications for which I use the Lynx.

EDIT:
I need to clarify something. When I said that the Bobcat would run at maximum output on a 5 LPM machine, that is for soft glass, what most of us here on this board work with. You can push the torch harder, but that would really be for boro, because when you run the cones longer than 1/2", it starts to get too reducing for soft glass.

[MythBuster]

Originally Posted by kbinkster

Well, there are a couple of things amiss, here.

First of all, the Bobcat needs about 10 cf/h (the Lynx needs 14 cf/h) for maximum output. I got this straight from the horse, himself. 40 cf/h sounds more in line with a Phantom.

Second, it wasn't Wally who emailed you anything back in October 2004 as they did not have their email up and running then. They did not have control of the website. So, it is possible that the webmaster took it upon himself to reply to a question through the website. But if he did, it was not with Wally's knowledge or blessing. I'm sure Wally would be very interested in seeing that email, if that is the case.

Anyway, as far as the Bobcat running on a concentrator...

1 cubic foot = 28.316 liters
10 cubic feet = 283.16 liters
10 cubic feet per hour = 283.16 liters per hour
There are 60 minutes per hour, so 283.16 liters per hour = 4.7193 liters per minute.

A Bobcat will run at maximum output on a 5 LPM machine.

The Lynx would require 6.6 LPM, but keep in mind that the Lynx is not a standard torch. Once you start passing more volume through a Lynx, you will need a higher pressure to force that oxygen through the little injector tubes. I run a 10 LPM machine at 9 psi to get about 90% performance out of a Lynx. I don't need that top end for the majority of applications for which I use the Lynx.

Well Dr Watson, something surely is a foot!

Here's the email info (it's too old to be on my system anymore... but I keep a hardcopy of important things like this - can be scanned).

<start>
From: gtt@liquidcolor.org
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: email from GTT

Hi, the cf/hr is 20 for the fuel and 40 for the oxygen , the psi for the bobcat is 1psi-5psi for the fuel , and 5pis -15psi for the oxygen. Thanks for stopping by the GTT site !!!!!
Wally
<end>

The above is a complete transcript of the email, including typos. It was a response to a question I emailed to GTT specifically about the GTT Bobcat’s fuel-oxy, cf/h and psi performance.

I thought the email reply was written a little disjointed, and contained missplellings, but hey... I mistype in a huury too, and it's got the answers.

It seems like pretty technical data for a webmaster to know.. It‘s not like a yes/no question... someone there had to actually come up with numbers that jived, and the fuel-oxy cf/h and psi ratios seemed in-line with respect to each other - not something I think a webmaster would know or could just make up.

It’s possible the person at GTT read the wrong line in the secret mileage book; perhaps they know more about the torch now than they did then; who knows. But one things for certain... the GTT response stated 40 cf/h for the Bobcat.

Yes I was surprised by the 40 cf/h assignment by GTT to the Bobcat. I didn't know if it was wishful thinking on their part... or if the highly touted Bobcat really did outshine the Piranha in the btu department (looks like it not) but they make it, they said it, I accept it.

I know I began suggesting the Piranha versus the Bobcat for beadmakers, so they would not have to potentially refill the oxy tank at 4 times the rate of a Piranha, or rack and stack 5 lpm concentrators, based on the data provided to me by GTT.

Now, I did not check your math, but I’ll assume all the division and conversion is correct. If so, that is good news for potential Bobcat owners... or potential Bobcat - 5 lpm concentrator owners.

As far as the Lynx... nice data... perhaps GTT could publish all the data, not just oxygen lpm, for the Lynx and all their torches. Looks like emails don’t always get the same answer. Inquiring minds want to know.

Now... as for the suggestion that the 40 cf/h might be more in line with the Phantom... it could be the data fits the Phantom, but my email from GTT said Bobcat. Frankly, I would be surprised if the Phantom was only 40 cf/h oxygen, because the Barracuda is 42 cf/h, or 1192 l/h, or 19.86 lpm and I kinda thought the Phantom might run a little hotter than a Barracuda. But, hey, I could be wrong.

Perhaps LE could sponsor a page or thread where all the torch makers could officially disclose the cf/h and psia for fuel and oxygen for all their torches. Wouldn’t that be nice... to actually know what a torch needed to be feed to get maximum performance and be able to decide whether to just feed it more, or buy a different torch. Probably wishful thinking.

Blessings.

[CarolinaDreamDesigns]

Originally Posted by MythBuster

Perhaps LE could sponsor a page or thread where all the torch makers could officially disclose the cf/h and psia for fuel and oxygen for all their torches. Wouldn’t that be nice... to actually know what a torch needed to be feed to get maximum performance and be able to decide whether to just feed it more, or buy a different torch. Probably wishful thinking.

AWESOME idea - I already posted it as a suggestion in the site thread - quoted you so you get credit - thanks!!

Martha

[kbinkster]

Buster,

Thanks for providing a transcript of the email response. As I said earlier, Willy and Wally did not have control of the website at the time of the emailed response you transcribed above. It was quite some time (not until the middle of 2005) before emails from the website ever made it to Willy and Wally, directly. All email went to the webmaster, liquidcolordesigns, who is a glass worker named John Garvey. He would take the emails and read them to Willy or Wally. Willy and Wally would tell him how to answer some of them, and if there was a question that he felt he could answer, he took it on himself to answer it without Willy or Wally. I guess he felt that he could answer your question on his own. Unfortunately, he overestimated his abilities and passed along incorrect information. Had Wally actually been the one to answer your querry, or had you called GTT and spoken directly to Willy or Wally, you would have been given the correct information, as I assure you Wally measured the flow rates for the torches himself. It is regrettable that you received the incorrect information. I will be sure to pass along that transcript to Wally!

As far as the Bobcat outshining the Piranha... It certainly outshines it now, as the Bobcat has not been discontinued by the manufacturer. The Bobcat is hotter and runs cooler. It has seven jets, as opposed to the 6 jets of the Piranha. It gets a wider flame, too. It can get a small flame just about as small as the Piranha, but the top end is where the Bobcat really outperforms it. At $195 (Bobcat) vs. $325 (Piranha), the Bobcat outshined the Piranha in terms of "torch for your money," before it was discontinued for reasons undisclosed, that is. Keep in mind, there is more to what makes a torch hot/efficient than how much gas it passes.

This brings me to my next point, you cannot calculate BTUs for the triple mix torches the same way you do for standard torches, as triple mix torches burn the fuel much, much more efficiently. Afterall, the Lynx (using oxygen at 14 cf/h) is hotter than a Barracuda (using oxygen at 42 cf/h). So, a Phantom using 40 cf/h is not out of line, at all, it is just that much more efficient than the Barracuda.

As far as a page dedicated for torch specs, that's a noble idea, but it would be like comparing apples to oranges. Like I said earlier, cf/h calculations for BTU output just doesn't work for triple mix, and neither do jet counts and face sizes. A Phantom, with only 21 jets and an 18 mm head can outrun a CC+ with however many jets those things have (70-something?). That Phantom, using only 40 cf/h oxygen, has greater heat density than a Bethlehem PM2D, that gobbles up 65 cf/h (according to the Bethlehem site). So, in regards to triple mix torches, cf/h (or LPM, for that matter) is really relevant only to what sized concentrator/generator one would need to use in order to run the torch.

All of the torch specs are available from the manufacturers. Bethlehem has their posted on their website. I'm sure if you called Nortel and Carlisle, they would tell you as well. I know that if you were to call GTT, Wally would tell you. The information is out there. No one is keeping it secret.

You sure seem to be up on all kinds of technical stuff. What kind of work do you do? Which torch(es) do you run? Keeping hard copies of torch specs is not something most people do unless they run that torch. Do you use a concentrator, too?

Well, I noticed that you have fewer than 10 posts on this forum, so "Welcome!"

[MythBuster]

Originally Posted by kbinkster

Buster,

Thanks for providing a transcript of the email response. As I said earlier, Willy and Wally did not have control of the website at the time of the emailed response you transcribed above. It was quite some time (not until the middle of 2005) before emails from the website ever made it to Willy and Wally, directly. All email went to the webmaster, liquidcolordesigns, who is a glass worker named John Garvey. He would take the emails and read them to Willy or Wally. Willy and Wally would tell him how to answer some of them, and if there was a question that he felt he could answer, he took it on himself to answer it without Willy or Wally. I guess he felt that he could answer your question on his own. Unfortunately, he overestimated his abilities and passed along incorrect information. Had Wally actually been the one to answer your querry, or had you called GTT and spoken directly to Willy or Wally, you would have been given the correct information, as I assure you Wally measured the flow rates for the torches himself. It is regrettable that you received the incorrect information. I will be sure to pass along that transcript to Wally!

As far as the Bobcat outshining the Piranha... It certainly outshines it now, as the Bobcat has not been discontinued by the manufacturer. The Bobcat is hotter and runs cooler. It has seven jets, as opposed to the 6 jets of the Piranha. It gets a wider flame, too. It can get a small flame just about as small as the Piranha, but the top end is where the Bobcat really outperforms it. At $195 (Bobcat) vs. $325 (Piranha), the Bobcat outshined the Piranha in terms of "torch for your money," before it was discontinued for reasons undisclosed, that is. Keep in mind, there is more to what makes a torch hot/efficient than how much gas it passes.

This brings me to my next point, you cannot calculate BTUs for the triple mix torches the same way you do for standard torches, as triple mix torches burn the fuel much, much more efficiently. Afterall, the Lynx (using oxygen at 14 cf/h) is hotter than a Barracuda (using oxygen at 42 cf/h). So, a Phantom using 40 cf/h is not out of line, at all, it is just that much more efficient than the Barracuda.

As far as a page dedicated for torch specs, that's a noble idea, but it would be like comparing apples to oranges. Like I said earlier, cf/h calculations for BTU output just doesn't work for triple mix, and neither do jet counts and face sizes. A Phantom, with only 21 jets and an 18 mm head can outrun a CC+ with however many jets those things have (70-something?). That Phantom, using only 40 cf/h oxygen, has greater heat density than a Bethlehem PM2D, that gobbles up 65 cf/h (according to the Bethlehem site). So, in regards to triple mix torches, cf/h (or LPM, for that matter) is really relevant only to what sized concentrator/generator one would need to use in order to run the torch.

All of the torch specs are available from the manufacturers. Bethlehem has their posted on their website. I'm sure if you called Nortel and Carlisle, they would tell you as well. I know that if you were to call GTT, Wally would tell you. The information is out there. No one is keeping it secret.

You sure seem to be up on all kinds of technical stuff. What kind of work do you do? Which torch(es) do you run? Keeping hard copies of torch specs is not something most people do unless they run that torch. Do you use a concentrator, too?

Well, I noticed that you have fewer than 10 posts on this forum, so "Welcome!"

Call'em huh? Should I record the conversation? Paper trail looks like the only thing that saved me from the inuendo this time. I think not. If they know the information, then share it... publish it on thier website - like other manufacturers do - as you yourself pointed out. Nortel faxed me their data in Jan 04, including btu efficiency calculations from P. Norton himself.

I agree that there is more to torch comparison than cf/h... but... you gots to start somewhere. And heck, if some of the manufacturers won't even put the basic cf/h data up on thier websites... just what will it take to get the efficiency data? Oh yes, I remember... call and play telephone tag. Or send an email to the website/Webmaster that's signs it with someone elses name.

You state "cf/h calculations for BTU output just doesn't work for triple mix...". Really? No chemical reaction is 100% efficient, so no direct fuel cf/h to oxy cf/h conversion calculation is ever 100% accurate. I accept that. But it is a starting point - in fact the maximum possible point... even for triple mix. You can't change the rules of physics... you can't get more out than you put in... no matter how much you mix'em. What it comes down to is fuel conversion efficiency (miles per gallon)... and that is measureable. It's just not being reported.

So..."A Phantom, with only 21 jets and an 18 mm head can outrun a CC+...". That's exactly what I'm taking about. All we seem to be considered smart enough to be told are ambigous marketing descriptors like "outruns", "runs cooler","greater heat density"... OK... if that's important... just how fast does it "run" compared to "the other ones", and just how much "cooler" is it?, and just how "dense" is that heat?

Any mechanical system and torch, made by man, can be measured and quantified in terms that can be used for comparison. Proper, accurate comparison. Just like we can compare any car to any other car, by top speed, mileage, luggage space, vehicle weight, and other features. Perhaps a sports car can "outrun" a pickup truck; and perhaps the truck is "denser" than a sports car... but there is still a window sticker that tells me MPG and cu ft of luggage and cargo space, and how heavy it is - and if I need to haul cement blocks... "outrun" is not high on the priority list. If MPG is the most important thing to me today... I'll get a efficient vehicle and have the cement blocks delivered.

Just the facts maam. Just the facts. We can be trusted to make good decisions... just give us good quantitative data.

You asked about me...Me? Retired Aerospace Engineer, Space Shuttle - Apollo. The proverbial rocket scientist. Interest: Better decisions through better understanding. My partner... 30 years full time cold, warm, hot glass, and retail studio owner.

Thank you for the welcome. My pleasure to be here.

[pam]

Buster (I don't know what else to call you), Thank you so much for contributing your information here. And Kimberly, thanks once again for the concise info you bring to the forums. The idea of a chart with correct information would be wonderful for the whole lampworking community, then we would be free of will this concentrator/generator work with this torch issues. A person could look for themselves and make the determination that fits their way of working. It really needs all to be in one concise area where everything is hopefully converted to lpm's that most people understand, and psi. Then you can look at the Bobcat and say, yes, I can run it full on with a true 5 lpm concentrator, or I can run the Lynx at 75% capacity with this piece of equipment. It would be heaven to have facts as opposed to subjective information. Of course you would also have to have the true facts from the concentrator/generator companies, including the oxy purity issue, but it would be so much better than having people say, well, I run my Lynx on one 5 lpm concentrator and it works perfectly, while the next person says, I run my Lynx on 2-5 lmp concentrators, but it works much better on tank.

[Justin L]

Originally Posted by pam

Of course you would also have to have the true facts from the concentrator/generator companies, including the oxy purity issue,

I would be more than willing to help give this information for the concentrators and the OGSI Generators!! I think it is a great idea!

[CarolinaDreamDesigns]

I posted the suggestion in the site suggestions and Jason is looking into how he wants to do it - a wiki or whatever - let him know.

I think it's a great idea!

Martha

[kbinkster]

I have quoted your last response, typos and all, and have addressed it point-by-point.


Call'em huh? Should I record the conversation? Paper trail looks like the only thing that saved me from the inuendo this time.

Exactly from what innuendo did the “paper trail” save you? When were you ever in any sort of peril? All I said was that there was something amiss. I did not attack your credibility. I merely corrected the misinformation that you posted and offered an explanation as to how you could have received that misinformation. I never claimed that you did not receive a reply to your query. I just pointed out that it was not, and could not have been, Wally who answered your query and that the answer given to you was incorrect.

I think not. If they know the information, then share it... publish it on thier website - like other manufacturers do - as you yourself pointed out.

I have seen cf/h figures posted on the Bethlehem website. However, I have not seen those figures posted on either the Herbert Arnold or the Carlisle sites. I have not yet seen a Nortel or National site. Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply the URLs to these other sites, specifically the pages that have the cf/h figures posted.

There are more ways of sharing information than publishing it on a website. Not everyone has internet access. Almost everyone has a telephone, however. How did companies ever disseminate their information to the buying public prior to the advent of the internet?

Further, just because something is posted on a website, that does not make it true. Very recently, a certain torch company had the specs posted for its newest torch. They were claiming that this six jet torch, with a face diameter of 5/8”, was putting out a 2.5” wide flame. This is an obvious error that remained posted on that site for quite some time. A torch that size, with the jet configuration it has, would put out a flame width of about ¾”. It turns out that there were several errors on that page. Imagine that! Someone posting erroneous information on their website! No one accused them of purposefully putting out this misinformation or of “wishful thinking.” People make mistakes. If you had seen that spec sheet, would you have taken it as fact, or would you have investigated further? You call yourself the MythBuster…

Nortel faxed me their data in Jan 04, including btu efficiency calculations from P. Norton himself.

That’s nice.

I agree that there is more to torch comparison than cf/h... but... you gots to start somewhere. And heck, if some of the manufacturers won't even put the basic cf/h data up on thier websites... just what will it take to get the efficiency data? Oh yes, I remember... call and play telephone tag. Or send an email to the website/Webmaster that's signs it with someone elses name.

You say that the manufacturers “won’t” do this or that. Are you implying that they refuse to supply information? There is a difference in “won’t” – as in will not – and “have not” – as in it may be put up in the future. The GTT website is by no means complete.

As I mentioned previously, Willy and Wally did not have control of their website email at the time of your query. It is regrettable that you received incorrect information. It is upsetting to me that Mr. Garvey signed Wally’s name to the email you received. But at any rate, no one was trying to obscure facts from you.

You had the flow rates of similar sized torches. Why would you accept as fact a flow rate that was so grossly disproportionate to the size of that torch? Did it not occur to you that perhaps someone made an error? Humans make mistakes. I believe that I would have double checked such a huge discrepancy before basing any decisions on it, and especially before using it to help other people make decisions.

You state "cf/h calculations for BTU output just doesn't work for triple mix...". Really? No chemical reaction is 100% efficient, so no direct fuel cf/h to oxy cf/h conversion calculation is ever 100% accurate. I accept that. But it is a starting point - in fact the maximum possible point... even for triple mix. You can't change the rules of physics... you can't get more out than you put in... no matter how much you mix'em. What it comes down to is fuel conversion efficiency (miles per gallon)... and that is measureable. It's just not being reported.

I believe that the GTT triple mix torches have been proven in the field time and time again to be more efficient than standard torches.

I suppose the “miles” would be the amount of glass one could melt in a given amount of time. The “per gallon” part is the fuel and oxygen that is needed to melt that glass. The more jets, typically, the more fuel and oxygen is required. The flow rates that have been established for say the Lynx and the Barracuda, for example, bear this out. The Barracuda has more jets than the Lynx. The Barracuda consumes more fuel and oxygen than the Lynx.

Now, the Lynx has seven propane jets and the equivalent of seven oxygen jets (even though the actual number of jets is greater, the oxygen is split into outer oxygen and inner oxygen, and the openings are much smaller – so for the sake of argument, let’s say that there are effectively seven oxygen jets) – a grand total of 14 jets. It consumes oxygen at a rate of 14 cf/h when running at its maximum. Fuel consumption is about 3.5 cf/h. The Barracuda has a total of 30 oxygen jets (inner and outer fires) and 18 fuel jets (inner and outer fires) – a grand total of 48 jets. It consumes oxygen at a rate of 42 cf/h and fuel at a rate of 8.4 cf/h when running at its maximum. All things being equal, the Barracuda should be capable of producing more heat than the Lynx. It is consuming more fuel and oxygen.

But, all things are not equal. As shown by the testing done by a prominent artist with vast experience in production glass work, and two other well known glass artists, the Lynx was shown to be able to melt glass faster than the Barracuda. This is that miles per gallon thing you were talking about.

So, either the current BTU calculations don’t accurately measure the BTUs produced by triple mix torches (perhaps there is more going on than a simple chemical reaction…), or the standard torches out there are remarkably inefficient and do not actually achieve the calculated BTUs. How is it possible, then, that the little old Lynx could work quartz so much better than the Barracuda, with 3.4 times more jets than the Lynx?

So..."A Phantom, with only 21 jets and an 18 mm head can outrun a CC+...". That's exactly what I'm taking about. All we seem to be considered smart enough to be told are ambigous marketing descriptors like "outruns", "runs cooler","greater heat density"... OK... if that's important... just how fast does it "run" compared to "the other ones", and just how much "cooler" is it?, and just how "dense" is that heat?

When you say, “All we seem to be considered smart enough to be told,” you are implying that the manufacturers somehow think that the consumers are unintelligent. That is far from the truth. Most lampworkers are not rocket scientists, but they are intelligent. Most of the manufacturers I know recognize that. Has someone patted you on the head and told you, “Now, don’t worry your pretty little head over this”? I think not. No one has been denied information. You may not like the descriptors we use, but they are accurate. Most people who have been into lampworking for any length of time understand the lingo. Seeing as how you yourself are not a lampworker (unless you left that part out), I can see how some of these phrases would hold little or no meaning to you. You are, after all, a man of science and you want the numbers. Fine, I just gave you a bunch of them and what did they prove?

The best way to determine how much hotter something is would be to conduct some field testing. I mentioned the testing Lewis Wilson conducted on the Lynx and the Phantom against the Barracuda. There was a discussion about this in the Family Room not too long ago – that must have been before you came aboard. Here is the original report of his findings:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/show...ight=barracuda

Back to those pesky marketing descriptors…

As for the part about it running cooler, the body of a GTT torch does remain cooler while running than other torches. Anyone can see that for him/herself. I can rest my hand on the barrel of my Phantom while it is running full blast. Can you do that with any torch that does not employ the GTT cooling system (or a pirated version thereof)? Try gripping the barrel of a PM2D while it is running full blast and tell me that “GTTs run cooler” is an “ambiguous marketing descriptor.” Would you prefer that I go into greater detail and say that the barrel of the Phantom, lower than 1” from the face, is actually cooler than room temperature when the torch is running full blast while some torches (that are not pirating that GTT cooling system) have barrels and bodies that reach 400 or more degrees F? That’s a lot of heat radiating on a worker. To a worker, 200-300 degrees might as well be 400 degrees or more, because it is all uncomfortable to work with. Heck, there are some torches that get so hot, you cannot touch the valves without burning yourself! If someone were to ask “How much cooler?” they would certainly be answered. No one is keeping information away from anyone.

Any mechanical system and torch, made by man, can be measured and quantified in terms that can be used for comparison. Proper, accurate comparison. Just like we can compare any car to any other car, by top speed, mileage, luggage space, vehicle weight, and other features. Perhaps a sports car can "outrun" a pickup truck; and perhaps the truck is "denser" than a sports car... but there is still a window sticker that tells me MPG and cu ft of luggage and cargo space, and how heavy it is – and if I need to haul cement blocks... "outrun" is not high on the priority list. If MPG is the most important thing to me today... I'll get a efficient vehicle and have the cement blocks delivered.

Well, you now have the correct oxygen flow rates of the Bobcat, Lynx, and Phantom – your “per gallon.” You also have the results of the field testing, which shows how fast the Lynx and the Phantom can cut through a given amount of glass, etc. – the “miles.” The face sizes and jet counts are readily available. How about shoulder width of a flame? I seem to recall the incident of that other torch company posting the flame width of one of its torches. But, for the most part, that information is also available.

Deciding which torch fits which application is best determined through testing. The way artists work is not a constant that you could plug into a neat little formula. It would be great if it were that simple. Everyone has a different working style. Everyone has preferences. GTT has great plans for the website. It will eventually contain lots of very useful information. But, even with every possible spec out there up for public consumption, nothing beats sitting behind a torch and trying out it for oneself.

Just the facts maam. Just the facts. We can be trusted to make good decisions... just give us good quantitative data.

No one is withholding information from you! No one has ever implied that you could not be trusted to make a good decision. You were given some incorrect data a year and seven months ago. That is regrettable. Had you posted this post back then, I would have given you the correct information then, as I am now. You have taken such a combative tone throughout your last two posts on this thread, as if you are pulling teeth to get information. You’re not!

You posted erroneous information. I gave you the correct information. I did not fault you for it, as it seemed to be an honest mistake. After all, you had an email with those figures. I never called you a liar. But, nonetheless, you then get defensive and take on a tone of sarcasm and start swinging at GTT for something that was quite literally out of their control.

I almost believe that you were happier with the misinformation that you had. You trot it out for everyone, claiming that you accept it as fact because you received it through a reply to a query you made through a website nineteen months ago. Then, when told that the information you had was incorrect for that torch, and were given the source of that misinformation, you take on a nasty tone (totally uncalled-for, BTW). You start off by sarcastically calling me Dr. Watson. Then, you imply that I am lying about who sent you that email – saying that the information was rather technical for a mere webmaster to know. You then suggest a couple of other possibilities, despite my telling you what happened. Your possibilities implied that someone at GTT did not know the data for themselves, that they either relied on something from a book or just made it up.

Your post reads as if you do not believe me when I tell you who answered your query. You then go on to argue with me when I tell you that the oxygen flow rate of the Phantom is 40 cf/h. It is as if you are hanging onto that email as the be-all end-all, no matter what I say (which, by the way, comes from that horse we talked about earlier).

For someone proclaiming himself to be a myth buster, you sure seem reluctant to face the facts or at least examine all the evidence. Why is that?

You asked about me...Me? Retired Aerospace Engineer, Space Shuttle - Apollo. The proverbial rocket scientist. Interest: Better decisions through better understanding. My partner... 30 years full time cold, warm, hot glass, and retail studio owner.

Thank you for the welcome. My pleasure to be here.

Well, I hope that the longer you stay here, the more you will learn about lampworking and the more apparent it will become to you that no one is keeping information secret, or purposefully giving out erroneous information. This is a community of sharing. Otherwise, I would not be here spending my time happily giving out so much information to newcomers like you.

In the mean time, stay tuned for improvements in the GTT website.

[Mr. Smiley]

Those "tests" done by Lewis and company were not accurate. The numbers between users were all over the map. None of them had any real experience dialing in a hot flame on a Cuda... I sure wish you would stop slamming Bethlehem all over the place Miss Kimberly. GTT's are good torches, but not the only game in town. Just because the torch cuts through a 5/8" rod a little faster, doesn't mean it's better. Especially if the Cuda wasn't set right. The Cuda even beat the GTT in one test. If it was a real test and has nothing to do with settings, how did this snafu happen? If a GTT is always better or faster, how did the Cuda out perform it by one user in one situation? Maybe he had the Cuda dialed in correctly... This is such crap. The little bobkitty you've got there will not out perform a Piranha. One more jet makes zero difference, port size is a factor as well. It's the way the fuel is used and mixed as it leaves the torch. The Piranha has been discontinued by Bethlehem because it was so close in price to the new Betta. Nothing more. No defects no slow sales... it's a great little torch.

GTT has been know to have several issues over the years and instead of addressing them, you guys keep side stepping and denying. Go work on the website and provide some really helpful technical data. Stop the torch wars! It's just plain silly the way you slip in little digs about Beth all the time and then claim you don't have anything against them. How about some honesty!!!!! Pam, feel free to come in here and say AGAIN, how nice and helpful Kimberly is...

Hold on to your hat Mythbuster... it's a rough ride when you tangle with this "one".

[Mr. Smiley]

By the way, I hope the origional question was asnswered before the thread got derailed.

Welcome to the forum Mythbuster... I hope you don't take Kimberly's attitude as the norm around here. I've been into it with her before and she likes to hit below the belt. It's something I've come to expect. I just hit back every once in a while. Good luck working this one out.

[pam]

I guess, for myself, I wasn't thinking of using the figures to determine which torch is hotter. Perhaps my 18 years of using a torch makes me not even question that a torch with more ports may not be as hot as a torch with fewer ports, or a torch that uses more oxy may not be as hot as one that uses less oxy. I really think the chart would be great for determining which oxy supply to use.

Kimberly is right about the heat being unrelated to the oxy/fuel consumption. I have a PM2D, a Starfire (predecessor to the Barracuda) and a Cheetah, plus Minors. Although the two larger torches have many more ports and uses much more oxy, they do not melt glass as fast as the Cheetah. I would say, in a layman's vernacular, that they are not as hot.

It's always amazing to me the information you receive when people start discussing something like this. So, Kimberly, you are saying that the Barracuda has slightly less than twice as many oxy jets as it does fuel jets. I find that really interesting considering the slightly reductive flame atmosphere of that torch. So, does that mean that perhaps the fuel ports are larger than the oxy ports to create this slightly reductive atmosphere, or is there some other information that plays into flame atmosphere? The Lynx, as described, has an equal amount of fuel ports to oxy ports and it has a more oxygenated flame, when comparing the two you would think the Barracuda would have the oxy rich flame.

Just perhaps, Buster, companies that do not publish their cf/h numbers feel that it is trade secret. I know, for instance, that the triple-mix torch was the invention of GTT and it could - (not saying they do) - be that they consider publishing that info as trade secret, even though they are willing to give it out to those who ask. Or maybe they don't publish that info because they feel that the info may give a false picture of how the torches perform, since if you use the amount of oxy/fuel consumed it doesn't seem to convey which torch runs the hottest.

Very interesting.

Just posted and read Brent's rants, so decided to add, thank you, Kimberly, for being so helpful.

And Brent, I will agree with you that for certain situations the Barracuda would be better to use than the Lynx, which it is being compared to. The Barracuda works tubing or anything that requires radiant heat much better than the more focused flame of the Lynx. I love the Beth torches and have nothing against them. I am willing to look at both manufacturers' torches dispassionately. I invested $750 for my Starfire and $1150 for the PM2D with Beth and I have never regretted buying them. They are still great torches. However, for the $550 I spent on the Cheetah, it is a much hotter torch, in my opinion, and a much better torch for my application.

[Mr. Smiley]

I'm running a Cheetah and Cuda on the same oxy concentrators and the Cuda is hands down hotter over a larger area, can get a more pin point flame and is just more versatile. It melts larger gathers of glass faster and has a much bigger flame. I guess it really does depend on whose running them and what they are using them for. Now, if I ONLY want a super focused laser cutting flame to melt through a big rod, I'd probably choose the GTT for the job. The faster flame transfers a penetrating heat to the core. That is a super focused fast flame though and it has limited uses. I work on both all the time. It depends on my mood. If I had to give one up, the Cheetah is hitting the bricks.

[Mr. Smiley]

As far as trade secrets go... the GTT's are patented. Here's the diagram of the whole internal working of the torch. I highly doubt there is anything left to protect.

http://www.thegldg.com/forum/showthr...ghlight=patent

This link takes you to the GLDG... a great site with lots of info. It's mostly boro workers and our very own Misha is Queen Mod there. Check the site out if you have some time... it's got lot's of useful discussions about torches.

[pam]

I agree with you, Brent, it all depends on whose running them and what they are using them for. If I had to get rid of one of my torches, it would break my heart, because they each have their uses, but since I haven't used the PM2D or the Starfire since I learned to use the Cheetah, the Cheetah is definitely staying. Let's see, I could make a statement like, in my opinion Beth torches are just not beadmaking torches, but I wouldn't do that because I am smart enough to realize that what works for me and my work is different than what works for someone else and their work. Beth makes fine torches, as does GTT, and each person has to determine for themselves what works best for them.

[Mr. Smiley]

You could make that statement and I wouldn't attack you for it, belittle you or say you just don't know what you are doing... neither would the wife / fiance / or girlfriend of an owner from Bethlehem. I've got more class than that.

[Mr. Smiley]

For those of you wondering what that last bit is about, I'll shed some light.

I made the statement that GTT was a boro torch in my opinion. That Beths made a good cross over torch, to do both soft and hard glass. That if you were working soft glass exclusively, a Minor or Mini would do the trick. All, just my opinion on what torches fit best based on my experience. It drug out into a 3 or 4 day fight. Kimberly tore me a new one by attacking my motives and my ability to run a torch. Apparently, I'm not allowed to make a statement like that. Of course you can work soft glass on a GTT... I just think it's best suited for boro.

There, now hopefully that last little dig Pam and I exchanged will make more sense. Be careful around here folks. Opinions about torches can get you into big trouble... really!

A lot of past baggage comes into play when there is ever a discussion about torches. Willy and Wally used to work for Bethlehem before splitting and forming GTT. Their parting was not on good terms. Kimberly is engaged to Willy. It's a bunch of torch company politics and past hurt feelings. I just wish people would admit it and be honest. Don't say you have nothing against Bethlehem and then sling mud at them every chance you get. Be honest and let every one know why you are so negative towards the Bethlehem line of torches. Kimberly, It's OK not to like somebody or a company... you're not going to like everybody or support a company that has left a bad taste in your mouth... it's human nature.

[Mr. Smiley]

Originally Posted by kbinkster

You posted erroneous information. I gave you the correct information. I did not fault you for it, as it seemed to be an honest mistake. After all, you had an email with those figures. I never called you a liar. But, nonetheless, you then get defensive and take on a tone of sarcasm and start swinging at GTT for something that was quite literally out of their control.

OK, so GTT had somebody handling THEIR website and it was out of their control??? How is that even remotely possible? Did the guy sending the information hack the site? Nope, they were hired. Now, they are the scape goat for the "misinformation".

You don't work for GTT. I asked Wally and he said you have NOTHING to do with GTT. Is that their next defense if YOU give out misinformation?

All Mythbuster is saying is the same thing I've said... the same thing a LOT of people have said... publish it on the site. Don't trickle it out here and there... post it! Then GTT would have fewer phone questions to answer and more time to build torches. Maybe the several month waiting list would get shorter. It would be good for GTT and the whole flame working community to have that info online.

Does it contracdict the efficiency claims? I don't know...

Also, Lance at Flametree has always told people to leave the blue knob at least cracked. He is notorious for coming up behind students and readjusting their flame setting, so the torch doesn't get "damaged". Is he being too careful or is it as you suggested in other threads, an easy torch to run and safe at all settings (with one candle length requirement for a soft flame)... I've also heard he is certified to work on GTT's. Is this true or more misinformation? There seems to be so much misinformation surrounding GTT, my head spins and I'm sure I'm not the only one. GTT needs to handle their business better and personally. Please ask them to publish the data. JMHO