In the video, in the closeup at the end where you show the results of
the pressure relief mechanism, I notice a thin crust of slag around the
rear of the divergent section of the nozzle. It's not definitive, but in
my experience if there's slag there, there's slag elsewhere in the
nozzle. That makes me lean heavily toward the nozzle constriction
explanation, especially if there could have been bits of inhibitor mixed
in with the slag. I say that even knowing that the slag could have been
formed during tail-off.
At this point, I'll quote my favorite saying from some structural
engineers who do "forensic engineering": "a single test is worth a
thousand opinions", meaning that if it were me, I'd do two or three more
tests with this configuration, although if I saw significant (as
measured with a drill bit shank) nozzle constriction in the next test,
I'd probably try to solve it before moving on. At any rate, I can't come
up with any more ideas as to what might have gone wrong....
On 8/23/23 7:59 AM, Richard Nakka wrote:
The correct nozzle diameter is 0.163" as shown in the drawing.
The inhibitor/casting tube was my standard 3 plies of posterboard (0.014") impregnated with epoxy.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 8:04 AM Steve Peterson <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
In your video you say the nozzle was 0.138", but in your text
description here, you said 0.163". Also, I'm curious what the
inhibitor
material was...
On 8/22/23 4:14 PM, Richard Nakka wrote:
> Ok, so it turns out I had already uploaded the static test video of
> EBEM-1.0:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4X6D0iiE2o
>
> Richard
>
