How to measure volume of odd shaped objects
a_plu...@hotmail.com
precision but I do not like the idea of beakers filled with water or
some other liquid and measuring the displacement.
So I was wondering if there is some sort of very tiny sand like
particles and measure its displacement. So I do not have to get things
wet and messy.
So has anyone faced a similar problem whose answer is that of a very
tiny sand? And where to get such a sand?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
H...@nospam.nix
<a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133762404.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Small objects such as rings. I want to measure there volume with some
> precision but I do not like the idea of beakers filled with water or
> some other liquid and measuring the displacement.
Do you have an accurate balance?
Bevan Price
> precision but I do not like the idea of beakers filled with water or
> some other liquid and measuring the displacement.
>
> So I was wondering if there is some sort of very tiny sand like
> particles and measure its displacement. So I do not have to get things
> wet and messy.
>
> So has anyone faced a similar problem whose answer is that of a very
> tiny sand? And where to get such a sand?
>
Unless all your sand particles are of identical size and shape, you will
probably get a false result. This is because there are always gaps between
solid particles, and different partcle sizes leads to unequal spaces between
particles. If you are afraid of water damaging the ring, you could use an
organic liquid.
Bevan
Gregg
Gregg
H...@nospam.nix
Ron Graham
H...@nospam.nix wrote:
> Your handle is Archimedes, and you can't figure out how to do this?
The above is an example of why I don't read
this group -- the group I started -- very much
any more.
I would like to know whether an organic-based
(and specifically, edible) powder, such as flour
could be used for this purpose. It seems to me
that powder so fine would not have problems with
variable grain size -- assuming that's the principal
concern. What I don't know is whether that is the
principal concern, or even the only concern.
Dr. Ron Graham
founder of Usenet newsgroup sci.engr
start me up! http://www.tcnj.edu/~rgraham/blog.php
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Ron Graham" <rgr...@tcnj.edu> wrote in message
news:1135480622.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> H...@nospam.nix wrote:
>> Your handle is Archimedes, and you can't figure out how to do
>> this?
>
> The above is an example of why I don't read
> this group -- the group I started -- very much
> any more.
>
> I would like to know whether an organic-based
> (and specifically, edible) powder, such as flour
> could be used for this purpose. It seems to me
> that powder so fine would not have problems with
> variable grain size -- assuming that's the principal
> concern. What I don't know is whether that is the
> principal concern, or even the only concern.
It isn't variable grain size, but:
- formed voids, allowing trapped air pockets;
- the ability to have variable density, as distributed static
charge (at least) can restrain uniform packing;
- the ability to store energy in displacement, even for a finely
divided power, will keep it from filling spaces as well as a
liquid;
- a powder has no particular affinity for the object surface;
- a powder will not form a flat surface from which to read "the
meniscus"; and finally
- the powder may have a higher net density than the object.
You might get close with a powder, using a vibrating table, but
then again, large objects tend to get floated to the top...
David A. Smith
inventor of one of more than a thousand ozone generating cells.
(If we are seeing how far we all can spit...)
H...@nospam.nix
"Ron Graham" <rgr...@tcnj.edu> wrote in message
news:1135480622.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
Really sorry that you objected to my comment. Is your doctorate in
chiropracty?
Jean
H...@nospam.nix a écrit dans le message ...
What is "chiropracty"?
JL
H...@nospam.nix
"Jean" <jean....@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:43b1373c$0$18320$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
> >Really sorry that you objected to my comment. Is your doctorate in
> >chiropracty?
> >
>
>
> What is "chiropracty"?
>
> JL
That is a field of medical treatment, whereby bones and joints are
manipulated
in order to give relief from certain maladies.
Ron's title of Dr. does not seem to stem from the physical sciences.
Mxsmanic
> What is "chiropracty"?
An incorrect spelling of chiropractic, I suspect.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
> The above is an example of why I don't read
> this group -- the group I started -- very much
> any more.
USENET is filled with angry young males. Just ignore them and move
on.
> I would like to know whether an organic-based
> (and specifically, edible) powder, such as flour
> could be used for this purpose. It seems to me
> that powder so fine would not have problems with
> variable grain size -- assuming that's the principal
> concern. What I don't know is whether that is the
> principal concern, or even the only concern.
How about a fluid that evaporates without leaving a residue?
I should think that any powder fine enough to give an accurate result
would also be very difficult to completely remove from the object,
unless it were very smooth and regular in shape.
You could use a gas. Put the gas of your choice in a closed container
at a specific temperature and pressure, and weigh it. Then put your
object inside the container, fill it with the gas again at the same
temperature and pressure, then weigh it. Then weight the object by
itself in a vacuum. From that you should be able to determine the
volume of gas displaced by the object. With precise measurements,
this would give you a very exact figure for the volume of any object
that doesn't adsorb or absorb or react with the gas. An extremely
heavy and inert gas would help, I suppose. High pressure would make
measurement easier, but it might increase the chances of the gas
interacting with the object as well.
Brian Whatcott
Dr Ron is an engineer. He started sci.engr.
On topic:
I had my son turn me an anvil and die to press the ingrredients for a
high-temp superconductor.
I was surprised at the compact hard durable tablets I could make from
various powders, starting with flour. That would be an issue using
powder as a displacement volume - powder has variable volume and so
variable density. That's unhelpful.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
Brian Whatcott
Jean
H...@nospam.nix a écrit dans le message ...
>
called chiropracty!
JL
Dr. Dickie
"Brian Whatcott" <bet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mk03r1d25nlknp1a6...@4ax.com...
In addition, you introduce the problem of assuring that the flour has filled
all the nooks and crannies (that is the official term). While that could be
accomplished easily for some objects, it would really be a pain for others.
A fluid with a good constant and known density, minimal volatility, and, of
course, inert to whatever it is you are measuring, is much better and more
practical.
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Ron Graham
> > I would like to know whether an organic-based
> > (and specifically, edible) powder, such as flour
> > could be used for this purpose. It seems to me
> > that powder so fine would not have problems with
> > variable grain size -- assuming that's the principal
> > concern. What I don't know is whether that is the
> > principal concern, or even the only concern.
> How about a fluid that evaporates without leaving a residue?
Doesn't an alcohol do that? I am an engineer by background,
but I am neither a chemist nor a chemical engineer. So I don't
know the answer.
> I should think that any powder fine enough to give an accurate result
> would also be very difficult to completely remove from the object,
> unless it were very smooth and regular in shape.
I thought about that. An air jet would take care of most volumes,
unless we are talking about a solid with baffles or some such.
BUT... the air jet introduces the problem of making the surrounding
air impossible to work in -- even with a gas mask -- until the dust
settles. And then you would have to blast again, because some
of the dust would fall back in.
> You could use a gas. Put the gas of your choice in a closed container
> at a specific temperature and pressure, and weigh it. Then put your
> object inside the container, fill it with the gas again at the same
> temperature and pressure, then weigh it. Then weight the object by
> itself in a vacuum. From that you should be able to determine the
> volume of gas displaced by the object. With precise measurements,
> this would give you a very exact figure for the volume of any object
> that doesn't adsorb or absorb or react with the gas. An extremely
> heavy and inert gas would help, I suppose. High pressure would make
> measurement easier, but it might increase the chances of the gas
> interacting with the object as well.
And as seen in a couple of the other posts, although pressure will
help the powder fill nooks and crannies as well, it will cause the
powder to compress into... something else, and something less
consistent.
So I guess I have a few answers. Thankfully there are still a few
serious engineers in Usenet. :-)
Dr. Ron Graham
founder of Usenet newsgroup sci.engr
(my doctorate is in MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, not "chiropracty")
Mxsmanic
> Doesn't an alcohol do that? I am an engineer by background,
> but I am neither a chemist nor a chemical engineer. So I don't
> know the answer.
Even water does it, but a very volatile fluid would evaporate more
quickly, for convenience. And it must be something that won't react
with the object, so it has to be volatile and inert (at least compared
to the material from which the object is constructed).
Two_Fishes
The key to using a dry medium is that it needs to f-l-o-w. If you have
a small sample size (few grams maybe) you can check out the Geopyc 1360.
http://www.micromeritics.com/products/density.aspx
The Geopyc uses a special graphite lubed dry material which is basically
tiny glass spheres to measure the volume of irregularly shaped objects.
Objects must fit into narrow sample chamber though..... Chamber is
calibrated with "dry fluid" before sample insertion. Once sample is
inserted, the chamber is repeatedly compressed slightly and released to
get a reproducible volume measurement (volume measurement is digital
readout). Not sure specs for max size of chamber. Tool is supposed to
be quite accurate and repeatable. Gives "envelope volume" that does
include interior void space. Other methods can calculate true density
if void space is to be ignored.
Is it true that your material is not homogenous? I missed the initial
post, what is your application?
Depending on how large your sample size is
"Ron Graham" <rgr...@tcnj.edu> wrote in news:1135480622.879623.160330
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: