Piranha cut test results...

[Mr. Smiley]

Got a stick of 3/4" boro today. Swung by a friends studio and we both did a cut test on 5 LPM regular medical unit. 8-9 PSI. I cut in 50.3 seconds and she cut in 50.81. She tried a different concentrator that was older and had the LPM at 4.5... she cut it in 53 seconds.

[pierces*designs]

For those of us who are not as technical can you tell us what you were trying to prove? I love learning the science of glass!

[RuskinDesigns]

He was making a point regarding a different thread of the piranah vs some gtt torch.

Here's the link: http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24385

[Mr. Smiley]

It was the Piranha versus the Bobcat... kind of a silly point now, unless somebody already has one or gets one used. The Piranha is no longer in production. I'll do the cut test on the Betta when I have one available. That's one test where it's easy to duplicate across country. I can do it any where I have that sized rod and a medical concentrator in good working order. ;) Try it and see for yourself, if you have that set up. It should be real close to 50 seconds, if you're spinning in the hot part of the flame and trying to get it done.

[joebirder]

I can do it with my Minor in about 10 seconds. I just flash it in the flame a couple of times and then smack it on the edge of my workstation... Does that count...

[Cosmo]

Well, it may not mean so much for the Pirhana any more, but it is helpful since the Pirhana is still in "production" as the center fire of the larger Beth torches....

[Mr. Smiley]

Joe, that reminded me of the owl on the tootsie pop commercial! :lol: One... two.... three... crunch! :lol:

Chad, you're right man. I never thought of that. :D

[Mr. Smiley]

We also tested the Minor part of a Major Minor on the same concentrator... it's time was 64 seconds. The Concentrator was an invacare 5 and has over 33,000 hours on it. Not sure if or when it was rebuilt...

[MikeAurelius]

Use a diamond saw, and it takes only a couple of seconds ROFL!!

[Mr. Smiley]

Score and snap... chest bump the larger rod... :lol:

Have laser beams inplanted in eyes... hey, will a laser cut glass or just pass through it? I want to know before the surgery... :D

[pam]

Brent, to be perfectly truthful, this data is not of very much use. When one person does all the testing, that is useful because he/she should use the same methodology. There could be a big difference in results depending on what type of boro glass you use (I have found some melt somewhat easier than others, much as all 104 coe glass does not melt at the same rate), whether you preheated the rod, the speed at which you turned the rod in the flame, whether you pulled or just let the glass melt apart, how much you pulled, where in the flame you placed the rod, the environmental temperature. There is just too much variability when the tests aren't performed by the same person doing the exact same things under the same conditions.

For instance, I can take a 3/4 inch rod, run it in the flame for about 20 seconds and pull the rods apart leaving a thinned area, then melt it completely apart in another 5 seconds. The methodology has to be the same, as do the environmental conditions. If it's 2 below zero, the glass is going to be slower to heat than if it's 92 degrees. This is just logic. You can't perform tests that give relevant data without adhering to some sort of standards.

[Rebekah]

All testing has to start somewhere. Who makes beads in 2 below zero weather? I can't even move when it's that cold, much less hold a glass rod.

Why not just ask what the temperature was (roughly) when he did the test, where he held the rod in the flame, if he pre-heated it, if he pulled the rod, etc.?

The data is of good use for a starting point.

[Mr. Smiley]

Pam... :lol: you so funny. If I would have melted it in 85 seconds, you would have said "See, told you Willie was right on." :lol:

By the way, it was probably 78 degrees. The rods were not preheated. We spun at a normal speed... put it in the hot part of the flame and of course we pulled it apart when it got soft. That's how you flame cut.

[Kalera]

But Mr. Smiley, maybe if YOU do it, you could flame-cut a 3/4" rod of boro on a Bobcat in 30 seconds. All this really proves is that you're a better torch operator than Willy.

[Mr. Smiley]

I appreciate the vote of confidence Kalera... but some how, I doubt it will be 30 seconds. I'm willing to try my hardest if I can find a Bobcat locally. ;) I've worked on a few Bobcats with a 5 LPM machine pushing them. I can get the same rod I used on the Piranha... we'll see what happens. :love:

[Heather/Ericaceae]

I agree with Pam, the test would be more meaningful if it was conducted all at once by one nonpartisan team. (Though I can't blame Smiley and Willy for doing their own tests and I appreciate their results!) Various tests with various set-ups. I don't see that perfect laboratory setting ever happening, though... Usually, the only person with enough resources would be a seller of various torch brands - but why on earth would a seller want to risk alienating any of his or her suppliers??

Still, it would be interesting to have some semi-reliable data. How hot are torches at 1/4 psi fuel and 5lpm/7psi oxy? How wide and narrow can the flames go at these settings? How oxidizing or reducing are they? How hot does the barrel get? How hot is the air 20 cm from the centre of the flame? How do the results change when the settings are bumped to 5psi tanked fuel and 10 psi tanked oxy?

To do it properly, you'd need to have 5-7 different torches (why limit to just GTT and Beth?) on hand (or ideally two of each) in "like-new" condition, equal numbers of IDENTICAL oxygen concentrators, equal numbers of identical propane tanks, equal numbers of identical NG setups. (or, the patience to set each one up identically one after the other). What group would have the resources to do this, and face the inevitable criticism from any company whose torch doesn't lead in the tests?

Actually, this might be great for a magazine to do! Hmm... except their advertising might suffer if they offend one company or another, since there is so much at stake. I can't think of a solution. But I'd love to have the data!

Yep... My post is helpful. ;) -H.

[Mr. Smiley]

It would be a nice thing to have Heather... it's just more work to set up right, than most people are willing to do. So, until the end of time, there will probably be a debate online... :lol:

[pam]

I almost think it would have to be an independent person that has no affiliation to any of the torch manufacturers and someone with enough guts to stand up and say these are my results regardless of who is offended. Vince Hinley comes to mind as the optimum person to do it, or Robert Simmons would be great. Quick connects on the torches would make changing them fast and easy. This would be a good project for one of the ISGB chapters to take on - like Atlanta!! I'm sure all of you together will have most of the torch manufacturers covered. Tanked oxy is easy, but someone must have a concentrator. Come on, Robert, I would trust you to do it right!! How about a PROJECT!!

[Heather/Ericaceae]

Editing my post completely 'cause I was rambling. What I think I'm trying to say is that lab-style data would be interesting, as long as no-one gets all wound up about it. IMHO, the goals shouldn't be to determine, once and for all, the "SUPREME" torch... but rather to clarify the strengths of different torches for different applications. There are plenty of pros and cons for each torch and a market for each, I feel, so there needn't be "winners" and "losers" of the test if it is designed to cover many attributes. Could be interesting! -H.

[MikeAurelius]

Depends on the laser wavelength.

An Nd:YAG at 1064 nm probably wouldn't work, but a Ho (Holmium) at 2100 nm might. Definately a CO2 at 10.6 microns would.

Eye surgery lasers are typically closer to the UV side of the spectrum, usually between 480 nm and 540 nm.

[Mr. Smiley]

One thing you can count on with Willie and my results...

he went as fast as he could with the Bobcat...

and I went as fast as I could with the Piranha.

What I would like to see is somebody set it up and have a few people with experience on perspective torches do the actual cutting. Supervised by Robert or maybe even done by Robert. I know he has a Cuda, so maybe he could do the Beths... not sure what other torches he has experience on... or that he would even do it. It would be cool to see the results of something unbiased and as fair as possible. I know where I'd put my money. :D

[pam]

Brent, your comment, "I know where I'd put my money" is exactly why your results can be questioned.

Robert has a Betta, and I believe other torches, but I know that wonderful Atlanta group has lots and lots of torches. When our group down here starts meeting again in the fall, we could actually do it for a lot of the Nortel and GTT torches. We have a couple of really great engineers in our group that would probably be able to conduct a non-partisan experiment of the type we need. However, I agree with Heather and the heat that can be generated by any torch is only part of the story. When we first started this discussion on another thread, it had to do with what could run off a 5 lpm concentrator and that is what I think is the important factor for many of us, what needs 10 lpm, what needs more - really what are the lpm's needed to operate effectively any torch and maybe what the definition of "effectively" is. There are many areas that could be addressed if we could find someone or some people who would be willing to sit down and conduct the tests, and someone that has or has access to a flow meter. Of course the torch manufacturers themselves could part with the information, but it seems to be like pulling eye teeth, for some of them. I'm glad to see GTT is getting the info together to publish, and I believe Beth has some of the info on their website. Now, if Carlisle would follow suit, as well as Nortel, that would be very helpful.

And Brent, sorry if I am hijacking your thread. Please feel free to delete this post if you feel it is inappropriate.

[MikeAurelius]

Yeah, but how many beadmakers actually cut rods every day with their torches. This is a meaningless "test", and I use the word "test" advisedly.

[Mr. Smiley]

Pam, just because I make a statement about where I'd put my money, doesn't make me a cheater. I am simply stating that I would bet on the Piranha... I think it's a hotter torch... I've proven it to myself. Thanks for calling my morals into question publicly... again. :P

Mike, how fast a torch melts glass is very important... if you want to increase production or get a larger gather hot... this particular test just shows the ability to melt glass and is a control to compare multiple torches.

[Cosmo]

Brent,

You should have come up with this idea in Asheville. We had like 8 different torches there that weekend...

[Kevan]

I just ordered a Pirahna yesterday based soley on this test.

I intend to cut rods like a maniac! Thanks for the report, Brent.

[Teague]

Hey I just cut a 10mm boro rod on my Pirahna today to make punties.....I have no idea how long it took.

TEague

[pam]

Brent, I'm sorry you thought I was calling your morals into question. That wasn't what I was doing at all, but when one has firm views about something they may be unconsciously inclined to lean test results in such a way that they favor their view. It happens often. What we need is someone unbiased to perform the tests. I wouldn't do it myself as I am partial to GTT torches and everyone knows it. I don't dislike Beths, in fact I do like them. But as I have said before, the torch should fit the needs. GTT fits my needs at this time, just as some of the Beths did several years back. I don't believe I would be partial in my testing, but it might be perceived that way. I would trust Robert or the two engineers I know to do totally impartial testing, as I would trust Vince Hinley. I am sure there are others around. I would trust Willy and Wally, but I am sure some wouldn't as you made clear - let's see, were you questioning their morals because you implied their test results would be skewed to reflect their partiallity to GTT torches?

[Mr. Smiley]

I trust Robert... he's a good guy. :D

Chad, you're right man... we should have done it there.

[Cosmo]

I trust Robert... he's a good guy. :D

Chad, you're right man... we should have done it there.

Well, I guess we'll all have to go to Asheville again, huh?

[Mr. Smiley]

Count me in... sounds like fun! :D

[MikeAurelius]

Mike, how fast a torch melts glass is very important... if you want to increase production or get a larger gather hot... this particular test just shows the ability to melt glass and is a control to compare multiple torches.

I get that, I'm not totally without a brain...

if the point is to see how hot the torch is, then don't just melt the frickin' rod and cut it in half, measure the amount of time it takes to make an actual gather of a certain size, from, say, a 10 mm rod. That's certainly more reasonable than measuring how fast you can cut throw a large diameter rod. As I said, it's meaningless because it isn't a normal procedure.

[Kalera]

It's easier to measure than the process of making a gather, though.

Frankly, I think that side-by-side torch comparisons done by the same person are LESS useful, because on that particular day any given particular torch setup might or might not be adjusted to it's best capacity, regardless of the neutrality of the tester.

I think that multiple individuals reporting their individual test times, reporting the ambient temperature and the fuel and oxygen pressures (and volumes if applicable) is a far far more useful and relevant way to approach it, because we can not only learn what torches perform fastest, but at which pressures they perform at their best.

[Kevan]

Soooo...is that a good time or not a good time? The rod cutting time, I mean.

[Mr. Smiley]

Kevan, Seems good to me, but I haven't ever timed anything before now. Never had a reason to. :lol: It really means nothing all by itself. It's a piece of data that needs to be coupled with other torches performing the same task...

Mike, like Kalera said... it's used as a control. The rod to cut is uniform. The amount of time it takes for the torch to melt the glass is the variable we want to measure for comparison... you really think some guy eye balling a gather and saying "Yep, it's the same size as the other one now...", would be more useful... how? Explain that one.

[MikeAurelius]

Easy - melt a gather on the end of the rod, yes eyeball it to get it close, then use a marble mold to "finish" it, just a quick dip. I can demonstrate better than explain, but that's the rough gist --

The point of doing a demonstrable gather is that many times a large gather is used for encasing, pickups, mixing of colors, etc etc etc. It seems to me to be a more useful way to compare torch x to torch y, especially since it does go to heat, but especially penetrating heat.

[Mr. Smiley]

The rod cut measures the penetrating heat just as good, if not better and doesn't rely on eyeballing a darn thing... what do you think gets the center of the rod soft enough to seperate? It's the heat penetrating the rod man... Do a gather test if you want to Mike... it's a free country. Eyeball it till your hearts content.