Quote:
|
.13 is designated for mites and other insects smaller than a flea, and has en effective coverage area of about 34%
|
Just so I understand the 34% coverage area is equivalent to a free hole area of 66%. So the lower end of the table I posted the 25% free hole area mesh will have a coverage of 75%. Am I correct in interpreting your response?
Quote:
|
BTW, that is a trick challenge, and I'll even tell you why. Ive already done it, it made 0 improvement on my 99 Ranger XLT
|
What coverage mesh did you use for your testing?
This is what I am going to use for my test.
I am going to epoxy a square of plexi-glass with a 3 inch circular cut out in the center to the face of the anemometer. In the corners of the plexi there will be holes so I can bolt the stainless steel mesh test pieces to the plexi.
I will then have a friend with a long arm hold it out the window as far as he can to get away from the turbulence of the car and take measurements as I try to hold speeds.
There will be several sources of error in the test.
1) Air will be deflected from my car and create turbulence in the face of the meter.
2) Ambient wind will conflict with the measurements
3) The meter itself has a measurement error of
+3%
4) Holding the meter steady at higher speeds with be difficult. There will likely be a rocking back and forth of several degrees.
5) Air flow around the meter will create a low pressure area behind the meter which may help draw air through the mesh.
6) The speed of the car will vary around the test speed.
Three are probably even more sources of error that I am not thinking of right now.
I am hoping that by measuring uncovered and covered measurements and doing many 10+ measurements for each speed I will be able to average out alot of the error.