All of these reports are great,but....

rlaggren

Jim, sounds BRUTAL...

I love it! Tools that travel live a dog's life. And it sounds like there are some testers that can take it.



Point taken on the man behind the weapon... Actually that's just as true of a screw driver but fortunately the consequences aren't quite as extreme.



The point about the print outs was this: It looks to me like provided there was automatically available record keeping which always provided at least certain basic information across the better brands and models,  and the tool was quick and cheap enough to use _every_ time, then it would bench mark the system unequivically and that should greatly reduce liability and questions of proper performance later. As well as providing a solid basis to discuss necessary or optimal fixes with the owner.



This is the where the administrative info comes into play. We all expect to see date, time, biz name, address, merchant number and amount on any credit card receipt. Basically everything needed to completely identify and define that transaction to all parties concerned. Very useful and necessary. That's what I'm suggesting as an aid to increasing the use of testers  - because there would significant benefit to insurance companies to have a "certified" record of the service call - and what helps insurance companies, well, they help everybody else to want it(!). Not to mention being able to pull the provable record for a customer if there is a call back or any kind of question.



To be the greatest value, the admin info (the "witness" function) would need to provide _something_ which indicated the condition and serviceability of the instrument. That is what would allow lawyers to defend _easily_  and conclusively based on that one print out. Thus the latest calibration date and, if there were more than one calibration procedure, the dates for each. Or something like that. Along with the obvious brand/model/date; maybe the tech's ID tag and/or a "digital signature" number keyed to the particular date/etc which could be verified by that particular instrument later. This stuff is not really hard to implement in these days of gigabytes on a key chain, but the real deal is making the procedures similar across the industry so that it becomes something people "just do". You can't have weird formats and totally different concepts, designs or procedures for each different brand if the industry as a whole is going to move and benefit. It has to be like driving a car where everybody knows more or less where to put the key and put their foot on the brake and can usually find the wipers and radio by applying a little common sense. And it actually wouldn't really take much to give an instrument a "key" so that the operator would need conclusively identify themself in order to use it.



My point is that to make this a more valuable and more frequently used biz tool, it needs to include some features beyond those designed just to do a great job technically. And when these features become available, the instruments will sell much easier and the tech who "just does it" will become common place.



The human factor, the wetware, is of course one of the big issues. But the technology is so easily capable of this kind of thing that it may be time to start working on the "social engineering". Asking for stuff  and promoting the ideas.



Rufus

Mark Eatherton

Check this out ...

I think this is close to what you are looking for.



http://www.bacharach-inc.com/insight.htm



Rudy Leatherman is the guy in the video, and he has been doing this stuff for a LONG time.



ME

Jim Davis_3

Bacharach Insight

Rudy is my good friend for over 24 years.  My whole learning combustion testing was with Bacharach for over 25 years and without them combustion analyzers would not be what they are today.  However, I hate to say the Insight is a disappointment.  Its response time is the slowest ever to the point you are not sure if it is working.  I exhaled into a Bacharach Insight probe and my TSI Analyzer probe simultaneously.  The TSI O2 went down to 16% O2 and back to 21% O2 before the Insight even started to read.  The student that had just bought it was really upset.  I know manufacturers intentional slow their pumps down so they don't suck as much water.  Unfortunately they don't suck timely combustion readings either. 

I need to find a way to speed them up.  I may have to call their engineering department and see if they are aware that this can be a problem in the field or are they just concerned about making their sensors last a little longer.

Jim Davis_3

Don't tell your insurance company

Rufus,

Don't tell your insurance company you combustion test or check for CO because they will want to raise your rates.  Plus they don't insure CO claims any more.

Having been involved in court cases where analyzer are used, the calibration of the instrument at the time of the incident is never taken into consideration.  They are only checked before trial, which could be more than 2 years later.

No matter how accurate the analyzer it is the user's understanding of it that makes all the difference.  I have seen many pieces of equipment screwed up by technicians with an analyzer that had no clue what the readings were actually telling them.  Much of the information on printouts is bogus calculations which only lead to even more confusion. 

Your concerns are well taken, but after 32 years of using, selling and teaching techs to use them, it is nowhere as difficult as you would think.

Mark Eatherton

Hadn't really noticed Jim....

I guess I am used to slow reacting analyzers. This one is no slower than my Testo use to be. If you figure out a way to make it faster and not lose the warranty, let me know...



The only other "Issue" i've had with it is that the software that came with the analyzer REALLY slowed my PC down, to the point that I removed it. But that was a first generation, and I am sure (hope) that they have that problem figured out.



Maybe Rudy will drop by and comment. Haven't seen him in a long time...



ME

Tim McElwain

Rufus, in addition to what Jim Davis and Mark have

said concerning this data collection and record keeping. Having worked for a gas company for almost 30 years and now being involved with training people to do combustion testing and servicing of equipment it has always been important to document any findings on all gas and oil equipment. With the addition of electronic combustion testing and the availability of a printout that has become much easier. I still recommend to companies however to develop a data base and store customer information concerning all aspects of what has been accomplished at the customers premises



The insurance companies are not typically the issue with most cases. It is usually the local AHJ and the lawyers for the damaged party who wield the most weight in court. Expert witnesses hopefully bring some sanity to the process by exposing the facts of the case. Documentation is a must in all phases of business today, the easier that can be accomplished the better in the end.

Tim McElwain

By the way

the last time I talked to Rudy he was not working for Bacharach anymore but was doing audits for the state??

Jim Davis_3

Rudy

He is back with COAD in Ohio and is doing mostly lead certification. 

rlaggren

Bacharach Insigt

The features look better than I expected, especially the "change out" calibration. I haven't checked the fees but that looks like hard to beat. Depite what Jim says about court practice, I'd still like to see a date/time on the calibration - but it's probably already in the machine somewhere (it warns about the need for calibration) so maybe it'll show up along the way. The blurb does represent the instrument as a "steady state" tester, so they pretty much say out front that response time is not what it's all about here. I think I'd come down on the side of "slow" vs. sensor life myself as long as the readings are available w/in 30 secs or so. I have to read the manual and see what the details are. Thanks for your comments and the link.



Jim, I belive you and all that re. court room practice but it isn't really what I'd have hoped to hear. I guess the court is like a powerful idiot savant where things have to be explained in simple language and great detail and the communication is still hit or miss - but dangerous!



If I had to hazard a guess why CO testing could raise insurance rates... Must be they figure if you're going there you're going into harms way. But that assumes "but I didn't know..." will stand up as a good defense and _that_ doesn't make any sense at all.



Oh well. I have lots more info to work with.



Tim, I think "keep good "records" about covers what I was trying to say. Thanks for putting it in plain english.



Thanks to all.

Rufus

MikeyB

O2 Reference

Good morning guys, I have a question about the O2 Reference on a Bacharach Fyrite Insite, It mentions in the manual that the measured value of CO can be referenced to a specific O2 percentage from 0-15%, What does this mean exactly? and when and why would you add a percentagge while taking an CO Air Free reading? Thanks for your help, and thanks ME for giving this section of the Wall new life.

Mark Eatherton

Mikey...

I was hoping that one of the Gurus would chime in here, because frankly, I am not qualified to comment on your question. Hopefully Tim or Jim will chime in here, and if not, I will try and track down long time industry expert Rudy Leatherman to drop by and comment.



Thanks for your patience.



ME

MikeyB

Ref

No worries Mark, I appreciate your help, thanks again

Tim McElwain

Mike I saw your question

and have not forgotten you. I have an Insight at my training center and I wanted to look at the instruction book to see exactly what it said I will do that in the next couple of days.



I think it is referring to the old formula we used to use by measuring with a wet kit either O2 or CO2 and % CO and by using the formula we could come up with air free CO. In the old days most of the CO testers were just an tube that changed colors and you matched it up with a chart to get a % reading you then had to use the formula to get actual CO air free. Typically you would never see over 15% O2.

Tim McElwain

Mikey B here you go

just what I thought it was but I checked to make sure with Bacharach:



Hi Tim

The Insight will give the CO reading in two ways.  First, in the data field beside CO the reading will be the actual raw CO reading in the flue.  Second, in the data field beside CO(0) the Insight will give a corrected CO reading calculated to the O2 reference that is selected.  In the case where the O2 reference is set to 0, the reading will be CO air free.  This means that the reading is calculated as if there is no excess air in the flue to dilute the reading. If the O2 ref is set to 3, the reading will be CO corrected to 3% Oxygen.  Depending on application some local and federal standards will require CO readings reported as air free or to some oxygen reference.

Hope this helps!

Dave

 

Mark Eatherton

I knew one of the Wizards of CO Wisdom would come through...

Thanks Tim. Mine is set to zero, and I think I will leave it that way, because I would have to adjust it to the actual oxygen level every time, and that would be a royal PITA.



Question; Why would the AHJ want a calculated diluted reading of the CO?



No CO is a good CO, diluted or raw...



Again, thanks for contributing your knowledge base to the cause.



ME

Tim McElwain

I have only run into this one time

Question; Why would the AHJ want a calculated diluted reading of the CO?



The specifications on a commercial boiler stated that readings needed to be taken referencing to different levels of comparison based CO2 or O2. I think it went back to the old method of getting the CO % and then using the formula either for CO2 or O2 to get actual air free CO. I do not know if any of the other testers offer this comparison.



Let me run your question by the experts at Bacharach and see what they say.

MikeyB

Reference

Thanks again Tim, that makes more sense now

Tim McElwain

Again some info on Marks question

from Bacharach:



Marks question - Question; Why would the AHJ want a calculated diluted reading of the CO?





Tim,

I don’t know who AHJ is and don’t want to speculate.  But the reason for calculating CO to a know O2 concentration is to level the playing field.  When someone reports a CO level as a volume there is some uncertainty as to how much because flue gas volumes can be significantly different from combustion situation to combustion situation.  Hopefully the following examples will shed some light on the discussion.

 

Combustion situation #1

 

O2 = 10% (relatively high flue gas volume)

CO = 75 ppm

 

CO(0) =  75 x (20.9-0) / (20.9-10) = 144 ppm CO (this is CO air free)

 

CO(3) = 75 x (20.9-3) / (20.9-10) = 123 ppm CO (this is CO referenced to 3% O2)

 

CO(5) = 75 x (20.9-5) / (20.9-10) = 109 ppm CO (this is CO referenced to 5% O2)

 

 

Combustion situation #2

 

O2 = 5% (relatively low flue gas volume)

CO =100 ppm

 

CO(0) = 100 x (20.9-0) / (20.9-5) = 131 ppm CO (this is CO air free)

 

CO(3) = 100 x (20.9-3) / (20.9-5) = 113 ppm CO (this is CO referenced to 3% O2)

 

CO(5) = 100 x (20.9-5) / (20.9-5) = 100 ppm CO (this is CO referenced to 5% O2…..this was easy to calculated because the reading was taken at 5% O2)

 

 

So comparing, we see that even though the volume measurement of situation #1 (75 ppm) is less than volume measurement of situation #2 (100 ppm), situation #1 is causing more CO emissions.  We see that by comparing to the same O2.reference.  Situation #1 is no longer is masked by greater flue gas volume.

 

If you were to convert these volume measurements to mass basis we would again see that S#1 > S#2.

 

Hope this helps!

Dave

Mark Eatherton

Tell Dave that AHJ is the authority having jurisdiction...

And thank him and you for your input. I assume that the adjustment for the O2 would have to be made after the O2 factor has been tested, and would then only be applicable using the devices memory. I will try it with mine and see what happens.



Otherwise, one would have to guess at what the 02 would come out to, and in this biz, guessing is deadly.



Thanks again Tim.



EDIT: I went back into my machine, and attempted to adjust the CO to O2 ratio to match a test I'd performed earlier in the day to no avail, so if you could please, ask Dave the proper procedure for using the CO to O2 reference. I think it has to be set prior to using the tester. There is nothing in the users manual that explains its use.



TIA



ME

Tim McElwain

Mark I already

told him what AHJ was about.



The adjustement has to have been made before testing it is part of the setup in the book on page 13 I belive (I do not have the book in front of me).



You could set it up, test and then set up to a different number and test again is the way it goes.

MikeyB

O2 Ref

Yes, Its on page 13