Hi All Following on from Mr Oops's thread on PRV testing , I set to work and made a rig of my own. Initially it was made for the 111 and used the cookers own pump as a pressure provider, Untill ( YES!!! you guessed it) The 8r and 46 are self pressuring . I resolved this by adding a schraeder valve on the side. I also wanted to test the tank via this PRV tester to atleast prove that the tank or its seams didn't give up before the PRV passed.Possible atleast ! Anyway, To the point... My 111 passed at 35 PSI and both the 8r and Radius 46 passed at 40 PSI.Does this sound about right guys ???.The PRV springs seemed in good order and new pips replaced the old. Here are some pics as we love them so much The PRV Tester 111 under test 8r under test with a bicycle pump Radius 46 under test with a bicycle pump. Ray
Ray, Thats a nice test equipment setup. Did you just buy/assemble the parts or did you make the metal parts yourself (except the gauge)? I just wonder though if the testing would put any stress on the tank brass. Ron
Hi Ray, here are my thoughts: 1. In pressurising any tank there is the danger of rapid dis-assembly (ie explosion). It is therefore a good idea to have the tank about 90% filled with water, so that the volume of compressible fluid, and therefore stored energy, is limited. 2. I reckon that in 1903 Primus proof-tested their tanks, hydraulically, to 4 Bar. 56psi, and their burners to 7 Bar, approx 100psi. https://classiccampstoves.com/fusion/gallery/15/1231035165-primus_1903_Page_04_Image_0001.jpg Generally proof tests are caried out at 4-6 times normal operating pressures. 3. I have a couple of Hipolito H502 pressure lanterns with quick igniters which use tank pressure to vaporise the fuel. They have pressure gauges with a maximum level of 3 Bar (42psi) and a red line,at the correct pressure before operating the igniters, of 2 Bar (28psi). 4. I would be happy if the safety valves on my pressure stoves started to release at around 3 Bar (approx 40psi). Just my two-pennyworth. Best Regards, Kerophile.
Hi Ron Yes, Made the parts myself (except the gauge),Good question though Ron, I deliberated for some time over wether or not i should stress the tank , But ultimately i had to be confident that the tank would hold out before the PRV passes.Better i stress the tank and it fails whilst testing rather than find myself in a very different circumstance. Would there be much benefit in individually testing PRV's (Seperate to the tank)when you are uncertain of the tanks abililty to hold the pressure ?? Mmmm !! I know, I know !! What is your opinion Ron ? Right or wrong ? Ray
Hi Ray, perhaps if its only the tank that you test pressure and not subject the other parts, e.g. tube from tank to burner, burner since these parts perhaps will leak anyway but knowing some stove that have their parts soldered, it would be quite difficult. Secondly, I would think the rubber seals would give way before the brass would in some cases. And kerophile may be right in saying filling it up with water as the liquid medium does substitute for actual petroleum hence having more of an actual scenario as far as pressure build up is concerned. Then again factor in the QC on the brass alloy used during a certain period would also be a factor. One case in point is when I bought a Military 1950 where the stove was barely used and yet has stress crack on it. So I would think the quality of brass used was really bad. Having said that though I would think that most stove manufacturers would have done their tests on the brass quality doing pressure tests themselves. My personal opinion though that smaller tanks (despite still having the danger involved) would have less impact as to danger to user than those using a larger thank (larger fuel capacity). Pressure testing may in some case produce stress on the tank unnoticeably which may have built your confidence until it gives way while in use. Either case, that is still a nice setup Ron
George As always a very knowledgable piece of advice which ofcourse make sense,Never of thought the tanks were hydraulicly tested. Glad to hear your acceptance of the release pressures though George. That in itself carries a lot of weight with me. Feel a lot happier already Ray
I may add then that only the pressure release valve should be tested for the proper pressure value IMHO. Ron
Ron Interesting edit, And worth noting, This could almost be a different thread/topic. (1)Test a tank in conjunction with the PRV to aid confidence in the tanks ability yet risk the tanks integrity or (2) Test the PRV independantly with no confidence in the tank but no risk in unnoticable stess damage or failure. Wow Whch way is a man to go aye !!!
Hi, A no-brainer. If a tank cannot withstand 4-6 times normal operating pressure, you shouldn't be using it anyway. It makes much more sense to test both the tank and pressure release valve if you have the equipment. Best Regards, Kerophile.
Again, the stove manufacturers, well the more experienced one, would have immediately pulled out or stop any stove production which may have caused even the slightest issues for the end user as far as safety is concerned or perhaps improve on the matter. IMHO testing is for someones peace of mind. Knowing thought that some stoves are very old and pressure testing may show the stress on the brass. However older stoves MAY still be better (longevity wise) than the newer lightweight stoves nowadays using aluminum and alloys. Perhaps the question is what pressure is created whilst using a stove hence you may want to use the pressure gauge while running a stove. Stay safe when you do your pressure testing then. Ron
George Thanks for that, Like i said earlier, i deliberated for some time before considering the pro's and con's of testing both tank and PRV together (Or PRV independantly), and you have succeeded yet again to make me smile Ron A very valid point and one that was thought about at some length, Thanks Ron
Ron Thats another pot of wisdom, Will ofcourse take care, Perhaps i should of taken a pic (Or two) of how i was dressed whilst pressure testing, Would of made you all laugh. Looked like a forrester ( Hard hat with face shield, Firemans gloves and a handy fire extinguisher). Next time maybe, But thanks for your concerns and good wishes, Now you've touched on something else, Will now do some test's with the gauge whilst the cookers are running and post the results if anyone's interested Ray
