Oil & Gas | Filtration - Filtration News

up to 256 data points weremeasured over the selectedpressure / pore size range. The3G z was equipped with both10 and 100 ml/min sensors,and both ranges were used.Figure 3: Measured “wet” and “dry” flow versus pressure. The differences between all thesamples are already evident.DISCUSSIONMeasured data of flow versuspressure for wet and dryruns for all four samples areshown in Figure 3. The meanflow pore sizes were calculatedin the usual manner, at thepressure intersection of half thedry flow data with the wet flowcurve.The pore size distributionswere calculated from the measuredpressure by the Washburnequation, assuming a zero contactangle. Three of the foursamples (1, 3, and 4) have pores predominantlysmaller than 0.5 micron diameteras immediately evidenced byliquid expulsion pressures spanningthe range from 1 to 6 bar. The pores ofthe fourth sample (2) empty completelybelow 0.7 bar. The resultingpore size distributions reveal that sample2 has a very narrow distribution ofrelatively large pores – a half width oflittle more than 10% of modal value –and showing slight skewing towardssmaller sizes on the logarithmic plot. Incontrast, the distributions of pores inthe other three samples are ratherbroad, half widths up to 50% of nominal.Sample 1 appears to be effectivelysymmetrical on the logarithmic plot,