Re: Glycerine in bubble counters

["S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>]

Ed Dumas said:

> I have a new bubble counter as well, and it is one that I made myself
> from a very tiny plastic pop bottle (about 1/2 the size of a regular
> one
> serving bottling). I tried Tom Barr's recommendation of just using
> water, and after about 4-5 months on the system, I have lost
> virtually
> no water.

Nice to see someone rolling their own.  I've used water only in bubble
counters.  At about 40-60 bubbles/min. refills weren't needed for
months.  At 12-24 bubbles/min., well is a year too long to 
measure ;-)  ?

At 120 bubbles/min., I need to top off every four or so weeks.

That refill rates would be a function of buble rates is obvious -- but
have other had similar experiences with these rates?  I imagine that,
the taller the counter, the less droplets that get carried into the
exhaust tubing and away from the counter.

> I wouldn't bother with anything else as it seems to be more
> of
> a risk of getting extra stuff in the tank.

If I had a lot of counters at high bubble rates, I might consider
glycerine.  But then, if I had lots of tanks, I might not find counters
very helpful -- I'd be fiddling with the tanks all the time and know
them pretty much by heart.

BTW, how much a risk is glycerine, anyhow?  Petroleum distillates, even
relatively non-aromatic ones like so-called mineral oil, would ride
like a film on the tank water surface until skimmed off (not an
attractive thought).  But what about glycerine?  Some humans imbibe it
frequently -- it's the stuff used to keep tobacco leaves supple after
they are harversted.  However, that's not a ringing endorsement, is it?
 Anyhow, we wouldn't expect it to be nutragenic ;-)

Scott H.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com