Talk:Standard cubic feet per minute

message: 30 years in turbomachinery aero-thermo development has given me a good feel for how SCFM, ACFM and CFM should be defined and used. However, I'm not quite the expert on how applications and sales misuse these terms.  I think all discussions of these definitions need to include the continuity equation.
Where is the discussion of "flow"?
At this moment SCFM has a good start and ACFM is out the window.
I would propose the following outline,
*Fundamentals
**flow
**volume flow vs weight flow
**inlet conditions
*Weight Flow 
*CFM, ACFM
*SCFM
Mkoronowski 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed outline

message: The two sections discussing fans and the ACMA should be deleted and moved to another, new article. This article is about gas flow expressions (SCFM, ACFM, etc.) ... it is not about fans. Unless someone presents a good reason for not doing so, I will delete those sections within a few days. - mbeychok 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The discussion of centrifugal fans and the AMCA should be another article

message: Submitted by Mkoronowski
An addition of ICFM is okay, however:
Additions or changes to SCFM are not allowed.
Additions or changes to ACFM are not allowed.
Additions or changes to CFM are not allowed.
Submitted by Mkoronowski
:You are once more mis-interpreting and mis-stating what I said. I never said anything was "not allowed". In fact, I didn't even use the word "allow". It is not up to me to allow or not to allow anything. You may edit or revise anything you want. And subsequent editors will be free to change anything that you or I or anyone else does to the article. That's how Wikpedia works.
:I may be wrong but you seem determined to debate and argue rather than have a rational discourse ... so goodbye and good luck. There is no longer any benefit to be gained from continuing this discussion. Regards, - mbeychok 02:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do I understand your comments correctly? 

message: As an old neophyte, I was looking for the 1 mole of a gas equals ? volume and only found it in this article -  22.414 L at "STP" with no indication of which STP definition is used.  Shouldn't it be included, especially given the warnings in the next paragraph?AMPbd (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  22.414 L @STP 

message: Is 2.014 not 1.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.241.107 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular weight of Hydrogen (H2) 

message: It would be helpful to include compressibility (Z) terms in the equations both for flowing and reference conditions. The person who showed me this article was trying to use it as an argument for including compressibility and flowing conditions, but to ignore it as reference conditions. My understanding is that using a mixture of compressibilities is always incorrect (although it often makes little difference, since Z is very close to 1 at reference conditions for many gases). 
It would be fine to state that as a good approximation it is reasonable to omit both compressibility terms when both flowing and reference conditions are similar (i.e. similar Temp + Press).
Thanks for your consideration,
86.2.241.107 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compressibility 

message: It would be helpful to include compressibility (Z) terms in the equations both for flowing and reference conditions. The person who showed me this article was trying to use it as an argument for including compressibility and flowing conditions, but to ignore it as reference conditions. My understanding is that using a mixture of compressibilities is always incorrect (although it often makes little difference, since Z is very close to 1 at reference conditions for many gases). 
It would be fine to state that as a good approximation it is reasonable to omit both compressibility terms when both flowing and reference conditions are similar (i.e. similar Temp + Press).
Thanks for your consideration,
86.2.241.107 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compressibility 

message: This article has nothing to do with Normal Cubic Meters, the redirect should be altered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.151.168 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought, too (and this article here also links to normal cubic metre, so this is a selflink). I'm not an expert at all, though, I was just looking for a matching interwiki link for the articles gathered at Wikidata item :d:Q350023 (previously interwikilinked to Standard cubic foot which is obviously not correct, as a foot is not a meter). --YMS (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normal Cubic Meters redirects here