I’m not trying to be confrontational at all.
I’m just pointing out that some of what you posted isn’t physically possible.
There is a relationship between pressure, area, and flow.
Meaning, a given amount of area, will only flow so much air..... at a particular pressure.
It’s why the flow number itself is useless without knowing the pressure.
To use your flow number at .100 lift as an example:
The max flow at 10” test pressure is 86.7cfm per sq/in.
A 2.08 valve at .100 lift creates a hole that is .653 sq/in.
So, if the discharge coefficient of that opening was 100%(which it never would be with the way the air has to turn to get past the valve and seat), the flow would be 56.6cfm@ the test pressure of 10”(86.7 x .653 = 56.6).
The typical C/D at low valve lifts are around .70-.77....... so what would be a “normal” reading for a 2.08” valve, at .100 lift, using a test pressure of 10” would be more like 39-43cfm.
You’re showing over 178cfm(over 3 times a C/D of 100%).
This points to something way way off from the norm.
If you’re really interested in learning, as I mentioned in an earlier post, buy a few PTS test plates.
These are orifices with a known flow capacity.
You flow them on the bench, and then you can make adjustments to the flow ranges of the bench until the reading matches the capacity of the test plate.
For example, if you are testing a 200cfm plate, and the bench says something other than 200cfm...... the bench is wrong.
Simple as that.
