Difference between revisions of "Discharge - Current meter Ott C2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| align="right" | {| align="right" | ||
| − | |[[Image:C2. | + | |[[Image:C2.jpg|right|400px|Ott C2]] |
|} | |} | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Advantages:== | ==Advantages:== | ||
| + | * the quasi-standard; benchmark for other methods | ||
* simple no-fuss mechanics | * simple no-fuss mechanics | ||
* "sensor" (propeller) response is directly visual | * "sensor" (propeller) response is directly visual | ||
| + | * insensitive to suspended sediment, temperature, conductivity | ||
* comparatively small case including wading rods | * comparatively small case including wading rods | ||
| Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
* poor response in low velocities | * poor response in low velocities | ||
* maintainance of ball bearings (oil) | * maintainance of ball bearings (oil) | ||
| − | * mechanical | + | * mechanical vulnerability |
| − | * no immediate calculation of discharge, no data storage | + | * no immediate calculation of discharge, no data storage |
Revision as of 13:51, 8 December 2014
 |
Parameter to be measured:
Flow velocity (discharge)
Method:
propeller
Equipment:
C2:
- propellers
- axle
- wading rod
counting unit (e.g. Ott Z400)
Advantages:
- the quasi-standard; benchmark for other methods
- simple no-fuss mechanics
- "sensor" (propeller) response is directly visual
- insensitive to suspended sediment, temperature, conductivity
- comparatively small case including wading rods
Disadvantages:
- poor response in low velocities
- maintainance of ball bearings (oil)
- mechanical vulnerability
- no immediate calculation of discharge, no data storage
What to watch out for:
- submerged weeds, low velocities, piranhas
Price:
- ~ 8000 € (2008)
Links
Discharge - comparison of measurements (C2, Flowtracker, Flowsens, ADC, tracer, dipping rod)
Other related web sites:
Projects that used the above equipment: http://brandenburg.geoecology.uni-potsdam.de/projekte/sesam/