本文介绍了一种在不进行测试的情况下比较各种皮托管导线测量方法的方法。这种方法需要一台精密的台式计算器或计算机。在最初的研究中，使用了Wang 700系列计算器。本文中的示例打印在TSO终端上。有关使用的基本语言程序，请参见附录。在通过速度-压力横向测量或基于管道或管道速度点测量的任何方法确定流体流量时，产生的速度在可接受的公差范围内等于流体的真实平均速度，这一点很重要。通过计算机比较不同方法的准确度不仅节省了测试所需的时间，而且更重要的是，消除了所有实验误差。 结果可以直接比较，并且是可重复的。可以对不同偏心度和/或分层的数学定义的速度模式进行编程，以便获得导线任意点或所有点的速度。本文描述了一项具体的比较研究，涉及AMCA 2l0/ASHRAE 51P联合委员会为修订AMCA标准210-67而考虑的现有和拟议皮托管导线。本文讨论的是比较各种导线测量方法的方法，而不是导线测量本身的发展。引用: ASHRAE交易，第81卷，第一部分，新泽西州大西洋城

This paper describes a method of comparing various pitot tube traverse methods without testing. This method requires a sophisticated desk calculator or a computer. In the initial study a Wang 700 series calculator was used. The examples in this paper were printed on a TSO terminal. See appendix for Basic Language programs used.In determining fluid flow by means of a velocity pressure traverse or any method based on point measurement of velocity across a duct or pipe, it is important that the resulting velocity is equal, within acceptable tolerance, to the true average velocity of the fluid. Comparing the accuracy of different methods by computer not only saves the time involved in testing but, more importantly, eliminates all experimental errors. The results can be directly compared and are repeatable.Mathematically defined velocity patterns of varying degrees of eccentricity and/or stratification can be programmed such that the velocity at any point or all points of a traverse can be obtained. In this paper a specific comparison study is described involving the existing and proposed pitot tube traverse considered by the AMCA 2l0/ASHRAE 51P Joint Committee for the revision of AMCA Standard 210-67.This paper deals with the method by which the various traverse methods were compared rather than the development of the traverses themselves.