Pressure and temperature are proportionally related. If they pressurized your gas line and sealed it off, and the ambient temp increased through the test, you’d expect the pressure to increase as well…and that’s actually a good sign of a sealed system.
I can appreciate the temperature-pressure relationship. In this particular case, I can’t say the air in the shop was likely changing in any measurable way (test was early morning, boat had been inside since overnight, steady temp during the test). However, I had wondered about the possible impact of removing the fuel from the tank immediately prior to the test.
I’d imagine that fuel, having sit overnight, was a bit of a heat sink while in the tank. Maybe removing the fuel caused the plastic to suddenly start warming to the temp of the air?
If this is par for the course with pressure tests, though, how would one ever know the difference between the following:
A. A good, solid indication of no leak in the system;
B. A faulty gauge;
C. A minor leak that’s causing the tank to lose pressure slower than the change in temp is causing it to gain? (e.g., gain of .1 psi/min due to temp – loss of .05 psi/min due to leak == net gain of .05 psi/min)
Guess I had hoped the pressure test was a much more conclusive test, subject to few, if any, variables. I guess I’ve learned that a pressure test (alone) is not? Or, is there better way to conduct them that improves the ability to interpret the results in reliable fashion?