 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / May 2004Common Sense 0, Murphy 1
Where has common sense gone ? More correctly, why have pragmatism and knowledge become obsolete ? Case in point : fueling a model aircraft. I read a "technical article" which recommended using an air pump to pressurize a fuel jug to force fuel into the model's tank. What's wrong with that picture ? Did the author have no common sense, or was he entirely lacking in pragmatism, or did he simply have no knowledge of physics ? What's wrong with that picture is >that there's no way to shut off the fuel pressure if Murphy decides to visit<. If Murphy did come calling, he'd kick the fuel line loose from the model, and fuel would be squirting all over the pits until someone ran the errant hose to ground and pinched it shut. That would be a fun thing, wouldn't it ? Hosing the pits down with model fuel, I mean. Sure be a good way to find how fast the Olde Pharts can haul their bones outta the lawn chairs. The only way to dump the pressure in the fuel jug is to _vent it_, and that would have Murphy grinning from ear to ear. Liquid fuel all over the place, and the hapless modeler _vents_ the pressurized fuel jug. Anybody got a match ? Don't play "Straight Man" for Murphy. Leave your fuel jug at atmospheric pressure, and use a pump to pull fuel out of the jug and send it along to the model. If Murphy kicks your fuel hose loose, flip the pump's switch (or quit squeezing the bulb, or let go the pump handle), and send Murphy packing. Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber AMA L180201 IMAA LM 090 NASA 6512 LHA 2 WB 233 >Where has common sense gone ? More correctly, why have pragmatism and >knowledge become obsolete ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >What's wrong with that picture ? Not a lot. I have don it that way with gas/petrol for years, No battery, no spark inducing pump, just a very little pressure from a foot pump is enough. 2 strokes of the air pump is enough to transfer 20 oz. I have a tap for instant cut off mounted on an auto type strong plastic can and I vent the pressure after fuelling. If the line broke it would just flop on the ground and kill a little grass. Not thrash about like a demented fire hose. Much less dangerous than introducing dodgy electric pumps. With Glow fuel I use a geared hand cranked pump for reliable simplicity.  SignatureRichard Crapp >I read a "technical article" which recommended using an air pump to >pressurize a fuel jug to force fuel into the model's tank. Most of us flying gasoline engines at my field use this technique to fuel our models and fill smoke tanks. >Did the author have no common sense, or was he entirely lacking in >pragmatism, or did he simply have no knowledge of physics ? The fellow who started it at our field is a nuclear physicist. >What's wrong with that picture is >that there's no way to shut off the >fuel pressure if Murphy decides to visit<. You disconnect the pump from the input air line and the air very rapidly whooshes out of it, depressurizing the tank. I admit that you have to practice this maneuver. I had a little tango with doing things in the wrong order on Saturday. >Leave your fuel jug at atmospheric pressure, and use a pump to pull >fuel out of the jug and send it along to the model. The beauty of the air system is that you never run fuel through your pump. I can use the same air pump for nitro-methanol and for gasoline. No explosions or injuries yet from this system in the three or four years Erol and his friends have used it. I've been running it only for two years. Marty >I admit that you have to practice this maneuver. I >had a little tango with doing things in the wrong order >on Saturday. I can see problems with this procedure for the inexperienced pilot. However, if you practice the routine, everything should be ok. All of us should develop a routine for fueling and starting our engines, and pre-flighting our planes. Do the same thing, the same way, EVERY time. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" > ... if you practice the routine, everything should be ok. I'm learning by doing. I think I was talking while refueling. That's a major temptation--and pleasure--in the hobby. I can't count how many times I've done something done because I was distracted by conversation. I probably need to learn to say, "Give me a second" or "Hold that thought" when I need some moments of total concentration. I certainly don't want to spend all my time in the pits or at the flight line in stony silence, but I do want to work and fly within the limits of my brain. :o( >All of us should develop a routine for fueling and starting our engines, and >pre-flighting our planes. Do the same thing, the same way, EVERY time. Agreed. I'll do a little mental rehearsal of the fueling process next time I go out. Marty >I probably need to learn to say, "Give me a second" or >"Hold that thought" when I need some moments of total >concentration. I have told my pit crew and spotter (which is usually my wife) to not talk to me during fueling, pre-flight, takeoff, or landing. She understands the need for focus at those times, and respects it. Distraction will hurt ya. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" I don't even use a fuel pump. My fuel setup for gas is a 2 gallon metal can (round, dome type) into which I have soldered (when new) three shuttoff valves: 1 that fuels the plane, one for pumping the air pressure into the can, and 1 for de-pressurising the can. I have a squeeze bulb (from a medical supply co. used for blood pressure monitors) for pressurizing the can. However, I rarely have to use it because just letting the can sit in the sub creates enough pressure to make it work. The shuttoff valve for the fueling line is opened and closed as needed for fueling the aircraft. On a cool day, I pressurize the can with the squeeze bulb. At the end of the flying day, I let the pressure out of the can with the valve at the depressurizing outlet. Do NOT use one of those thin metal gas cans, and if you're paranoid about the can blowing up into a 300 foot fireball, simply install a 20 to 30 pound pressure relief valve as a fourth valve. I didn't and have been using this setup for over 10 years and it still hasn't blown up. MJC > >I read a "technical article" which recommended using an air pump to > >pressurize a fuel jug to force fuel into the model's tank. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Marty What's wrong with the picture of a fuel jug pressurized with air pressure to drive the fuel into the model ? It's one component short of being a flamethrower : Ignition. Still, one could argue that it is an intrinsically safe method. I mean, there certainly aren't any _sources of ignition_ on a flight line, are there ? I can see this thread was a waste of time . . . Bye, now Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber AMA L180201 IMAA LM 090 NASA 6512 LHA 2 WB 233 >What's wrong with the picture of a fuel jug pressurized with air >pressure to drive the fuel into the model ? > >It's one component short of being a flamethrower : Ignition. You mean like battery's and ungrounded pumps with cheep electric motors? Sorry you seem out voted, common sense 6 Murphy 0. SignatureRichard Crapp >>What's wrong with the picture of a fuel jug pressurized with air >>pressure to drive the fuel into the model ? >> >>It's one component short of being a flamethrower : Ignition. > >You mean like battery's and ungrounded pumps with cheep electric motors? No, actually I had in mind other running engines, starter motors hooked to "battery's" with alligator clips, that kind of thing. The sort of stuff the poor sod next to you is fiddling about with while you're playing Beat-The-Odds with your pressurized fuel container. I use an automotive pump and pressure regulator set at 2 PSIG for gasoline, and a similar setup designed for glow fuel. I also use two fuel valves in the models to achieve a closed-loop fueling and de-fueling system wherein fuel flow stops at the flip of a switch. No exposed electrical components, no alligator clips, no source of ignition. no fuel spills. Alas, it is not "cheep", which from the tone of the responses seems to be more important than safety. If you think I'm all wet on the subject of pressurized fuel containers being inherently dangerous propositions, you're gonna _love_ my hare-brained notion that flight boxes ought to be equipped with a fire extinguisher. You go right ahead doing things the way you always did things. Don't waste your time on risk analysis . . . ."it" can't happen to you, right ? Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber AMA L180201 IMAA LM 090 NASA 6512 LHA 2 WB 233 Fred, I've been using my pressurised gas can (gasoline) for over 10 years and I can assure you that the beauty of it is that there is absolutely no source of ignition to mess with. I'd suggest that I'm a WHOLE lot safer than YOU are if you're using an electric fuel pump (of any kind) to pump gas. No matter how you spin it, I'm performing the entire fueling operation without a source of ignition while you ARE constantly working with a source of ignition (actually, TWO sources of ignition; the pump itself and the battery connectors from the pump to the battery). Scenario: YOU'RE fuel line slips off and you have fuel SPRAYING all over due to the higher pressures of an electric fuel pump. To turn it off, you turn off the pump (sparking inside the switch) or kick the connectors off the battery (again, sparking). If MY line slips off, the fuel barely leaks onto the ground (wait'll you develop a bad prostate and you'll know what I mean :-) and I don't cause any sparking whether I turn off the fuel petcock or open the vent petcock. Also with my set up, I doubt if I ever get pressure over 3 or 4 pounds (judging by the rate of fuel flow). I've never come near the pressure limits of the fuel can either. Think about it: I use an official "gasoline" steel can (I'm thinking it's probably 18 gauge, NOT the thin metal type) which is DESIGNED to store gasoline and you can bet that part of that requirement is that it has to stay safe if it's sits in the sun all day (outboard motor use??) and develops internal pressure from the heat. Well, I rarely use my pumping bulb because letting the can sit in the sun is usually all it takes to develop just enough pressure for it to work properly. So "excessive" pressure is definitely not a problem with my method. I only use the fuel bulb on cold or sunless days and even then I pump it up only enough to move the gas, not "squirt" it. I'm comfortable that the way I transfer gas to my planes is a LOT safer than other gas fueling activities such as refueling a hot lawnmower by openly pouring gas into the tank (and all over the hot engine head). Or maybe refueling a small outboard motor out in the lake where you spill gas all over it and then pull the starter cord thereby generating a spark at the spark plug cap. And certainly much safer than using any kind of electric fuel pump for the operation. You might want to reconsider and join those of us who have found the SAFEST way to work with gasoline while fueling our models. MJC > >>What's wrong with the picture of a fuel jug pressurized with air > >>pressure to drive the fuel into the model ? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > LHA 2 > WB 233 Geez, I just visited RC groups as a follow p to one of the posts on this group - the bloody site sets a cookie every time you choose a page or a thread or just think airplane thoughts. Those blokes are just cookie crazy - and (like they would care) I wouldn't bother going there again. Are there any other (sensibly designed) forums sites - RC Universe, with its ads and crappy design etc is just too much of a pain to bother with. David - who likes reading forums, but without all the crap > Fred, > I've been using my pressurised gas can (gasoline) for over 10 years and [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > LHA 2 > > WB 233 > Geez, I just visited RC groups as a follow p to one of the posts on this group > - the bloody site sets a cookie every time you choose a page or a thread or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David - who likes reading forums, but without all the crap The only rational way to set and remember what you have viewed is with information stored on your computer. While technically it is possible to maintain view and presentation in a master file, it would require secure login and tight maintenance of an account file. The easiest way to set and remember what you have seen on your own machine is with cookies. Not all cookies are spawn of the devil. Any web site (with very minor exceptions) that 'remembers' what you've done and where you've been on the site does it with cookies. -- Dave Thompson Ahhh but the issue Dave is that it is MY problem to remember where I go and what I have seen - not those sill buggers that designed that site. Also, it is NOT rational to make someone click on an OK button for every post read and every page seen. Any Web designer with even a tiny bit of nouse would simply store that info in a file, on their site, OR ask the viewer do that want to go thru all that crap or not. David - who has no patience with people who have no idea how to build viewer friendly web sites > > Geez, I just visited RC groups as a follow p to one of the posts on this > group [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > Dave Thompson > Ahhh but the issue Dave is that it is MY problem to remember where I go and > what I have seen - not those sill buggers that designed that site. Also, it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > David - who has no patience with people who have no idea how to build viewer > friendly web sites Then block all cookies and be happy. After that, all your visits will be just like the first. I'm not sure what you mean about clicking OK on reading of a post or even a page. You NEVER have to mark a forum as having been read if you don't desire. It is not a static web page. If it were, you'd not need cookies. If you expect the operators of a no-charge web site to maintain a database of every click and view every user makes you are living in a dream world. For a site that gets the activity that RCGroups gets, it would require a huge SQL server just to maintain that click traffic. Finally, if it truly frosts your buns that severely, you have a choice. Don't go there. -- Dave Thompson > Then block all cookies and be happy. Some of the more "legitimate" sites need to set cookies, and I am OK about that as long as they ask me first (that is how I have my browser set up) so I do not want to set up as "no cookies at all". > After that, all your visits will be > just like the first. That is OK with me _ the site is such a pain to use that I only go there when a NG post suggests a paticular forum post/thread to read. > I'm not sure what you mean about clicking OK on > reading of a post or even a page. You NEVER have to mark a forum as having > been read if you don't desire. It is not clicking to say I have read the item - each time I attempt to read a post I get a "warning - the server wants to set a cookie" message and I have to click OK to proceed - the alternative is allow this site carte blanche to set whatever it wants on my Mac - and remembering all the stuff in this NG about the dubious honesty of the owners of this site there is no way I would trust them with unlimited access to my Mac. > It is not a static web page. If it were, you'd not need cookies. If you > expect the operators of a no-charge web site But it seems to be a commercial site, not a hobbyist site. While that is OK in itself, a site owners choice, one (meaning me) expects a higher standard than those sites run for the good of fellow modellers by the good guys. > to maintain a database of every > click and view every user makes you are living in a dream world. Exactly, tho what we are talking about is probably only a few hundred gigs (I would think at the most - at a cost of perhaps $130) to store that info in every registered members account file. The dream world bit comes from my hope that the site builder would think about the viewers convenience. Obviousely they don't give a damn. and that is their choice. > Finally, if it truly frosts your buns that severely, you have a choice. > Don't go there. Thanks for the suggestion Dave - I will take your advice - but at least by having my rant I might encourage someone to start a really good site for RC info and forums. David > > Then block all cookies and be happy. > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > David Why not you? If you can make a go of it, the modeling community will be better. The more the merrier. -- Dave Thompson The problem for me Dave is that I do not have the knowledge or skills to build such a site, and do not have the cash to host it. David > ... > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > Dave Thompson > whatever it wants on my Mac - and remembering all the stuff in this NG about > the dubious honesty of the owners of this site there is no way I would trust > them with unlimited access to my Mac. I think you're confusing RCGroups and RCUniverse. RCGroups is the home of the Ezone, and I've never heard a negative thing about it on this list. People are sent there all the time on this list. If you mean RCU, then there have been quite a few negative posts. I wouldn't worry about cookies in RCGroups, they don't do popups or anything else annoying. Good Luck, PCPhill Hey Phil - thanks for pointing out my mistake here, and my apologies to the RC Group guys for my incorrect comment about their reputation for dishonesty - I WAS confusing them with RC Universe in that regard. Sorry guys - getting old I guess. But my comments about your site being a pain to use stands. Their constant demands to set a multitude of cookies IS bloody annoying, and unnecessary. David - who HATES it when he gets it wrong, but tries to make amends > > whatever it wants on my Mac - and remembering all the stuff in this NG > about [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Good Luck, > PCPhill "quietguy" <david1133@REMOVE-TO-REPLYoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > But my comments about your site being a pain to use stands. Their constant > demands to set a multitude of cookies IS bloody annoying, and unnecessary. Do a Google search foor "cookie muncher" >>Then block all cookies and be happy. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > having my rant I might encourage someone to start a really good site for RC > info and forums. Arewe talking about rcgroups.com? If so I amazed because it doesn' seem to be the same site that I visit almost every day. Fast, easy to navigate, with commercial content held well in bounds and explicitly delineated. Excel;lent ,matrial, well moderated, and split up as senibly as possible. Of course it needs cookies to remember who I am and set up my default short cuts throuh the menu. it has never abused the privilege. Either you are talking about a different site, or you work for the competition? > David Dave, This is Jim Bourke, owner of RCGroups.com. We recently upgraded our forum software and it does seem that the ne software sets quite a few more cookies than the old version. The cookies are very useful to our regular users, who want the site t remember when they last visited, what their login id is, which thread they've read, etc. You should be able to disable cookies using your browser settings, a which point you'll have no trouble accessing threads at RCGroups as w do not require a login, etc, to access the site. From our perspective, cookies are one of the reasons we have a usefu site. The usefulness is what gives us users, who provide content, wh give folks such as yourself reasons to follow links to us. So yo can't avoid getting some advantage out of cookies in that sense, at th very least. :) Jim Bourke RCGroups.co -- jbourk Thankyou for this helpful answer Jim. Admittedly, I didn't try setting my browser to 'no cookies' as usually when a site keeps asking for them it will not let you go further until giving in. So will try again. David > Dave, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > jbourke's Profile: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=486 > View this thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=225766 RCUniverse suck -- Viper Pilo I wouldn't got there any more and ask for my money back! :-) Red S Batter Forum Moderator - RCU > Geez, I just visited RC groups as a follow p to one of the posts on this group > - the bloody site sets a cookie every time you choose a page or a thread or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David - who likes reading forums, but without all the crap > Geez, I just visited RC groups as a follow p to one of the posts on this group > - the bloody site sets a cookie every time you choose a page or a thread or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David - who likes reading forums, but without all the crap RCGroups doesn't use cookies maliciously so if you're getting a lot of pop up activity, I'd first look to your own hard drive where some other site has installed some adware. If you're referring to your getting a bunch of cookie notifications from Windows, then I'd back off just a little in your Windows Security Settings and not worry about it. I do, however, run AdAware and PestControl a couple times each week to keep my computer clogging cookie activities under control. MJC >Geez, I just visited RC groups as a follow p to one of the posts on this group >- the bloody site sets a cookie every time you choose a page or a thread or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Are there any other (sensibly designed) forums sites - RC Universe, with its >ads and crappy design etc is just too much of a pain to bother with. Depending on your particular bent, there are several USENET news groups related to various model activities. There are also a goodly number of Yahoo groups which focus on specific areas, such as giant scale war birds, Futaba radio systems, etc. You can read most of the Yahoo groups (mailing lists, actually), but most require you to join before you can post. An advantage to the Yahoo groups is that you can tailor your participation : receive a digest of posts, receive no posts, receive all posts, and so on. Best of all, the Yahoo groups are nearly all moderated and a lot of the nonsense seen here is not permitted. Those who won't abide by the specific group's rules get tossed. Some of the Yahoo 'groups' aren't; many are one-man shows and as such are seriously limited in content. There are a few which have a fairly high number of respondents, and which are quite rich in information exchange. Finding a group to your liking in Yahoo can take some time, but it's usually worth the effort. Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber > Fred, > I've been using my pressurised gas can (gasoline) for over 10 years and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >ignition (actually, TWO sources of ignition; the pump itself and the battery >connectors from the pump to the battery). I guess you missed the part where I wrote : "I use an automotive pump and pressure regulator set at 2 PSIG for gasoline, and a similar setup designed for glow fuel." "Automotive pump and pressure regulator". If there were any inherent dangers associated with those items, they wouldn't be used by Detroit (or BMW, in my case). Sealed pumps, sealed switches, no alligator clips, NOTHING which can cause a spark. > If MY line slips off, the fuel barely leaks onto the ground (wait'll you >develop a bad prostate and you'll know what I mean :-) and I don't cause any >sparking whether I turn off the fuel petcock or open the vent petcock. > Also with my set up, I doubt if I ever get pressure over 3 or 4 pounds >(judging by the rate of fuel flow). I've never come near the pressure limits >of the fuel can either. 3 or 4 pounds pressure is 1.5 to 2 times the pressure I use. > I'm comfortable that the way I transfer gas to my planes is a LOT safer >than other gas fueling activities such as refueling a hot lawnmower by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >spark plug cap. And certainly much safer than using any kind of electric >fuel pump for the operation. Don't recall lawnmowers or outboards being flown at any of the flying sites I've ever visited. Saw a flying lawnmower once, thought it was beaux stupid, even if it was a glow engine pulling something that only looked like a lawnmower. The subject here is model airplanes, not the idiotic activities of Joe Dingbat in his back yard getting ready to light himself and his BORG mobile. > You might want to reconsider and join those of us who have found the >SAFEST way to work with gasoline while fueling our models. I did that when I set up my first fuel tote decades ago. Joined those of "US" who have found the safest way to work with gasoline while fueling our models, I mean. You missed the point of the post, which was that folks should really think about what they're doing with their refueling and de-fueling systems, and that maybe there is a better way. You insist that yours is the safest way to fuel a model, never mind the fact that >a pressurized container of fuel is inherently dangerous<. If your way of fueling model aircraft is so very safe, perhaps you might be able to explain why EVERY automobile racing and sanctioning body in the world outlawed pressurized fueling tanks more than twenty years ago ? Rationalize your use of pressurized fuel containers any way you see fit, but you cannot dismiss the fact that a fuel container under pressure is inherently dangerous. The point of the exercise was to get modelers to _think_. Let's see if it worked . . . . Which is more dangerous, 1) A full jug of fuel under 4 pounds of air pressure, or 2) A 1/4 full jug of fuel under 4 pounds of air pressure ? Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber >Which is more dangerous, > >1) A full jug of fuel under 4 pounds of air pressure, or > >2) A 1/4 full jug of fuel under 4 pounds of air pressure ? Uh....just a swag here, but I'd say a 1/4 full jug of fuel under 4 pounds of pressure. Oh, the ideal gas law applies to real gas when you include the vapor compressibility factor.... PV=znRT I'm with ya there, Fred. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" >>Which is more dangerous, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Oh, the ideal gas law applies to real gas when you include the vapor >compressibility factor.... PV=znRT Sho 'nuff. Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber > Fred, > I've been using my pressurised gas can (gasoline) for over 10 years and [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > LHA 2 > > WB 233 Jeez, you guys make it sound too much like WORK. I am lazy so I siphon my larger tanks full and hand pump (crank) the small ones. As far as I know there is not pressure or electric activity involved with either method. Oh, I try NOT to pit right next to someone who does not maintain his equipment which can be surmised by the neatness and cleanliness of his 'stuff'. I just happened to notice the post below... Regarding pressure in your tank, you must consider PSI X area = FORCE... In other words, if you have a fuel tank that measures 8" X 8" on a given surface and you apply 4 PSI of pressure, you are exerting 256 pounds of force on that surface... In reality I'm sure the pressure you're using is MUCH less... To give you an idea of this pressure X area business... Sears marketed a refrigerator some years back that use air pressure pumped under it, so it could be "moved with one finger"... It generated less than ONE pound of pressure...... Bill > Fred, > I've been using my pressurised gas can (gasoline) for over 10 years and [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > LHA 2 > > WB 233 >It generated less than ONE pound of >pressure...... "One pound of pressure" is meaningless. You must reference it to an area or volume. Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" You're pickng nits, Gerald.... I referenced PSI throughout my post.... Gimme a break... At least I ain't trying to put 132 oz into a gallon.....<G> > >It generated less than ONE pound of > >pressure...... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dr.1 Driver > "There's a Hun in the sun!" > At least I ain't trying to put 132 oz into a gallon.....<G> OK, you win. :) Dr.1 Driver "There's a Hun in the sun!" | I can see this thread was a waste of time . . . You've pointed out something that you feel is dangerouns, and not everybody agreed with you, so you think the thread was a waste of time? Interesting point of view. One I might expect from somebody brand new to Usenet, but not from you. I didn't think the thread was a waste of time. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com Time may be a great healer, but it's also a lousy beautician. >| I can see this thread was a waste of time . . . > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I didn't think the thread was a waste of time. It seems to be thus far. Or, I'm the only one around here who understands Boyle's Law and The Ideal Gas Law which inter alia define a pressurized container of fuel as inherently dangerous. Having escaped Murphy's attention for a year or 10 years doesn't mean a pressurized container of fuel is any less inherently dangerous. The fundamental proposition is that it is less inherently dangerous to pressurize only the fuel lines than to pressurize the entire fuel system including the fuel container. It appears that I'm the only respondent herein who understands that fundamental concept. Cheers, Fred McClellan The House Of Balsa Dust home.mindspring.com/~the-plumber |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.