Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: A Couple of iPhone Images

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: A Couple of iPhone Images
From: Jim Nichols <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:07:12 -0500
Moose,

I'm not trying to throw cold water on the choice of vehicle. I'm just basing my personal choice on relevant experience in the industrial plant world. We used high pressure air for a number of purposes, but it was limited to 4000 psi, and contained in thick, steel storage tanks, and very heavy valves, rated for the pressure range.

We also dealt with hydrogen-rich exhaust products from NASA rockets. Within the plant machinery, we first inerted the system with gaseous nitrogen, to remove the oxygen, then processed the exhaust products, which were exhausted to the atmosphere. On one occasion, maintenance crews left a crane boom parked close to one of the exhaust stacks, and something ignited the exhausting hydrogen. It sounded like a very large torch, and blew a labeling sign off of the crane. No real damage done, but a demonstration of the potential for problems.

I know that composite pressure vessels have come a long way since I retired over 20 yrs ago, but the idea of hydrogen at 10,000 psi in such vessels, on a California freeway, in bumper to bumper traffic, does not thrill me. Neither was I impressed with the "fueling station" image that showed what appeared to be fill tubes consisting of small stainless tubing. This does not appear adequate for the pressure level involved.

Old Fogey Nick

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA

On 7/30/2015 2:43 PM, Moose wrote:
On 7/29/2015 5:26 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
I read the on-line description of the vehicle and the safety measures that they have taken to make sure the 10k psi H2 tanks don't rupture in an accident, but, after dealing with hydrogen-rich rocket exhaust products while supporting altitude testing of NASA rockets, I will pass on this one. I could not get past the feeling that I was strapped to a potential bomb. Look closely.

On 7/30/2015 7:46 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
Hi Chris,

Same engine, same sound. Back in the late 1950s, when these were available for less than $5000, a few of us considered getting one. The thing that turned me off was that all of the fuel was carried in belly tanks, beneath the floor. I could just envision sitting atop a bonfire in case of any mishap.

Is there a theme here? Fear of Fuel?

BTW, for anyone with the Hindenburg in mind, the hydrogen neither caused nor contributed to the fire and the highly visible flames in the video. It merely quietly, almost invisibly, burned up top after being freed and ignited by the original fire. Both contemporary research, as shown in a PBS special and the manufacturer's post mortem research independently came to the same conclusion.

Bad Dope Moose


--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz