OT__For All Tesco PBW Games Playing and hosting

[Jack Simth]

Liquid fuels are actually much safer than gaseous fuels in that they are more readily controllable using less resources and less skill.

A gasoline leak is obvious - you can see it on the ground, and it has it's own smell; if it is an acitve leak, you can readily find the troublesome spot by sight and apply a patch.

A hydrogen leak, on the other hand, only gives off a slight hissing sound. If other things are added, it can also be smelled. In order to find the troublesome spot, you need to apply soapy water to the surface. Not that it is a good idea to patch a pressurized tank - it needs to be replaced entierly.

And Fyron, you're not responding to my post about how your initial reply in this thread implied that hydrogen was safe? Odd. Does that mean you are surrendering the point?

[Fyron]

I think we are using "safeness" to label different issues here. I was not referencing any of that, only the explosiveness and such.

Also keep in mind that when dealing with an automobile engine, if there is a leak in a gaseous hydrogen fuel tank, the hydrogen would diffuse through the atmosphere fairly rapidly. Unless it is in a garage or some such, which could potentially cause problems. Opening the garage door (and possibly setting up a few fans) could clear the hydrogen out in no time. A simple pressure gauge on the fuel tank would be sufficient to set up a warning device to detect leaks.

Automobiles almost never explode in accidents (contrary to what Hollywood would say). Automobiles using hydrogen for fuel would not be any more explosive than those using gasoline (mostly because there is a lot less hydrogen necessary to power the car than gasoline, as hydrogen creates more energy when combusted, and so less is needed to get the same energy output). This is what I was talking about when I mentioned safety, not just leaks.

And Fyron, you're not responding to my post about how your initial reply in this thread implied that hydrogen was safe? Odd. Does that mean you are surrendering the point?

It means I am ignoring you on that, as I am tired of going in circles with people that will not ever admit they may have been wrong. I have explained already how it did not imply such a thing, and there is no point in repeating myself if you (and others) aren't going to accept what I have already said. And don't try any irony BS here, as I always admit I am wrong when I am wrong on an objective issue, where it is possible to be wrong (as opposed to subjective issues such as McDonald's "food" is garbage ). So, there is nothing ironic about any statements in this post.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It means I am ignoring you on that, as I am tired of going in circles with people that will not ever admit they may have been wrong.

You mean people like yourself?

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I have explained already how it did not imply such a thing

You didn't explain how you did not imply - you stated that you did not say. They are two different things. You haven't actually mentioned implications until just now (I just re-read all of your Posts in this thread to verify that - you consistently used say or said in response to Tbomtob and myself), so saying you explained such is rather odd.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
, and there is no point in repeating myself if you (and others) aren't going to accept what I have already said.

Except for one post by Tbontob, nobody in this thread ever said that you said Hydrogen was safe - the words used were implied or gave the impression. However, when you responded to such things, you were always saying that you didn't say that. Said and implied are vastly different things. Your post on June 02, 2003 01:12 to this thread was the first time in this thread that you even mentioned implied. You talk as though you have contradicted them, and they aren't believing you. Yet you haven't! You keep repeatedly addressing "said" when you need to speak to "implied" as everyone else has been doing for the past few pages. Apparently, you need to go look up implied and said, as you appear to be confusing the two.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
And don't try any irony BS here, as I always admit I am wrong when I am wrong on an objective issue, where it is possible to be wrong (as opposed to subjective issues such as McDonald's "food" is garbage

Since when? I don't recall seeing any such error-admitting post on your part.

[ June 02, 2003, 01:59: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I think we are using "safeness" to label different issues here.

Perhaps - but if they are roughly equivalent in safety with regards to inherent explosiveness but gasoline is better in safety with regards to random people using it, then gasoline has hydrogen beat overall on those two aspects of the safety issue, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was not referencing any of that, only the explosiveness and such.

Also keep in mind that when dealing with an automobile engine, if there is a leak in a gaseous hydrogen fuel tank, the hydrogen would diffuse through the atmosphere fairly rapidly. Unless it is in a garage or some such, which could potentially cause problems.

Other factors include the rate of the leak, the distance to possible sources of ignition, and the activity of the air - but essentially, you are correct on that point. Of course, gasoline is usually equally tame.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Opening the garage door (and possibly setting up a few fans) could clear the hydrogen out in no time. A simple pressure gauge on the fuel tank would be sufficient to set up a warning device to detect leaks.

Warning system necessary -> increased complexity -> harder for the average person to deal with safely -> more dangerous

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Automobiles almost never explode in accidents (contrary to what Hollywood would say).

Where did you get the impression that I belive they do often explode

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Automobiles using hydrogen for fuel would not be any more explosive than those using gasoline (mostly because there is a lot less hydrogen necessary to power the car than gasoline, as hydrogen creates more energy when combusted, and so less is needed to get the same energy output). This is what I was talking about when I mentioned safety, not just leaks.

I wasn't just speaking on leaks either - my post also briefly addressed such things as repair costs; I also briefly mentioned controlability.

[ June 02, 2003, 02:14: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Fyron]

Perhaps - but if they are roughly equivalent in safety with regards to inherent explosiveness but gasoline is better in safety with regards to random people using it, then gasoline has hydrogen beat overall on those two aspects of the safety issue, doesn't it?

Maybe. I'd have to look more into the issue to answer that fully. I do not think hydrogen is inherently much worse in regards to random people using it for such things as automobile fuel (with the right kind of car and all ).

Warning system necessary -> increased complexity -> harder for the average person to deal with safely -> more dangerous

How so? Gasoline tanks have such warning systems, showing how much gas is left in the tank. People can deal with that just fine.

Where did you get the impression that I belive they do often explode

I didn't. It was just a general statement.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
How so? Gasoline tanks have such warning systems, showing how much gas is left in the tank. People can deal with that just fine.

A fuel gauge on your car isn't a safety issue, except perhaps for cases where an empty tank will strand a person away from life's necessities. You were proposing a gauge as a method of detecting leaks, which is a totally different purpose. Such a thing as a safety device to detect leaks would either require that the operator note the fuel level after one use and before the next to check for a drop when the fuel wasn't being used or an alarm that watches for drops in fuel level when the tank isn't being properly drained. Further, it would be extremely difficult to produce such a thing that could detect leaks during operation, as it would need to be able to distinguish the rate of loss of fuel due to proper use from the rate of loss of fuel due to a leak. A gasoline fuel gauge just checks the current level so the operator has a good idea on when it is time to stop for fuel; it is seldom used for leak detection, as it is simpler just to put a piece of dry cardboard under the vehicle and check for wet spots after a time, or even just look for oil slicks on the pavement / driveway / puddles. Most people don't use fuel gauges as a method of detecting leaks; it is simpler to use other methods for liquid fuels - you can see the results of most leaks quite easily, as they leave discolored spots on things below. Gaseous fuels, on the other hand, don't do that. The only ways to detect a leak in gaseous fuels are: watch the pressure when it isn't being used (more complex than looking for discoloration under your car) (theoretically, the tank doesn't need to be not in use - it is simply a matter of knowing the rate of use and comparing that to the rate of loss - the difference is the leak; however, that is easiest when the rate of use is zero), remove all components with possible leaks and subject them to liquid tests under pressure (as is done for tires so a leak can be repaired - complex, difficult, and time consuming for embedded components), add something to the gas so that a leak can be smelled (but that doesn't tell you where the leak is, only that there is one), or listening for hissing (no hissing doesn't mean that there are no leaks, however; likewise, this requires a quiet environment and can't tell one exactly where the leak is coming from). With liquids, a leak produces a trail that can usually be followed back to the source with fairly minimal effort, and a spot on the ground to give a clear indication that a leak has occured, and will often produce a dripping sound (equivalent to a gaseous fuel's hiss on leaking in most respects). Leaking gasoline naturally produces a scent, no additives necessary. Further, almost any method for leak detection that works with compressed gas fuels will also function for liquid fuels.

[ June 02, 2003, 03:53: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[tesco samoa]

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

lines are down again.

I am at work.

And the starter went on my car.

And I am almost finished triming the hedges.... 12 more meters to go. And they went from 560 cm in height to 200 cm in height ( i cut about 35 meters of the stuff with my new hedge trimmers. Manual back breaking one with the added sore arms and hands option pack. )

Next week i get to rent a chipper and have some fun.

[tesco samoa]

i just found out that this will be ongoing problem for the next 2 weeks.

So to all my PBW games and games I am playing in.

Sorry if I miss turns or I am late replying to Messages.

[tesco samoa]

AS PBW IS SLOWLY BACK UP. GAMES WILL REMAIN ON manual run until 100% everyone can do the turn.