| |
KB2VXA > FUEL 27.01.08 13:32l 32 Lines 1235 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 30400_VK2TV
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: ZR2ACJ > LPG vs petrol tanks
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<F6CDD<F6BVP<VK2TV
Sent: 080127/1118Z @:VK2TV.#MNC.NSW.AUS.OC #:30400 [Kempsey, QF68JX] $:30400_VK
From: KB2VXA@VK2TV.#MNC.NSW.AUS.OC
To : FUEL@WW
Hi Andy and all,
You may wish to reconsider what you want to go over the falls in. An LPG
tank is strong but not resiliant and tends to ring when struck. A petrol
tank has crumple zones that colapse on impact to absorb the energy of
impact and provide a soft landing. Don't forget the rocks at the base of
the falls, there's quite a pile down there.
Once you get past the rocks you must consider floatation. Petrol floats
which is why it's used instead of air as a means to provide buoyancy for
DSRVs, it won't compress at depth. LPG is compressed gas to begin with so
that's out of the question when you get to the bottom.
Actually there are two sightseeing boats quite identical unless you look
at the name. They won't get in the way, they keep their distance but
close enough to rescue you from your folly should you think LPG is better
than petrol for getting a close up view of the bottom end of a hydro
station.
Niagara Falls go down so do Viagra Falls go up? This bull has been typed
by a blonde as if you haven't guessed.
73 de Warren
Station powered by JCP&L atomic energy, operator powered by natural gas.
Message timed by NIST: 11:18 on 2008-Jan-27 GMT
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
