|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 2, 2017 17:10:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 2, 2017 17:29:42 GMT
The announcer is extremely irritating and the explanations were as bad ......but Boy !!! that 4 in line was a work of art and the transparent head was fascinating ...... I knew it swirled in the combustion chamber but is was smashing to actually see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 17:35:57 GMT
I hate the Daily Mail. But. Will have a look as it does sound interesting
|
|
|
Post by patty on Feb 2, 2017 18:17:54 GMT
If u wanna see real interesting stuff with pistons..well I think thats what I saw you wanna go on the Waverley paddle steamer...I stood watching the innards working...fab.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Feb 2, 2017 19:09:55 GMT
Well they are not explosions. when a petrol engine suffers explosions in the cylinder it is called detonation and will eventually wreck the engine. I think it is impossible for a diesel engine running on diesel fuel to suffer explosions.
The swirly should be even greater in a diesel.
I suppose "explosions" is adequate for reader of the Mail but in reality the speed of the flame front is well short of that from an explosion and possibly slower in a diesel.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 2, 2017 19:45:19 GMT
Well they are not explosions. when a petrol engine suffers explosions in the cylinder it is called detonation and will eventually wreck the engine. I think it is impossible for a diesel engine running on diesel fuel to suffer explosions. The swirly should be even greater in a diesel. I suppose "explosions" is adequate for reader of the Mail but in reality the speed of the flame front is well short of that from an explosion and possibly slower in a diesel. The video was very good. Genuine question, why would the speed of a diesel flame be slower that that of a petrol one?
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Feb 2, 2017 22:10:02 GMT
Genuine Answer without getting to testicle. It's to do with the viscosity & combustibility of diseasal as opposed to petroleum.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 2, 2017 23:42:04 GMT
Genuine Answer without getting to testicle. It's to do with the viscosity & combustibility of diseasal as opposed to petroleum. That makes sense. Thanks. I used to work for texaco, so I know when diesel goes up it does go up. As we found out when buncefield went up although that was 60,000,000 gallons there.
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Feb 2, 2017 23:46:25 GMT
Genuine Answer without getting to testicle. It's to do with the viscosity & combustibility of diseasal as opposed to petroleum. That makes sense. Thanks. I used to work for texaco, so I know when diesel goes up it does go up. As we found out when buncefield went up although that was 60,000,000 gallons there. Foo Canal !!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 4:49:35 GMT
Buncefield explosion was amazing. I was moored at Rickmansworth and there was this boom as if someone had rammed into the side of the boat. I leapt out of bed and looked around. Nothing happening so I opened the side doors. No moving boats - some other boaters looking out of side doors..
Heard later there had been a large explosion at an oil depot near Hemel which was a few miles away.
.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 3, 2017 7:48:41 GMT
Have some amazing photo's taken from the M25 that morning, of the smoke cloud. also some from the top of an office block in Borehamwood. Think they were analogue but will have a dig through my photo's and see if I can find them.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Feb 3, 2017 8:00:18 GMT
Genuine Answer without getting to testicle. It's to do with the viscosity & combustibility of diseasal as opposed to petroleum. That makes sense. Thanks. I used to work for texaco, so I know when diesel goes up it does go up. As we found out when buncefield went up although that was 60,000,000 gallons there. Also and probably more important because all the fuel is in the cylinder at the point of ignition in a petrol engine (Possible exception of direct gasoline injection) where as a diesel only has a fraction of fuel in the cylinder at that point because injection takes a small time. It is probably even more so with electronic injections that supplies a pilot injection, pauses or a split second for the pilot fuel to ignite, and the injects the bulk of the fuel. (there has been attempts at mechanical pilot injection but not on the sort of engines common on inland boats). Basically you can not ignite diesel by a flame or spark unless it is pre-heated so it is vaporising or you use a wick. I have not read a detailed report about Buncfield but I would suspect a fire heated a storage tank, the liquid inside heated and expanded until the tank ruptured. That would have produced a cloud of hot atomised fuel that the fire then ignited. I suspect the actual bang was a result of the body of atomised fuel igniting much like the diesel knock we suffer and it was still not an actual explosion but close enough to make little difference.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 3, 2017 8:03:49 GMT
I seem to remember being taught that an explosion is just something burning ......... but rather quickly
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 3, 2017 8:06:41 GMT
Never mind about all the money! Never mind about pollution or global warming! What prat was responsible for this? No wonder petrol costs so much these days!! "There is evidence suggesting that a high-level switch, which should have detected that the tank was full and shut off the supply, failed to operate. The switch failure should have triggered an alarm, but it too appears to have failed" - who made that switch, and who manufactured that alarm? Fox's verdict: piss poor manufacture, piss poor maintenance, piss poor supervision. Relying on electronics and mechanics to do everything. And everyone's talking about driverless cars??!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buncefield_fire
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 3, 2017 8:25:01 GMT
That makes sense. Thanks. I used to work for texaco, so I know when diesel goes up it does go up. As we found out when buncefield went up although that was 60,000,000 gallons there. Basically you can not ignite diesel by a flame or spark unless it is pre-heated so it is vaporising or you use a wick. I have not read a detailed report about Buncfield but I would suspect a fire heated a storage tank, the liquid inside heated and expanded until the tank ruptured. That would have produced a cloud of hot atomised fuel that the fire then ignited. I suspect the actual bang was a result of the body of atomised fuel igniting much like the diesel knock we suffer and it was still not an actual explosion but close enough to make little difference. just been looking (quickly) through wiki ....... it looks from that as though the contents of the tank farm was mixed fuels and the initial ignition seems to have been from a petrol storage tank. a large proportion of the tank field contents appears to have been jetfuel, They also suggest that the initial explosion was caused by a gigantic cloud of air/vapour mix caused by the tank continuously overflowing at up to 890 cu.mtrs. an hour (bit like a king sized version of the fuel air mix bombs the US airforce use)
|
|