A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 24th 19, 11:37 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.


No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.


And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Ads
  #32  
Old September 24th 19, 11:41 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:17:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical
processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the
deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of
power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind
and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted.
We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras.


False. It is growing hugely here.


Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.


So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to
do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on
short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits.


THat's an interesting theory. I thought that if really was a national
issue it wouldn't need subsidising: the business would go ahead under
its own steam.

Even fossil fuels are subsidised.


Yep. With other peoples (read: our) money.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
  #33  
Old September 24th 19, 11:44 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:15:05 -0400, Paul
wrote:

As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects
that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they
would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on
exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-)


It's not compatible with older engines.

It's been known to affect seals on some engines.
(That's what I was told at the dealership.)


True, all modern cars have had to be re-engineered to enable them to
survive ethanol if and when they encounter it.

As for the effects, they're just too complicated to comment on.

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/en...s-11-00221.pdf

I was referring to some extent, to an overall system analysis taking
all inputs into account, and the conclusion that ethanol was worse
for the environment as a result. It's not a net positive, and
it's a farm subsidy program.


Quite right.

With three-way catalyst systems and stoichiometric engine operation,
the modern car is already pretty clean. Just CO2 and H20 come out the
tail pipe (once the cat is fully heated up). One of the "ways" on the cat,
takes care of CO, another takes care of NOx. Wikipedia has details.
Ethanol is not needed, to make that happen.

Ethanol would affect the fuel octane rating (knock etc).


Its good for that but its lower calorific value means the engine will
be down on both power and economy.


Paul


--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
  #34  
Old September 24th 19, 11:45 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

Carlos E.R. wrote:


It does. Remove ethanol, you have to add some other chemical.


You use more "blend", as "fractions" are taken off the
giant column at the refinery. The chemicals would be
things like octanol, benzene, xylene, there might even
be acetone. A total of 200 compounds. Toluene is probably
a significant one. The blend changes every week, and
as the atmospheric average temperature drops, the gas
composition is adjusted to make starting easier in
cold weather. Gasoline is a blend, just like varsol
(stands for "various solvents") is a blend. And as a kind
of joke, there's an area at the front of the refinery where
5 gallon pails of varsol are filled (by hand!). While
on the other side of the refinery property, is parked a
1000 foot long supertanker. The absurdity of it all. You would
think they would be filling rail cars with varsol. The fun part,
is turning those tankers around, so they can leave.

But that's all gone now, and that refinery no longer exists.
No more lighting up the night sky, with the flare stack
(that refinery used to flare a fair amount). Sometimes the
flame coming out of the flare stack would be 50 to 100 feet
high. And you'd be wondering "is it about to blow???". But
of course it never did. Flaring was used, so they wouldn't
have to bother setting up tanks for temporary storage,
when something wasn't working the way it was supposed to.
That refinery flared more than I guessed it was supposed to.

And when you lived downstream of the refinery, you'd get to
smell the effluent in the air. And that smell was absent
at ground zero in the refinery. I'm sure today, that smell
in the air would be a violation of some VOC law.

Paul
  #35  
Old September 24th 19, 02:37 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:34:36 +0200, "Carlos E.R."


Give it time. One step at a time.


I'm happy with that but all those enthusiats who want the world to set
short deadlines are not.


For old people like us, our strategy is "I hope to be
dead by the time it gets really bad". A perfectly
understandable side of human nature.

I think the young people are getting a little alarmed
at this strategy. That's made them "more enthusiastic".

And change can occur rapidly.

It's the instability that's going to kill you
(the breakdown of society), not the environment.

Everyone is shaped by the education they got, whether
intentional or unintentional. I was sitting in a Grade 10
biology class, with an instructor that insisted we would
spend the year memorizing a giant table of "kingdom,
phylum, genus, species" for the year. I wanted out of
there.

So I moved into an "Enriched Biology" course. Strangely,
there were still seats available in the course. I
could not believe my luck.

Part of it was conventional biology. It "sorta"
looked like a biology class.

And part of it, was distinctly, not.

We read Rachel Carsons Silent Spring.

We learned about population dynamics, population
collapse, and "what societal breakdown looks like",
using *real animals*.

I think most of the students, the "theme" in this
course was rather hard to take. I don't think if any
officials in the education department, had any idea
what was going on, they would have allowed this.
Yet, the course content was the "right thing to do".
The instructor was doing his best, to pass the
baton to the next generation. He wasn't teaching, in
order to get "one year closer to retirement". It
wasn't a biology course after all, it was a "life" course.
(It included field trips on weekends. This was
not a 9-5 M-F course.)

It prepared me, for this day.

A second course, a couple years later, taught me
to "think for myself", using some classical experiments.
Again, the experiments were borderline abuse (I've read
the background of some of these, and there is not
agreement as to whether these experiments should
be used on students). But seemingly, nobody in
authority cared.

Were these good things ?

They were, if you could handle them. When you
educate students, you want to make them think...
without breaking them.

I was seeing some pretty concerned looks on the faces
of the students in my biology course. And part of that,
is not understanding exactly what the purpose of the
class is. Most of the time, with mass market education,
it's easy to see what the plan is.

So Grandpa, if you were asking "will I get my warm
gravy at noon today???". The answer is "probably you
will", but "you might not" is the other answer. And
if your response to this issue was "a responsible one",
would it have made a difference ? Might well have.

Watching how animals figure this stuff out, is not pretty.

Yet, that is exactly the level of response we're making.

The animal response. Zero enlightenment. But at least
I know how it ends. I have Grade 10 Biology to thank
for that.

So now I'll give you a hint. If a neighbor bites you
on the ass... that's a bad sign (that's from an animal
experiment). That means the end times are near.

Paul
  #36  
Old September 24th 19, 03:42 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 23/09/2019 09.49, Paul wrote:
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical
processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the
deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of
power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind
and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted.
We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras.

False. It is growing hugely here.
Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.
So? Energy production is a national issue and needs to be incentivised to
do what's best for the national/global interest. Can't depend on
short-sighted companies which are only interested in next year's profits.
Even fossil fuels are subsidised.
At least corn ethanol is, and corn ethanol "makes no sense",
except as a market distortion and farm incentive program.
It converts arable land that could be used for food
crops, into a "gas station" that is not needed.


As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects
that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they
would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on
exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-)


It's not compatible with older engines.


For some *very* large value of "older"! My car is over *sixteen* years
old and is suitable for E10 (10% ethanol) fuel. For the same brand -
Renault - cars from 1997 on - i.e. nearly *twenty three* years - are E10
compatible.

[Dutch site: https://www.e10check.nl]

FWIW, I think that - as you and others describe - use of ethanol in
petrol fuel is a dumb idea, but mis-/biased information about
non-compatibility of "older" engines is not helping.

It's been known to affect seals on some engines.
(That's what I was told at the dealership.)

As for the effects, they're just too complicated to comment on.

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/en...s-11-00221.pdf

I was referring to some extent, to an overall system analysis taking
all inputs into account, and the conclusion that ethanol was worse
for the environment as a result. It's not a net positive, and
it's a farm subsidy program.

With three-way catalyst systems and stoichiometric engine operation,
the modern car is already pretty clean. Just CO2 and H20 come out the
tail pipe (once the cat is fully heated up). One of the "ways" on the cat,
takes care of CO, another takes care of NOx. Wikipedia has details.
Ethanol is not needed, to make that happen.

Ethanol would affect the fuel octane rating (knock etc).

Paul

  #37  
Old September 24th 19, 03:48 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:15:05 -0400, Paul
wrote:

As I mentioned on another post, ethanol acts as additive with effects
that, if ethanol is removed, have to be produced by other chemicals they
would have to add. And apparently it doesn't have other bad effects on
exhaust, so ethanol is good to have :-)


It's not compatible with older engines.

It's been known to affect seals on some engines.
(That's what I was told at the dealership.)


True, all modern cars have had to be re-engineered to enable them to
survive ethanol if and when they encounter it.


See my response to Paul. "modern" as in as much as more than *twenty
three* years old!

[Agreed stuff deleted.]
  #38  
Old September 24th 19, 06:13 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over thelast 100 years

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:14:39 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 21/09/2019 04.26, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 22:34:04 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 02.33, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:30:32 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I asked you a general question and you answer with a specific example.
:-(

Because all the problems, all the industry, can not be tackled all at
once. Start somewhere with something, and continue. A step at a time.

So, you have no general answer to the problems. You can only pick off
occasional examples.


And you refuse to solve a part of the problem just because it does not
solve it all. Instead of doing what we can NOW.

No. Like you I want to solve the problem but like you I recognise that
what is needed is a solution of broad aplicability which wind and
solar are not.


And what is your broadly applicable solution, then?

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.


Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

  #39  
Old September 24th 19, 07:15 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

Frank Slootweg wrote:


For some *very* large value of "older"! My car is over *sixteen* years
old and is suitable for E10 (10% ethanol) fuel. For the same brand -
Renault - cars from 1997 on - i.e. nearly *twenty three* years - are E10
compatible.

[Dutch site: https://www.e10check.nl]

FWIW, I think that - as you and others describe - use of ethanol in
petrol fuel is a dumb idea, but mis-/biased information about
non-compatibility of "older" engines is not helping.


I used to get tidbits about cars when visiting
the repair shop.

For example, the car had a current flow monitor, possibly
tied into the charging path. I was told the reason that
feature was added to the cars, had to do with the
damage caused when the voltage regulator "jammed on"
and the battery would be cooked by a railed field winding
(the alternator could produce 18V @ 70A or so, boiling the battery).
This had, on a number of cars, caused the battery to blow, and
coated everything under the hood with battery acid. The
car, after this happened, was normally a write-off. The
added feature, was there to stop that from happening.

So when having these discussions at the shop, the staff
could provide historical perspective, of why something
existed, or what the history was. For that battery
one, some of the staff had opened the hood on a customer
car, and found it coated with battery acid. They could
attest to the damage it caused. Even if you cleaned up the
car, the car would never be reliable again (that acid
has a way of getting into everything).

Now, if someone could only explain why "daytime running light
relays" wear out :-) That's a regulatory difference between
Canada and the US. Our cars here, the (running) lights remain on during
daytime, for safety. Typically the rear running lights fail
to come on, and it's a five dollar relay that does it. Some
evenings, when I'm driving around, I'll count a half dozen
cars with DTR failures. (They have brake lights working,
but the running lights that help people space properly
when driving, would be off.) In the electrical panel,
the US car has the relay pulled, in Canada the relay
is inserted. (The presence of the relay is part of the
circuit design, so the car knows the difference.) And
the net effect, is one more failure mode in the electrical
system. (I've had one fail, and didn't notice until someone
pointed it out to me.)

Paul
  #40  
Old September 24th 19, 08:48 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.


Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.


I think what society wants, is reactors that don't melt down.

Fusion has that going for it.

Just about all of the methods are "dirty". Even the vaunted Helium III
fusion is "slightly dirty". If an article doesn't have pictures
of decay chains and an analysis of radioactive pollution, something
is wrong. The only time a tech is "pollution free", is when
the first article comes out in Popular Science.

What you don't want, is a radioactive tech that is so strong,
it kills the robots half way through a session.

*******

And nuclear isn't dead. You may not see the cement mixer churning in
your neighborhood, but somewhere, it's working overtime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

"China intends to build 32 nuclear plants with 40,000 MWe capacity by 2020.

India plans on bringing 20,000 MWe nuclear capacity on line by 2020,
and aims to supply 25% of electricity from nuclear power by 2050.
"

So somewhere, there is less unease than here.

Paul
  #41  
Old September 24th 19, 11:19 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over thelast 100 years

Paul wrote:
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.


Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.


I think what society wants, is reactors that don't melt down.


And spent fuel that doesn't need storing for millennia.

Fusion has that going for it.


Plus the limitless source of fuel, short half-life waste and orders of
magnitude more energy.

I think fission is still a valuable source of energy, but the TCO is huge
and not enough countries are investing in it. The UK had three serious
plans on the go until recently, but two bids failed. The remaining one
won't come online until 2027 and will have taken nearly 20 years to
achieve.

It will have 3GW of power generating capacity. Whereas, In the last 10
years we've built 18GW of wind energy capacity to the point where it is
contributing almost as much as nuclear to the grid.

  #42  
Old September 25th 19, 01:51 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

Chris wrote:
Paul wrote:
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris

Right now I think its pebble bed reactors with thorium reactors not
too far away. That's if only we could start working on them again.
Untested, theoretical technology which is at best 20 years away. That's not
withstanding the public (and therefore government) unease with nuclear
power. Not really a solution; more of a hope. What do we do in the
meantime?

I'd say fusion is better long-term hope.

I think what society wants, is reactors that don't melt down.


And spent fuel that doesn't need storing for millennia.

Fusion has that going for it.


Plus the limitless source of fuel, short half-life waste and orders of
magnitude more energy.

I think fission is still a valuable source of energy, but the TCO is huge
and not enough countries are investing in it. The UK had three serious
plans on the go until recently, but two bids failed. The remaining one
won't come online until 2027 and will have taken nearly 20 years to
achieve.

It will have 3GW of power generating capacity. Whereas, In the last 10
years we've built 18GW of wind energy capacity to the point where it is
contributing almost as much as nuclear to the grid.


Do you know if they have a solution for the size of the
rest of the plant ?

One thing that impressed me during a tour of a nuclear plant,
was the size of the generating (turbine) hall.

https://www.opg.com/powering-ontario...ngton-nuclear/

"Turbine hall

580 metres long by 137 metres wide by 45 metres high.

It’s a space approximately six football fields long and twelve storeys high
"

The one I was in, was a bit smaller than that. The equipment sits at
floor level, and isn't that tall overall. This means the "volume" above the
turbine, is *huge*. So part of the cost of the plant, is structures like that.

When you're standing in the hall, the scale of the building takes your
breath away.

I presume this is an attempt to hold materials that escape during a failure,
but I don't know if this is true or not. The materials on the loose in there,
should be in a secondary loop, and relatively clean.

The main reactor has six foot thick walls. And it might be a bit taller than
that hall. The fusion one won't need to be anything like that.

While a fusion reaction chamber could be relatively small, and material
control from that part will be different, I wonder if the turbine hall
can be made more compact than it is now. It will probably need the same
cooling towers or access to fresh water for cooling. From the outside
of the plant, it's not going to look that much different. That's if you
can actually transfer all the released energy out of a fusion reaction,
into steam. I haven't seen any discussion about how that part might work.

One reason for keeping the reaction chamber small, is to make
it easier to machine and build.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor

My favorite is this one, because a computer figured out the crazy
looking yellow plasma flow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X

Paul
  #43  
Old September 25th 19, 04:39 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

On 23 Sep 2019 15:44:55 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:17:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

--- snip ---

We will never eliminate the CO2 emissions inherent in chemical
processes. Some chemical processes cannot be avoided, including the
deoxidation of iron ore and the making of cement. The generation of
power is something e should tackle but the present enthusiasm for wind
and solar is in the process of failing, just as engineers predicted.
We are wasting time and money chasing chimeras.


False. It is growing hugely here.


Check on the subsidies and hidden tax benefits. I think you will find
the profits are in the latter.


That's how it usually *starts* and for good reasons. In our country
(NL) the current/future projects are no longer subsidized. And tax
benefits are used in business, not just wind and solar power.


I can't find the article I need but it explained how Warren Buffet
(and no doubt others) structures investments in energy companies to
obtain a generously acceptable yield. The investments are subsidised
but only to the point that they break slightly better than even. But
the way WB does it also garners a 25% (?) tax break which then is the
principal source of return. Without the tax break the investment would
not be worth making.

N.B. In the kind of funny department: In our country, Shell is just
*starting* to pay tax, because they're no longer allowed to deduct their
foreign losses from their local profits. [1]

[1] No, I don't 'hate' Shell or companies like it, I worked for them.


--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
  #44  
Old September 25th 19, 02:26 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

On 24/09/2019 12.45, Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:


It does. Remove ethanol, you have to add some other chemical.


You use more "blend", as "fractions" are taken off the
giant column at the refinery. The chemicals would be
things like octanol, benzene, xylene, there might even
be acetone. A total of 200 compounds. Toluene is probably
a significant one. The blend changes every week, and
as the atmospheric average temperature drops, the gas
composition is adjusted to make starting easier in
cold weather. Gasoline is a blend, just like varsol
(stands for "various solvents") is a blend. And as a kind
of joke, there's an area at the front of the refinery where
5 gallon pails of varsol are filled (by hand!). While
on the other side of the refinery property, is parked a
1000 foot long supertanker. The absurdity of it all. You would
think they would be filling rail cars with varsol. The fun part,
is turning those tankers around, so they can leave.

But that's all gone now, and that refinery no longer exists.
No more lighting up the night sky, with the flare stack
(that refinery used to flare a fair amount). Sometimes the
flame coming out of the flare stack would be 50 to 100 feet
high. And you'd be wondering "is it about to blow???". But
of course it never did. Flaring was used, so they wouldn't
have to bother setting up tanks for temporary storage,
when something wasn't working the way it was supposed to.
That refinery flared more than I guessed it was supposed to.

And when you lived downstream of the refinery, you'd get to
smell the effluent in the air. And that smell was absent
at ground zero in the refinery. I'm sure today, that smell
in the air would be a violation of some VOC law.


We have a working refinery near my city. With a mountain in between, so
we do not get the smell. The people on the other valley do. My father
worked there. Only one flare stack now (not as big as you describe, I
think), but there were three in the past. Once one of those fell into a
tank, which caught fire, and then some other tank. Took days to put off.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #45  
Old September 25th 19, 02:45 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years

On 24/09/2019 20.15, Paul wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:


Â* For some *very* large value of "older"! My car is over *sixteen* years
old and is suitable for E10 (10% ethanol) fuel. For the same brand -
Renault - cars from 1997 on - i.e. nearly *twenty three* years - are E10
compatible.

[Dutch site: https://www.e10check.nl]

Â* FWIW, I think that - as you and others describe - use of ethanol in
petrol fuel is a dumb idea, but mis-/biased information about
non-compatibility of "older" engines is not helping.


I used to get tidbits about cars when visiting
the repair shop.

For example, the car had a current flow monitor, possibly
tied into the charging path. I was told the reason that
feature was added to the cars, had to do with the
damage caused when the voltage regulator "jammed on"
and the battery would be cooked by a railed field winding
(the alternator could produce 18V @ 70A or so, boiling the battery).
This had, on a number of cars, caused the battery to blow, and
coated everything under the hood with battery acid. The
car, after this happened, was normally a write-off. The
added feature, was there to stop that from happening.


It measured battery current, positive or negative. My father two first
cars (a Seat 600 and and Austin 1300) had a lamp instead, which would
light when the dynamo or the alternator were not producing enough
current and the battery was providing it. And the lamp did light often
while idling at a traffic light. Later cars I do not know if they have
such a lamp (the other lamp warned of low oil pressure), or it is lost
perhaps in the dozens of other warning lamps a car of 1980 had. But if
it exists, it does not light - perhaps as a consequence of switching
from DC dynamos to AC alternators.



So when having these discussions at the shop, the staff
could provide historical perspective, of why something
existed, or what the history was. For that battery
one, some of the staff had opened the hood on a customer
car, and found it coated with battery acid. They could
attest to the damage it caused. Even if you cleaned up the
car, the car would never be reliable again (that acid
has a way of getting into everything).


Yep...


Now, if someone could only explain why "daytime running light
relays" wear out :-) That's a regulatory difference between
Canada and the US. Our cars here, the (running) lights remain on during
daytime, for safety. Typically the rear running lights fail
to come on, and it's a five dollar relay that does it.


No "rear light on" during daytime here (Spain). I believe we should.
All cars have a frontal daylight which is LED on most cars. Older cars
are mandated to light manually the "night" main lights instead.

Some
evenings, when I'm driving around, I'll count a half dozen
cars with DTR failures. (They have brake lights working,
but the running lights that help people space properly
when driving, would be off.) In the electrical panel,
the US car has the relay pulled, in Canada the relay
is inserted. (The presence of the relay is part of the
circuit design, so the car knows the difference.) And
the net effect, is one more failure mode in the electrical
system. (I've had one fail, and didn't notice until someone
pointed it out to me.)


Curious!

Your wiring is more complicated because you use the same red rear lights
for turning indicators. I don't know if it is the same bulb as the
"night" light or the "brake" lights. All Europe has a yellow-orange
separate light as turning indicator, then a bulb for "night" light, and
another for brake. These two (red) can be combined in a single bulb with
two filaments. So three functionalities, three filaments or bulbs.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.