Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:46 AM - Re: Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer (Doug Gray)
2. 02:12 AM - Re: Liquid cooling (Bill Settle)
3. 02:40 AM - Test (Bill Settle)
4. 02:48 AM - Re: Test (Ken Arnold)
5. 06:06 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Mike Divan)
6. 06:26 AM - Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! (Christopher Stone)
7. 06:34 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Chuck Jensen)
8. 07:02 AM - Re: Test (linn Walters)
9. 07:02 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Chuck Jensen)
10. 08:03 AM - Compressor size for compression testing (Doug Medema)
11. 08:20 AM - Re: Compressor size for compression testing (Tim Bryan)
12. 08:33 AM - Re: Compressor size for compression testing (Richard Dudley)
13. 08:36 AM - Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines (Tracy Crook)
14. 08:44 AM - Re: Compressor size for compression testing (Brian Kraut)
15. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Konrad L. Werner)
16. 09:02 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (John W. Cox)
17. 09:21 AM - Re: Liquid cooling (Tracy Crook)
18. 09:25 AM - Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines (Ed Anderson)
19. 09:45 AM - Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) ()
20. 09:46 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Tracy Crook)
21. 09:53 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (ptrotter@optonline.net)
22. 10:20 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Steven Reynard)
23. 11:19 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Chris W)
24. 12:08 PM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Charlie England)
25. 01:44 PM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Tracy Crook)
26. 04:22 PM - Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! (Charlie England)
27. 06:05 PM - Re: Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer (Bill Schlatterer)
28. 08:00 PM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Jerry Isler)
29. 08:20 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Bob Perkinson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer |
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 21:41 -0500, Bill Schlatterer wrote:
> I have a problem with the Spinner gap caused by using the Vans 2.25
> spacer recommendation instead of waiting on the prop. First let me
> say that I think the spacer method would have worked fine BUT it
> should have been 2 1/16 instead of 2 1/4. I am fitting a Hartzell BA
> to an O-360 AIA and it just doesn't work. I used the 1/4 inch metal
> spacer and one washer under the spinner plate per plans.
>
What about spacers between the engine mount and firewall?
Doug
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Good Test to NC
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Settle" <billsettle@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:36 AM
Subject: RV-List: Test
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Mike Divan
N64GH - RV6,flying :)
SLOW 7 Builder :(
EAA - 577486
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
>I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
>government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk.
>After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
>ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
>not being able to trust their government to tell them
>the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government is
>'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
>Charlie
Chernobyl - 1986
3 Mile Island - 1979
If you are going to believe in conspiracy theories get your facts straight.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
Louis...
Be aware that permatex is soluble in alcohol. If you get a tank full of fuel with
ethanol in it and it sits in the tank for awhile you risk a leak.
My lesson from a bad experience with permatex!
Chris Stone
RV-8s
Newberg, OR
-----Original Message-----
>From: Louis Willig <larywil@comcast.net>
>Sent: Mar 11, 2008 4:14 PM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place!
>
>
>Hi gang,
>
>I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel
>tank last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
>anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
>Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick
>x1" wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in
>the tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that
>I saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted
>to the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate
>sit inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring
>has 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE
>OF THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
>well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
>the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank.
>The Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99%
>effective, but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in.
>Time made it worse.
>
>So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
>install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
>fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
>make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
>Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great
>so far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>Louis
>
>
>Louis I Willig
>1640 Oakwood Dr.
>Penn Valley, PA 19072
>610 668-4964
>RV-4, N180PF
>190HP IO-360, C/S prop
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Actually, there was a "nuclear powered airplane", or at least the design and initial
engineering for one. They ran into so design problems, namely exhaust and
hundreds of free chest x-rays per hour for the crew. To run at high enough
temps to generate the heat to create thrust, the temp of known materials were
exceeded and the contamination plume existing each engine would have contaminated
half the State they flew over.
Equally daunting was personnel shielding. A reactor at power (critical) needs
a biological to stop the gamma radiation. In a power reactor or submarine, this
is not a problem as the several inches of steel and surrounding containment
knocks the radiation down to near background levels. However, having 6 inches
of lead shielding around the nuclear engine in an airplane creates some W&B
problems that even a non-aeronautical engineer can appreciate. Absent heavy shielding,
the crew would have been 'crispy critters' after a couple flights.
Ultimately, it was an interesting intellectual exercise but one of the dumber things
tried. With all that said, nuclear power, used in the proper application,
is an excellent source or power. Cradle to grave, nuclear power is environmental
friendly. Low-level radioactive waste can be buried in landfills and will
decay to insignificance in a few decades and to background in 300 years.
A chemical landfill is a far greater hazard. Even disposal of spent fuel is more
a political problem then a technical one. As we become more and more strangled
by our addiction to oil, some of the political resistance may fall away
as well.
As gmcjetpilot says (quoting gmc makes me short of breath and flush), there is
no one solution; all of the tools need to be applied. I concur. Nuclear, as
good as it is, and recently has become cheaper per KW than oil, natural gas or
coal, is not a solution in itself, but companioned with all the other alternatives
can make a big dent in our oil problem. In the mean time, the low cost/no
cost solution is conserve, conserve, conserve. I know I'm going to do my
part. I'm going to run my IO-540 at 65% power at cruise instead of 70%. :-)
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of PJ Seipel
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Nuclear Energy
We don't use it for cars or aircraft because it doesn't work on that
scale yet. You can't extract the energy from 1 pellet. You need enough
pellets to create a critical mass in order to sustain a chain reaction,
along with water, graphite, or some other exotic material to moderate
the reaction and prevent a nuclear explosion. You also need some method
of turning the heat created by the reaction into some form of power,
i.e. a steam generator, plus some kind of shielding to keep the
radiation inside where you want it.
While the calculations are correct that one pellet produces that much
energy, it only works when you have hundreds or thousands of the
pellets. The smallest reactor I've seen is roughly the size of a large
room (college nuclear physics lab), and most are much larger. Great
technology for for power plants, ships, subs, and such but at our
current level of technology, not very efficient for small vehicles like
cars, or where weight is an issue like aircraft. Maybe someday.
PJ Seipel
do not archive
Don McCallister wrote:
> From: D. McCallister
> don522@webtv.net
> <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
>
> On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
> invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering
> Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we
> were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
> Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
> long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount
> of energy as:
> 3 tons of coal, or
> 12 barrels of oil, or
> 500 gallons of gasoline, or
> 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
> Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce
> power for autos and aircraft?
> Do not archive
> Don
> *
>
>
> *
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bad test to me. I can read it if I look at 'page source' though.
Thanks to whoever passed that on when I was sending these 'blank'
emails!!! Wish we could figure out what's causing it!!!
Linn
do not archive
Bill Settle wrote:
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Charlie...
Comparing Chernobyl and Three Mile Island is totally apples and oranges. One was
a disaster and the other an accident. Each resulted in nearly worst case outcoome
for thier respective design. Chernobyl killed hundreds and contaminated
hundreds of square mile, some still not inhabitable. The difference is design.
Chernobyl had positive reactive coeefficient--in other words the faster
and hotter it got, the faster and hotter it went. Chenobyl was simply a horrible
design. Further, Chernobyl had no containment, or at least the containment
they used was the equivalent of a galvanized machine shed. When the badly designed
reactor blew (a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion), there was nothing
to contain it.
By comparison, U.S. and European reactors all have negative coefficients. As they
get hotter, left to their own devices, the reaction slows down and the reactor
cools down, the exact opposite of the Russian design. In the case of TMI,
the reactor became starved for water because of operator error, some of which
was compounded by inadequate/inaccurate instrumentation. Subsequently, the
nuclear industry by put through a painful refitting/retraining of both man and
machine over the next 10 years, to ensure that TMI did not happen again--and
it hasn't. In the nearly 25 years since, while running 100+ reactors, there has
never been another event even close to TMI.
Often, things that the public are not familiar or comfortable with make headlines
far out of proportion to that actual threat. TMI resulted in no injuries,
no significant airborne releases and no epidemiologically measurable long-term
impact on the local population. Yes, shareholders took a hit in the pocket book,
but that's it. That's the facts, there is no government cover up.
The commercial nuclear power generating industry's record still stands...no one
has ever been killed from nuclear power. Yes, injuries and deaths have occurred
over the years from the non-nuclear parts of the plant, such as steam pipes
bursting, but steam pipes are required to produce electricity, irrespective
of the heat source.
If nuclear power killed as many people as coal mining, nearly 50 last year, I have
no doubt nuclear power would be shutdown immediately, yet the public seems
unconcerned about 50 deaths per year in coal mining, save for the occassional
explosion and trapped miners. So lets keep in perspective what constitutes a
true threat as we evaluate technologies.
Chuck Jensen
Do NOt Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Nuclear Energy
Don McCallister wrote:
> From: D. McCallister
> don522@webtv.net
> <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
>
> On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
> invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering
> Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we
> were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
> Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
> long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount
> of energy as:
> 3 tons of coal, or
> 12 barrels of oil, or
> 500 gallons of gasoline, or
> 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
> Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce
> power for autos and aircraft?
> Do not archive
> Don
Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk.
After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances
surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government
deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen & then
something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.
Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about
average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell them
the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government is
'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
Charlie
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Compressor size for compression testing |
I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the
airport. I'm looking for something to inflate the tires,
but will also allow me to do a compression test. Anyone
know the requirements for the compression testers out there?
Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon 100psi oilless unit for
$50. I know this won't be the highest quality tool out
there, but I'm just looking for something that will get very
occasional use.
I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any
compressor requirements for the compression tester. Anybody
have any info?
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM
Checked by AVG.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Compressor size for compression testing |
Doug,
It doesn't really take much for a compression test. If you can provide
about 80 psi with hopefully no real volume it is sufficient. If you have a
big leak and need the volume, then you have a problem anyway. The volume
you are filling is the top of your cylinder.
Tim
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Medema
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:58 AM
Subject: RV-List: Compressor size for compression testing
I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the airport. I'm
looking for something to inflate the tires, but will also allow me to do a
compression test. Anyone know the requirements for the compression testers
out there? Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon 100psi oilless unit for
$50. I know this won't be the highest quality tool out there, but I'm just
looking for something that will get very occasional use.
I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any compressor
requirements for the compression tester. Anybody have any info?
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM
Checked by AVG.
3/11/2008 1:41 PM
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compressor size for compression testing |
Hi Doug,
After I finished building and painting my RV-6A using a 7HP, 60 gallon
compressor, I sold it and bought an 8 gallon compressor from Harbor
Freight. It serves all my current needs including tire filling AND
compression test. I have used this compressor for small painting jobs
with a touch-up gun. This compressor cost about $100 and has an oilless
direct drive compressor. To conduct the compression test, I found that I
need to have it maximum pressure (about 100 psi) to start the test. That
means that I bleed down the tank pressure to cause the compressor to
start and pump up to shut off pressure. I think what this means is the
tank capacity is adequate only if I start the test with max tank
pressure allowing the compression tester to maintain its 80 psi during
each cylinder test. I would wonder if the 3 gallon machine will stay
above 80 psi during a compression test.
Most of the time I keep the compressor at home to use in the garage. I
have a tank at the airport that I fill from the compressor for tire
filling. It is adequate for occasional topping off of my aircraft tires
and requires infrequent refilling from the compressor. When I do my
annual, I take the compressor to the hangar for the compression test and
to power my plug cleaner and re-fill my tire filling tank.
Hope this information is some help.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Medema
To: RV-List@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:57 AM
Subject: RV-List: Compressor size for compression testing
I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the airport. I'm
looking for something to inflate the tires, but will also allow me to do
a compression test. Anyone know the requirements for the compression
testers out there? Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon 100psi oilless
unit for $50. I know this won't be the highest quality tool out there,
but I'm just looking for something that will get very occasional use.
I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any
compressor requirements for the compression tester. Anybody have any
info?
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM
Checked by AVG.
3/11/2008 1:41 PM
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
No offense taken at all Gordon. I know that I and Ed (probably Jess too)
welcome all well reasoned critiques. One of the down sides of alternative
engines is that they are constantly evolving, many times for the better and
as a result of comments by others.
Tracy Crook
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Gordon or Marge <gcomfo@tc3net.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration for
> the
> Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the problems
> associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30 years
> younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob Nuckolls who
> quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail, perhaps
> many
> times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every success
> there
> are many failures. My comments are meant to call attention to a few of
> the
> large problems to those whose expectations may be unrealistic. In no way
> do
> I mean to put down anyone's efforts in this arena.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Compressor size for compression testing |
That will probably be O.K as long as the compressor will actually fill the
tank to 100 PSI or more. Some of the cheap ones don't get up to their
rated power. I have a 5 gallon tank that I can fill up to about 120 PSI and
bring to the airport and test four cylinders with. If you have a very leaky
cylinder though you might have a problem with a small compressor getting an
exact reading, but with cylinders over 70 you will get accurate readings on
the small compressors.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Doug Medema
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:58 AM
To: RV-List@matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Compressor size for compression testing
I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the airport. I'm
looking for something to inflate the tires, but will also allow me to do a
compression test. Anyone know the requirements for the compression testers
out there? Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon 100psi oilless unit for
$50. I know this won't be the highest quality tool out there, but I'm just
looking for something that will get very occasional use.
I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any compressor
requirements for the compression tester. Anybody have any info?
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM
Checked by AVG.
3/11/2008 1:41 PM
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
* Don't come to a debate stupid; you are like a knife in a gun fight,
you're defenseless. Now go crawl in your little troll hole.
* NOW SHUT UP IDIOT. :-)
* So shut up.
* Cheers :-) WTF
Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen......
Is this a nice way to discuss matters amongst adults??? This list
should have a few moderators to at least curtail the
abusive/disrespectful language found here at certain times...
This is definitely not a nice way to conduct a civilized exchange of
thoughts on the various RV related subjects (...as well as totally
non-related issues, like the worlds future in energy supplies).
If a person is not able to express his or her opinions in a more
civilized fashion here, then that person may better not say anything at
all..., but let us not be so disrespectful of others opinions!
Needless to say, these lists have lost some really great contributors
over the years because of the manner in how some discussions are being
handled...
Just my two cents on list etiquette
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
We live downstream of Hanford. I think everyone praising Nuclear needs
to sign on first to placing their "Perfect" energy source waste in their
Front Yard or Back Yard and leave the Western US alone. Even Nevada
residents are smart enough that no amount of money makes the waste worth
it. Case Closed.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Nuclear Energy
Don McCallister wrote:
> From: D. McCallister
> don522@webtv.net
> <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
>
> On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
> invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering
> Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we
> were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
> Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
> long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount
> of energy as:
> 3 tons of coal, or
> 12 barrels of oil, or
> 500 gallons of gasoline, or
> 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
> Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce
> power for autos and aircraft?
> Do not archive
> Don
Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk.
After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances
surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government
deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen & then
something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.
Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about
average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell them
the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government is
'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
Charlie
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
The rotary will run for an amazing amount of time after coolant loss but
loss of oil pressure is a different matter. Main bearings will sieze just
like in a piston engine. Backing off the power does help with oil pressure
loss but the allowed power will not sustain level flight.
Tracy Crook
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca> wrote:
>
> On 19:12 2008-03-10 "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu> wrote:
> > And it is a
> > mistake to say that the 51 will drop dead if they loose their
> > coolant. That is not true. They will need overhaul after landing but
> > they will produce power when decidedly overheated particularly if one
> > backs off the power.
>
> Coincidentally, this is one of the arguments in favour of a rotary
> conversion... Mazda rotaries are known for running dry and not failing.
> In
> the event of an oil leak, your power will drop off a bit, but you won't
> have to shut down. Might make the difference between an off-airport
> landing risking life, limb, and airframe, and a safe landing followed by
> an
> overhaul.
>
> Not saying that's the only thing you should consider in an engine choice,
> but it's something to consider anyway.
>
> > So it is time for someone to invent a low cost high strength
> > lightweight smooth cooling blanket that can be worked like 2024, and
> > then use oil cooling systems off the main oil pump.
>
> I think you'd find that the problem with such a system is the drag
> internally, on the oil being pumped around. You'd need a pump almost as
> big as your lycoming just to get the pressure necessary to push the oil
> around. :)
>
> -Rob
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
You, Bet! I agree with Tracy.
I love having folks look over my installation when I have the cowl off.
More than one (non-alternative engine) guy has pointed out areas where I
could make improvements and/or improve reliability/safety.
I love to tinker and experiments with intakes, exhausts, throttle
bodies, injectors, etc. In fact, I got to thinking recently about all
the changes made and realized that the only items that are still part of
the original 1997 installation are:
1. The engine mount
2. The exhaust Headers
3. The ignition system
4. The Fuel system
All else has been changed (at least once). Now for most folks who are
mainly into the flying aspect this would be unacceptable - and rightly
so, but for me its a delight - did I mention I love to experiment?
I reduced the weight of my induction system to 11 lbs through use of
thin wall tubing for runners and two part polyurethane castings for the
throttle body mount and plenum - about 5 different intakes throughout
the 10 years. I must have tried 5-6 different approaches to the
experimental exhaust systems before finally admitting that an
off-the-self muffler (a specific make) would survive the exhaust of a
rotary and will give reasonable aerodynamic and weight figures. Then
there was the area of air flow and cooling and that is an entire world
in itself with black magic and state of the art science running neck and
neck {:>)
As Tracy mentioned, as we gain experience and knowledge the internet and
lists such as this makes it much easier to assist others reducing the
risk and aggravation that some of us faced in the early days. Still
risky - always will be - that's why its called experimental. But, with
the dissemination of the good, the bad, and the ugly - folks can make a
more informed decision than in the past. That can only be good for the
alternative engine community and experimental aircraft in general.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Tracy Crook
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Liquid cooling-alternative engines
No offense taken at all Gordon. I know that I and Ed (probably Jess
too) welcome all well reasoned critiques. One of the down sides of
alternative engines is that they are constantly evolving, many times
for the better and as a result of comments by others.
Tracy Crook
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Gordon or Marge <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
wrote:
This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration
for the
Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the
problems
associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30
years
younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob
Nuckolls who
quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail,
perhaps many
times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every
success there
are many failures. My comments are meant to call attention to a few
of the
large problems to those whose expectations may be unrealistic. In no
way do
I mean to put down anyone's efforts in this arena.
Gordon Comfort
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/03/12/big_corn_and_ethanol_hoax
Farmers = Good
Stupid Government = Bad, nuff said
---------------------------------
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Sorry, can't stop myself this time. I'm convinced that it does affect my
future RV flying.
I think it's a crime that we spent billions studying and building the best
possible site for storage (with Nevada's approval) only to have uninformed
panic driven sentiment shut it down.
And yes, if the care and study that went into that site went into the
storage in my backyard, I'd take it. And so will most all Americans. But
unfortunately it will take $6.00 a gallon gas prices to have their attitudes
adjusted.
Tracy Crook
N84TC , N109TC
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
wrote:
>
> We live downstream of Hanford. I think everyone praising Nuclear needs
> to sign on first to placing their "Perfect" energy source waste in their
> Front Yard or Back Yard and leave the Western US alone. Even Nevada
> residents are smart enough that no amount of money makes the waste worth
> it. Case Closed.
>
>
> John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:08 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Nuclear Energy
>
>
> Don McCallister wrote:
> > From: D. McCallister
> > don522@webtv.net
> > <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
> >
> > On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
> > invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering
>
> > Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we
> > were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
> > Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
> > long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount
>
> > of energy as:
> > 3 tons of coal, or
> > 12 barrels of oil, or
> > 500 gallons of gasoline, or
> > 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
> > Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce
> > power for autos and aircraft?
> > Do not archive
> > Don
> Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
>
> I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
> government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk.
> After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
> ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
>
> I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances
> surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government
> deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen & then
> something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.
>
> Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about
> average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell them
> the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government is
> 'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
>
> Charlie
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Good post Chuck.
I live about 3 miles from a nuclear power plant and I'm not bothered about it at
all. The only thing I'm worried about is if some government idiot decides to
put a TFR around it and screws up flying around here.
Paul Trotter
>
> Comparing Chernobyl and Three Mile Island is totally apples and
> oranges. One was a disaster and the other an accident. Each
> resulted in nearly worst case outcoome for thier respective
> design. Chernobyl killed hundreds and contaminated hundreds of
> square mile, some still not inhabitable. The difference is
> design. Chernobyl had positive reactive coeefficient--in other
> words the faster and hotter it got, the faster and hotter it
> went. Chenobyl was simply a horrible design. Further,
> Chernobyl had no containment, or at least the containment they
> used was the equivalent of a galvanized machine shed. When the
> badly designed reactor blew (a steam explosion, not a nuclear
> explosion), there was nothing to contain it.
>
> By comparison, U.S. and European reactors all have negative
> coefficients. As they get hotter, left to their own devices,
> the reaction slows down and the reactor cools down, the exact
> opposite of the Russian design. In the case of TMI, the reactor
> became starved for water because of operator error, some of
> which was compounded by inadequate/inaccurate instrumentation.
> Subsequently, the nuclear industry by put through a painful
> refitting/retraining of both man and machine over the next 10
> years, to ensure that TMI did not happen again--and it hasn't.
> In the nearly 25 years since, while running 100+ reactors, there
> has never been another event even close to TMI.
>
> Often, things that the public are not familiar or comfortable
> with make headlines far out of proportion to that actual threat.
> TMI resulted in no injuries, no significant airborne releases
> and no epidemiologically measurable long-term impact on the
> local population. Yes, shareholders took a hit in the pocket
> book, but that's it. That's the facts, there is no government
> cover up.
>
> The commercial nuclear power generating industry's record still
> stands...no one has ever been killed from nuclear power. Yes,
> injuries and deaths have occurred over the years from the non-
> nuclear parts of the plant, such as steam pipes bursting, but
> steam pipes are required to produce electricity, irrespective of
> the heat source.
>
> If nuclear power killed as many people as coal mining, nearly 50
> last year, I have no doubt nuclear power would be shutdown
> immediately, yet the public seems unconcerned about 50 deaths
> per year in coal mining, save for the occassional explosion and
> trapped miners. So lets keep in perspective what constitutes a
> true threat as we evaluate technologies.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
Do Not Archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
I don't know Tracy, but it seems to me most anything the government does
results in billions wasted.
Are you really surprised? If three people in the entire state protest, it
will be reported as controversial. Considering the state of education in
the US, the goal seems to be institutionalized ignorance.
John, I'm probably not as smart as the average Nevada resident, but only a
small fraction of that "no amount of money" would be sufficient to build it
in my back yard. Actually, give me a few hundred acres and enough to
satisfy my modest needs, and I'll move right next door. . . . ;)
Steve
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
wrote:
> Sorry, can't stop myself this time. I'm convinced that it does affect my
> future RV flying.
>
> I think it's a crime that we spent billions studying and building the best
> possible site for storage (with Nevada's approval) only to have uninformed
> panic driven sentiment shut it down.
>
> And yes, if the care and study that went into that site went into the
> storage in my backyard, I'd take it. And so will most all Americans. But
> unfortunately it will take $6.00 a gallon gas prices to have their attitudes
> adjusted.
>
> Tracy Crook
> N84TC , N109TC
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/03/12/big_corn_and_ethanol_hoax>Farmers
> = Good
> Stupid Government = Bad, nuff said
>
"Stupid Government"? Isn't that redundant?
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
Ham Radio Repeater Database.
http://hrrdb.com
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
reordered to make chronological (& logical) sense
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:08 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Nuclear Energy
>
>
>
> Don McCallister wrote:
>
>> From: D. McCallister
>> don522@webtv.net
>> <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
>>
>> On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
>> invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford Engineering
>> Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour, we
>> were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
>> Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
>> long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same amount
>> of energy as:
>> 3 tons of coal, or
>> 12 barrels of oil, or
>> 500 gallons of gasoline, or
>> 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
>> Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to produce
>> power for autos and aircraft?
>> Do not archive
>> Don
>>
> Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
>
> I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
> government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk.
> After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
> ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
>
> I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances
> surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government
> deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen & then
> something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.
>
> Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about
> average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell them
> the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government is
> 'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
>
> Charlie
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> Charlie...
>
> Comparing Chernobyl and Three Mile Island is totally apples and oranges. One
was a disaster and the other an accident. Each resulted in nearly worst case
outcoome for thier respective design. Chernobyl killed hundreds and contaminated
hundreds of square mile, some still not inhabitable. The difference is design.
Chernobyl had positive reactive coeefficient--in other words the faster
and hotter it got, the faster and hotter it went. Chenobyl was simply a horrible
design. Further, Chernobyl had no containment, or at least the containment
they used was the equivalent of a galvanized machine shed. When the badly
designed reactor blew (a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion), there was
nothing to contain it.
>
> By comparison, U.S. and European reactors all have negative coefficients. As
they get hotter, left to their own devices, the reaction slows down and the reactor
cools down, the exact opposite of the Russian design. In the case of TMI,
the reactor became starved for water because of operator error, some of which
was compounded by inadequate/inaccurate instrumentation. Subsequently, the
nuclear industry by put through a painful refitting/retraining of both man and
machine over the next 10 years, to ensure that TMI did not happen again--and
it hasn't. In the nearly 25 years since, while running 100+ reactors, there
has never been another event even close to TMI.
>
> Often, things that the public are not familiar or comfortable with make headlines
far out of proportion to that actual threat. TMI resulted in no injuries,
no significant airborne releases and no epidemiologically measurable long-term
impact on the local population. Yes, shareholders took a hit in the pocket
book, but that's it. That's the facts, there is no government cover up.
>
> The commercial nuclear power generating industry's record still stands...no one
has ever been killed from nuclear power. Yes, injuries and deaths have occurred
over the years from the non-nuclear parts of the plant, such as steam pipes
bursting, but steam pipes are required to produce electricity, irrespective
of the heat source.
>
> If nuclear power killed as many people as coal mining, nearly 50 last year, I
have no doubt nuclear power would be shutdown immediately, yet the public seems
unconcerned about 50 deaths per year in coal mining, save for the occassional
explosion and trapped miners. So lets keep in perspective what constitutes
a true threat as we evaluate technologies.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
> Do NOt Archive
Uhhh.... did you read the last paragraph I wrote?
I did get my time lines crossed up, though, as someone pointed out. The
memory of the events has faded a bit. It was more like "Nothing *really*
bad can happen" but then it did. It's hard to sell the idea of inherent
safety to the unwashed public when something really bad happens, even if
it's not directly relevant. It's hard to sell the idea of minimal risk,
too, when the uninformed have been told non-stop for almost a decade
that they are in constant danger....
Charlie
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
PLEASE don't take what I said as an expression of confidence in government
Steve <g>
It's just that we are stuck with it until the point comes when we have to
revolt and start the whole process over. I'm not quite ready to man the
barricades. We spent Billions on a study that should have cost only
millions, that's just the cost we accept for the benefits of government. I
expect to only get a nickle return on a dollar invested there, I just hate
it when I'm cheated out of my nickle.
I'd get more outraged at government but we (as a country) get the government
we deserve.
Tracy
do not archive
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Steven Reynard <sreynard13@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I don't know Tracy, but it seems to me most anything the government does
> results in billions wasted.
>
> Are you really surprised? If three people in the entire state protest, it
> will be reported as controversial. Considering the state of education in
> the US, the goal seems to be institutionalized ignorance.
>
> John, I'm probably not as smart as the average Nevada resident, but only a
> small fraction of that "no amount of money" would be sufficient to build it
> in my back yard. Actually, give me a few hundred acres and enough to
> satisfy my modest needs, and I'll move right next door. . . . ;)
>
>
> Steve
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, can't stop myself this time. I'm convinced that it does affect
> > my future RV flying.
> >
> > I think it's a crime that we spent billions studying and building the
> > best possible site for storage (with Nevada's approval) only to have
> > uninformed panic driven sentiment shut it down.
> >
> > And yes, if the care and study that went into that site went into the
> > storage in my backyard, I'd take it. And so will most all Americans. But
> > unfortunately it will take $6.00 a gallon gas prices to have their attitudes
> > adjusted.
> >
> > Tracy Crook
> > N84TC , N109TC
> >
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
That'll work. If you don't have the special bit, a small grinding wheel
will work, too.
I've used a little 1" diameter diamond wheel in a Dremel tool. Hold it
at enough of an angle to keep the shaft/nut off the surface & gently
drag the edge of the wheel across the rivet head. You can do it with the
shaft almost parallel to the surface, too. Just brace the work so it
won't move & brace your hands on the work as you move the wheel across
the rivet head.
Play with it on some scrap to get a feel for how it wants to move and/or
grab before you attack the tank.
Charlie
dsvs@ca.rr.com wrote:
>
> Get a rivet grinding bit from Avery tool. The bit is used in your counter sink
cage. adjust the height to be flush with the cage and then remove the protruding
portions of each rivet.
> ---- Louis Willig <larywil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi gang,
>>
>> I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel
>> tank last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
>> anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
>> Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick
>> x1" wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in
>> the tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that
>> I saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted
>> to the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate
>> sit inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring
>> has 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE
>> OF THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
>> well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
>> the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank.
>> The Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99%
>> effective, but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in.
>> Time made it worse.
>>
>> So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
>> install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
>> fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
>> make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
>> Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great
>> so far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Louis
>>
>>
>>
>> Louis I Willig
>> 1640 Oakwood Dr.
>>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer |
Spacers,.... Hmmmm that seems kinda obvious now ;-) Missed that entirely.
Just not much to effect CG or strength.
Thanks Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Gray
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 21:41 -0500, Bill Schlatterer wrote:
> I have a problem with the Spinner gap caused by using the Vans 2.25
> spacer recommendation instead of waiting on the prop. First let me
> say that I think the spacer method would have worked fine BUT it
> should have been 2 1/16 instead of 2 1/4. I am fitting a Hartzell BA
> to an O-360 AIA and it just doesn't work. I used the 1/4 inch metal
> spacer and one washer under the spinner plate per plans.
>
What about spacers between the engine mount and firewall?
Doug
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
This is a compilation of comments to several replies.
Because of the un-informed hysteria about storage of spent nuclear fuel
at Yucca Mountain, we are now forced store our spent fuel outside on the
plant grounds. They are loaded into steel canisters that are welded
shut. These canisters are then put inside concrete casks that are placed
on a concrete storage pad OUTSIDE! You talk about crazy. The do-gooders
prevent putting the old spent fuel inside a geologically stable mountain
because it is unsafe. Instead they are willing to live with the stuff
sitting outside in the open at virtually all nuclear power plants around
the country. Which do you think makes sense? Have it scattered
everywhere or put it all in one place? Not to mention billions of
dollars in fees were collected by the government from the utilities to
finance the storage facility. So far there is nothing to show for it.
Why waste useable nuclear fuel anyway? Only a fraction of the fissile
material is used up when a fuel assembly is removed from the reactor. We
are currently willing to bury this fuel instead of reprocessing it.
President Carter killed the fuel reprocessing in the US years ago.
As far as living downstream of the Hanford facility, Mr. Cox is having
to live with the results of our governments nuclear weapons program. I
don't believe this facility has ever produced electric power
commercially. I can promise you that no commercial nuclear plant can
pollute the environment like the government has at Savannah River or
Hanford. They don't have to answer to anyone like we do. I do think
these facilities have started to clean up their act these days though.
Chuck Jensen is right on the money with his comments. The graphite pile
reactor at Chernobyl shares no design features with a US reactor. Where
our pressurized water reactors are housed in containment buildings, the
Soviet designed reactor was housed in a metal Butler type building. The
containment building at our plant can with stand 54 PSIG of internal
pressure with no damage. The Soviet building just blew up. By the way it
was not a nuclear explosion that caused the damage, I believe it was a
steam explosion. No matter though, it still scattered the reactor core
around the plant site.
My annual simulator exam with my crew is tomorrow. My performance on
this exam directly affects my livelihood. Every action I take, every
word I say, and the implementation every procedure I use is critiqued.
This is pressure when you realize your job and the fate of an entire
industry depends on you to get it right the first time.
Jerry Isler
Nuclear Shift Supervisor
NRC Licensed Senior Reactor Operator
Farley Nuclear Plant
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Tracy Crook
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Nuclear Energy
Sorry, can't stop myself this time. I'm convinced that it does affect
my future RV flying.
I think it's a crime that we spent billions studying and building the
best possible site for storage (with Nevada's approval) only to have
uninformed panic driven sentiment shut it down.
And yes, if the care and study that went into that site went into the
storage in my backyard, I'd take it. And so will most all Americans.
But unfortunately it will take $6.00 a gallon gas prices to have their
attitudes adjusted.
Tracy Crook
N84TC , N109TC
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
wrote:
<johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
We live downstream of Hanford. I think everyone praising Nuclear
needs
to sign on first to placing their "Perfect" energy source waste in
their
Front Yard or Back Yard and leave the Western US alone. Even Nevada
residents are smart enough that no amount of money makes the waste
worth
it. Case Closed.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:08 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Nuclear Energy
<ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Don McCallister wrote:
> From: D. McCallister
> don522@webtv.net
> <mailto:don522@webtv.net>
>
> On a recent list, it was mentioned "Go Nuclear". In 1987 I was
> invited to the Westinghouse Hanford Company at the Hanford
Engineering
> Development Laboratory in Richland, Washington. During the tour,
we
> were given a small card which had a Simulated Fast Breeder
> Fuel Pellet attached. This pellet was approx. 3/16" Diam by 1/4"
> long. A pellet of this size will produce essentially the same
amount
> of energy as:
> 3 tons of coal, or
> 12 barrels of oil, or
> 500 gallons of gasoline, or
> 75,000 cu. ft. of natural gas.
> Now, why have we waited so long for using this technology to
produce
> power for autos and aircraft?
> Do not archive
> Don
Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power
plants.
I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger &
risk.
After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
I realize that no one died at 3 Mile Island, but the circumstances
surrounding the incident made it 'one more case' of government
deception. If they implied that nothing at all bad could happen &
then
something did, maybe something much worse could happen next time.
Understand, I'm not talking about the real risks; I'm talking about
average citizens not being able to trust their government to tell
them
the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government
is
'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
Charlie
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|