Ext User(athol)
15-09-2005, 04:55 PM
Patrick Young <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> atec wrote:
>> no red sticker that shows up well on the plate , proof it was the lpg
>> tank at fault ?
> There appears to be one, however who is to say the vehicle was not
> dual fuel?
I am quite confidently able to say that it is dual fuel, considering
that the dedicated LPG model came out in AU (AU II IIRC). The vehicle
shown is a model where cheap aftermarket LPG conversions with cut or
aftermarket small petrol tanks were the norm.
> LPG of course has safer handling because it can't exist at STP as
> a liquid. Petrol is _RIGHT_ in the danger range for this.
Yes, but LPG has the advantage that, at ambient temperatures, it can
be kept as liquid in a moderate strength pressure vessel. None of the
stupid thousands of PSI tanks used with CNG, LNG and hydrogen.
> After seeing a couple of BBQ bottles incinerated in a house fire,
> I was kinda impressed with the safety aspects - still fully intact.
Yep. If you were able to see them during the fire, you would have
seen the pressure relief valve cyclically releasing short bursts of
vapour to reduce pressure, which of course causes a small amount of
liquid in the tank to vapourise and cool the tank. From full to
empty, the bottle will dump small bursts of vapour without ever
having any real risk of explosion or flashback.
> It is simply insane how some people (including vehicle designers)
> treat petrol. IMHO there is *no* reason for petrol to be used in
> motor vehicles.
If it wasn't the "norm" and someone proposed to intrduce it, they'd be
laughed out of town or locked up in an asylum as insane.
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
> atec wrote:
>> no red sticker that shows up well on the plate , proof it was the lpg
>> tank at fault ?
> There appears to be one, however who is to say the vehicle was not
> dual fuel?
I am quite confidently able to say that it is dual fuel, considering
that the dedicated LPG model came out in AU (AU II IIRC). The vehicle
shown is a model where cheap aftermarket LPG conversions with cut or
aftermarket small petrol tanks were the norm.
> LPG of course has safer handling because it can't exist at STP as
> a liquid. Petrol is _RIGHT_ in the danger range for this.
Yes, but LPG has the advantage that, at ambient temperatures, it can
be kept as liquid in a moderate strength pressure vessel. None of the
stupid thousands of PSI tanks used with CNG, LNG and hydrogen.
> After seeing a couple of BBQ bottles incinerated in a house fire,
> I was kinda impressed with the safety aspects - still fully intact.
Yep. If you were able to see them during the fire, you would have
seen the pressure relief valve cyclically releasing short bursts of
vapour to reduce pressure, which of course causes a small amount of
liquid in the tank to vapourise and cool the tank. From full to
empty, the bottle will dump small bursts of vapour without ever
having any real risk of explosion or flashback.
> It is simply insane how some people (including vehicle designers)
> treat petrol. IMHO there is *no* reason for petrol to be used in
> motor vehicles.
If it wasn't the "norm" and someone proposed to intrduce it, they'd be
laughed out of town or locked up in an asylum as insane.
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.