
June 2nd, 2003, 04:51 AM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT__For All Tesco PBW Games Playing and hosting
Quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
How so? Gasoline tanks have such warning systems, showing how much gas is left in the tank. People can deal with that just fine.
|
A fuel gauge on your car isn't a safety issue, except perhaps for cases where an empty tank will strand a person away from life's necessities. You were proposing a gauge as a method of detecting leaks, which is a totally different purpose. Such a thing as a safety device to detect leaks would either require that the operator note the fuel level after one use and before the next to check for a drop when the fuel wasn't being used or an alarm that watches for drops in fuel level when the tank isn't being properly drained. Further, it would be extremely difficult to produce such a thing that could detect leaks during operation, as it would need to be able to distinguish the rate of loss of fuel due to proper use from the rate of loss of fuel due to a leak. A gasoline fuel gauge just checks the current level so the operator has a good idea on when it is time to stop for fuel; it is seldom used for leak detection, as it is simpler just to put a piece of dry cardboard under the vehicle and check for wet spots after a time, or even just look for oil slicks on the pavement / driveway / puddles. Most people don't use fuel gauges as a method of detecting leaks; it is simpler to use other methods for liquid fuels - you can see the results of most leaks quite easily, as they leave discolored spots on things below. Gaseous fuels, on the other hand, don't do that. The only ways to detect a leak in gaseous fuels are: watch the pressure when it isn't being used (more complex than looking for discoloration under your car) (theoretically, the tank doesn't need to be not in use - it is simply a matter of knowing the rate of use and comparing that to the rate of loss - the difference is the leak; however, that is easiest when the rate of use is zero), remove all components with possible leaks and subject them to liquid tests under pressure (as is done for tires so a leak can be repaired - complex, difficult, and time consuming for embedded components), add something to the gas so that a leak can be smelled (but that doesn't tell you where the leak is, only that there is one), or listening for hissing (no hissing doesn't mean that there are no leaks, however; likewise, this requires a quiet environment and can't tell one exactly where the leak is coming from). With liquids, a leak produces a trail that can usually be followed back to the source with fairly minimal effort, and a spot on the ground to give a clear indication that a leak has occured, and will often produce a dripping sound (equivalent to a gaseous fuel's hiss on leaking in most respects). Leaking gasoline naturally produces a scent, no additives necessary. Further, almost any method for leak detection that works with compressed gas fuels will also function for liquid fuels.
[ June 02, 2003, 03:53: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]
__________________
Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.
|