Boat/Ship engines/cooling system.
in [Technical]
|
Prev: Reason TV: How did Government Motors pay it's TARP loans? Itdidn't.
Next: Cam Sensor_code reset?
From: cuhulin on 5 May 2010 17:53 I was reading that some of those big Ship engines have Intercoolers and Aftercoolers, and some other things I don't understand about.Heck, I don't know much about those big engines.But, if those big engines are picking up some oily/sludgy water in the engine cooling water intakes, I don't think that can be good for the engines water cooling galleries.Perhaps wouldn't affect the Intercoolers and Aftercoolers, but what do I know? Those engines do cost a Lot of money though. cuhulin
From: Scott Dorsey on 5 May 2010 18:39 >"hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in >news:0PqdnZLQvZKKwXzWnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)giganews.com: >> >> As in jet airliner travel, one broken part, one human error, or one >> act of God can blow you apart. >> >Nonsence. Planes *have* redundancy due to regulation of them. If the >engines stop working, the plane glides and a competent pilot can land >it. Any time there's a crash there's a long properly run investigation >and changes are made that stop it from being repeated. That's *exactly* >why it *is* safe and why oil rigs aren't. Airliners tend to have heavily redundant systems. If one control system fails, there are two more backups. If two engines fail, there are two more, and if they all fail there is still the APU. Reliabily comes from redunancy. The same thing is true of oil drilling systems. There is as much system redundancy as it's possible to install, and there are shutoff points and safeties at several points in the line. Some times, in spite of redundant systems, things go wrong. In the case of airliners, it's almost always a bad decision on the part of two or more people at the same time. My suspicion is that the same is true on oil rigs. Nothing can be completely safe, but a lot of engineering goes into making systems as safe as possible. Sometimes people are negligent and sometimes they just plain screw up, and sometimes they design a system with what seem like perfectly reasonable safety margins until all of a sudden never-before-seen circumstances come up. I hope we'll know which of these conditions applies in the gulf incident, and I hope it wasn't a bad move on the part of someone who is now dead and can no longer explain what happened. Oil rigs don't have CVRs. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: AMuzi on 5 May 2010 19:37 Tegger wrote: > "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in > news:5aednSuf1PcVlH3WnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > >> "Paul" <Paul(a)Houston.com> wrote in message >>> I agree. I have spent about 1/2 my life in the oil >>> industry. Much of it on rigs as a cementer or well site geologist, >>> onshore, offshore, and on barges. >>> People that have not worked in this industry cannot understand the >>> immensity, the complexity, and the danger. >>> >> Absolutely. I took it very seriously. You know, when some of my >> friends have been killed, it was just the intersection of a ton of really >> slim possibilities that no one could have foreseen, and taken one on >> one would not have been fatal. A momentary lapse in judgement can >> be one of those intersecting vectors. >> > > > BP workers seem to suffer from "momentary lapses" much more often than, > say, ExxonMobil's workers. Strange, that. > > BP's people get killed; the environuts are OK with BP. ExxonMobil's people > don't get killed; the environuts hate Exxon with a passion. Go figure. BP has that new funky green logo. Makes all the difference. -- Andrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
From: cuhulin on 5 May 2010 21:31 I bought some gas today at an old independent gas station.Quick to get in and out and on my way. cuhulin
From: Pete C. on 5 May 2010 21:50
Scott Dorsey wrote: > > >"hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in > >news:0PqdnZLQvZKKwXzWnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > >> > >> As in jet airliner travel, one broken part, one human error, or one > >> act of God can blow you apart. > >> > >Nonsence. Planes *have* redundancy due to regulation of them. If the > >engines stop working, the plane glides and a competent pilot can land > >it. Any time there's a crash there's a long properly run investigation > >and changes are made that stop it from being repeated. That's *exactly* > >why it *is* safe and why oil rigs aren't. > > Airliners tend to have heavily redundant systems. If one control system > fails, there are two more backups. If two engines fail, there are two > more, and if they all fail there is still the APU. Reliabily comes from > redunancy. > > The same thing is true of oil drilling systems. There is as much system > redundancy as it's possible to install, and there are shutoff points and > safeties at several points in the line. > > Some times, in spite of redundant systems, things go wrong. In the case > of airliners, it's almost always a bad decision on the part of two or > more people at the same time. My suspicion is that the same is true on > oil rigs. > > Nothing can be completely safe, but a lot of engineering goes into making > systems as safe as possible. Sometimes people are negligent and sometimes > they just plain screw up, and sometimes they design a system with what > seem like perfectly reasonable safety margins until all of a sudden > never-before-seen circumstances come up. > > I hope we'll know which of these conditions applies in the gulf incident, > and I hope it wasn't a bad move on the part of someone who is now dead and > can no longer explain what happened. Oil rigs don't have CVRs. Considering the low cost of data recorders, perhaps a CVR of sorts should become standard on oil rigs. The instrumentation is there for the tapping and recording, and a few cameras can also record the relevant areas. What would this cost to add, perhaps $25k on a $350M rig? |