 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> OK, so maybe you need to redesign the other parts of the exhaust system
> that were designed with the silencer in mind. But there's a reason why
> race cars don't have silencers.
>
Hmm. Good point, though. Just about any racing engine is painfully loud.
And that logic may only apply to certain kinds of noise, and maybe only
to street vehicles. Something about how the resonator in the exhaust
pulls more of the exhaust out of the cylinders, allowing for a better
mix of fresh fuel and air.
Of course, it could all be made up by some anit-noise group...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
>> And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson motorcycles.
>
> Me wants. :)
>
Just don't put a straight pipe on it and drive around neighborhoods at
2:30am.. Or rev the engine incessantly next to someone in a car with the
window down. Its just not nice...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just don't put a straight pipe on it and drive around neighborhoods at
> 2:30am.. Or rev the engine incessantly next to someone in a car with the
> window down. Its just not nice...
And try not to set off too many alarms on parked cars!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49787f6f$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>
>>> And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson
>>> motorcycles.
>>
>> Me wants. :)
>>
>
> Just don't put a straight pipe on it and drive around neighborhoods at
> 2:30am.. Or rev the engine incessantly next to someone in a car with the
> window down. Its just not nice...
LOL, I totally agree. My mates have Harley's and I've often wondered what
locals think about the noise.
~Steve~
>
> --
> ~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> A bit like those people who buy a Vaxhaul Nova and then try to make it
>> look like a Ferrari.
>
> The key word here is *look*. I prefer to get a car that looks like a
> Vauxhall Nova and *goes* like a Ferrari :-)
I had a friend who did rally racing. He had a car that looked like a VW
beetle that had been rolled down a hill. (It was.) It had a V8 in it, with
racing tires, two sets of brakes, all that. Was fun to blow away the camaros.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Hugely popular simply because it sounded fantastic.
"But the Mazda goes Hmmmmmmmm!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
> and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
> something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now it's
> something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
>
Only problems are: a) slow (faster isn't much faster, and costs double),
and b) limited number of "write cycles". And, no, the 250GB one is not
$2/GB. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful
>> sizes and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it
>> was something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now
>> it's something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
>>
> Only problems are: a) slow (faster isn't much faster, and costs double),
> and b) limited number of "write cycles". And, no, the 250GB one is not
> $2/GB. lol
I didn't say $2/GB, I said £2/GB. Different currency. :-P
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/152605
250GB solid-state drive, £529.89. That's almost exactly £2/GB.
As for "slow"... presumably the win is the massive decrease in seek
time, rather than sequential transfer speed. (I think I saw a benchmark
somewhere... but I bet I can't find it now.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Hey, do you remember the old PCs that used to have a "turbo button" on
> the front? Why the **** would you ever turn that off?! o_O
There was one thing they were good for: Older games ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > why don't they just make cases out of copper??)
>
> Too heavy and very soft.
.... and maybe also more expensive? I mean, people actually begin to steal cables
from construction sites... and not by the spool, but by the yard...
And then I guess it's also heavier than Aluminum, which I'd suspect to be the
main reason for gamers to get an Alu casing: Carrying it to the LAN party.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> There were TSRs written for MS-DOS that did just that for machines that
> had faster processors but no turbo button. :-)
Yeah, but they used up precious memory, which the Turbo didn't ;)
In addition, the TSRs would make the system run a bit less smoothly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
>
> And then I guess it's also heavier than Aluminum, which I'd suspect to be the
> main reason for gamers to get an Alu casing: Carrying it to the LAN party.
>
Magnesium. The ultimate in portability. My camera still blows me away,
the chassis is a Mg alloy and feels like plastic.
Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:29:29 -0500, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There were TSRs written for MS-DOS that did just that for machines that
>> had faster processors but no turbo button. :-)
>
> Yeah, but they used up precious memory, which the Turbo didn't ;)
Absolutely. Managing TSRs was always a lot of fun. (OK, maybe not).
> In addition, the TSRs would make the system run a bit less smoothly.
They could, but my experience was generally good. Unless the TSR was
poorly written, in which case it got used only once. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:46:14 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
>
>> And then I guess it's also heavier than Aluminum, which I'd suspect to
>> be the main reason for gamers to get an Alu casing: Carrying it to the
>> LAN party.
>>
>>
> Magnesium. The ultimate in portability. My camera still blows me away,
> the chassis is a Mg alloy and feels like plastic.
>
> Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
I just had a picture flash through my mind (if you'll pardon the pun) of
a case made out of pure Magnesium. In my mind's eye, it didn't last very
long, but it was spectacular. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> They could, but my experience was generally good. Unless the TSR was
> poorly written, in which case it got used only once. :-)
>
Sidekick comes to mind as a particularly troublesome TSR.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> I just had a picture flash through my mind (if you'll pardon the pun) of
> a case made out of pure Magnesium. In my mind's eye, it didn't last very
> long, but it was spectacular. :-)
>
> Jim
Something like ...
http://macenstein.com/default/archives/1405
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Sidekick comes to mind as a particularly troublesome TSR.
But very popular. Indeed, Sidekick was why people invented the SysRq key.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Sidekick comes to mind as a particularly troublesome TSR.
>
> But very popular. Indeed, Sidekick was why people invented the SysRq key.
>
So, that's why the SysReq key ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> News today: an 8GB *RAM-based* solid-state drive:
> http://tinyurl.com/8d64qv
Hum... why would anyone want such a thing?
For persistent storage of data, I guess it would be a *very* bad idea. Lose
power = lose data.
For nice fast swap space, I guess it would make more sense to put those 8GB
right onto the mainboard, so you don't need the swap space in the first place.
For fast temporary storage of mass data (like, say, in scientific simulations),
it's plain too small...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> And whatever you do, don't get me started on Harley Davidson motorcycles.
I heard they're actually for bad combustion, in order to get that typical
sound...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm still puzzled about the Race of Champions. They raced several
> designs of car which seemed to be using *external combustion* to propell
> themselves, rather than the more traditional *internal combustion*. (As
> evidenced by the huge flashes and bangs as they raced round the track.)
Military planes do it, so why shouldn't a car benefit from an afterburner, too?
=B)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> News today: an 8GB *RAM-based* solid-state drive:
>> http://tinyurl.com/8d64qv
>
> Hum... why would anyone want such a thing?
>
> For persistent storage of data, I guess it would be a *very* bad idea. Lose
> power = lose data.
>
> For nice fast swap space, I guess it would make more sense to put those 8GB
> right onto the mainboard, so you don't need the swap space in the first place.
>
> For fast temporary storage of mass data (like, say, in scientific simulations),
> it's plain too small...
>
>
It would make a darned nice Photoshop scratch disk. Make it about 50GB
and it would make a decent video editing scratch disk.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Maybe someone could find a way to convert the sound energy from an engine
> into mechanical or electrical energy...
Some do, in a way: Resonance exhausts. They're designed to use the acoustic
"bang" produced when a cylinder is opened to expel the exhaust gases, to
resonate in the exhaust system in such a way that a lower-than-average pressure
is achieved when the next cylinder opens, helping expel it.
Probably must be tuned to some certain rpm optimum though.
So that may be another reason why racing cars are particularly loud - and why
the statement "loud == inefficient" is not totally true.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> > - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
> > and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
> > something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now it's
> > something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
> >
> Only problems are: a) slow (faster isn't much faster, and costs double),
> and b) limited number of "write cycles". And, no, the 250GB one is not
> $2/GB. lol
Just recently read about SSD's; two things to consider:
- If they're reasonably good quality, it seems you can't really "kill" them,
even in years of excessive abuse... because they can only do so many write
cycles a second ;)
- If you don't need to *write* too much, then faster *is* much faster! (Don't
try to replace a speed-optimized RAID box that already maxes out the connection
speed though ;))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Magnesium. The ultimate in portability. My camera still blows me away,
> the chassis is a Mg alloy and feels like plastic.
>
> Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
I bet the game geeks will discover that material soon enough - if only because
it makes car wheels faster as well :)
(IIRC you shouldn't try to build something out of pure Mg though... unless the
thing to build is an outdoor fire starter ;))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:46:14 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
Woosh! Thermite :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:56:10 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
>> They could, but my experience was generally good. Unless the TSR was
>> poorly written, in which case it got used only once. :-)
>>
>>
> Sidekick comes to mind as a particularly troublesome TSR.
Yeah, it had some useful features, but not *that* useful.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:02:16 -0600, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> I just had a picture flash through my mind (if you'll pardon the pun)
>> of a case made out of pure Magnesium. In my mind's eye, it didn't last
>> very long, but it was spectacular. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Something like ...
>
> http://macenstein.com/default/archives/1405
Yes, something like that - I'd forgotten all about the NeXTCube.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>> - It appears that "solid state harddrives" are now reaching useful sizes
>>> and sane pricing levels. (E.g., when I first looked at this it was
>>> something like £1,000 for 10 GB, which is obviously absurd. Now it's
>>> something like £2/GB with sizes up to 250GB.)
>>>
>> Only problems are: a) slow (faster isn't much faster, and costs double),
>> and b) limited number of "write cycles". And, no, the 250GB one is not
>> $2/GB. lol
>
> Just recently read about SSD's; two things to consider:
>
> - If they're reasonably good quality, it seems you can't really "kill" them,
> even in years of excessive abuse... because they can only do so many write
> cycles a second ;)
>
> - If you don't need to *write* too much, then faster *is* much faster! (Don't
> try to replace a speed-optimized RAID box that already maxes out the connection
> speed though ;))
>
Well, I updated the 8GB SSD in my Asus 900A with a 64GB. I had two
choices, a slower Patriot for $96, or a Runcore, for $178... Yeah, would
nice to have it faster, but... not at double the price. I would "much"
rather have a 1TB device that I could throw at a wall without breaking
it, but.. we just don't have it yet. ;) lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm still puzzled about the Race of Champions. They raced several
>> designs of car which seemed to be using *external combustion* to propell
>> themselves, rather than the more traditional *internal combustion*. (As
>> evidenced by the huge flashes and bangs as they raced round the track.)
>
> Military planes do it, so why shouldn't a car benefit from an afterburner,
> too?
> =B)
Because to get any remotely significant extra acceleration you would use up
the whole fuel tank in 10 seconds :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Maybe someone could find a way to convert the sound energy from an engine
>> into mechanical or electrical energy...
>
> Some do, in a way: Resonance exhausts. They're designed to use the
> acoustic
> "bang" produced when a cylinder is opened to expel the exhaust gases, to
> resonate in the exhaust system in such a way that a lower-than-average
> pressure
> is achieved when the next cylinder opens, helping expel it.
>
> Probably must be tuned to some certain rpm optimum though.
Oh yes, that is done already in most (all?) modern cars, the length and
geometry of how the individual pipes from each cylinder join up together is
very important in making an efficient and powerful engine. In road cars of
course efficiency is usually the design goal (and the designed rpm is much
lower) rather than overall performance, but sometimes in sportier cars and
racing cars you definitely really tune the exhaust for a high rpm (usually
around maximum power revs), this results in the exhaust system getting
noticeably louder at a certain point.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:46:14 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Of course, I don't know how well Mg deals with heat.
>
> Woosh! Thermite :)
Not nearly as hot as thermite, but it can be (and is) used to start a
thermite reaction.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Not nearly as hot as thermite, but it can be (and is) used to start a
> thermite reaction.
But did you ever try to light a piece of Magnesium?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Not nearly as hot as thermite, but it can be (and is) used to start a
>> thermite reaction.
>
> But did you ever try to light a piece of Magnesium?
>
No ... But from what I've seen, the strips used as a fuse can be
somewhat tricky to light.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No ... But from what I've seen, the strips used as a fuse can be somewhat
> tricky to light.
From what I remember at school we had to put the bunsen burner on the "hot"
setting and hold the Mg strip in it for a few seconds before it lit. I
don't think you're going to accidentally light it at home...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> No ... But from what I've seen, the strips used as a fuse can be
>> somewhat tricky to light.
>
> From what I remember at school we had to put the bunsen burner on the
> "hot" setting and hold the Mg strip in it for a few seconds before it
> lit. I don't think you're going to accidentally light it at home...
I lit a thin magnesium ribbon with a match.
OTOH, a nice solid lump of it probably won't burn too well. I hear they
make pencil sharpeners out of it. (Or, more likely, some alloy of it.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> No ... But from what I've seen, the strips used as a fuse can be
>>> somewhat tricky to light.
>>
>> From what I remember at school we had to put the bunsen burner on the
>> "hot" setting and hold the Mg strip in it for a few seconds before it
>> lit. I don't think you're going to accidentally light it at home...
>
> I lit a thin magnesium ribbon with a match.
>
> OTOH, a nice solid lump of it probably won't burn too well. I hear they
> make pencil sharpeners out of it. (Or, more likely, some alloy of it.)
Great. Now I'm just going to HAVE to get a pencil sharpener and set it
ablaze. Thanks Andrew :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I lit a thin magnesium ribbon with a match.
>>
>> OTOH, a nice solid lump of it probably won't burn too well. I hear
>> they make pencil sharpeners out of it. (Or, more likely, some alloy of
>> it.)
>
> Great. Now I'm just going to HAVE to get a pencil sharpener and set it
> ablaze. Thanks Andrew :)
DON'T DO IT!
ESPECIALLY IF YOUR PENCIL SHARPENER IS PLASTIC!!!
:-O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:57:21 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> Not nearly as hot as thermite, but it can be (and is) used to start a
>> thermite reaction.
>
>But did you ever try to light a piece of Magnesium?
>
But have you ever tried to put burning magnesium out?
I remember from a fire fighting course I was on when I worked offshore that
there is a technique for doing it. You have to pour copious amounts of water on
it very slowly. Not use the normal jet from a fire hose or you have a very
spread out fire. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Great. Now I'm just going to HAVE to get a pencil sharpener and set it
>> ablaze. Thanks Andrew :)
>
> DON'T DO IT!
>
So bright ... XD
> ESPECIALLY IF YOUR PENCIL SHARPENER IS PLASTIC!!!
>
Eeew, no way. Burning plastic is no fun. Toxic fumes make me sick.
> :-O
XD
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> But have you ever tried to put burning magnesium out?
>
> I remember from a fire fighting course I was on when I worked offshore that
> there is a technique for doing it. You have to pour copious amounts of water on
> it very slowly. Not use the normal jet from a fire hose or you have a very
> spread out fire. :)
Ummm. Water on a metal fire ... isn't that just going to exacerbate the
reaction and create hydrogen gas?
Some will even burn in nitrogen.. I think they have foams for helping
extinguish metal fires.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ummm. Water on a metal fire ... isn't that just going to exacerbate the
> reaction and create hydrogen gas?
Not magnesium, no. (Not at any appreciable rate, at least.) Try it with,
say, sodium and you've have a Big Problem. Magnesium is far too
unreactive for it to be a problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:53:30 -0600, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> But have you ever tried to put burning magnesium out?
>>
>> I remember from a fire fighting course I was on when I worked offshore that
>> there is a technique for doing it. You have to pour copious amounts of water on
>> it very slowly. Not use the normal jet from a fire hose or you have a very
>> spread out fire. :)
>
>Ummm. Water on a metal fire ... isn't that just going to exacerbate the
>reaction and create hydrogen gas?
>
>Some will even burn in nitrogen.. I think they have foams for helping
>extinguish metal fires.
Yes, but the obvious circumstances of a magnesium fire offshore is a helicopter
crash. The build up of Hydrogen would not be a problem as it would be outside or
on the helideck. We would have used AFFF (Aqueous film forming foam). The water
being mainly a carrier for the AFFF and for cooling.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Not magnesium, no. (Not at any appreciable rate, at least.) Try it with,
> say, sodium and you've have a Big Problem. Magnesium is far too
> unreactive for it to be a problem.
But when the metal is at the combustion point it would react with the
water, right?
Yes, right ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium#Precautions
The only way to douse the fire is to smother it. Water will simply piss
it off.
Sodium reacts if you so much as look at it wrong...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Yes, but the obvious circumstances of a magnesium fire offshore is a helicopter
> crash. The build up of Hydrogen would not be a problem as it would be outside or
> on the helideck. We would have used AFFF (Aqueous film forming foam). The water
> being mainly a carrier for the AFFF and for cooling.
Just make sure its Class D. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not magnesium, no. (Not at any appreciable rate, at least.) Try it
>> with, say, sodium and you've have a Big Problem. Magnesium is far too
>> unreactive for it to be a problem.
>
> But when the metal is at the combustion point it would react with the
> water, right?
>
> Yes, right ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium#Precautions
Oh, well, I've only tried mixing it in water at room temperatures.
> Sodium reacts if you so much as look at it wrong...
Yes. ;-)
And calcium bubbles quite a bit.
And magnesium... well after about an hour a few tiny bubbles had formed
on its surface. So I guess that's a sort-of reaction?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> And magnesium... well after about an hour a few tiny bubbles had formed
> on its surface. So I guess that's a sort-of reaction?
Its every bit as much of a reaction as iron rusting ... yes.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And magnesium... well after about an hour a few tiny bubbles had
>> formed on its surface. So I guess that's a sort-of reaction?
>
> Its every bit as much of a reaction as iron rusting ... yes.
And about as much fun as watching iron resting... yes. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> And about as much fun as watching iron resting... yes. :-)
Absolutely :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And about as much fun as watching iron resting... yes. :-)
>
> Absolutely :D
Or even "rusting"... :-}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
