"Randy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:29:25 -0500, Ignoramus27816
wrote:

On 2009-08-25, Randy wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:05:38 -0500, RBnDFW
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ant-death-toll


The firm that built the destroyed turbine told Reuters that it was too
old to work
safely. "The machine is 30 years old. All guarantees of its functioning
had
passed," said Maria Aliyeva, a spokeswoman for engineering firm Power
Machines

How long did the turbines at Hoover dam go before they were rebuilt?
50 years?

Let us now if you find anything out, I am interested.

i

38 years without a problem

http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=1413


Thank You,
Randy

Remove 333 from email address to reply.



jeez, they showed on modern marvels (or some such)(maybe it was dirty jobs?)
them replacing individual turbine blades, i can't remember if it was hoover
dam, but maybe (now i can't even remember if they were only replacing
individual blades or the entire turbine). showed the back sides of the
blades are eroded by cavitation. was FASCINATING to think water (i mean,
not water under 20,000 lb. of pressure like a water jet cutter) can erode
(whatever kind of) metal (it was). i assumed after seeing that (modern
marvels/dirty jobs) they have regular (fastidious) monitoring and
maintenance.
that's what i wondered after seeing the russian video, if like a turbine
blade broke off (or part of a blade) and smashed the others on it's way out
and that ruptured the housing or sumphin'. i mean, they replace the blades
on the hoover dam(?) i assume for a GOOD reason.
i think it's unwise to ridicule the russians, bad karma.

b.w.