Every Type III Volkswagen (squareback or equivalent) for about 12 years
(that's a LOT of cars) had a fuel pump which ran immersed in the gasoline.
I never knew of any of them blowing up. - GWE

Bob Engelhardt wrote:

jim rozen wrote:

... a brush type electric motor that runs the fuel pump,
immersed in either liquid gasoline, or gas vapor.

...

I once found an in-tank fuel pump at the dump. It ran upright, with the
inlet at the bottom, the impeller section, and the motor on top. The
fuel flowed from the inlet, through the impeller, THROUGH THE MOTOR, and
out the end cap of the motor! "Through the motor" means across the
brushes. I couldn't believe it. As long as you have gas, it's OK, but
if you run out and start sucking air too, ??? There must have been a
low-fuel shut-off for the pump.

Bob

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:39:31 -0500, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:
... a brush type electric motor that runs the fuel pump,
immersed in either liquid gasoline, or gas vapor.
...

I once found an in-tank fuel pump at the dump. It ran upright, with the
inlet at the bottom, the impeller section, and the motor on top. The
fuel flowed from the inlet, through the impeller, THROUGH THE MOTOR, and
out the end cap of the motor! "Through the motor" means across the
brushes. I couldn't believe it. As long as you have gas, it's OK, but
if you run out and start sucking air too, ??? There must have been a
low-fuel shut-off for the pump.

Bob
Where is it going to suck air from? The tank is full of concentrated
fuel vapour.
Never seen a low fuel shutoff yet, and I've seen LOTS of vehicles with
in-tank pumps. Virtually all were "flo-thru"

clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:
Where is it going to suck air from? The tank is full of concentrated
fuel vapour. ...

Umm - I've always thought that air is drawn into the tank as the fuel is
used, but I guess that more vapor could just boil off. It would depend
upon the vapor pressure of gas, but I'd guess that it's pretty high.
Bob

In article , Bob Engelhardt wrote:
clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:
Where is it going to suck air from? The tank is full of concentrated
fuel vapour. ...
Umm - I've always thought that air is drawn into the tank as the fuel is
used, but I guess that more vapor could just boil off. It would depend
upon the vapor pressure of gas, but I'd guess that it's pretty high. Bob

this fuel pump thread is great, answers a nagging question/s for me and
my older brother. just a guess, but the engine probably stops before
the vapor pressure drops enough to be dangerous(?). the sealed tank/
fuel systems helps here.

but for some reason, it doesn't work nearly as well as i expected,
wrt condensation. the pump bracket & clamps still rust out. --Loren

Hey Clare,

Are they brushless?

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:54:19 GMT, clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:39:31 -0500, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:
... a brush type electric motor that runs the fuel pump,
immersed in either liquid gasoline, or gas vapor.
...

I once found an in-tank fuel pump at the dump. It ran upright, with the
inlet at the bottom, the impeller section, and the motor on top. The
fuel flowed from the inlet, through the impeller, THROUGH THE MOTOR, and
out the end cap of the motor! "Through the motor" means across the
brushes. I couldn't believe it. As long as you have gas, it's OK, but
if you run out and start sucking air too, ??? There must have been a
low-fuel shut-off for the pump.

Bob
Where is it going to suck air from? The tank is full of concentrated
fuel vapour.
Never seen a low fuel shutoff yet, and I've seen LOTS of vehicles with
in-tank pumps. Virtually all were "flo-thru"

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:38:52 -0500, Brian Lawson
wrote:

Hey Clare,

Are they brushless?

Take care.
Nope. Not brushless. Standard permag field brush type motors. fuel
flows through the motor to the inlet of the pump cell. Due to the
lubrication of the fuel, the brushes last incredibly well. The high
sulphur of our gasoline apparently helps in this regard.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:54:19 GMT, clare @ snyder.on .ca wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:39:31 -0500, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

jim rozen wrote:
... a brush type electric motor that runs the fuel pump,
immersed in either liquid gasoline, or gas vapor.
...

I once found an in-tank fuel pump at the dump. It ran upright, with the
inlet at the bottom, the impeller section, and the motor on top. The
fuel flowed from the inlet, through the impeller, THROUGH THE MOTOR, and
out the end cap of the motor! "Through the motor" means across the
brushes. I couldn't believe it. As long as you have gas, it's OK, but
if you run out and start sucking air too, ??? There must have been a
low-fuel shut-off for the pump.

Bob
Where is it going to suck air from? The tank is full of concentrated
fuel vapour.
Never seen a low fuel shutoff yet, and I've seen LOTS of vehicles with
in-tank pumps. Virtually all were "flo-thru"

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:25:32 GMT, Don Bruder wrote
something
.......and in reply I say!:

NO.

He got it done and got lucky, then had to tell everyone about it,
implying that this was OK in all cases. Others say nay. But then there
were others who definitely said it was entirely safe. That cannotbe
let past. You may have an opinion or may know thet truth. Others
reading this may not.


C'mon, people, it's a done deal.

He got lucky.

He did it right.

He should have been killed.

Perhaps all of these are true. Perhaps none of them are. That isn't
important. What is important is that he got it done, and, regardless of
how or why, he got it done without getting hemself damaged or dead in
the process.

No amount of Monday-morning quarterbacking changes that fact.

Sure, it was insanely dangerous. Sure, he could have blown himself to
hell. He might have even taken half the neighborhood with him in the
process.

BUT HE DIDN'T.

Task is completed, results satisfy the person who wanted it done. Can't
we move on to something a little more constructive than fancily phrased
"You were a stupid fool that got lucky once, here's what you should have
done, dummy"???

Think about it, people - the horse is dead, the crows have picked it
down to clean bones, and even the bad smell is gone.

Let it rest already!

************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:38:44 GMT, Don Bruder wrote
something
.......and in reply I say!:


Now there's a revelation... (please imagine my eyes rolling)

The guy never claimed his method to be "safe".

I think he did. I think the OP is the David Webb who is quite hotly
saying exactly that.

In fact, it seem to me
that he was worried that it might not be safe, so he was taking
umtpy-four different precautions. In the end, he claimed it got the job
done.


************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:05:26 GMT, David A. Webb
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:


Hmmmm... I had the tank inverted until all of the liquid was purged,
and I then left the valve open all night...

Did you leave the tank inverted all night? I do not know how much
explosive stuff would be left, but that would sure alter the LPG-Air
ratio from leaving it upright.


************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:46:40 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


Hmmmm... I had the tank inverted until all of the liquid was purged,
and I then left the valve open all night...

Did you leave the tank inverted all night? I do not know how much
explosive stuff would be left, but that would sure alter the LPG-Air
ratio from leaving it upright.


No. As soon as all of the liquid was purged, I sat the tanks upright.
(and left the valves open)

Dave

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:46:39 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


The guy never claimed his method to be "safe".

I think he did. I think the OP is the David Webb who is quite hotly
saying exactly that.


The OP is me, and the reason it came up with a different "author" is
because I was using someone else's computer to post the update, and I
forgot to change the name.

I believe I was pretty careful to NOT claim it was safe, for liability
reasons. If I proclaimed it was safe, and then you tried it and had
an accident for any reason, I could probably be held liable.

However, the only accidents I can predict is if someone attempted this
with a tank that didn't have liquid left in it. Since my tanks did
still have liquid in them, I was pretty sure that once the pressure
went to zero the tank only contained LP vapor. Someone who might own
a tank that has been totally empty for some time won't know how much
air might be inside, and thus the potential for an explosive mixture
exists.

My original post was simply to explain what I did, and the reasons I
felt there was very little risk involved.

I knew there would replies explaining I was stupid for many reasons,
and I was half-way expecting someone to give an explanations that
would prove my "logic" all wrong.

I have done things in the past that I have later wondered how I
survived, because it wasn't until later that someone explained what
could have gone wrong.

Dave

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:46:38 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

NO.

He got it done and got lucky, then had to tell everyone about it,
implying that this was OK in all cases. Others say nay. But then there
were others who definitely said it was entirely safe. That cannotbe
let past. You may have an opinion or may know thet truth. Others
reading this may not.


Yes, I got it done.
But did I really get lucky?
Wouldn't that imply there was a HUGE risk involved,
and I somehow cheated death?

I guess that is still the root of the argument;
Was it safe? How risky was it?
That would determine if I really got lucky.

As pointed out by another poster, everything in life has a risk. At
what point does the risk get minimized to the point that the action
can be called "safe".

I never implied that what I did was "OK" in all cases. In one reply,
I even specified that as long as it was done EXACTLY the way I did it,
I believed there was minimal risk. If there was minimal risk, it
follows that luck had nothing to do with my success.

Dave

David A. Webb wrote:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:46:38 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

NO.

He got it done and got lucky, then had to tell everyone about it,
implying that this was OK in all cases. Others say nay. But then there
were others who definitely said it was entirely safe. That cannotbe
let past. You may have an opinion or may know thet truth. Others
reading this may not.



Yes, I got it done.
But did I really get lucky?
Wouldn't that imply there was a HUGE risk involved,
and I somehow cheated death?

I guess that is still the root of the argument;
Was it safe? How risky was it?
That would determine if I really got lucky.

As pointed out by another poster, everything in life has a risk. At
what point does the risk get minimized to the point that the action
can be called "safe".

I never implied that what I did was "OK" in all cases. In one reply,
I even specified that as long as it was done EXACTLY the way I did it,
I believed there was minimal risk. If there was minimal risk, it
follows that luck had nothing to do with my success.

I promised myself I'd not get involved in this neverending
****ing contest. But just let me see if I can find a way
to put it to bed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but David did
the following:

1. Insured that there was no more propane boiling off
out of the tank.

2. Closed the valve.

3. Applied a torch to the valve to warm it and loosen
the threads.

4. Removed the valve.

Now I'm of the general school that you keep your torch
away from bottles holding flamable gases. So I probably
would not have done this. Did he risk life and limb by
doing it? I don't think so. Going by his own description
of the proceedure, he heated the valve with it closed.
There was *no* ignition source for the gas or gas/air
mixture in the bottle. The heat he applied to the valve,
in his own words he "warmed it", could not have possibly
ignited the contents of the bottle.

Nowhere in his description of what he did, did he
advocate it as a safe way to remove the valve. If its
your opinion that it's not, well that's fine. But don't
rag on the guy that he just got lucky.

I think its important to point out that there are different
degrees of risk that each of us take, depending on our
backgrounds and context of the work. I've worked in
industry and in the military all my life. I've been
taught to be at least 2 mistakes, preferably 3 from
getting hurt. For example lifting a load, 1) stay
out from under it. 2) make sure it's well secured
3) make sure your equipment is safe and had been load
tested. My brother, on the other hand, has spent most
of his working life in the ag field and he scares the
hell out of me, being 1 mistake short of getting hurt
too much of the time.

I had a interesting conversation with a Pacific Gas
and Electric employee once. He said that people that
transfer from the gas group to the electric group and
vis versa are uniformly scared ****less with what the
other group does. Unfamiliarity can be seen as risk.

Finally, I second the idea that a fire chief might
(and should) be an expert on putting out fires, but
may not be the best person to ask about industrial
proceedures. I'm an electrical engineer and I have
had to argue that certain wiring issues were safe,
met code, and were cost-effective, when all he knew
was that his half-day training course said they weren't
acceptable.

I suspect NASA still does not understand this.

Fitch is essentially saying that if you toss a coin and it lands
heads, it is not a good idea to bet your life on it landing heads the
second time.

Dan



Fitch R. Williams wrote in message
In my opinion, what is important is that people realize the fact that
he got away with it doesn't in and of itself make it a good idea, or
safe. Without getting into the specifics of the valve removal this
can be discussed as a matter of philosophy. i.e. doing something
risky and getting away with it for a while doesn't make it either safe
or a good idea. Its good to be lucky, but it isn't a good idea to
depend on it over the long term.


Fitch

In article ,
Russ Kepler wrote:
Richard J Kinch wrote:

No, not the adhesive, the foam itself. Environmentalism forced a change of
the foaming process from using a CFC agent to something more
"environmentally friendly" (and structurally inferior). If someone is
claiming otherwise, it betrays a political agenda. Environmentalism
destroyed Columbia.

I heard that, too, but was not able to find a link that didn't look like
tinfoil cap folks posted it. I'm not disputing it, just can't find a
good link - do you have one?

Environmentalism doesn't seem to have been at fault in this particular
disaster. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board report examines this
issue; it states:

"In an effort to reduce its use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
NASA had switched from a CFC-11 (chlorofluorocarbon) blowing
agent to an HCFC-141b blowing agent beginning with External
Tank-85, which was assigned to STS-84. (The change in blowing
agent affected only mechanically applied foam. Foam that is
hand sprayed, such as on the bipod ramp, is still applied using
CFC-11.)"

A piece of foam from the bipod ramp was what broke off, hit Columbia's
wing and cracked a hole in the leading-edge RCC.

The report goes on to say that ten missions after the change in blowing
agents, NASA finally managed to reduce the foam loss to an "acceptable
level" -- NASA's phrase, not theirs:

"The Board notes that these interventions merely reduced
foam-shedding to previously experienced levels, which have
remained relatively constant over the Shuttle's lifetime."

The full report is online at:

http://www.caib.us/


--
Norman Yarvin

Don Bruder wrote in message ...
In article ,
Fitch R. Williams wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Perhaps all of these are true. Perhaps none of them are. That isn't
important. What is important is that he got it done, and, regardless of
how or why, he got it done without getting hemself damaged or dead in
the process.

In my opinion, what is important is that people realize the fact that
he got away with it doesn't in and of itself make it a good idea, or
safe. Without getting into the specifics of the valve removal this
can be discussed as a matter of philosophy. i.e. doing something
risky and getting away with it for a while doesn't make it either safe
or a good idea. Its good to be lucky, but it isn't a good idea to
depend on it over the long term.

Now there's a revelation... (please imagine my eyes rolling)

The guy never claimed his method to be "safe". In fact, it seem to me
that he was worried that it might not be safe, so he was taking
umtpy-four different precautions. In the end, he claimed it got the job
done.

Look, NOTHING is "safe". Getting out of bed in the mornign has been
proven to be fatal in certain situations.

Staying in bed is very dangerous. That's where most people die. In bed.

Dan

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:56:41 -0600, David A. Webb
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

"very little risk" means "safe" in the terms we have been discussing,
as distinct from absolute. As has been said, nothing is absolutely
safe.

I believe I was pretty careful to NOT claim it was safe, for liability
reasons.

but..

My original post was simply to explain what I did, and the reasons I
felt there was very little risk involved.



If I proclaimed it was safe, and then you tried it and had
an accident for any reason, I could probably be held liable.


hmmmmm....but anyway. That leaves news groups out on a heck of a limb.
We had better all shut up! G

************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.

On 4 Dec 2003 11:29:29 -0800, (Dan Caster) wrote
something
.......and in reply I say!:

I suspect NASA still does not understand this.

Fitch is essentially saying that if you toss a coin and it lands
heads, it is not a good idea to bet your life on it landing heads the
second time.

There is an argument that it's as good a bet as any in life G
************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:20:09 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

It is not a "****ing contest" as far as I am concerned. You have
introduced yet another emotive to argue about, by disparaging the
discussion!

A "****ing contets" is where one person tries to prove they can ****
further; they know more, or they have a bigger whatever.

I have not ragged on the guy. I was replying to a poster who said he
got lucky, and, like you, was trying shut the discussion down.

I am sorry if I said he got lucky. Maybe he did and maybe not. By your
own statements you would not put a flame anywhere near the gas
bottles. So the method warrants qyestioning. As long as it is
defended, and there are thos who feel they should argue agasint that
defence, then discussion is worthwhile.

By posting the method as successful in the first instance, and _of
very low risk_ in subsequent postings, David has implied that his was
a good way to do things.

His defence is that it is so low risk as to be safe, taken to any
reasonable levels, as long as you do it _exactly_.

What burner was used? How hot was "warmed"? etc. Someone only has to
_think_ they have followed the instructions, and there could be
problems.

Basically, as long as this was posted, and David continues to argue
his case, it is worth discussion.

There are people who hurt themselves doing just about anything, mostly
because they did not understand the instructions, or did not do it
_exactly_. There are much safer, almost foolproof methods to do the
job of valve removal, that are probably not much more trouble.

If the "never ending ****ing contest" bothers you, unmark the thread.

I promised myself I'd not get involved in this neverending
****ing contest.

Now I'm of the general school that you keep your torch
away from bottles holding flamable gases.

Nowhere in his description of what he did, did he
advocate it as a safe way to remove the valve. If its
your opinion that it's not, well that's fine. But don't
rag on the guy that he just got lucky.


************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:46:21 -0600, David A. Webb
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:46:40 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


Hmmmm... I had the tank inverted until all of the liquid was purged,
and I then left the valve open all night...

Did you leave the tank inverted all night? I do not know how much
explosive stuff would be left, but that would sure alter the LPG-Air
ratio from leaving it upright.


No. As soon as all of the liquid was purged, I sat the tanks upright.
(and left the valves open)

Dave


Being a bit sarky here, but the _exact_ following requirement holds
very true here, if reasonable safety is to be assured.

Now that was a part of the procedure that needed clarification. So was
"warmed".

My point is that if filling the beasty with water, after purging a
couple of times, or some other method can make it _obviously_ safe
(within the limits of going to work on the Clapham Omnibus), then your
way could be dangerous if any of the steps was not carefuly described
and understood, then followed to the letter. I do NOT know the math of
how dangerous the result could be, I admit, but if any liquid were
left, or if "warm" was too hot, then there could be problems.
************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.