I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

"Ignoramus18200" wrote in message
...
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

Full.... no problem if the truck can handle the weight.

Empty... no problem

Half full... could be a big problem if no baffles. Brake way, way, way
earlier and at a slower rate. Same for acceleration. Accelerate slowly.
For turns slow way ahead, and wait until fully straightened out before
accelerating. Slow at 3-4 times the distances as you would normally start
braking. Keep the tank as low as possible. In the bed not as big a deal as
if its up on a stand.

You need to THINK about your driving while you are hauling liquids in a
single tank.

Bob La Londe wrote:
"Ignoramus18200" wrote in message
...
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

Full.... no problem if the truck can handle the weight.

Empty... no problem

Half full... could be a big problem if no baffles. Brake way, way, way
earlier and at a slower rate. Same for acceleration. Accelerate
slowly. For turns slow way ahead, and wait until fully straightened out
before accelerating. Slow at 3-4 times the distances as you would
normally start braking. Keep the tank as low as possible. In the bed
not as big a deal as if its up on a stand.

You need to THINK about your driving while you are hauling liquids in a
single tank.

If it's water based, wait for it to get cold enough to freeze it, and
then you won't have the sloshing problem.

On Dec 9, 6:33*pm, Ignoramus18200 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.
18200.invalid wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

Please explain how liquid might slosh in a full tank.

John Martin

On Dec 9, 5:33*pm, Ignoramus18200 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.
18200.invalid wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

170 gallons x 8.5 lb./gal water = 1445 pounds of moving mass

Like has been said...full is like a comparable machine load, empty is
the weight of the tank.

Partially full or empty (depending whether you are an optimist or a
pesstimist) is the rub.

Make really sure the tank is secured and drive like your life depends
on it...it does.

TMT

On Dec 9, 6:53*pm, John Martin wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:33*pm, Ignoramus18200 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.

18200.invalid wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

Please explain how liquid might slosh in a full tank.

John Martin

LOL...as soon as you explain how liquid might slosh in an empty tank.

"...it may be full of liquid." is what the man wrote.

TMT

Ignoramus18200 wrote:

I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

I wouldn't worry about it much at all. They make 500 gallon poly tanks
that are designed to sit in a pickup bed and are commonly used for
construction and agricultural applications. These tanks do not have
baffles in them and you don't see all the trucks carrying them upside
down in ditches.

500 gal of water is 4,170 lbs, a scooch over 2 tons.
500 gal gas, about 3,060
500 gal diesel about 3,500
Those are some pickups...
JR
Dweller in the cellar


On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:21:54 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ignoramus18200 wrote:

I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

I wouldn't worry about it much at all. They make 500 gallon poly tanks
that are designed to sit in a pickup bed and are commonly used for
construction and agricultural applications. These tanks do not have
baffles in them and you don't see all the trucks carrying them upside
down in ditches.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes
Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive
The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me
No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence is Vulnerability:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."

Ignoramus18200 wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

Do it all the time. 170 gallons of water will be about 1,400 pounds. On
a 3/4 tone you will have all you want PLUS.
You want to haul it FULL or empty. Anything in between and you will have
problems. Sloshing causes MAJOR problems.

--
Steve W.

On Dec 9, 8:03*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 9, 5:33*pm, Ignoramus18200 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.

18200.invalid wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

170 gallons x 8.5 lb./gal water = *1445 pounds of moving mass

Like has been said...full is like a comparable machine load, empty is
the weight of the tank.

Partially full or empty (depending whether you are an optimist or a
pesstimist) is the rub.

Make really sure the tank is secured and drive like your life depends
on it...it does.

TMT

An analogy of the full tank is it will weigh about what a Bridgeport
mill weighs.

Imagine that sitting behind you when the little old lady in front of
you stops short.

TMT

"Ignoramus18200" wrote in message
...
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

I have a little experience hauling liquid as I used to drive a milk tanker.

With that rig the biggest danger was when the tank was half full. We had a
guy swerve to miss a dog on a flat and level country road and rolled the
truck.

With your tank as others have mentioned the more head space you have the
worse the kinetic forces are going to be. You also have to be concerned
this time of year with slick roads, especially at intersections.

You can come to a stop and then the slosh will cause you to slide, so if you
can wait for a day when the roads are dry that might be a good idea.

The up side to your plan is that you only have 170 gallons so you will
probably be OK if you don't make any radical turns or quick stops.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

Let the Record show that "Steve W." on or about
Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:25:27 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Ignoramus18200 wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

Do it all the time. 170 gallons of water will be about 1,400 pounds. On
a 3/4 tone you will have all you want PLUS.
You want to haul it FULL or empty. Anything in between and you will have
problems. Sloshing causes MAJOR problems.

Some decades ago. the Air Force had some problems with their new
B-52s, and the new engines they put in them. Seems airplanes were
"randomly" falling out of the sky. Turns out to be only under some
conditions: namely, when half full of fuel, during touch and go
exercises. When the throttles were pushed to the max, the new engines
spooled up faster causing fuel to slosh back, then forward, then back
- moving the center of gravity faster than the pilots could react
before "premature termination of flight operations at the air ground
interface".
The quick fix solution was to put a 'stop' at the old power
settings, to keep pilots from adding too much throttle. Eventually,
they changed/improved the tank baffles.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

JR North wrote:

500 gal of water is 4,170 lbs, a scooch over 2 tons.
500 gal gas, about 3,060
500 gal diesel about 3,500
Those are some pickups...

350/3500 series DRW an up handle them just fine. The "1 Ton" isn't 1 Ton
any more, they are quite a bit more.

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:33:43 -0600, Ignoramus18200
wrote:

I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

These balls will reduce sloshing at the cost of a bit of capacity, not
sure what they cost:
http://www.kentuckytank.com/id105.html

http://www.google.com/patents?id=71E...age&q=&f=false

....maybe you can get a deal on a bunch of wiffle balls!

I seek the basic tanks are not very expensive:
http://plastic-mart.com/class.php?item=131


I wouldn't want 100+ gallons of water sloshing around on a snowy or
icy road... of course milk trucks have no option-- adding baffles
makes them into a butter churn.

Pete C. wrote:
JR North wrote:
500 gal of water is 4,170 lbs, a scooch over 2 tons.
500 gal gas, about 3,060
500 gal diesel about 3,500
Those are some pickups...

350/3500 series DRW an up handle them just fine. The "1 Ton" isn't 1 Ton
any more, they are quite a bit more.

Yep. I hauled a load of landscape stones a few years ago in my '96 F350
single-track. Then we hit a few garage sales on the way home.
Later calculated the load at 3750 lbs. Could have easily hauled more if
the tires could handle it

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:33:43 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus18200
scrawled the following:

I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

It does. That's 170 x 8.345404 pounds (water) or 1419 pounds, roughly
3/4 of a ton of goosey, movable cargo.

Drive slowly and carefully, especially if it's not full. Half-full
tanks can slosh a lot more and tip you more easily if you're not ready
for it. Liquid is a lot harder to predict than solid cargo. I've
experienced that from occasionally moving barrels and tanks of liquid
via hand trucks.

How far are you going, and in what traffic situations? I suggest slow
driving and keeping your emergency flashers on for the duration if you
have any traffic at all.


Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

No, I think 50 gallons or so is my current record.

I've seen hot-tub-equipped limos driving down the street in Vegas
before. Examples: http://www.hottublimo.com/gallery.html
http://fwd4.me/7qE , http://fwd4.me/7qG . imagine having to slam on
your brakes and sending 400 gallons of water + your clients over the
roof and into the intersection! g


--
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen
to what the world tells you you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:53:49 -0800 (PST), the infamous John Martin
scrawled the following:

On Dec 9, 6:33*pm, Ignoramus18200 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.
18200.invalid wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

Please explain how liquid might slosh in a full tank.

Iggy used the word "may". "May" = "slosh", right?

--
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen
to what the world tells you you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson

What he said.

Now, what I said: Go to your local fire hall, and pose the
question to the tanker driver. He'll likely tell you the
same thing.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bob La Londe" wrote in message
...

Full.... no problem if the truck can handle the weight.

Empty... no problem

Half full... could be a big problem if no baffles. Brake
way, way, way
earlier and at a slower rate. Same for acceleration.
Accelerate slowly.
For turns slow way ahead, and wait until fully straightened
out before
accelerating. Slow at 3-4 times the distances as you would
normally start
braking. Keep the tank as low as possible. In the bed not
as big a deal as
if its up on a stand.

You need to THINK about your driving while you are hauling
liquids in a
single tank.

That's cause they are teleported to area 55 in Rosewell NM
with the little green men.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

I wouldn't worry about it much at all. They make 500 gallon
poly tanks
that are designed to sit in a pickup bed and are commonly
used for
construction and agricultural applications. These tanks do
not have
baffles in them and you don't see all the trucks carrying
them upside
down in ditches.

How about if you finish the paint job and it's full tone?

Yes, sloshing and load shifting is very serious.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Steve W." wrote in message
...

Do it all the time. 170 gallons of water will be about 1,400
pounds. On
a 3/4 tone you will have all you want PLUS.
You want to haul it FULL or empty. Anything in between and
you will have
problems. Sloshing causes MAJOR problems.

--
Steve W.

On Dec 9, 9:03*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 9, 5:33*pm, Ignoramus18200 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.

18200.invalid wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

170 gallons x 8.5 lb./gal water = *1445 pounds of moving mass

Like has been said...full is like a comparable machine load, empty is
the weight of the tank.

Partially full or empty (depending whether you are an optimist or a
pesstimist) is the rub.

Make really sure the tank is secured and drive like your life depends
on it...it does.

TMT

Half full: 722 pounds, say moving at 1 Hz. Say it sloshes one foot
high, and that 10% of the mass is in that slosh. 72 pound, one foot
hit, is only 72 foot-pounds of energy. But at 1 Hz, it's a 72 pound
dumbell on a 1 foot radius, or 210 foot-pounds/sec^2. At 2 Hz, not an
unreasonable guess, it becomes 840 foot-pounds/sec^2 or ... how many
HP is that? Where do the slugs go? This could easily slosh at 10 Hz
with the little we know and 21,000 foot-pounds/sec^2 is just a
frightenly huge number, even though I know I have the units wrong and
it's all back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Can you imagine a 72 pound iron casting with a two inch milling bit
jammed in it, on a milling machine table, swinging out of control, at
600 rpm, which is 10 Hz? I'd scat my pants before I scat outta there.
It would rip a 20 HP mill out of its foundations. That's what a 72
pound dumbell on a 1 foot radius is. It's ... scary.

Somewhere betwen 1 and 10 Hz there's going to be a truck suspension
resonance.

722 lbf @ 32 ft/sec^2 is about 22 slugs.

Whatever is in there, it had better be full, or emptied, like the
others said. That's what I'm thinkin'.

Douglas (Dana) Goncz
Replikon Research
Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

"Use paper for the math, or plan on throwing away the first part made"

"Ignoramus18200" wrote in message
...
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

I've driven a Chevy 3500 flatbed with a 200 gallon tank, no baffles, around
town in snow and ice but not exceeding about 50 mph. Drove it from full to
empty, the sloshing was never a big deal, although I can't guarantee that
the right combination of conditions might not cause a problem. It was this
type of rig:

http://www.snowplowing-contractors.com/images/mag1.jpg

People around here do it all the time during maple syrup season. They
collect sap from tanks in the woods and deliver it to their own
evaporators or sell it for cash. I have seen some pretty big tanks on
some pretty small pickups. Can't tell what is happening to the
undercarriage. Farmers are moving water and fertilizers that way, too.
Not very many accidents that I know of.
If the tank is full to the top, sloshing shouldn't be much of a
problem. If it's not full, use a smaller and lower tank.
If the tank is tall and skinny, there's a center of gravity issue.
I don't think I'd be doing any driving on the tollway at 80 miles per
hour and be changing lanes a lot.
Driving in a stock car race would probably be a non-starter, too.
So, for the occasional use, realizing that it will weigh close to
1400 pounds, which is pushing it for a half ton pickup anywway, I'd go
slow, drive defensively and be looking 'way out ahead of you, and do it.

Oh, you didn't say whether you were a moonshiner or not.
(Thunder Road recently played on the satelite)
Pete Stanaitis
--------------------

Ignoramus18200 wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

i

Spaco, I am not a moonshiner. I changed my mind about not having a
fuel tank, and picked up a 100 gallon diesel fuel tank. It should fit
nicely in a small rubbermaid shed so as to be protected from elements
and be unconspicuous.

i

Ignoramus20864 wrote:

Spaco, I am not a moonshiner. I changed my mind about not having a
fuel tank, and picked up a 100 gallon diesel fuel tank. It should fit
nicely in a small rubbermaid shed so as to be protected from elements
and be unconspicuous.

i

Don't forget to use anti-gel fuel treatment in this arctic weather...

On 2009-12-11, Pete C. wrote:
Ignoramus20864 wrote:
Spaco, I am not a moonshiner. I changed my mind about not having a
fuel tank, and picked up a 100 gallon diesel fuel tank. It should fit
nicely in a small rubbermaid shed so as to be protected from elements
and be unconspicuous.

Don't forget to use anti-gel fuel treatment in this arctic weather...

What sort of treatment would you recommend?

I will buy diesel fuel for it soon (in a couple of weeks when I am
done cleaning up, repainting, and outfitting this tank), so it will be
winter blend.

I do, however, have some fuel that I would like to treat, suggestions
are welcome.

i

Ignoramus20864 wrote:

On 2009-12-11, Pete C. wrote:
Ignoramus20864 wrote:
Spaco, I am not a moonshiner. I changed my mind about not having a
fuel tank, and picked up a 100 gallon diesel fuel tank. It should fit
nicely in a small rubbermaid shed so as to be protected from elements
and be unconspicuous.

Don't forget to use anti-gel fuel treatment in this arctic weather...

What sort of treatment would you recommend?

I will buy diesel fuel for it soon (in a couple of weeks when I am
done cleaning up, repainting, and outfitting this tank), so it will be
winter blend.

I do, however, have some fuel that I would like to treat, suggestions
are welcome.

i

I hear Stanadyne is very good, though a bit hard to find. I'm using the
Ford anti-gel, it's more expensive, but I can get it at my Ford dealer.
When I have time I'll chase after a Stanadyne distributor.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:46:22 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

Ignoramus20864 wrote:
What sort of treatment would you recommend?

I will buy diesel fuel for it soon (in a couple of weeks when I am
done cleaning up, repainting, and outfitting this tank), so it will be
winter blend.

I do, however, have some fuel that I would like to treat, suggestions
are welcome.

i

I hear Stanadyne is very good, though a bit hard to find. I'm using the
Ford anti-gel, it's more expensive, but I can get it at my Ford dealer.
When I have time I'll chase after a Stanadyne distributor.

What Pete said, Stanadyne. Excellent lubricity and anti-gel.

You could try heating your fuel cache somehow instead. The
anti-gel is for really cold temps. Don't know how much the
added lubricity matters to you. I doubt you will be running
this engine long enough for that to matter much.

How cold will this tank get?

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Make really sure the tank is secured and drive like your life depends
on it...it does.

TMT

No, drive like MY life and everyone else's depends on it.

On Dec 10, 5:57*pm, The Dougster OK, it was me wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:03*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Dec 9, 5:33*pm, Ignoramus18200 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.

18200.invalid wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

170 gallons x 8.5 lb./gal water = *1445 pounds of moving mass

Like has been said...full is like a comparable machine load, empty is
the weight of the tank.

Partially full or empty (depending whether you are an optimist or a
pesstimist) is the rub.

Make really sure the tank is secured and drive like your life depends
on it...it does.

TMT

Half full: 722 pounds, say moving at 1 Hz. Say it sloshes one foot
high, and that 10% of the mass is in that slosh. Somewhere betwen 1 and 10 Hz there's going to be a truck suspension
resonance.

Whatever is in there, it had better be full, or emptied, like the
others said. That's what I'm thinkin'.

I've driven scooters. I've driven trucks. I've never driven a trailer
except to park it. I've owned cars and scooters and mopeds. So, I
really don't know, it's all a numbers game to me.

And...I got my license back Friday. Woohoo! Now I can buy a load of
bricks at Home Depot, rent one of their trucks, go move a friend into
a new apartment, and return the bricks "because they didn't fit", all
in one day. *snork*

Doug

On Dec 10, 5:57*pm, The Dougster
wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:03*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Dec 9, 5:33*pm, Ignoramus18200 ignoramus18...@NOSPAM.

18200.invalid wrote:
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

"Use paper for the math, or plan on throwing away the first part made"

Here's a new one:

"To make n parts, make at least n+1 cuts."

Applicable to parting off from stock or sawing to length. It makes
sure the first one cut has the same finish *on both ends* that all the
other n-1 parts will have.

There's a truth there relating to machine tool self-reproduction.
Something like for part production schedule of m steps to make n
parts, make n+e*n*m of the blank at step 1, where e is your error rate
per step per part (rate per act), because you'll have to go back and
make a new one if you make even *one* error inside those m*n steps.
Kind of a rule of thumb thing. It needs to be fleshed out with fuzzy
logic because e is never known precisely. Factoring out the n, make n
(1+em) of the parts at step 1. The probability of succesful self-
reproduction follows.

Doug

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:38:13 -0700, "Bob La Londe"
wrote:

"Ignoramus18200" wrote in message
m...
I will have to put a tank in my pickup, I estimate 170 gallons, and it
may be full of liquid.

My question is how dangerous is it to drive with such a tank, as far
as liquid sloshing inside is concerned. It would seem to negatively
impact stability of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever driven a vehicle with a similarly sized tank in the
back?

Full.... no problem if the truck can handle the weight.

Empty... no problem

Half full... could be a big problem if no baffles. Brake way, way, way
earlier and at a slower rate. Same for acceleration. Accelerate slowly.
For turns slow way ahead, and wait until fully straightened out before
accelerating. Slow at 3-4 times the distances as you would normally start
braking. Keep the tank as low as possible. In the bed not as big a deal as
if its up on a stand.

You need to THINK about your driving while you are hauling liquids in a
single tank.

A big question...does the tank have any internal baffles? Decent tanks
are made with internal baffles to prevent "surge" issues.

Gunner, from the heart of the oilfields



"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost