On Thu, 8 May 2008 12:25:26 -0400, "Roger Long" <strider@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>He's right on both counts.
>
>The solonoid is probably designed to operated in an explosive
environment.
>All that terminal strip needs is contact with a metalic object, like a
tin
>foil hat, to make your boat a big fat statistic.
>
>The blower is a no brainer, legally.
>
>There is a point of view, it which I see some (tinny tiny bit) merit,
that
>says boat explosions have actually increased since blowers were
mandatory.
>Gas va**** is only explosive within a narrow range. If you have a gas
leak,
>the blower guarantees that you will have the mixture go through that
range
>twice. Together with a false sense of security....
>
>I heard of one person who carried a tube on board. Gas va**** sinks so he
>would stick it in the lowest part of the bilge and suck on it and then
>smell. If I had a gas boat, that's what I would do, blower or no blower.
>
>Salty's right. You can have this stuff fixed before the insurance
company
>even replies. What kind of risk do you think it's going to make them
think
>you are if you bother them trying to argue against a surveyor's
>recommendations? I wouldn't be surprised if they just canceled you
instead
>of wasting their time.
I wouldn't expect a blower to provide a whole lot of protection from a
steady leak. It's value is during, and directly after refueling, an
act which creates pressure in the tank, and fumes to ac***ulate in low
lying areas of the boat. Those fumes absolutely need to be ejected. A
steady leak, on the other hand, would just keep supplying more fumes
until the tank is empty. No blower made is going to help with that,
and as you suggest, might actually make things worse.
|
