eco sensors.

I have some questions here.
Are they all in the same place, or spaced around the tank?
How do they differ to the oxygen ones?
Following out of that, what are they using to detect the level.

I wondered if some hydrogen condensate was forming on the sensors, or if it
was a true open circuit measurably different from the wet and dry readings.


With one failed, I'd be wanting to bring the level down, then up again and
see what occurred.

Its amazing that such an apparently simple system can have behaviour which
defies the logic and inspection of humans.

I'm still suspicious of the connections to the actual sensor elements, as it
has to be something to do with the temperature, or rather the different
contraction amounts of the interface which can cause this.

Assuming of course that its not a wiring problem elsewhere.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

Musing along here in my usual manner...

Did they ever have issues in the Apollo config? How old are these sensors,
ie are they part of the batch which had problems before.
If they behaved in Apollo, what is different about this application,
orientation, siting?

As for what they may do, well, I'd imagine its not worth doing anything
unless they know why its happening, as even swapping the sensors or the
whole tank is not going to make things better without an understanding of
the reason is it?

I bet they are glad this did not happen on the previous mission though.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
.uk...
I have some questions here.
Are they all in the same place, or spaced around the tank?
How do they differ to the oxygen ones?
Following out of that, what are they using to detect the level.

I wondered if some hydrogen condensate was forming on the sensors, or if
it was a true open circuit measurably different from the wet and dry
readings.


With one failed, I'd be wanting to bring the level down, then up again
and see what occurred.

Its amazing that such an apparently simple system can have behaviour
which defies the logic and inspection of humans.

I'm still suspicious of the connections to the actual sensor elements, as
it has to be something to do with the temperature, or rather the different
contraction amounts of the interface which can cause this.

Assuming of course that its not a wiring problem elsewhere.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!

On Dec 9, 7:44�am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
Musing along here in my usual manner...

Did they ever have issues in the Apollo config? How old are these sensors,
ie are they part of the batch which had problems before.
If they behaved in Apollo, what is different about this application,
orientation, siting?

As for what they may do, well, I'd imagine its �not worth doing anything
unless they know why its happening, as even swapping the sensors or the
whole tank is not going to make things better without an understanding of
the reason is it?

I bet they are glad this did not happen on the previous mission though.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

.uk...



I have some questions here.
Are they all in the same place, or spaced around the tank?
How do they differ to the oxygen ones?
Following out of that, what are they using to detect the level.

I wondered if some hydrogen condensate was forming on the sensors, or if
it was a true open circuit measurably different from the wet and dry
readings.

With one failed, I'd be wanting to bring the �level down, then up again
and see what occurred.

Its amazing �that such an apparently simple system can �have behaviour
which defies the logic and inspection of humans.

I'm still suspicious of the connections to the actual sensor elements, as
it has to be something to do with the temperature, or rather the different
contraction �amounts of the interface which can cause this.

Assuming of course that its not a wiring problem elsewhere.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well its a scrub today apparently the astronaut office is actually
trying to protect the crew.

apparently nasa had planned to fill tanks completely launch in a one
minute window to save fuel put on their manager hats and fly......

those manager hats tend to kill occasionally..............

On Dec 9, 9:04 am, " wrote:
On Dec 9, 7:44�am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:



Musing along here in my usual manner...

Did they ever have issues in the Apollo config? How old are these sensors,
ie are they part of the batch which had problems before.
If they behaved in Apollo, what is different about this application,
orientation, siting?

As for what they may do, well, I'd imagine its �not worth doing anything
unless they know why its happening, as even swapping the sensors or the
whole tank is not going to make things better without an understanding of
the reason is it?

I bet they are glad this did not happen on the previous mission though.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

o.uk...

I have some questions here.
Are they all in the same place, or spaced around the tank?
How do they differ to the oxygen ones?
Following out of that, what are they using to detect the level.

I wondered if some hydrogen condensate was forming on the sensors, or if
it was a true open circuit measurably different from the wet and dry
readings.

With one failed, I'd be wanting to bring the �level down, then up again
and see what occurred.

Its amazing �that such an apparently simple system can �have behaviour
which defies the logic and inspection of humans.

I'm still suspicious of the connections to the actual sensor elements, as
it has to be something to do with the temperature, or rather the different
contraction �amounts of the interface which can cause this.

Assuming of course that its not a wiring problem elsewhere.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well its a scrub today apparently the astronaut office is actually
trying to protect the crew.

apparently nasa had planned to fill tanks completely launch in a one
minute window to save fuel put on their manager hats and fly......

those manager hats tend to kill occasionally..............



Wrong on all accounts. It was the managers that scrubbed.

Well, Steve Has sent a message to Peggy apologising, but as soon as they get
a tank they are happy with, they will be coming, or words to that effect.

Sounds like they are thinking of swapping out the tank and taking this one
apart to see whats going on once and for all??
Mysteries like this are annoying, but interesting, and its all knowledge to
be stored for the future.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 7:44?am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
Musing along here in my usual manner...

Did they ever have issues in the Apollo config? How old are these sensors,
ie are they part of the batch which had problems before.
If they behaved in Apollo, what is different about this application,
orientation, siting?

As for what they may do, well, I'd imagine its ?not worth doing anything
unless they know why its happening, as even swapping the sensors or the
whole tank is not going to make things better without an understanding of
the reason is it?

I bet they are glad this did not happen on the previous mission though.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!"Brian Gaff"
wrote in message

.uk...



I have some questions here.
Are they all in the same place, or spaced around the tank?
How do they differ to the oxygen ones?
Following out of that, what are they using to detect the level.

I wondered if some hydrogen condensate was forming on the sensors, or if
it was a true open circuit measurably different from the wet and dry
readings.

With one failed, I'd be wanting to bring the ?level down, then up again
and see what occurred.

Its amazing ?that such an apparently simple system can ?have behaviour
which defies the logic and inspection of humans.

I'm still suspicious of the connections to the actual sensor elements,
as
it has to be something to do with the temperature, or rather the
different
contraction ?amounts of the interface which can cause this.

Assuming of course that its not a wiring problem elsewhere.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well its a scrub today apparently the astronaut office is actually
trying to protect the crew.

apparently nasa had planned to fill tanks completely launch in a one
minute window to save fuel put on their manager hats and fly......

those manager hats tend to kill occasionally..............

Yes, and as the original all four short window plan came out of the flight
crew office, I don't see anyone is in a conspiracy here at all. Some people
are more cynical than I am around here!

Its ironic though, that if the previous attempt had not occurred, and this
was the first try, they would have gone on the old rules anyway.

Stick the voltages on, and 'listen' to the actual signature of the signals
coming from the sensors. There are distinctive sounds of poor connections.
Of course, you cannot have any sparks near hydrogen....!

So Holly Ridings is looking at a stage eva. I guess this would be Sarj
again, he said changing the subject...

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 9:04 am, " wrote:
On Dec 9, 7:44?am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:



Musing along here in my usual manner...

Did they ever have issues in the Apollo config? How old are these
sensors,
ie are they part of the batch which had problems before.
If they behaved in Apollo, what is different about this application,
orientation, siting?

As for what they may do, well, I'd imagine its ?not worth doing anything
unless they know why its happening, as even swapping the sensors or the
whole tank is not going to make things better without an understanding
of
the reason is it?

I bet they are glad this did not happen on the previous mission though.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!"Brian Gaff"
wrote in message

o.uk...

I have some questions here.
Are they all in the same place, or spaced around the tank?
How do they differ to the oxygen ones?
Following out of that, what are they using to detect the level.

I wondered if some hydrogen condensate was forming on the sensors, or
if
it was a true open circuit measurably different from the wet and dry
readings.

With one failed, I'd be wanting to bring the ?level down, then up
again
and see what occurred.

Its amazing ?that such an apparently simple system can ?have behaviour
which defies the logic and inspection of humans.

I'm still suspicious of the connections to the actual sensor elements,
as
it has to be something to do with the temperature, or rather the
different
contraction ?amounts of the interface which can cause this.

Assuming of course that its not a wiring problem elsewhere.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well its a scrub today apparently the astronaut office is actually
trying to protect the crew.

apparently nasa had planned to fill tanks completely launch in a one
minute window to save fuel put on their manager hats and fly......

those manager hats tend to kill occasionally..............



Wrong on all accounts. It was the managers that scrubbed.

those manager hats tend to kill occasionally..............

Wrong on all accounts. �It was the managers that scrubbed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


manager hats definetely killed the challenger crew.....

lets hope they dont try launching around the end of january!

Apollo one, challenger and columbia all occured in this time frame

Sounds like they are thinking of swapping out the tank and taking this one
apart �to see whats going on once and for all??
Mysteries like this are annoying, but interesting, and its all knowledge to
be stored for the future.

Brian


well I am a techicia and hate intermittents......

since these sensors fail all the time and the trouble hasnt been
solved.

how hard would it be to adapt sensors from a current launch vehicle
and substitute them in?

wonder if all the sensors are old and going bad by aging?

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:07:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



Sounds like they are thinking of swapping out the tank and taking this one
apart ?to see whats going on once and for all??
Mysteries like this are annoying, but interesting, and its all knowledge to
be stored for the future.

Brian
That might be the best way to go. I think they would want to open the
aft of the orbiter and check whatever wiring connections are there.
But if everything checks out there, I agree with you, swap out the
tank and repair the old one.

well I am a techicia and hate intermittents......
I used to be an electronic bench technician too, and I hated the
intermittent problems. I used to component level repair telephone
switching equipment, and never understood why a module will work in
one rack but not another.
since these sensors fail all the time and the trouble hasnt been
solved.

how hard would it be to adapt sensors from a current launch vehicle
and substitute them in?

wonder if all the sensors are old and going bad by aging?
There must be a better way. Seems like they could measure the flow and
compute when the fuel level was getting low and shut down the engines
based on those computations rather than what amounts to a gas gauge.
Too bad float gauges wont work, but there has to be a better way to
accomplish this. Since I recently read that there is a proposal to
extend the retirement date beyond 2010, they are going to have to
think of something more reliable.
Regards,
Jim in Houston.

Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd!
Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty,
empty what is full, and scratch where it itches"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jim in Houston stelde de volgende uitleg voor :
SNIPPED
Since I recently read that there is a proposal to
extend the retirement date beyond 2010, they are going to have to
think of something more reliable.
Any source on that? I'd like to read it also, if possible....

André