|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Dragon lure. There's a guy in a duck blind with a stinger missile just off camera. 
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 11:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
One thing I always wondered about those gas burn-offs on oil platforms, and I'm sorry if it's a bit off-topic for the thread... isn't it a waste? Isn't that a volume of gas that could be used for other purposes? Or is the volume small enough that it just wouldn't really matter if you funnelled it off to run generators or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 12:38
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:One thing I always wondered about those gas burn-offs on oil platforms, and I'm sorry if it's a bit off-topic for the thread... isn't it a waste? Isn't that a volume of gas that could be used for other purposes? Or is the volume small enough that it just wouldn't really matter if you funnelled it off to run generators or something? Sheeeeiiiit. The oil industry burns off random poo poo constantly. No waste when you're making massive profit and hardly any actual regulation. (said as a person within visual distance of a whole bunch of refineries that are constantly burning poo poo.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 12:55
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:One thing I always wondered about those gas burn-offs on oil platforms, and I'm sorry if it's a bit off-topic for the thread... isn't it a waste? Isn't that a volume of gas that could be used for other purposes? Or is the volume small enough that it just wouldn't really matter if you funnelled it off to run generators or something? My dad made the pipe work for a few of these. The flare stacks are always burning, think of it as a pilot light just in case something goes wrong and they need to dump whatever, they can't just eject it into the air so they dump it into a flare stack to burn off. The oil refinery and chemical plant near my home where I grew gets fined whenever the flares burn too much, it literally lights up the sky like an artificial sunset when they're really burning. the best thing is in the chemical plant and refinery at least they'll connect multiple plants to the same flare, they all dump into a reserve at the bottom of the stack. My dad asked the engineer there what happens if 2 plants dump at the same time, the answer was a shurg, they don't plan for that and just hope it doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:One thing I always wondered about those gas burn-offs on oil platforms, and I'm sorry if it's a bit off-topic for the thread... isn't it a waste? Isn't that a volume of gas that could be used for other purposes? Or is the volume small enough that it just wouldn't really matter if you funnelled it off to run generators or something? E. Not to mention a lot of regions with well LNG success stories have started flaring again because of the glut of cheap clean natural gas from NA shale processes. Aramoro posted:My dad made the pipe work for a few of these. The flare stacks are always burning, think of it as a pilot light just in case something goes wrong and they need to dump whatever, they can't just eject it into the air so they dump it into a flare stack to burn off. The oil refinery and chemical plant near my home where I grew gets fined whenever the flares burn too much, it literally lights up the sky like an artificial sunset when they're really burning. the best thing is in the chemical plant and refinery at least they'll connect multiple plants to the same flare, they all dump into a reserve at the bottom of the stack. My dad asked the engineer there what happens if 2 plants dump at the same time, the answer was a shurg, they don't plan for that and just hope it doesn't happen. zedprime fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Dec 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:One thing I always wondered about those gas burn-offs on oil platforms, and I'm sorry if it's a bit off-topic for the thread... isn't it a waste? Isn't that a volume of gas that could be used for other purposes? Or is the volume small enough that it just wouldn't really matter if you funnelled it off to run generators or something? Gas is cheap and pipelines and refineries are expensive. It’s not always worth building the capacity to handle it. Sometimes they only have to flare for a month at the start of operations or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Thank you for the replies, I figured it'd be something like that, it just not being economically viable. The waste of it just bugs me on a fundamental level. Like there's gotta be a smarter way, somehow, somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Thank you for the replies, I figured it'd be something like that, it just not being economically viable. Yes, but that would require making extraction and transformation companies responsible for their negative externalities, and they would prefer not to do that, so what can you do? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
 Icemobile for pulling iceshacks circa 1956. I'll try to get some pictures but I believe the rear wheels are still in use on another ice truck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:He got chemical burns on his wiener. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Oh I love those types of fountains in office buildings/malls that are closer to ponds. You don't see that as much anymore, though. Someone designing that same space today would just put a Starbucks there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
The picture needs more backstory. The humor changes depending on if: 1. Some bystander found the sign and put it in the fountain to make a silly picture. 2. Building management put it there purposely, because someone realized there's no "don't walk in the fountain you dumbass" sign, and technically the bottom of the fountain is a both a "floor" and wet so they put the sign there as a real CYA. 3. Buidling management put it there purposely, because people were actually accidentally falling in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:The picture needs more backstory. The humor changes depending on if: 4. That's not a fountain
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:It's absolutely amazing the Soviets didn't realize the deathtrap they were creating, and the fact it was used for 20+ years worth of tanks. I think even the T-90s don't have a much better system. They probably realized it but figured making a shorter tank with a smaller turret was worth the risk. The goal was to make the smallest target possible that could easily go hull-down behind cover.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
schmug posted:4. That's not a fountain Are you sure? I'm phoneposting so maybe I'm missing seeing something in the picture, but it sure looks like one of those indoor pools with fountains that were so popular in office buildings, malls, etc. circa 1975-1995.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
The fountain was drained for cleaning and they left the sign in after refilling it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Are you sure? I'm phoneposting so maybe I'm missing seeing something in the picture, but it sure looks like one of those indoor pools with fountains that were so popular in office buildings, malls, etc. circa 1975-1995. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
OSHA IV: He got chemical burns on his wiener.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
So we're back to "who put the sign there, and why?", which changes how funny the picture is depending on the answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:So we're back to "who put the sign there, and why?", which changes how funny the picture is depending on the answer. Who's on first
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
I'm reporting YOU!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
schmug posted:4. That's not a fountain At first glance I actually thought that was the case, that it was a leak sprung below the floor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:They probably realized it but figured making a shorter tank with a smaller turret was worth the risk. The goal was to make the smallest target possible that could easily go hull-down behind cover. Any hit that penetrates a MBT tends to kill the crew, the soviets figured that upping the chances from 'probably' to 'almost definitely' in return for sitting almost 1 meter lower, having more efficient armor layout, and a bigger gun, all for cheaper was worth it given conscript tank crews were considered fungible and replaceable assets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:Any hit that penetrates a MBT tends to kill the crew, This is very false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
A Pack of Kobolds posted:OSHA IV: He got chemical burns on his wiener. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
A Pack of Kobolds posted:OSHA IV: He got chemical burns on his wiener. Would foreskin have been appropriate P(P)PE?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:They probably realized it but figured making a shorter tank with a smaller turret was worth the risk. The goal was to make the smallest target possible that could easily go hull-down behind cover. Which is funny because there's a lot of land out there with nothing to take cover behind, and a lot of that is in the USSR. I guess they assumed war would occure in western Europe and not deserts or steppes. A Pack of Kobolds posted:OSHA IV: He got chemical burns on his wiener. Another grabed some run off and painted a smiley face on the hood of his truck, set it on fire and watched the entire thing go up. But it was the new kids from the East Coast that are the dumbasses, not the old timers that are native Albertans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Trabant posted:Would foreskin have been appropriate P(P)PE? PU, but it doesn't protect the balls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
PPE is stored in the Balls?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is very false. Yeah, should have been 'any hit that penetrates the crew compartment', since there are a lot of areas that'll just mission kill the tank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:PPE is stored in the Balls? PPE is stored on the balls
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Which is funny because there's a lot of land out there with nothing to take cover behind, and a lot of that is in the USSR. I guess they assumed war would occure in western Europe and not deserts or steppes. Well!  You dig a hole/doze up a berm, or you just keep moving. Low profile is especially handy in a terrain that offers only slight undulation for cover - even the slightest gully or depression suffices. Still, there are trade offs to everything. Low profile limits elevation of gun, effectively limiting possible unprepared hull down positions from which you can return fire, because your gun just won't go down enough if your tank is behind a slope. In general, there is no perfect tank or other AFV design because you always have to compromise one thing to get another. In the case of T-72, Soviets sacrificed some survivability to get a compact, powerful and affordable three man tank. But you don't design MBTs with just one theater in mind, that wouldn't make sense.One aspect in which European AFV specs tend to differ from American ones (post DD-Sherman) is crossing rivers, because WW2 taught us that we have rivers loving everywhere and the other guy is probably going to blow the bridges up if he thinks we might use them. Some bridges might not even carry a semitruck, so you have to think of other options. Russian tanks and German Leopards have the fording ability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpRiTRuwLWQ Is it dangerous? Yes, but in the case of WW3 I don't think accidentally drowning in your T-80 or BMP is a fate worse than the others. But don't try this during peace time. The same goes with those WW2 DUKW tourist buses, they're not safe enough for leisure trips. Methylethylaldehyde posted:Yeah, should have been 'any hit that penetrates the crew compartment', since there are a lot of areas that'll just mission kill the tank. Even with a crew compartment penetration it's not a given that anyone dies. Logically someone should die, but tankers are not known for their logic. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
And yes, the USSR generally designed all of their equipment and tactics around WW3. This is why they had a ton of issues in Afghanistan: motorized infantry and tank charges following behind artillery and air strikes across the rolling fields and forests (with soldiers carrying only 3 magazines and staying within 100 meters of reloading in an APC) don’t work as well when the enemy is in the mountains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
I saw there was talk about Russian OSHA....   If an Audi side-hits a tree, it should NOT do that!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:those WW2 DUKW tourist buses, they're not safe enough for leisure trips. there's a whole fuckin osha thread by itself right here
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:And yes, the USSR generally designed all of their equipment and tactics around WW3. This is why they had a ton of issues in Afghanistan: motorized infantry and tank charges following behind artillery and air strikes across the rolling fields and forests (with soldiers carrying only 3 magazines and staying within 100 meters of reloading in an APC) don’t work as well when the enemy is in the mountains. Turns out a doctrine designed to bulldoze the Fulda Gap and blitz into Europe under the cover of literally the entire front's worth of artillery, aircraft, and limited tactical nuclear weapons doesn't work super hot against some goat farmer taking potshots with his Mosin that saw service in the Russo-Sino war. Nenonen posted:Even with a crew compartment penetration it's not a given that anyone dies. Logically someone should die, but tankers are not known for their logic. It's never a guaranteed thing, but the M60 Patton has the same 'loose ammo inside the tank' thing going for it, so any HEAT round that hits has a good chance of just brewing up the ammo rack, resulting in a very loud and angry sounding self-disassembling pinata. Otherwise the crew is able to readily de-rear end the tank and hopefully leg it to cover before the term 'infantry in the open' is applied to them, generally via coaxial MG on the tank that shot them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Watch that last step, it’s a doozy... https://i.imgur.com/3kaQonO.gifv
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:Watch that last step, it’s a doozy... I’ve heard of rope ladders. That’s a nope ladder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Thank you for the replies, I figured it'd be something like that, it just not being economically viable. We’re concerned about wasting the little bit of energy flaring off, but how much energy/water are we wasting on stupid decorative fountains?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 01:07
|
|
