Methane Cloud?

I have a lot of trouble imagining that a 1% methane concentration will stop
an engine. I use a propane torch (unlit) to start balky engines. If you
direct a stream of propane into the carburetor of an engine, it will run
fine. Running an engine 1% richer doesn't seem like a big deal.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"G. Burkhart" wrote in message
news:w%Cnc.59722$0H1.5953725@attbi_s54...
"Martin" wrote in message
om...
Saw just a real short clip of something on the Disc channel tonight
about how methane clouds affect aircraft. Lower pressure causes the
plane to drop because of reduced lift, and the altimeter to read a
climb because of the pressure change. I think this show may have been
in the context of bermuda triangle stuff. Maybe Im just out of the
loop but I had never heard of this happening (flying into a cloud of
methane I mean). They seemed to have some pretty reputable people
talking about it. Anyone experience this or hear of it?

I watched that Discovery episode last week and they went into detail about
the theory that methane gas bubbles could sink ships and tested the theory
in a lab with model ships and air bubbles.

There was also a theory that flying through a methane gas cloud would
effect
flight; one that a piston engine would quit if there was 1% methane in the
air and another that a simulator flight into such a cloud would cause
reduced lift because of less dense air and the altimeter would climb
rapidly
even though the aircraft was dropping.

http://media.dsc.discovery.com/news/...0/methane.html

On Mon, 10 May 2004 07:28:01 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

The theory does not pan out because it is based on a false premise: that the
Bermuda triangle exists. There is nothing supporting the idea that flying or

Or you can accept the fact that the triangle is a simple area marked on a
map, which has three sides where a great number of missing ships and
planes go unexplained. It's not the fact that the accident rate is
greater or less than other areas, it's the fact that so many go missing
unexplained. As such, myth a lore grows. Thusly, scientific theories pop
up from time to time in an attempt to explain the unexplained. As such,
it's easy to discount the myth and legend but foolish to discount valid
research, as you're willing to do.

The fact that you insist on calling it a myth is completely orthogonal to
any of the research and facts to date. It's fairly easy to dismiss your
comments outright on this topic as they don't appear to be reflective in
the least. Research which is supported by experiment, theory and
scientific method is great. The fact that you seem willing to dismiss
this simply because you're caught up in the mythos surround it, is pretty
silly.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:31:15 -0400, Bob Chilcoat wrote:

I have a lot of trouble imagining that a 1% methane concentration will stop
an engine. I use a propane torch (unlit) to start balky engines. If you
direct a stream of propane into the carburetor of an engine, it will run
fine. Running an engine 1% richer doesn't seem like a big deal.


This was proven by repeated experiement whereby, they directly injected
methane into the intake and calcualted the ratio. The radial engine
reproducably died at 1%. While probably not 100% scientific (as only one
radial engine was used and not independently reproduced), it certainly
makes for a powerful argument.

Greg Copeland writes:

On a large rotory engine, only 1% methane contamination was
required to cause the engine to quit. Less than 1% was enough
to cause an RPM drop. As it approaches 1%, sputtering occurs and then
finally, the engine quiets.

I'm not sure that I caught everything correctly when that was happening
but I thought someone said that the methane caused an over-rich mixture.
So...what happens if you lean the mixture?

--kyler

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 May 2004 07:28:01 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

The theory does not pan out because it is based on a false premise: that
the
Bermuda triangle exists. There is nothing supporting the idea that
flying or

Or you can accept the fact that the triangle is a simple area marked on a
map, which has three sides where a great number of missing ships and
planes go unexplained. It's not the fact that the accident rate is
greater or less than other areas, it's the fact that so many go missing
unexplained.

The trouble with that idea is that they don't go missing unexplained there
with any more frequency than they do anywhere else. In fact, Lake Michigan
probably has a higher rate of 'unexplained' accidents than does the Bermuda
triangle, and there aren't any methane vents in Lake Michigan.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 08:22:59 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:


The trouble with that idea is that they don't go missing unexplained there
with any more frequency than they do anywhere else. In fact, Lake Michigan
probably has a higher rate of 'unexplained' accidents than does the Bermuda
triangle, and there aren't any methane vents in Lake Michigan.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes that there must be a
central cause for all unexplained accidents. Which is, of course, false.
Even if it turns out a very small portion of accidents can be directly
associated with plane and ship accidents, it still can mean safer routes
for planes and ships, assuming the conditions can be fully understood.
And, even if a small portion of accidents can be directly associated with
this effect, it's impossible to determine, unless someone is doing this
research.

Just because you willy-nilly ignore the research because it has a stigma
of legend or lore surrounding it, doesn't invalidate the research. Good
research is good research even if the topic of research is mired in myth.
As it relates to this topic, it very, very easily to separate myth from
fact.

Ignoring all that, you honestly don't find it interesting to find out that
it appears a tiny amount of methane can cause an engine to stop? Even
incidental observations may have merit which benefit captains and pilots.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:08:09 +0000, Kyler Laird wrote:

Greg Copeland writes:

On a large rotory engine, only 1% methane contamination was
required to cause the engine to quit. Less than 1% was enough
to cause an RPM drop. As it approaches 1%, sputtering occurs and then
finally, the engine quiets.

I'm not sure that I caught everything correctly when that was happening
but I thought someone said that the methane caused an over-rich mixture.
So...what happens if you lean the mixture?

--kyler

I don't know. I'm honestly not sure it was associated with an overly rich
mixture. It may of been I simply missed the boat. Watching TV with a
family sometimes means you miss small portions of the show. If it was
caused by an overly rich mixture, it would of been nice to find out what
happened if they continued to lean it out, so as to present a possible
range. Interesting nonetheless.

I should also correct that it was a radial engine and not a
rotary engine. That was a brain-fart on my part. Sorry.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Just because you willy-nilly ignore the research because it has a stigma
of legend or lore surrounding it, doesn't invalidate the research. Good
research is good research even if the topic of research is mired in myth.
As it relates to this topic, it very, very easily to separate myth from
fact.

Ignoring all that, you honestly don't find it interesting to find out that
it appears a tiny amount of methane can cause an engine to stop? Even
incidental observations may have merit which benefit captains and pilots.

I suggest you go back and read my whole post. As I said:

"There are methane fields in other parts of the world, too, and volcanic
vents of all types that release large volumes of all kinds of obnoxious
gases. Whether these events are dangerous to ships or aircraft is one thing.
They might be and it should be investigated."

I simply object to the Discovery Channel's attempt to imply that there is
something particularly mysterious or even unique about the Bermuda triangle
other than its geographic location.

The Bermuda triangle 'problem' is a complete fabrication by one Charles
Berlitz, a charlatan who did next to no research, but who published a very
popular science fiction book that a lot of people took as factual.

There may well be methane bubbles causing ships to sink and airplanes fall
out of the sky in the Bermuda triangle. But even Discovery Channel admitted
that such events would be so rare that they could never be accepted as an
explanation for any known unexplained disappearances. It would be like
trying to blame the unexplained disappearances on meteorites. Can meteorites
destroy a plane or sink a ship? Sure, but just because a plane went down or
a ship sank does not mean it was hit by a meteorite, a methane bubble, or
even beamed up into a flying saucer.

You know, there is a small chance that the random movement of molecules of
air could suddenly cause all the molecules to suddenly migrate to the far
side of the room, leaving you to suffocate in your chair. Your death would
probably go down as unexplained. People might come up with all kinds of
plausible theories of what killed you, and they would all probably be wrong.
Seems to me such a death would surely give you some bragging rights in the
hereafter, though. :-)

As the Discovery Channel noted, there aren't exactly heaps of wrecks lying
around these methane vents. In fact, there aren't any at all.

On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:08:24 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Just because you willy-nilly ignore the research because it has a stigma
of legend or lore surrounding it, doesn't invalidate the research. Good
research is good research even if the topic of research is mired in myth.
As it relates to this topic, it very, very easily to separate myth from
fact.

Ignoring all that, you honestly don't find it interesting to find out that
it appears a tiny amount of methane can cause an engine to stop? Even
incidental observations may have merit which benefit captains and pilots.

I suggest you go back and read my whole post. As I said:

"There are methane fields in other parts of the world, too, and volcanic
vents of all types that release large volumes of all kinds of obnoxious
gases. Whether these events are dangerous to ships or aircraft is one thing.
They might be and it should be investigated."

I missed that part. Sorry.


I simply object to the Discovery Channel's attempt to imply that there is
something particularly mysterious or even unique about the Bermuda triangle
other than its geographic location.

Sadly, most people won't watch stuff unless it's hyped like that. You can
hardly blame them for wanting to stay in business. If you must shake a
finger, shake it at the masses that require such pethetic hooks to get
them to watch.


The Bermuda triangle 'problem' is a complete fabrication by one Charles
Berlitz, a charlatan who did next to no research, but who published a very
popular science fiction book that a lot of people took as factual.

Agreed.


There may well be methane bubbles causing ships to sink and airplanes fall
out of the sky in the Bermuda triangle. But even Discovery Channel admitted
that such events would be so rare that they could never be accepted as an
explanation for any known unexplained disappearances. It would be like
trying to blame the unexplained disappearances on meteorites. Can meteorites
destroy a plane or sink a ship? Sure, but just because a plane went down or
a ship sank does not mean it was hit by a meteorite, a methane bubble, or
even beamed up into a flying saucer.


Fair enough. One exception is that we currently have no idea how common
"methane bubbles" are, and we are only now starting to explore the risks
associated with them. In fact, we know next to nothing about them. So,
any statements which directly associate a frequency, size or scope with
them, should be considered suspect. In otherwords, any answer other than,
"unknown", as it relates to ship or plane accidents is less than accurate.

Cheers!

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Or you can accept the fact that the triangle is a simple area marked on a
map, which has three sides where a great number of missing ships and
planes go unexplained.

Just read a book by a guy who was involved in all kinds of secret DIA and
Navy underwater projects during the cold war. He mentions the Bermuda
Triangle. Fact is there are less ships and planes on the ocean floor here
than in other areas of the world.