Posted by Datesfat Chicks on December 21, 2011, 11:38 pm
>http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2011/12/concrete-buffer-runs-amuck/
I think the situation wasn't well handled. They should have assigned
one person to keep an eye on it while another person went to find a
carbon dioxide fire extinguisher to stop the engine. Water was a bad
idea.
DFC
Posted by Futility Man on December 22, 2011, 2:06 pm
wrote:
>They should have assigned
>one person to keep an eye on it
And what would that person have done if it misbehaved?
> while another person went to find a
>carbon dioxide fire extinguisher to stop the engine.
Those aren't common on construction sites, where most fires are wood or paper.
You mostly find dry chemical which may stop the engine but also could damage it
and contaminate the wet concrete.
> Water was a bad idea.
Why? It was sitting in a bed of mud already. A little more water isn't going
to hurt the concrete. It was a bad idea in that it almost certainly wouldn't
work. Most small engines are designed to run in a rain storm, a bucket isn't
going to have any effect.
--
Futility Man
Posted by Datesfat Chicks on December 22, 2011, 2:18 pm
wrote:
>wrote:
>>They should have assigned
>>one person to keep an eye on it
>And what would that person have done if it misbehaved?
>> while another person went to find a
>>carbon dioxide fire extinguisher to stop the engine.
>Those aren't common on construction sites, where most fires are wood or paper.
>You mostly find dry chemical which may stop the engine but also could damage it
>and contaminate the wet concrete.
>> Water was a bad idea.
>Why? It was sitting in a bed of mud already. A little more water isn't going
>to hurt the concrete. It was a bad idea in that it almost certainly wouldn't
>work. Most small engines are designed to run in a rain storm, a bucket isn't
>going to have any effect.
My only concern was that if one got the engine to ingest water, that
may damage it.
But I welcome clarification there ...
DFC
Posted by Futility Man on December 22, 2011, 4:14 pm
wrote:
>My only concern was that if one got the engine to ingest water, that
>may damage it.
>But I welcome clarification there ...
Almost impossible with a bucket. The air cleaner has a metal or plastic cover
and at best, they could hope to plug the air filter with water long enough to
choke out the engine. It was a million to one shot. Those engines are designed
to run in all weather conditions, you're not going to kill it with a bucket of
water. The ignition is not sealed per se, but it's sealed enough that it won't
short out and kill the engine if it gets splashed.
Most of those machines (called motor trowels or power trowels, not buffers) have
a dead-man switch. A lanyard is attached to the operator and if the handle gets
away from him, it pulls the lanyard and operates a kill switch. As you can see,
they are commonly not used.
--
Futility Man
Posted by WaIIy on December 22, 2011, 6:41 pm
wrote:
>wrote:
>>My only concern was that if one got the engine to ingest water, that
>>may damage it.
>>
>>But I welcome clarification there ...
>Almost impossible with a bucket. The air cleaner has a metal or plastic cover
>and at best, they could hope to plug the air filter with water long enough to
>choke out the engine. It was a million to one shot. Those engines are designed
>to run in all weather conditions, you're not going to kill it with a bucket of
>water. The ignition is not sealed per se, but it's sealed enough that it won't
>short out and kill the engine if it gets splashed.
>Most of those machines (called motor trowels or power trowels, not buffers) have
>a dead-man switch. A lanyard is attached to the operator and if the handle gets
>away from him, it pulls the lanyard and operates a kill switch. As you can see,
>they are commonly not used.
Well, no lanyard is attached to the operator. It's not a jetski.
XML Sitemap