Last active
November 14, 2020 21:21
-
-
Save wohali/157221c81e6232341ad813095b73c703 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
PG&E C-hooks interpretation by an actual hydrometallurgist
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The transposing of the lines are from right to left, left to middle and | |
middle to right (camera-side to far-side). The failed one is on "from right | |
to left". The wear pattern (picture with red parallel lines) tells me that | |
the C-hook is not made of cast iron but made of cast steel because cast iron | |
is hard and strong but it is so brittle that when it breaks, it will go in | |
one clear break (full face) and not in the pattern as seen | |
(wear-wear-wear-then tear-off). This hook is on very light duty since it | |
only needs to support itself (insulation included) and the loose short | |
transposing line and not the tower-to-tower line (hence the one-inch size). | |
My guess is that there was a small crack on the inside-side of C as | |
installed, which gradually propagated (stress-cracking, maybe) and deformed | |
C into L then broke. If they had seen it from the side of the tower they | |
would have seen the L-shaped C-hook. It is one of blind spots, I think, in | |
a sense that the part is in such a light duty that its failure is not | |
expected and therefore was not inspected. The transposing line is still | |
hanging there because the line is, as the article says, steel reinforced | |
aluminum (attached) and even aluminum melted, the steel core held. | |
Interesting arguments (forget about the "indignant-ness" of some comments. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment