CHAT TB2 member for almost 20 years!

medic38572

TB Fanatic
I can’t believe I have been a member here close to 20 years! Crazy! I do not post alot, but did initially during the Iraq war and while Ferguson was going on because I had inside information about those events.

Thi is by far the longest group I have remained in. I love you guys!
Hey Flashyzipp, in a few more years we will be able to retire...:D
 

Southside

Veteran Member
Looking back, easily 1/2 of ALL MY TIME spent on line was here.
For sure. Best info, usually before most other places, and great discussion, without too much b!tching.
An overall great place.
 

stormie

Veteran Member
March 6th I'll celebrate my 20th year since I officially became a member. I found TB2K a few months before Y2K. I lurked and read and learned a lot. I started prepping like mad back then. All the while checking out all the great information on what to do to be ready for the end of the world as we knew it. I didn't comment at all for many years because I didn't think I could add anything of importance. Everyone here is way more knowledgeable than me on all topics.

I check this site out multiple times a day. I don't know what I'd do without y'all.
 

Kathy in WV

Down on the Farm...
I've been a member for 22 years now, almost as long as I've been married! Way longer here than anywhere else. I remember when I found y'all and I thought... Oh my gosh here's a bunch of people just like me! Lol. Great people here for sure!
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
I started as a regular member in the fall of 1998. Anita Spooner led me here from the MSN Y2K discussion group. I was happy to be “only” a regular member, until the forum was slated to close in early 2001 IIRC. I waited for the staff at the time to take over and keep it open, but they didn’t. On its last day, I opened a parallel forum and used the color scheme they used. I posted a thread on the closing forum to “come on over,” and the rest was history. Had anyone stepped up, I wouldn’t have taken the reins. I’ll never understand why no one did.
 
Last edited:

Flashyzipp

Veteran Member
I beat you here by 1 day, yet your post count is more than 4 times mine. I'm pretty sure I was lurking for at least 2 years before joining.

This place is basically a library full of knowledge and insight-what a great place to hang out!
That’s funny! I have posted a lot on and off over the years, but mostly just read.
 

somewherepress

Veteran Member
I've been around since Greenspun with a couple years off....And big thanks to Dennis for keeping this board alive. Thanks to you it has become one of the most valuable resources on the internet!

Here's a little blast from the past...


More on the Australian power plant fire​




Here's the link that confirms the story about what is characterized by ABC as a dangerous fire at the power plant in Eastern Victoria. Among the most interesting things the article says: "The blaze began this morning (1/2/2000)in the number four power generator after a liquid coupling routine failed on the coal conveyor system." Aren't most of the liquid coupling routines at major power plants in Australia computerized? There is no mention of this incident thus far on the Australian Government Y2k website. Whaddya think?

-- Carl Jenkins (somewherepress@aol.com), January 02, 2000

Answers​

Everybody ready to shout "Ah HA! proof". dont worry, Im no differant ;)

-- voynik (voynik@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

The story isn't proof of anything. I am neither a polly nor a doomer. I was a reporter for many years until the profession became a whorehouse. It's just this is the first story that could be a legitimate instance of a serious, potentially life threatening, y2k incident. In my opinion it is worth investigating.

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

Here's the full text of the story from ABC new Austraia as of 1/2/2000 15:22 hours:
Power station fire under control - no threats to supplies
A dangerous fire at the Hazelwood Power Station in the Latrobe Valley, in eastern Victoria, is under control and should be extinguished by dusk.
The blaze began this morning in the number four power generator after a liquid coupling routine failed on the coal conveyor system.
However, power supplies to the State are not affected.
Glen Ravenhall from the Country Fire Authority, said about 90 firefighters faced dangerous conditions including fireballs.
"Fine dust is causing substantial problems with extinguishment," he said.
"Dust flares on application of water and occasionally produces fireballs which increase danger to firefighters."
"It's a very difficult tactical job involving a lot of CFA resources, both human and material."
"We hope to declare it safe before dark," Mr Ravenhall said.


) 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation

-- Carl Jenkins (somewherepress@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

Definitely NOT a Y2 failure. This is akin to having a leaky fuel line in your car and blaming that on Y2K. Crushed coal, also known as PV (Pulverised Fuel), when mixed with air is one of the most explosive materials available. Thats the reason its used as a fuel in the boilers.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), January 02, 2000.

Aloha Marshall,
concerning your comment, the fire wasn't caused by pulverized coal, it was caused by liquid fuel: "Peter Philp from the Country Fire Authority (CFA) says the fire started when oil sprayed over a coal bunker and caught alight." As someone who has worked in the power industry, I can tell you that many of the liquid coupling routines are controlled by computers which open and close valves, etc. This may or may not have been caused by a computer glitch. I don't know. But it is precisely the type of incident that one would be looking for regarding y2k failures.
see the previous post: Power plant on fire near Melbourne, Aus. (Buster, BustrCollins@aol.com, 2000-01-02)
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=TimeBomb 2000 % 28Y2000%29
By the way, everything here on Maui is stable, lights, phone internet all aok. And I hope things stay that way!

-- (Somewherepres@aol.com), January 02, 2000.


Thanks Carl, pay no attention to Malcolm. He only thinks he knows about the electric industry because he studies a lot of books. Actual working experience is always better.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.

pay no attention to Malcolm. He only thinks he knows about the electric industry because he studies a lot of books. Actual working experience is always better.
-- Hawk

Hawk, Perhaps you should check my credentials with others in the power industry before you make statements like this.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), January 02, 2000.

This debate reminds me of a discussion we are having at home.
My wife says: "If there is a recession or even a depression starting this spring or summer how could anyone prove it was caused by Y2K?"
Our conclusion: it would be very difficult to prove either way.
Our next conclusion: we are not going to argue with anyone or talk to anyone about it, but we are keeping our preps in case either of us are laid off in a "non-Y2K" recession or depression.

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), January 02, 2000.

cgbg,
My thoughts exactly.
If you remember, the .mil and other sources said they would try very hard to play down ALL Y2k effects and misdirect.
Malcolm, with all due respect (and I respect you ALOT!) we wont really know the truth for some time. Everyone else, same deal.
Let's be cautious to point fingers and if similar problems occur elsewhere then the cummulative effect allow further insight.
What happens when a large percentage of the world goes "manual"? I suspect if that's the case then problems such as explosions may happen more often.
Mike
=================================================================

-- Mike Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

Hawk,
Your statement to Carl about Malcolm indicates that you have confused someone else with Malcolm. Perhaps you might post a clarification.
Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), January 02, 2000.


If the fire was caused by a computer driven response in the coupling it would not be covered by insurance as it could have been Y2k involved, but if it was a failure without computer involvement, it would be covered...right??? I guess this would make all the difference in the claim to the insurance company. Maybe many underwriters working overtime to prove Y2k was the culprit. Maybe the only way the public will hear the truth in some cases.
Hope it was only a regular accident and not caused by computers as it bodes ill this early in the game. BTW does this kind of accident happen often - seems like there should be a way to warn about these kinds of failures - is this an old Power Plant, where someone should be monitoring all the time, or a computer-monitored one? Just curious.

-- Laurane (familyties@rttinc.com), January 02, 2000.

For those who are truely interested in how this type of fire can occur, read Electricity and Generation 101, particularly the section that deals with Prime Energy sources.
Coal is taken from the coal pit to a crushing plant via conveyor belt. The coal at this stage is just like the type of coal you might burn at home, but when it leaves the crusher plant, also by conveyor belt, it is in the form of an extremly fine powder called pulverized fuel (PV). This PV is extremely explosive, therefore the conveyor belt is often driven by fluid drive rather than electric motors. The fluid drive has much less chance of causing a spark, and for this reason there is usually nothing electric (except very low voltage and current measuring equipment) anywhere near the PV.
In this instance it appears that a coupling, or joint in the oil line sprung a leak. Hot oil escaping under high pressure onto hot coal dust is about the most explosive mixture that it is possible to get. I wont speculate on what the source of ignition was, but the result would certainly be catastrophic.
In the other thread on this fire I have given a link to a photo of this power station, and you can see quite clearly that the conveyor belts to the crusher plant are open, but the feed from the crusher plant to the power station is fully enclosed. This is minimise any risk of fire, as well as to prevent the very fine PV from blowing away.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), January 02, 2000.

Malcolm, That was interesting but irrelevant information. The real question has nothing to do with the coal dust...The real question is what caused the leak in the fuel line. The accident happened during a "routine" which is normally a reference to an automated process.
It is also interesting to note that the reference to "routine" which is the clue here does not appear in other sources concerning this major powerplant fire.
Here's a link for an update on the fire:

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

Carl, there was no leak in any fuel line, because the fuel is coal. There was a leak in a coupling carrying hydraulic fluid (oil) for the conveyor belt. I know that you have claimed "a liquid coupling routine" failed, but in all the links I have ssen the word "routine" is missing. However I shall take this as an opportunity to add to my 27 years of generation experience, and ask for you to explain to me how a failure in software can cause a fluid coupling to fail.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), January 03, 2000.

Malcolm...sorry about using incorrect term fuel. I meant to say fluid line. Frankly I don't know the answer to your question about what might have failed. It would be pure speculation and I would need a lot of information I don't have access to. I have only posed the question about whether this is a y2k related incident and presented the information contained in the news article, the full text from which is available at:
Oh, and for the record, I didn't claim anything. The quote you mention: "a liquid coupling routine" failed, is a direct quote from the ABC (Australia Broadcasting Corporation) report on the fire.
As someone who used to be a reporter(before it became such a whorehouse), I am careful to check my facts. I also worked in the power industry for several years as the manager and developer of a training program for workers. I even developed and taught courses in basic power generation. I admit that I used the wrong term, "fuel" for "fluid". But it was an honest error. Perhaps you should be more careful about declaring a report false when you have no facts to back you up...
And why are you so intent on destroying the credability of this report, especially the use of the word "routine?" Are you a PR person for the power industry? Or what is your motivation? I have no motivation except for an honest effort to convey information to others concerning what may, or may not, turn out to be serious Y2K related glitches. I hope they are not. But I want to know the truth... Do you?

-- Carl Jenkins (somewherepress@aol.com), January 03, 2000.


Carl, I'm sorry if i have given the impression that I am trying to discredit the report, that certainly is not my intention. Similarly, I have never tried to declare that the report is false, and in fact if you read my response to your original post on the fire you will find that I also linked to the ABC site. Unfortunately the story is no longer there. What I am trying to do is ensure that true Y2K failures are reported as such, and faults which can not be caused by Y2K failures are not being held up as indications of Y2K.
I did visit the ABC site as soon as I heard about the fire, and it did say that there had been a failure in the fluid coupling, but there was no mention of the word routine.
And No, I am not a PR person, I am a Production Controller for a generation company, and I am part of the Y2K remediation team. But as you have already gathered, I am getting upset by Y2K failures that are not being reported (my own company is at fault as well), while purely mechanical failures are being heldup as Y2K issues.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), January 03, 2000.

Aloha Malcolm, I share your concerns! I have good friends who work in the generation end of the industry and they are trying to separate the mechanical stuff from genuine computer failures. Anyway, regarding the mention of "routine". It only appeared in the first report, Subsequent reports that appear on ABC and in The age, made no mention of that key word...Anyway, I used the link that I provided which worked fine earlier and came up with a "file does not exist page." After a little experimentation I managed to access the original report. Apparently they have already archived it. I clicked on Home and after the home page appeared I then clicked on Back on the Browser and managed to access the report. That worked for me. Otherwise, try checking through their archives...

-- Carl Jenkins (somewherepress@aol.com), January 03, 2000.

To clarify how to access that report. Go to:
a file does not exist page will appear. Click on the Home Page Link. Once the Home Page appears, simply click on the back button on your browser. The story in question, complete with the reference to "routine" should appear. Anyway enough for tonight! Aloha

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), January 03, 2000.

Don't be too quick to judge based on poor information.
IF (and its a big if - we are reading the words of one reporter, not the mechanic or engineer responsible for analyzing, fixing, or troubleshooting the repair) the problem was in the computerized process (sensor + links + computer + response circuits + feedback circuits) "routine" that controlled the fluid drive for the PV supply - then a surge (or other failure in the control circuitry) could have caused the breakage indirectly - that caused the spray of the hydraulic (?) fluid onto the coal dust - that caused the explosive situation to be present that caused the actual fire.
Bottom line: We don't know enough yet to "be correct" - but an automated failure "cahin" like this is typical - and can be interpreted any way the observer wants to report it.
Y2K or not - the fire happened. Let's be glad many thousand others did not. Let's be glad no serious injuries were caused.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 03, 2000.


SALUTE TO CARL JENKINS!!!!!!​

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread​

CARL, how do you do it? you are a household word here on this forum. how do you find so much important stuff to bring to our attention? just want you to know that we appreciate all your HARD and TIME-CONSUMING work.

-- boop (leafyspurge@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000

Answers​

DITTO, thanks Carl...

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), January 26, 2000.

ditto carl!!

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), January 26, 2000.

YES !!!!!!
Thanks Carl for infusing new disaster-cognizant life into the Forum ;^)
We used to post kaboom articles but have mellowed greatly in Forum age. You have a wide net and catch many interesting foreign failures.
THANK YOU !!
And never mind the fact that the meaty real articles draw few if any responses -- 'tis always been a weird factoid of this Forum ...

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), January 26, 2000.

We appreciate all of Carl's efforts to keep us informed.
But, Boop, you're not "chopped liver" either.
A big THANK YOU to you both.

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.Net), January 26, 2000.

Dittos to you Carl. Your postings have become a key resource tool for me. Thanks for the hard work and keep it up!!!
Boop, great idea for this thread!

-- Mello1 (mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 26, 2000.


-Whistles and fingersnaps- Thanks Carl!

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), January 26, 2000.

Thank you, Carl, for all your time and efforts. I really don't know how you do it -- just keep doin' it!
(Pssst...hey, A&L...you know that little face with the wink you used? It's, not, like, copyrighted or anything, is it? I mean, I think I used it once...)

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 26, 2000.

Ditto here too, Carl!! Man, you're like steady Eddie. No matter what other OT, ego-driven, irrelevant BS is being flung back and forth, you just keep postin'. It sure is a big help and keeps me focused on the reasons I first started lurking.
Thanks also to boop and Homer Beanfang.
Jimmy

-- Jimmy Splinters (inthe@dark.com), January 26, 2000.

I to, wish to tender my appreacation at your magnificant procurement of such quality information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (In_a_bunker@forty.feet), January 26, 2000.

My thanks, also. Mostly a lurker here....and I lurk a lot. I don't feed the trolls or pet the pollies though. It seems like they are going away finally. I will post something relevant if I can beat the pros to it. Kyle

-- Kyle (fordtbonly@aol.com), January 26, 2000.


Go Carl! Thanks a million.

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 26, 2000.

Carl Jenkins and Boop are the masters of posting masses of irrelevant information. I doubt that any of their postings have anything to do with y2k.
Is it because this forum seems to be less about y2k and more about posting anything about any problem in the world?

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), January 26, 2000.

Aloha and thank you all! And Mr Sane, if the information is so irrelevant, why are you taking the time to read and attempt to debunk it....your agenda is showing!

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), January 26, 2000.
 
Last edited:

Squid

Veteran Member
I started as a regular member in the fall of 1998. Anita Spooner led me here from the MSN Y2K discussion group. I was happy to be “only” a regular member, until the forum was slated to close in early 2001 IIRC. I waited for the staff at the time to take over and keep it open, but they didn’t. On its last day, I opened a parallel forum and used the color scheme they used. I posted a thread on the closing forum to “come on over,” and the rest was history. Had anyone stepped up, I wouldn’t have taken the reins. I’ll never understand why no one did.
why did no one take the reins? Cause your the man???

Duuuhhh.

And great job by the way, at least over the last week..
 

SNOWSQUAW

Veteran Member
mine says May 27 2005 but I was a member before that. I got kicked out after a dust up with Dennis about race IIRC. But got let back in. I think my start date was 1999 or 2000 in reality. I love it here. First place I look for news. Best folks ever!
 

babysteps

Veteran Member
5,452 members BUT nearly 4,000 of them haven’t visited in the last year. The remaining 1,500 members visiting at least weekly if not daily are very consistent. About 500 do most of the posting. The other 1,000 are mostly readers.

As one of the 1000 "mostly readers", may I say I sure appreciate you 500 posters!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MGT
Top