|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Joe Engel ([ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I have to disagree here.
If you were 1500 miles offshore and one of those dipsticks failed, then how
would you check the oil? I mean you guys with single dipsticks are taking a
huge risk. There is no measurable penalty in fuel consumption to operate
with 2 dipsticks and I think you will find that most oceanliners and
aircraft carriers have at least 2 dipsticks. They must know something about
reliability at sea, I would think.
Someone else on this thread suggested carrying an auxiliary dipstick that
could be brought into use if the main dipstick failed. I have no experience
with these but I would think that in a very viscous or dirty oil situation,
an auxiliary dipstick just could not provide the checking capability of a
true second dipstick.
-----Original Message-----
>
Quite the contrary.....using dual dipsticks can significantly decrease
Regards,
John Gaquin
From: John Gaquin [mailto:
Subject: Re: single vs dual dipsticks
>There can be no valid reason for having dual dipsticks on a trawler
motor.
>Paul Browne
>General Brock
>Tampa Bay
>
the occurrences of erroneous readings......now where are all those
statistics wizards from the single/twin engine discussion?
"Brefnie Queen"
32' Luhrs
tongue firmly planted in cheek
|