(25-03-13, 11:00 AM)John Silva link Wrote: This link explains it a lot better than I ever could. :lol :lol :lol
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...adiab.html
Maybe it's just me but a formula explaining no heat is gained or lost in a system doesn't explain why a fuel sender would be an explosion risk, or why this wouldn't have been figured in the design of the system, why google shows nothing I can find on fuel sender explosions.
Like I say, must just be me. I did find this interesting link though http://forums.iboats.com/non-repair-outb...10584.html. I see no reason why a fuel sender in a car would be any different to a fuel sender in a Bike from a danger perspective (they perform the same function in the same way).
This is a good one too:
http://www.theminiforum.co.uk/forums/top...-question/
I also don't understand why a sensor failing would result in it falling out of the fuel tank.
Please forgive me, I'm a critic.
Opinions are like A**holes, Everyone has one. Some people seem to have more than one though which is a bit odd.