Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Really depends on those containment parameters, but I still wouldn't bet on it. Centrifuges supposedly are built to spin at one working point and would easily break if turned up a notch. A pipeline needs to withstand large differences in internal pressure anyway, and I really see no reason why you would use turbines strong enough that they could rupture the pipes. And if they could I'd expect something else to fail first. Surely there are more delicate parts than the steel mantle? Also we're looking at ruptures in one line of NS2 and NS1. If I'm not completely off only NS1 uses the Siemens turbines.

Though there certainly might be another trick you could do to make them explode. Not a pipe expert.

by generic on Thu Nov 3rd, 2022 at 11:20:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was thinking the same thing. It would blow out the joints, not shatter steel pipes.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Nov 3rd, 2022 at 01:36:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
supra Nord Stream PR describes the system design in "three sections".

Elsewhere, SOP is 40 m pipe sections (max) fabricated off-site and finished on-board "pipelay vessels," obviously, because there is no known sea-borne vessel of 1,224+ km length. (wikiwtf Nord Stream I article puports to list project contractors, but not suppliers, named by PR placemnt.)

ICYMI The Longest Gas Pipeline till date (2022)

Now. Who honestly believes that there are no "moving parts" or digital sensors between Nord Stream I 1,224 km pipeline terminals? That "turbine stations" at each end are sufficient to maintain constant pressure and flow end-to-end?

I don't, but, yanno, I'm no "expert." My skepticism about MSM torpedo theory (see euractiv's elegant, 1-dimensional, arial "submarine explosion" feature photo, above) relies on sundry maps of x-country PNG lines in the public domain —some which actually feature compressor station intersection locations—and my low-brow intuition that atmospheric pressure above and below sea level differ substantially, such that the possibility of a manned vehicle precisely placing detonation devices without a map at -80 m is, frankly, comical. So I question vintage WW II sabotage scenarios and search for  trade and canonical knowledge of "best practices" in PNG structural design as well as relevant "stress testing" in research lit. (For example, months ago, in the Azovstal ERA, when MSM drop a thinly sourced story about "bunker busters" to one (untitled) CHINESE!! research "tied to" the PLA, I donated an inordinate amount of time searching relevant papers in the Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.) So far I've found only one "Underwater explosion effects of 60 mm H.E. mortar bomb on a cylindrical concrete structure - PIT", which is irrelevant not only because "the tube" is capped and concrete reinforced with rebar, but full-text discussion of underwater "effects" requires payment. So. What have I learned? Not much; I already knew that trade secrets are predictable barriers to the flow of information and common understanding of HOW people, processes, and things work, whether or not pertaining to "defense" technology.

by Cat on Fri Nov 4th, 2022 at 03:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Cat on Fri Nov 4th, 2022 at 03:49:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series