John Sullivan Profile picture
Mar 23 9 tweets 2 min read Read on X
🧵1/n

Further to my blog post yesterday (link in thread), a little more info about the incident at North Hyde substation which triggered the Heathrow shutdown.

The failed transformer was ~60 years old, installed in the 1960's. It tripped out on operation of a "Buccholz" relay.
2/n

A Buccholz relay detects gas in the insulating/cooling oil, formed when it begins to break down under heat. It will also detect surges of oil in the conservator tank - an expansion chamber at the top of the transformer to cater for normal temperature related volume changes.
3/n

The failure was apparently sudden - no earlier warning alarms before the trip.

Faults like this are "seen" by many protection components across the network, which act to isolate circuits, try auto-reclosures etc. Obviously the transformer failure was terminal.
4/n

I would expect the investigation & report to focus on a few issues.

1. What caused the initial failure?

Obviously the age & maintenance history of the transformer will be in the spotlight. Other than on-load tap changers, transformers are essentially static devices.
5/n

They do "vibrate" though from hysterisis - hence the characteristic hum.

2. Did the protection systems perform properly?

There are many potential points of failure, each should be covered.

3. The basic design/layout of the transformer bays at North Hyde.
6/n

The close proximity of transformers & lack of concrete separation barriers. The adequacy of fire protection systems etc.

4. Why was this old, non-standard kit still in service?

How far advanced was work to upgrade the 66/22 kV network to 132/33 kV. Was finance a factor.
7/n

All the necessary information should be readily available to genuine experts. The report should take a matter of days - but you can bet it will be far longer.

However, we 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 need a comprehensive report into the woeful failures at Heathrow itself.
8/8

This incident should not have shut down the airport. There is redundancy in the supply arrangements, & Heathrow should have been able to weather the loss of a single intake substation without significant disruption.

I fully expect Woke incompetence to have played a part.
9/9 (sorry!)

Link to yesterday's post:



/End.johnsullivan.substack.com/p/disinformati…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Sullivan

John Sullivan Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EyesOnThePriz12

May 10, 2024
🧵1/9

David exposes the naked lies.

When high wind or ☀️ output is forecast "tomorrow", gas prices drop in expectation that little gas generation will be needed. Then, cheap gas generation competes with plentiful renewables, & "tomorrow's" wholesale electricity price plummets.

Image
Image
2/9

But with "contracts for difference" in place, wholesale spot prices are all but irrelevant, because they have 𝗻𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 on retail bills for most of us. Unprofitable wind farms are compensated by the low carbon contracts company, with the "strike price" as a floor. Image
3/9

So even with a -ve wholesale price, as low as -£18 on 6th April, wind & solar farms still receive guaranteed, index linked strike prices - e.g. £50.

So who pays? 𝗬𝗼𝘂 do - via the "socialised" non-wholesale components of your bill, where renewables subsidies are hidden. Image
Read 9 tweets
May 2, 2024
🧵1/8

A rare disagreement with Hugh from me here. Any "statistical evidence" from official sources is almost totally invalidated by the unreliability of the underlying data.

For example, many of the frail elderly who supposedly died "from Covid" did nothing of the sort.
2/8

Covid was named as the "underlying cause" of death by the doctor signing the death certificate. But under lockdown conditions, those who died in nursing & care homes would typically not even have been attended by a doctor.
3/8

Death certificates would have been based on advice from facility (nursing) staff, - largely affected by the mass hysteria prevalent at the time, & who would often have been administering "end of life care" - i.e. morphine, midazolam etc. - following a dodgy +ve PCR or LFT.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 21, 2024
🧵1/6

Sometimes, my timing surprises even me 👏. Right on cue, as further evidence of "vaccine harms" is likely to emerge, the #ONS changes its methodology for calculating #ExcessDeaths.

But most are distracted by the chaff, as usual. Few are looking at the actual data.
2/6

The latest ONS bulletin, out this morning & using the new methodology, actually shows an 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 in deaths (a reduction in negative excess from ≈-8% to -2%) compared to the recent trend against the long-term average.

Confused 😕? That's how they want you. Image
3/6

As I highlighted in my earlier thread, the 5y av. was distorted to the ⬆️ side (so current excess deaths to the ⬇️side) by an unusually high death rate in early 2021.

Removing this 2021 peak from past deaths brings current deaths closer to the "expected" rate.
Image
Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(