On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?


I responded to your claim that no such explosion
occurred with an excerpt from the report

No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
back and look.

(Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.

From the report

"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius. Some
40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the 8"
main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly. Detonation
appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."

That's long since been discredited. The total loss form the
process including the fire was 50 tonnes. You should know this.

that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
lasted days.

From the report

"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic hydrocarbon,
some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"

He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
it.

The report states otherwise


I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
a three angle loop would be much more secure.

I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
was the problem, as the report states

"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the scaffolding
was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "

I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?

D. doesn't use
bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/


If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called burning).

Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
is 250 celcius)

Osha disagrees with you about it anyway
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguide...cognition.html

quote from your source:

2. Autoignition temperatu 245 degrees C (473 degrees F)

If you're going to use a source to disagree with me, you should
select one that does not agree with me.

He misread my original comment, has neither supported his
reading, nor answered my call on that subject. He stays
resolutely away from the subject.


This is a flat lie

Is it? Then tell me where you answered.

His original furnace suggestion remains ludicrous. I explained
why, he snipped the explanation then, a few posts later, came
basck asking for a discussion. When I mentioned that I'd already
explained, he simply lied.


The comment about a furnace line was a simple example of the
hazards of ruptured lines. You are twisting and turning like Tarver
at his worst

???? It happened exactly the way I said it happened. YOu tried to
twist something and got called on it.

Keith, you might be a pro, but you didn't show it here.)

And now the Ad Hominem a la Tarver

Tell me how you showed your professionalism. (Incidentally you've
been in mode as hominem for a while.)




Peter Skelton