"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

:"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
:
: 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
ccurred with an excerpt from the report
:
: (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 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. "
:
: 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).
:
:Osha disagrees with you about it anyway
:http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguide...cognition.html
:
: 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
:
: 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
:
: Keith, you might be a pro, but you didn't show it here.)
:
:And now the Ad Hominem a la Tarver
:
:I hope you enjoy your new status

The problem, Keith, is that you're trying to argue with Peter Skelton
by acting as if the facts matter to him. He's manifestly shown many
times that they do not.

He's also demonstrated time and again that the sure way to tell when
he realizes he is in the wrong is to watch for when he starts the
insults.

So, when Peter starts in with the personal insults and attempts to
twist things, you know you've won.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates