On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
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.

No answer?
s
"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?

Care to answer? A bellows in such a syatem is a poor idea.
Failure to anchor it makes it worse, but you're quoting very
selectively.


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)


I am aware of that , an ignition source for such a large release
is usually available, as it was in this case.

Sure but that is not what you claimed. Probably oxidizing in air
does not bring fire on contact with an ignition source to mind.



Peter Skelton