Bulldozing US Homeland Defence.

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

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
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?

Odd how you yourself managed to snip Keith's bit about (the part you snipped
follows):

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

Cite please - you keep claiming you have
some special knowledge of this event beyond
that of the various reports in the literature.

I suggest you present it.

Meanwhile I suggest you read the report published
in the journal of Hazardous Materials in 2000
http://hugin.aue.auc.dk/publ/hoiset2000.pdf

(Qutes from cited document supporting keith's claim removed for brevity)

What, no response?

And you are trying to hound *him* for *allegedly* snipping your poppycock
from the discourse? LOL!

Brooks

snip

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
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?

Your evasion of estimates of the size of the explosion
from 3 separate quoted sources is noted.

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.


No I'm quoting accurately.

There is nothing wrong per se with using a bellows
provided the system is correctly constrained. It was
the lack of such constraint that caused the failure
as the quote from the report accurately showed.

Note further that far from being single sourced
I have provided references to several other studies.

You on the other hand have claimed unspecified
privileged information.

This is not exactly a compelling argument.


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.

My claim was that Cyclohexane would probably oxidise
when released into the air, the risk of that happening
is described in the literature as high.

The NFPA rating is 3 = SEVE Can be ignited at all temperatures

The European Safety Database states

Cyclohexane is very flammable and may be ignited by contact with a hot
surface - a naked flame is not necessary.

As you accurately pointed out it has an autognition temperature
of only 260 C meaning devices as varied as a vehicle exhaust
or steam pipe can initiate combustion

Probably oxidizing in air
does not bring fire on contact with an ignition source to mind.

It does to anyone who understands what it means, let me
give you a nice definition from one of my chemistry
textbooks

burning - A rapid oxidation reaction between a fuel and oxygen that produces
heat

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---