A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bulldozing US Homeland Defence.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old June 8th 04, 03:43 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #42  
Old June 8th 04, 05:16 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:43:05 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"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):

I marked the snip too. I treat pelople the way they treat me.
Keith has been indulging in inconvenient snips, why shouldn't I?


Because in Keith's case they are justified, and in your's they are just
another typical attempt to run away from facts that prove your buffoonery
to be exactly that? He has proven quite conclusively that you are talking
through your hat (as usual) about this subject, and has offered numerous
sources to back up his assertions--you OTOH puff up and refer to "sekret"
resources that don't exist. Yep, looks like Keith has also pegged you for
what you are--there appears to be a growing list of folks in that category,
if you have not noticed.

Brooks




Peter Skelton



  #43  
Old June 8th 04, 07:40 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:30:18 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:



I did not say inaccurately, I said selectively.

There is nothing wrong per se with using a bellows
provided the system is correctly constrained.


This is not a sensible contention. A bellows is inheritly less
robust than other options. You contention here is that a
difficult solution, well implemented is the same thing as a
robust system well implemented. I don't buy it.


Tough - bellow system are widely used to absorb thermal
movements when there is inadequate space for alternate
options such as an expansion loop.

Correctly implemented such system comply with design
codes in place in the industry. Indeed in the type
of installation concerned, the bypass being between
2 reactors more or less in line its hard to see what
other solution was possible.


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.

On this point?


Yes, all the sources posted refer to the 'squirming'
of the pipe.

You on the other hand have claimed unspecified
privileged information.

This is not exactly a compelling argument.

Your argument rerduces to absurdity very quickly. Anybody with
any experience at all will understand how material like that you
quoted can get into a report. Up to 2002 (?) there were still
attempts to get this thing reopened.


Sure , Trevor Kletz for example has always maintained that
there was insufficient focus on the excessive plant inventory
of 400 tons of cyclohexane and others have claimed the
initial failure was of just one of the 2 bellows units but the
fact that the piping bypass was badly designed and implemented
has not been challenged.

Your failure to provide the requested cite is noted.


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.

No. it is not. The literature describes the risk of ignition when
reaching a source of uingnition as high.


In fact it clearly states no flame is needed


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

A source is needed, release is not sufficient.

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.

Certainly.

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

Yes. We used 250# steam in the Cyane area (rather than 460)
partly for this reason. (Incidentally, we used to believe that
cyane was not quite as dangerous as gasoline. When I looked the
autoignition table up, gasoline was about 20 C higher than cyane.
Live & learn.)


In other words no flame is required

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

People who know what it means should not be so imprecise. Burning
is oxidation, oxidation is not necessarily burning. Your
definition proves you incorrect. (I have a lot of non-burning
oxidation sitting in my son's driveway.)


The meaning was clear.

I'm being a bit bitchy on this because, in your furnace example,
autoignition on excape to atmosphere would be inevitable,
regardless of an ignition source.


This was another example of hazards that may occur.

Keith


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.