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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|