FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Dangerous Substances Explosive Atmospheres => Topic started by: BLEVE on July 30, 2010, 07:28:42 PM
-
In an attempt to kick start this thread:
Many assessors are capable of following BS EN 60079 part 10 when it comes to calculating the hypothetical volume of an explosive atmosphere. However, the standard and many forms of guidance does not provide a method of calculating a three dimensional extent of such a zone.
This is a frequent problem encountered by many and is a question frequently asked.
The hypothetical volume of an explosive atmosphere (Vz) can be calculated as a sphere by using the following:
Radius of hazardous area in metres = (Vz/((4/3)*(3.142)))^0.33
-
Civvy
that was especially intended for your pleasure
;D
-
All you seem have done there is shown how to calculate a radius of a sphere of a given volume.
Thanks for that blast from the past, it takes me right back to being at school. I thoroughly enjoyed O level maths.
Do you have a point or is this just a failed attempt at smart arsery? :-*
-
The point being many people have forgotten this or failed to recognise the simplicity of it. Typically they follow the Standard and arrive at calculated Vz and ask whats next.
Now if I wanted to be a smart arse I would have calculated the extent of a gas cloud by guassian dispersion hand calculation but I will save that pleasure for another day. :P
I am sure you are sharpening your razor like wit as I type ;D
-
Gaussian dispersion? BY HAND??? Ooh, you are SO clever BLEVE!
Is that what you are wanting?
Mind you, any calcs relying on convergence would be surely be better off done on a spreadsheet? Creating yourself MORE work to attempt to prove a point to some random halfwit on an internet forum is not what I consider clever.
Now if you will excuse me I shall go find something mentally challenging to do.
I think I might dig my Blade DVD out. That ought to do it for me.
-
Civvy, I dont consider you to be a random halfwit :-X
-
Nor me Bleve. I would have picked him out specifically. ;D
-
NT
me too old son
;D
takes allsorts though,never liked bassets as a nipper though
-
Based on Civvys philosophy,we would be screwed
hooke, newton et al may as well have studied the equivalent of blade. Obviously Civvy views calculus as a hardship rather than a pleasure...........poor boy must be a restriction of O Level maths and deep ingrained inferiorority complex . :D.
An individual to be placated and pitied though nonetheless ::)
Reckon Clarcksons examination of anagram tonight was applicable to civvy ;D
-
Obviously Civvy views calculus as a hardship rather than a pleasure...........poor boy must be a restriction of O Level maths and deep ingrained inferiorority complex
Inferiorororoitirorirortity?
My apologies to the forum police for going off 'topic' here, but the topic was clearly not put here to discuss BLEVE rearranging the equation for the volume of a sphere, so I shall treat it with the contempt it deserves.
BLEVE, take a moment to consider why you don't like me, and why you have consistently moaned about how some of your earlier posts were treated.
From my point of view:
You seemed to like correcting someone else, but then didn't like being corrected yourself.
You seem to dislike that I do not have an automatic hero worship for someone who can do a bit of maths.
You started a thread with what seemed to be a rather clear 'challenge' to me to speak up on the topic.
Your smart arsery failed quite miserably.
I appreciate that you can maybe take it to 'another level', but I am not going to rise to it. The problem being that this constant one-upmanship gets dull for everyone apart from me and you. If you really need to prove that you are cleverer than me, simply slice around the top of your head, gouge your brain out and weigh it, the winner gets to watch Blade.
-
Civvy
In actual fact, I made a request that the topic of DSEAR be included as I know that next to FRA it is one if the most googled subjects concerning risk assessment and had thought that it would bring more traffic and interest to the forum.
My thread re radius of a sphere based on a volume of a hazardous area was based on a question that I am asked maybe twice a week and my post was intended to kick start some discussion concerning DSEAR and particularly so in the context of schedule 1 of the REFSO.
I see now that this forum is an obvious waste of my time and that being the case will leave you to your small minded attitude.
Best if luck to Firenet
-
I see now that this forum is an obvious waste of my time and that being the case will leave you to your small minded attitude.
Sorry Bleve but this is absolutely breath-taking arrogance. Everyone here has their areas of "expertise". In the main they share them freely with the rest of us without the need to constantly demonstrate how clever they are. Some of the PMs I have had in answer to questions I have asked have demonstrated to me the huge depth of expertise on this forum and the real depth of knowledge that some posters posess.
You clearly have a lot of knowledge to contribute to this forum. How about taking the chip off your shoulder, chilling out a bit and actually trying to make a useful contribution?
-
Confuscius say'Crow velly clever bird. Crow take chips off shoulders to put in bucket which is half full (optimistic bird awlso) of water until level of water raise to wit-in reach of crow to allow drink'.
Cheers Confuscius. A lesson for us all.
-
Bleve it would be a shame if you left the forums, particularly when changes have been made to explore some of the subject matter members suggested (including yourself).
Don't let one little disagreement put you off. Things got a little out of hand and our two resident administrators would normally have mediated before it went too far.
It's clear that you and Civvy aren't the best of chums at the moment, but I'm sure Civvy will stay out of your way, if you stay out of his.
Dont forget that its not always possible to determine the tone in which something is meant over the internet and perhaps there has been some confusion or misinterpreted.
So dont dissapear - I'm sure we would all benefit from your knowledge, and vice versa.
-
I see now that this forum is an obvious waste of my time and that being the case will leave you to your small minded attitude.
Sorry Bleve but this is absolutely breath-taking arrogance. Everyone here has their areas of "expertise". In the main they share them freely with the rest of us without the need to constantly demonstrate how clever they are. Some of the PMs I have had in answer to questions I have asked have demonstrated to me the huge depth of expertise on this forum and the real depth of knowledge that some posters posess.
You clearly have a lot of knowledge to contribute to this forum. How about taking the chip off your shoulder, chilling out a bit and actually trying to make a useful contribution?
It's not arrogance, it was a statement of fact and my personal opinion. A lot of my area of interest revolves around calculations and the use of mathematical models, it is usual for me to express my view point using maths where it has a bearing on the topic.
If people think that is just being clever or smart arsed thats their own view, there are also plenty of people that do not see it that way.
-
Welcome back BLEVE
-
Yes had a little sulk followed by a strop a swift half in the banter bar and decided I am too attached to the various forum members and egocentrics ::)
-
Good, that's that then! Can you give me a ahnd with explosives left over on the Colonel's lawn... please?
-
BLEVE, don't go off in a huff blaming it on me.
You are being quite clearly antagonistic in your postings, with your posts being more of a personal insulting nature than mine.
"Obviously Civvy views calculus as a hardship rather than a pleasure"
"poor boy must be a restriction of O Level maths and deep ingrained inferiorority complex"
"An individual to be placated and pitied though nonetheless"
"Reckon Clarcksons examination of anagram tonight was applicable to civvy"
If you feel the need to leave a forum because someone challenges you, then maybe the internet isn't for you my old love. Feel free to retort to this comment in-kind using such patronising terms as 'lad' as you did on another thread to a relatively new forum member. (Not very welcoming of you, I must say.)
Re, calculus, gaussian stuff, volume to radius conversions and your general scientific outlook: It is not difficult, you are not doing anything new, you have not invented anything and it doesn't make you better than anybody else.
-
In actual fact the term lad is a colloquialism in my neck of the woods.
With regard to the rest of your post, I never claimed to be doing anything different or new that's something to do with your own insecurities.
-
I have no insecurities whatsoever regarding maths and science, in fact I am very comfortable with the maths/science you tend to be rattling on about. I have just a little disdain for people who seem to have to constantly prove their intelligence. Maybe you do it without realising, or maybe you are used to conversing with more acedemic types.
In my opinion, explaining a technical problem/solution in plain english is more of a skill than regurgitating a load of equations/working out.
-
............ for you my old love.............
Do I detect a term of endearment creeping in people?
East Enders, Corrie, Crossroads -Crossroads? eat your hearts out.
-
In my opinion, explaining a technical problem/solution in plain english is more of a skill than regurgitating a load of equations/working out.
Very true but some people take away the math solution or excel input and make use of it. I dont like it when others post the answer to a question requiring numeric solution without showing the steps leading up to it or those that omit steps making it dificult for others.
But if that is the MO for this forum fair enough.
-
Luckily, I don't speak on behalf of the forum.
-
What happened to the DSEAR discussions?
This thread is clearly volatile and threatens an expanding danger zone ... perhaps a return to topic?
-
What happened to the DSEAR discussions?
Its still raging on http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4927.0
-
Or even
http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4936.0 ;D
-
Cant disagree with that and I still don't understand it. :'(