On Mon, 17 May 2010 11:08:50 +0200, Morten Reistad wrote:

In article , John F. Eldredge
wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 06:53:23 -0600, noRm d. plumBeR wrote:

Mike Ash wrote:


Which shows what incredibly bad software is supporting the thing.

The scary part is that it isn't all that unusual.

The tinyurl link worked OK.

As far as the linked-to page is concerned, while I feel sorry for the
two airmen who were blown up (one survived, one didn't), it sounds like
they didn't fully appreciate the risk. If I found that an enclosure was
full of a fuel/air mixture, I wouldn't sit down at the edge of the
enclosure to wait for my ride, I would get as far away from it as
possible. I did once have to deal with a propane leak inside a factory;
I opened several overhead doors for ventilation (manually, not using an
electric hoist), then got outside as quickly as possible. Had the
concentration been as high as what the two airmen found, I wouldn't have
taken the time to open the doors, I would just have run for my life.

When you have a maxed out concentration of some combustible gas in air;
do you ventilate (and bring in oxygen) or contain it (keeping it in one
place, only slowly to seep out).

At least with propane, gasoline and such, the maximum saturation in air
would be rapidly depleted of oxygen if it blew up, thereby dampening the
explosion damage. It will become a two-stage fire; first an explosion
and then an inrush fire when the oxygen gets back to the flame.

Just a question.

Well, in the case of the factory propane leak, it had not yet reached
flashover concentration,and I was adding ventilation to keep it from
doing so. I don't know which would be the better solution to the maximum-
saturation situation. I _do_ know that I wouldn't sit down, just outside
the structure, to wait for transportation.

--
John F. Eldredge --
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria