What is your opinion about the timing of the successive steps of 20″ line failure as advanced by Professor Jim Venart?
Answer His timings are scientifically arbitrary, having been chosen to correspond to his personal interpretation of selected eye-witness evidence. So, whereas his sequence is an integral feature of the mechanical engineering analysis, his timings may be altered without invalidating his hypothesised mode of failure. The fundamental flaw in his timing is that it requires all the cyclohexane for the main explosion to come from the R4 nozzle. But, without a simultaneous escape from the R6 nozzle, the R4 nozzle escape would burn as a jet fire and (even if it didn’t and ignition was delayed for 30+ seconds as the Court hypothesised) insufficient fuel would escape in his time-frame to explain the force of the main explosion. To be consistent with the evidence and the science of flames and explosions, both nozzles must be open to create an expanding cloud of unburnt fuel (FAQ1.2), for 15+ seconds before the main explosion. In this modified scenario, successive steps in his hypothesised mode of
Related Questions
- How do I shut down SQL Server from the command line without the Cluster Service interpreting the shutdown as a failure?
- complete is a duplicate attribute name. Line 1, position 276.What are the steps to purchase a Mindset presentation?
- Advanced Line Following Robot - Step 1: What it takes to build a fast line follower?
