|
Posted by The King on January 14, 2009, 5:20 pm
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:45:42 -0800 (PST), mobrien.acrtc@googlemail.com
wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:34:42 -0800 (PST), "Marc O'Brien"
>> >With new installations we would ordinarily start the pre-commissioning
>> >tests with a strength pressure test, perhaps for 30 mins, followed by
>> >a 24hr tightness. Then there is a 24hr vacuum finished off with a 30
>> >minute vacuum rise test for moisture.
>> >Is this similar to your procedures?
>> Yup yup except I use a micron gauge to gauge the evacuation time.
>> >Assuming the piping system inadvertently took on say a pint of water
>> >with out you knowing. What would you expect to see on the Torr gauge
>> >after a 24 hr vacuum.
>> Five gallons of used vaccum pump oil and a micron gauge reading of
>> 25000. :)
>> >I have done a few calculations and have recently made a discovery
>> >which I'd like to share but first I ask the above to set a benchmark
>> >against which to discover what is common practice and what might
>> >become new practice.
>> Marc I had a chiller barrel leak and it took me damn near a week to
>> de-hyrdrate the system after I replaced the barrel and it was only a
>> 50 ton machine.
>My next article in the UK industry magazine I write routinely for will
>be on how I insist that the industry's traditional moisture checking
>method be changed. I believe it is flawed. I don't want to give all
>the details right now because I first want to be sure that no one else
>known to me is aware of the flaw I have identified.
I propose that you first post it here and we will pick at it so you
don't end up making a industry wide fool out of yourself.
Just kidding. :)
Post a link to the article when it is published, it sounds
interesting.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap