Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 07 July 2006 11:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Kearney If anybody has used a "mushroom heater" on their patio, then they will know where I am going here.... I have a gas "flambeaux" flame effect piece of equipment which is basically, a 13kg propane bottle with a regulator (such as on a mushroom heater), a rubber hose (BS rated) in metal protected conduit, running, 5ft up to a nozzle, which is welded into a metal open bowl, giving the "flambeaux" effect when lit. There is a metal frame that holds it all together very safely, and I have risk assessed it many times and made adjustments accordingly. I wonder if my peers on this site, can picture what I'm talking about and explain to me why my manufacturers have now suggested some changes - these include: * Changing Propane for Butane * Installing an electrically operated regulator * Removing the "bowl" at the top and replacing it with a flat piece of metal (they say that gas may linger in the bowl - however, my assessment insists that if the flambeaux blows out, which is unlikely, then, after turning off the regulator, a period of a few minutes should elapse before attempting to re-light it, thus allowing gas, which is lighter than air to esacpe) I only ask, as it poses the changes provide me with a large financial increase in what I pay for them now. The Gas Safety regs are a source of reference which gives me the legislative implications of poor manufacture / use, but Im interested to know what your thoughts are on why, in my position you would accept these new changes ? PS - They, as we, use only CORGI registered engineers. Steve
Admin  
#2 Posted : 07 July 2006 13:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Suggestions may be from a cost/ consumer or marketing perspective? Propane is a bit lighter, so wt. for wt. you'll get more out of a bottle (don't know about commercial availability of propane? Flat plate obviously much cheaper than spun metal bowl. Presumably your current bowl has drain holes to allow rain water to escape - this will also allow gas (butane or propane) to escape.No doubt the bowl shape is part of the aesthetic of your design. I can't immediately see any benefit to an elecrically operated regulator - seems rather expensive! Why don't you ask your manaufacturer?
Admin  
#3 Posted : 07 July 2006 14:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ali Butane has a higher hydrocarbon content than propane (4 carbon molecule as opposed to 3C)and therefore produces more energy (heat). Unfortunately, it also produces more CO2 and so is less friendly to the Environment ! Ali
Admin  
#4 Posted : 07 July 2006 15:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Kearney Thanks Ron, Yes, spun round bowl you'd expect to be more expensive ? As I suspect really, they are just after more money. Ask the manufacturer ? hmmmm
Admin  
#5 Posted : 10 July 2006 11:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By jackdaw You say that manufacturers want to change the bowl at the top by replacing it with a flat piece on metal because they say that gas may linger in the bowl. You say that your assessment insists that if the flambeaux blows out then after turning off the regulator a period of a few minutes should elapse before attempting to relight. What do you assess could happen if a few minutes isn't left before trying to relight it? Maybe this is what the manufacturers are considering.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 10 July 2006 11:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Kearney I dont get your question ? That part of the assessment is based on the Hazard of re-lighting the flambeaux. The Risk is substantially higher if you DONT leave it for a few minutes (specifically stated FIVE). Thanks for joining the thread, I expect I will find a middle ground in due course.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 10 July 2006 11:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By jackdaw The point I was trying to make was that if you are reducing the level of risk through written instructions (which some people will not follow) then maybe the manufacturers didn't think this was acceptable and want to reduce the risk through engineering measures - replacing the bowl so that gas will not linger for a time, and it will not rely on users leaving it for 5 minutes.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 10 July 2006 12:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Steve One flaw is that both butane and propane are heavier than air so neither will readily escape a bowl. The swap to butane is often suggested because the flame stability is increased and thus the tendency for accidental "blowing out" is reduced. I presume that the electric valves refer to valves with sensors attached to detect flame failure and thus cause a specified re-ignition cycle to be required. All of these are to decrease the risk of re-igniting the flame before the gas has fully dispersed. If it is the manufacturer recommending the changes the Corgi engineer may well fail it at the next inspection in any case. It may sound like unwanted expenditure but I think the manufacturers are likely to be thinking only of the safety aspects. Bob
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.