Pump Safety: Flirting With Disaster
I just finished reading your article (Pump Safety: Flirting With Disaster, pp. 67–70, December 2016) and want to indicate the following:
In the third example, the text said that the HBEP/HSO is 0.7, but in the formula, 0.75, (0.75–1) is written as the divisor. With 0.7, the relation QSO/QBEP is 0.166666, which is less than the stated 0.20.
By the way, I found the article very interesting.
Head of Design Process Engineering, Techint
Mr. Calderón is correct. He must have read the article very carefully to glean that, in Example 3, I stated that HBEP/HSO was 0.7, but inserted a value of 0.75 into the calculation. With the correct value (0.7), you get a
QSO/QBEP ratio of 0.166666, which is lower than the value of 0.20 that I stated.
We need to thank Mr. Calderon for identifying the error in my calculations and then calculating the correct value for the QSO/QBEP ratio.
Editor’s note: The correction to Example 3 as stated above has been included in the online version of this article: www.chemengonline.com/pump-safety-flirting-disaster
Your article in the November 2016 edition of Chemical Engineering was excellent (Re-Establishing Course, pp 67–70; www.chemengonline.com/re-establishing-course). There is so much pertinent information, very to the point and written from your [the authors] personal experience — not by some person just “imagining” what the situation of having to re-establish course would be like. There is nothing like first-hand knowledge to give weight to a story.
I am retired and not in a position of looking for employment, although I have had a few part- and full-time jobs that needed my area of expertise. I read the story because it sounded interesting and the further I got, the more it made an impression on me. If I were in a position of needed to “start over,” I would have your story as my main guide. Thank you very much.
Brian T. Bender