P10 in ventilated gas box; considering P9, P5

[sem-geologist]

I am asking and opening a poll if your P10 gas is in ventilated box.

The building is planned to be renovated. As our probe lab with two probes are planned to be moved from 2nd floor to ground floor, the architects are making the destination room renovation plans. I explained in lengthy rebuttals that P10 gas needs to be in the same room, not too far from the probe. And they want to put ventilated container in which P10 gas would be placed as it is "flammable".

The container is only the part of problem – they had drawn 1m buffer explosive zone around the container, and zone collides with EPMA, which will give a headache every time some firesafe inspection visit...

By european law P10 gas is flammable as its LEL (lower explosion limit) and UEL (upper explosion limit) which is 44% to 54% gives a range of 10%. It is classified as 2nd category flammable gas. 1st category is the same as "flammable" in USA, where 2nd category is only European thing. Physically P10 can be flammable at hardly obtainable unreal to achieve in EPMA lab conditions (it could be achieved i.e. in small van during transportation, or surprise surprise... in ventilated box if ventilation would malfunction while bottle would leak.

I am looking into other options as fighting bureaucratic nonsense is probably harder than coming up with a new matrix correction algorithm. I consider P9 gas as UEL and LEL merges into single point, and thus having no flammability range technically it should be classified as nonflammable even in europe. To be on safer side (more fool proof from bureaucrats) I also consider P8 with addition of 1% of CO2 to compensate the decreasing ability (8% of CH4 will cope worse with UV than 10%) in quenching UV.

I looked to some supplier datasheets of P5, which surprisingly due to laziness of european distributors is also classified as flamable, while there is enought of scientific proof that gas with 8% of methane in Argon already can't be set on fire, and Argon mixture with 9% of methane instantly extinguishes itself (incomplete combustion) which technically makes it also not flammable.

Any advice? 

[Probeman]

Our P-10 bottles (and roughing pumps, chillers, etc.) are in a separate (ventilated) room that is only a meter from the instruments. See the images in this post:

https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=332.msg2077#msg2077

Remember, you have to login to see attachments!

Hey, you're really good at electronics design, so why not design a solid state detector for your EPMA WDS spectrometers?

[sem-geologist]

Hey, you're really good at electronics design, so why not design a solid state detector for your EPMA WDS spectrometers?

There are much much more than electronics to solve. At the moment I am appalled by amount of european regulations which are applicable to the instrument. This kind of modification would be illegal in europe. Actually I am aware I already am in some grey area by repairing and modifying on my own our SX'ses. After digging through all that bureaucratic nonsense I actually start to see Cameca quitting from EPMA market in completely different color. As R&D for EPMA of Cameca is in europe, they are obliged to do that enormous useless paper production steps, like i.e. risk assesement and management for practically everything (which needs to be constantly renewed, like laws of physics would change just because someone in Brussels just sneezed); heck there are even european standards on risk assessment of the process of risk assessment (Seriously, I had not thought this up). There are so many useless european laws which many one are absolutely unaware that right now unintentionally are braking. Basically every activity needs risk assessment and management and has standard written by someone how it should function.

And then we are in this tough position with moving the EPMA lab, and it seems nothing can be done with P10 as after following this "rabbit" hole I found that all theses bizzare things I seen in this new renovation project actually is based on some law requirements and european directives. Seems those directives and laws was in force already for decade, we simply had no idea that we are existing not in accordance with it.

The problem with P10 in special protective cabin seems like a small and funny problem compared to other emerging to me absurdities. In case gas is flammable (and so explosive zone in the room is defined) all the equipment which is used in same or room neighborhood to the room with the gas bottles will need to go thought meticulous inspection. Laws forbids using equipment where equipment as whole or its parts are not designed for being used in such potentially explosive environment. It sounds like absolute absurd and retarded - europe, where are you going?.

It is kind stupid that europeans has two classes for flamable gases, but then further these classification is not used, and both classes are treated by other laws as equally dangerous.

So at the moment P9 seems just like the least hassle solution, P9 has its Upper explosive limit and Lower explosive limit at singular 56% vol. and as there is no range between those values, legally it should be classified as non flammable in europe. Then it will mean that EPMA is being feed with non flammable gas, so many requirements will be no more applicable and wont be needed to prove for inspections after the renovation. There is just one little problem - finding the gas supplier which will label it correctly, as even P5 (completely non flamable) is marked as flamable gas hopefully just from laziness, but also could be some different directive or european standard tells to do so (I plan to pay a direct visit to one of supplier to try understand if it is doable).

I hope at least in USA you still have a sane classification of gases?

[Probeman]

So at the moment P9 seems just like the least hassle solution, P9 has its Upper explosive limit and Lower explosive limit at singular 56% vol. and as there is no range between those values, legally it should be classified as non flammable in europe. Then it will mean that EPMA is being feed with non flammable gas, so many requirements will be no more applicable and wont be needed to prove for inspections after the renovation. There is just one little problem - finding the gas supplier which will label it correctly, as even P5 (completely non flamable) is marked as flamable gas hopefully just from laziness, but also could be some different directive or european standard tells to do so (I plan to pay a direct visit to one of supplier to try understand if it is doable).

I hope at least in USA you still have a sane classification of gases?

I don't know about the exact rules these days. I tend to do whatever I need to and if necessary, ask for forgiveness rather than permission!   

As I mentioned previously, back in the 1980s on my ARL instrument I installed a detector system running on *pure* propane for better detection of nitrogen Ka:

https://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=1109.msg10237#msg10237

I just ran the exhaust tube up inside the fume hood in the next room...  But I did also install a flammable gas detector in the probe lab!

[sem-geologist]

I went to our gas supplier, and it was quite enlightening. We are buying gas from small family business not those big monstrosities. Firstly, the gas is not "technical gas", but "specialty gas" - with every gas we get gas chromatography analysis attached to that particular batch of gas in the cylinder. As they mix everything at their facility, they can do practically any mixture we would like, and label with no fuss according to the law. Hitherto, we was getting P10 gas in hydrogen cylinders (grey cylinder with red top). Naturally to make no contradictions, anything in such cylinder is then marked with label for flammable substances. So that's explains why even "big fish" gas companies in the gas market sell P5 as flammable - so it could be interchangeable with P10 gas cylinders and to prevent the companies from headache if green marking sticker (compressed gases, nonflamable) would be stick to bottle with red top ( a big "no" in law enforcement).

Our solution will be moving to P9, we will need to change the pressure reductors to Argon ones, as bottles will be argon bottles where P9 will come. The price for new reductors is peanuts compared what we would need to go through.