-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell
 
>. . . and at any rate this is not the "cause" of the accident, although
>it is true that had not other malfunctions occurred in safety systems, the
>accident might have been non-fatal. The underlying cause according to
expert
>opinion, was recalescence.

JR: Then why was the explosion in the head space? And which expert opinion?

JB: Headspace is not an exculpatory issue - because of the buoyancy of a
sudden and catastrophic release of deuterium from a loaded cathode - it is
actually expected. 

Of course the explosion would be in the headspace, and the recombiner could
not have made much difference, since once the containment was compromised to
allow some air into the system - there was no possibility of any system
working properly.

>but it is also the same alloy which was being used in the infamous 
>runaway in SLC . . .

JR: What does SLC stand for?

JB: Salt Lake City

> The hydrogen did not expel suddenly. A stoichiometric mix built up 
over time in the headspace, because the recombiner failed. 
Unfortunately they did not realize pressure was building up.

No, that is not what the cooling curve - Fig 5 is telling us ! 

At any rate, I am not claiming to the expert here...

... but can clearly see the problem in relying on "independent" reports from
SRI staffers or consultants, and it is the timing of the early reports that
is the problem. 

Ergo, I hope that you will talk to Brain Ahern on this, as he was certainly
independent of SRI - and certainly an expert. And this is an important
issue. Plus he was apparently the kind of expert that "someone" involved did
not want to hear from on the liability issue, since that party may have had
knowledge of recalescence, which was never forwarded to the appropriate
managers. 

It is always a "little too convenient" to try to shift some of the
culpability to the victim. SRI did take responsibility for a flawed design,
but the were quick to imply that certain safety systems were not checked out
thoroughly.

It would be interesting to know where the final legal responsibility fell in
this case.

Jones


Reply via email to