Does anyone know of a calculator online, or a calculation, to figure out pipe sizing for natural gas lines?
3/4 + 4/5 31/20: you have regularly occurring the final consumer-friendly denominator of 20 and even have 31 over that. To get the mixed selection style you divide 31 by utilising 20, yet to get it in terms of a mixed selection you may say what number 20s are in 31? there is largely one finished 20, so (31-20)/20 eleven/20. the single total 20 which you pulled out of the mistaken fraction makes a 20/20, or a million, that's your total selection in the past your fraction, that's eleven/20, so the respond as a mixed selection is a million and eleven/20. on your 2d question, you're making the denominator of the two fractions to be an identical so as which you will subtract the numerators. the backside consumer-friendly numerous of three and 5 is 15 (via fact three times 5 is 15, and no different multiples of three or 5 in the past 15 journey). to transform the fractions to fractions with denominators of 15, you multiply the 1st by utilising 3/3, that's largely a million, to get 9/15, and multiply the 2d by utilising 5/5, that's additionally basically a million (so which you're no longer changing the value of the fraction), to get 5/15. then you relatively subtract the numerators: 9-5 4 third question: a million a million/5 tonnes/hour may well be switched over to 6/5 tonnes according to hour. a million is 5/5, so upload that to a million/5 and you have 6/5. then you relatively divide 15 by utilising 6/5 to determine what number hours it might take to %. 15 tonnes. 15/(6/5) is comparable to 15 circumstances 5/6, which gets you seventy 5/6 hours. then you convert this by utilising dividing seventy 5 by utilising 6. 6 is going into seventy 5 12 total circumstances, so the entire selection is 12. The fraction after the 12 is 3 via fact 6 circumstances 12 is seventy two, and seventy 5-seventy two is 3, so which you have 3/6, which would be decreased to a million/2 it is going to take 12 a million/2 hours.
The thing that firemen hook their hoses to put out your house that's on fire. Yeah.
I don't know why it has to be naptha, but it's probably something to do with the way it burns - it contains longer chain molecules than propane/butane fuels. I should think the heat from the flame vaporises the fuel so that it burns above the surface of the ball (similar to a candle wick) - lighter fuels may start burning inside the ball, ruining the effect. With something like this, you have to follow the instructions exactly - those that don't usually end up on the news (and not in a good way!). From one of your sources, holding it in your hand doesn't sound very comfortable. As I mentioned above, the flame is a short distance from the surface of the ball, and as hot gas rises most of the heat should rise upwards (convection) and not over your hand. However, there will still be a significant amount of radiant heat from the flames that will heat your hand. I really don't want this to sound condescending, but if you don't already know the answers to these questions from your own experience, you probably shouldn't carry out the experiment. I include myself in that - I don't have the right experience to do this and I've been a professional chemist for 12 years (perhaps that's why I don't want to try it). As so much can go wrong, is it really worth it? Naptha is extremely flammable, and forms explosive mixtures with air at relatively low concentrations. A small spill could ignite and set you or your clothing on fire. The flames are very hard to extinguish if something does go wrong. Other things to consider are: How many videos did they make where someone went ouch before they shot that video? Do they mention having fire extinguishers and fire blankets handy? Do they explain the hazards or why you must use certain materials and not others? Basically, how much can you trust the source/authors of the video? Sorry to go on a bit this sort of thing on the internet really worries me - but at least you had the good sense to ask about it first!
