Processes fictitious

However, any average drop size is fictitious, and none is completely satisfactory. For example, there is no way in which the high surface and transfer coefficients in small drops can be made avail le to the larger drops. Hence, a process calculation based on a given droplet size describes only what happens to that size and gives at best an approximation to the total mass. 

The following Is a hypothetical example of how one manufacturer might complete the toxic chemical release inventory reporting Form R. The facility information is purely fictitious and does not represent any known manufacturing facility. The example begins with descriptions of the facility (a lead-acid storage battery manufacturer) and of the production process at the faciiity. The completion of each section of Form R is explained and a copy of Form R, as it would be completed by this facility, follows. 

The same process can be applied to HSO. Again assuming hydrogen has a charge of +1 and each of the four oxygen atoms has a charge of —2, we calculate a fictitious charge on the sulfur atom of +6 ... 

SAQ 8.7 The product value at 100% capadty will now be (total cost of production + 7 to 15% ROD, ie 16.04 to 1654 + 1.12 to 2.48. So the minimum product value will be 17.16 per kg of L-phenylalanine and the maximum product value 19.02 per kg of L-phenylalanine. It is rattier difficult to say whether this fictitious process would survive or could compete. Actual data are absolutely necessary. On the other hand this exercise gives us a better understanding of process economics and can also be used to compare a fermentative process for the production of amino adds with, for example, a chemo-enzymatic process. Calculate the return on investment over a 15 year period for an amino add fermentation, based on the following data and assumptions. Production capadty = 500 tonnes per annum Selling price of product = 50 kg Cost price of product = 24.5 kg 1 Capital = 40 million Taxes = 50%. Assumptions Cost of dealer discount, distribution and freight = 20% total sales Startup costs = 10% of capital Working capital = 25% of net sales Administration plus R and D costs = 12.5% of net sales. 

In previous chapters, we deal with simple systems in which the stoichiometry and kinetics can each be represented by a single equation. In this chapter we deal with complex systems, which require more than one equation, and this introduces the additional features of product distribution and reaction network. Product distribution is not uniquely determined by a single stoichiometric equation, but depends on the reactor type, as well as on the relative rates of two or more simultaneous processes, which form a reaction network. From the point of view of kinetics, we must follow the course of reaction with respect to more than one species in order to determine values of more than one rate constant. We continue to consider only systems in which reaction occurs in a single phase. This includes some catalytic reactions, which, for our purpose in this chapter, may be treated as pseudohomogeneous. Some development is done with those famous fictitious species A, B, C, etc. to illustrate some features as simply as possible, but real systems are introduced to explore details of product distribution and reaction networks involving more than one reaction step. 

Compared to the traditional BOD and COD removal concept, which considers organic matter as degradable in a fictitious removal process, the concept described has moved to highlight biomass as being the real active component, depending on the nature and availability of organic substrates and electron acceptor. The heterotrophic biomass is, therefore, in terms of its activity, the central component of such a concept. 

A fictitious example illustrates the large potential value of even small improvements in the control of a manufacturing process. Suppose one has a continuous process in which the final product (a polymer) is sampled and analyzed to be sure the copolymer composition is within specifications. A sample is taken from the process once every 2 hours, and it takes about 2 hours for the lab to dissolve the polymer and measure its composition. This process produces a number of different copolymer compositions, and it transitions from one product to another about twice a month on average. The 2-hour wait for lab results means that during a transition the new product has been within specification limits for 2 hours before the operators receive lab confirmation and are able to send the product to the in-spec silo. Consequently, on every transition, 2-hours worth of in-spec polymers are sent to the off-spec silo. 

The fictitious process safety incident contained in Appendix D can he used to illustrate the application of how a fact/hypothesis matrix can he used during logic tree development. Extensive details of the incident appear in the appendix hut a basic summary would be ... 

Let us suppose that a molecule of Nad is formed from free atoms of Na and Cl. We can imagine a process in which an electron is first removed from a Na+ atom and is then transferred to the Cl atom, and the two ions so formed allowed to approach each other to within a distance given by the sum of their radii. The potential energy of the system will change in such a process and can be readily calculated. Such a process is, in a sense, fictitious, in so far as it cannot be carried... 

Although all physical processes are, of course, of limited duration there are many situations in which this limitation is not of practical interest. When studying the noise in an electronic device one normally is not interested in effects connected with the switching on and off. A description in which the duration does not enter is then simpler and more appropriate. One is thus led to examining sets of dots whose density does not tend to zero for t - + oo. Such sets cannot be described in terms of the Qs, because the normalization condition (1.3) requires Qs to vanish at infinity. It is true that this shortcoming can be overcome by introducing a fictitious long time interval T, but that burdens the equations with an irrelevant quantity. The description in terms of the / , however, carries over without additional artifice. 

Process flowcharts. A flow diagram should indicate the process steps and addition of raw materials. If possible, major equipment and special environmental conditions may be included in the flowchart. In-process tests may also be included. A second flowchart for activities, raw material suppliers, shipments, and testing would also assist in the overall picture of the aerosol manufacturing scheme, especially for multiple site or third-party activities. An example of a process flowchart for a fictitious suspension product (2160.4-kg batch size for 100,000 units) is shown in Figure 6. 

Although the example of FCP1 is fictitious, it is typical of the problems associated with the definition of the targets in process development work. The complexity and inter-related nature of the many factors involved, when there are many alternative pathways, makes it a subject eminently suited to treatment by computer manipulation and commercial software is available. 

The transformation can be made by applying Eq. 11.16, with a Hamiltonian appropriate to a fictitious magnetic field (see Section 2.8) that would cause procession at a frequency of — r ... 

Suppose that in a fictitious process an interaction is switched on between two previously isolated systems in view of Eq. (1.5.1) this gives rise to three possible outcomes xx increases while x2 decreases, Xi decreases while x2 increases, or Xi and x2 remain unaltered. In the last case the two systems are at equilibrium with respect to the interaction. 

---