Dear Mining Professionals,
I am currently trying to research and determine what, if any, Underground Coal Mine Standards exist when it comes to the assessment/verification of equipment that is required to be "Instrinsically Safe" when being used in an underground coal mine setting. Examples of equipment that may be considered under such scenarios include:
1. Mobile equipment used in undergrouind activitiy.
2. Electrical/Electronic equipment
3. Pneumatic Impact Wrenches
4. Low/High pressure Hydraulic Equipment
5. Other tools/equipment that needs to be used in an underground coal mine
If people involved in underground coal mine operations could assist or point me in the right direction with my endeavours it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanking you in advance and may you all have a safe and enjoyable Xmas/New Year period.
Regards,
Tom
Comments
In many situations mining businesses will lose financially because of what are false claims about carbon dioxide supposedly warming the planet. They should consider class action such as I plan to initiate in Australia by late next year. I have been tying the CSIRO CEO (Dr Larry Marshall) in knots because, in response to Freedom of Information requests, they can provide no actual evidence of the main "greenhouse" gas water vapor warming anything and that is because it actually cools. Nor can they produce any correct physics explaining how such gases could warm the Earth's surface with their radiation from the cold atmosphere.
Even the IPCC gave up their original "blanket" conjecture because solar radiation can only maintain a mean of 255K at the so-called radiating altitude and, after further absorption on the way to the surface, the mean of about 168w/m^2 supports a global mean surface temperature less than 233K (-40°C). In fact, because of the T^4 in Stefan Boltzmann calculations and because the flux is variable both the 255K and 233K figures are higher than actual.
At least since the publication of a paper in 1992 (possibly earlier) they started to guess that back radiation was supplying into the warmer surface the extra thermal energy needed to prop up the observed 288K. People complained that such would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But they brain-washed new climatology students into thinking that only "net" results of inward and outward radiation had to increase entropy.
That's utter garbage! For a start, their energy diagrams show more inward radiation than outward. Oh, but they think, there is also non-radiative surface cooling. So the net result is cooling. Well, in fact there is warming most mornings where I live, so what is going on there? Radiation can have no effect whatsoever on the rate of evaporation or conduction and convection out of the surface.
The only "net" results valid for the Second Law relate to interacting systems occurring at the same time. Clausius said as much in his original statement in German in 1854 which translated reads: "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time." The correct current version of the Second Law is the first sentence in Wikipedia "Laws of Thermodynamics" reading "... in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases."
That is all that needs to be stated regarding the Second Law - no reference to heat or temperatures being hot or cold - just entropy never decreasing and, in practice, always increasing in any irreversible natural thermodynamic process. Such can include phase change, chemical reactions, physical redistribution of molecules by gravity to form the density gradient, etc. - not just processes involving "heat" which is the word that in physics means an effective transfer of thermal energy.
The electromagnetic energy in radiation is not always converted in part to thermal energy in a target which is represented by the kinetic energy of whole molecules. None is converted from a colder source.
There is more on this in papers about stimulated emission and resonant (or "pseudo") scattering. Only if the target were at zero K would all the energy in the radiation striking it be thermalized.
In short, climatologists have no correct understanding of radiative heat transfer, but maybe Prof Claes Johnson could help with his writings cited in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" linked at http://climate-change-theory.com.
Mining regulations
the greatest danger is from the ignition of methane which in turn could ignite a coal dust explosion.
Thus electrical equipment has intrinsic safety regulations, eg the enclosures built to prevent gas ingress.
Another area of danger by sparking is cutting machinery whereby a TC tip can strike pysites or other rock and create and incendiary spark.
In fact there are a multitude of regulations globally in force to prevent explosions.
eCFR :: 30 CFR Part 72 -- Health Standards for Coal Mines
Underground Mining Regulations - Occupational Health and Safety Act...
MDG 43 Technical Standard for the design of diesel engine systems f...