Lessons from Note Chemical 2016
Thread Content
The certification exam is finally over. I feel like I need to go to Haichuan to review everything. First, regarding the knowledge covered on the first day, as long as one studies carefully, it should be no problem to score around 2X60 points (it’s highly recommended to use the version provided by the association; many of the questions can be found verbatim in that version, such as the multiple-choice questions in the afternoon – those who have taken the exam know what I mean). As for the case analysis on the second day, it seemed more difficult in the morning than in the afternoon. Let me complain a bit about the question about pump vacuum level in the morning: there was a similar question back in 2014. I thought that the concept of vacuum level wasn’t really useful in practical applications, so I didn’t pay attention to it, and as a result, I suffered losses. . The exam questions in the afternoon weren’t actually difficult, but there was a lot of calculation involved. For example, with the first question regarding the specific heat capacity of NaCl, the person who tried to solve it couldn’t get the answer right at first; it was only after going back and including the value related to water that the correct answer was obtained. . I also gave up on using cyclones and oil-water separators in the afternoon; I guessed the answer for the torch-related question as well (please help me out, experts –). Overall, the 2016 exam was simpler compared to 2014, but it’s still necessary to work carefully on the questions, especially making sure to understand each one of the real exam questions. I hope everyone can pass the exam successfully this time.
For the torch question in the afternoon, the OP guessed 20,000 + 15,000 – but how is that calculation done exactly?
http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-1290662-1-1.html The question about the torch; I just found it. . . . .
For this question, I checked the petrochemical regulations several times during the exam but couldn’t find any relevant provisions. . . There must be specific regulations regarding the installation of torches. At that time, it seemed that either 20,000 or the sum of four units would be used; considering the level of risk, the latter option was chosen... the total of four units···
29,000 – if you have the SH3009 or are familiar with it, it’s practically easy to complete the task; it’s a shame no one thought of bringing it along
According to SH-3009, first calculate 30% of the maximum emission amount and the other emission amounts under the same operating conditions: 20000 + (10000 + 15000 + 5000) × 30% = 29000. Then calculate the sum of the maximum emissions per store for the two different devices (20000 + 15000 = 35000). Since 35000 > 29000, the discharge amount should be greater than or equal to 35000
This post was last edited by Shanlin Yeshi on 2016-9-5 at 10:24. According to SH-3009, first calculate the sum of the maximum emission amount under the same operating conditions and 30% of the other emission amounts: 20000 + (10000 + 15000 + 5000) × 30% = 29000. Then calculate the sum of the maximum single-point emission amounts from the two different devices (20000 + 15000 = 35000). Since 35000 > 29000, the discharge amount should be greater than or equal to 35000
Thank you; the original poster found this specification. If we calculate it by taking the maximum amount plus 30% of the remaining amount, then it would be 20,000 + (15,000 + 10,000 + 5,000) * 30% = 29,000. I remember that option A is 20,000, option C is 35,000, and option D is 50,000; so the correct answer should be B: Q
29000 is less than 35000, so it should be 35000; the calculation process can be found on floor 7
You calculated it using b; take a look at d as well – this question is about mass
That’s indeed the case; there is no distinction between mass and volume