论文部分内容阅读
本文为“关于现用防爆门是否安全问题”的进一步探讨。文中将前一阶段几篇文章的论点不同处归纳为:一方认为煤矿现用防爆门在形式上和实质上对保护主扇是安全可靠的,因而反对取消现用的防爆门;另一方则认为在防爆门的设置上,《规程》的规定只是形式上安全而实质并不安全。为了坚持后一观点,本文进一步分析了几个主要争议点:首先是防爆门内外的压差既然存在,它对防爆门就有阻启作用,而持前一观点的文章则未考虑此作用,因而导致了相反的结论;其次是关于推开防爆门所需力的表达问题,争议在于此力是否与防爆门的面积有关?最后本文作者希望早日看到“在理论上肯定设置现用防爆门”的论著,更希望能看到“爆炸冲击波冲击防爆门、主扇案例的详细资料,特别是高负压、大风量的统配煤矿的案例。
This article is “on the existing explosion-proof door is safe” for further discussion. The article summarizes the differences of the arguments of several articles in the previous stage as follows: One party believes that the existing explosion-proof door in coal mine is safe and reliable in form and in essence for the protection of the main fan, thus opposing the cancellation of the existing explosion-proof door; In the setting of explosion-proof doors, the “rules” provisions only formally safe and not safe in substance. In order to adhere to the latter point of view, this paper further analyzes several major controversial points: First, since the pressure difference between inside and outside the explosion-proof door there, it has a blocking effect on the explosion-proof door, while the previous view article did not consider this role, Which led to the opposite conclusion; followed by the expression on the required force to open the explosion-proof door, the controversy is whether this force is related to the area of the explosion-proof door? Finally, the author hopes to see as soon as possible “in theory, set the current explosion-proof door ”The treatise, but also hope to see" Explosive shock wave impact explosion door, the main fan case details, especially the case of high negative pressure, wind volume with coal.