Talk:Claus process

message: I believe the edit about Morpholine was well intentioned. I reverted it because:
*It was completely out of context. This is an article about the Claus process ... it is not about problems with the DGA process.
*It was very poorly formatted by someone who seems not to have taken the time to learn how to write as per the Wikipedia manual of style.
*The subject matter would be better written as a separate article on the DGA process. At best it only deserves a sentence or two in this article.
*The edit  refers to a "Case History" ... but includes no reference as to who wrote that case history or where it was obtained. 
If User:Otispa would create a personal sandbox and write a brief article (in that sandbox) about the DGA process and its problems, I would be happy to help him format it in Wikipedia style. I would also be happy to boil it down into one or two sentences for inclusion in this article.  But first, I would need to have a reference to back up the "Case History." - mbeychok 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for reverting edit by [[User:Otispa]] about Morpholine 

message: I'm working on a project to design a unit using this process, so I appreciate the writeup.  One thing I've not been able to find is, why is this called the "Claus Process"?  I would guess a pretty smart guy named Claus figured this out.  Does anyone have any more historical information that could be added to the article?  Thanks. Ultimate ed 13:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The process was invented by Carl Friedrich Claus, a chemist working in England. A British patent was issued to him in 1883. The process was later significantly modified by a German company called I.G.Fabenindustrie A.G. See this online citation  - mbeychok 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: The article says this process eliminates 97% of the H2S. Does anyone know how the tail gas purification process works? How about Shell Claus Offgas Treating (SCOT)? I believe 3% H2S is still too high for the gas to be used as fuel under US environmental regs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.32.32.166 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 97% refers to the recovery of H2S to elemental sulfur in the two bed Claus unit itself, NOT recovery from the original sulfur containing stream.  Typically the tail gas is incinerated and is not used as a fuel.  Addition of tail gas treaters can increase recovery to the 99+% range.  SCOT converts any remaining sulfur species back to H2S so that they can be absorbed in an amine column and recycled back as Claus feed.  Goatchze (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purification beyond 97% 

message: Dears,
Am working on preperation for an EPF and the client is asking for use of the Natural gas to run the indirect fired heater, but this gas containing H2S, So I'd like to have something writtien to state that its not acceptable to use the H2S for that porpuses, as the fire wil result on SO2 which is toxic same as H2S.
Thanks for the Help  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.129.241.66 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we use H2S for Indirect fired Heaters 

message: The flow diagram shows air direct to third catalytic stage. That would suggest this drawing is actually a SuperClaus flow diagram.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.8.252 (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many versions of the Claus process for converting hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur. There are probably additional other versions, but these come to mind:
*Straight-through Claus process
*Split-flow Claus process process
*Claus process with 2 reactors
*Claus process with 3 reactors
*Claus process using oxygen rather than air (OxyClaus process)
*SuperClaus process 
It would not have been feasible, in my opinion, to include flow diagrams for all of the possible versions, so one diagram was used.
After all, the SuperClaus version is a Claus process and thus the flow diagram is not wrong. mbeychok (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow diagram is wrong 

message: My calculation of the enthalpy of the catalytic step, using heats of formation, comes to -72.77 kJ/mol of S. The enthalpy for the thermal step (per mol of S) appears to be correct.   
I cannot understand how the article's value for the former was arrived at. Mine seems to make more sense, as the thermal step sends S oxidation states from -2 to +4 whereas the catalytic step is a disproportionation from oxidation states -2 and +4 to 0 (hence more neutral). Since the heat of formation of H2S from the elements is much smaller than that for SO2, it makes sense that the disproportionation should be less enthalpic than the thermal step. 
Pgpotvin (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enthalpy error? 

message: "Ordinarily, the solubility of a gas increases with increasing temperature but with H2S it is the opposite. "
Is this correct? Gases are more soluble in cooler liquids than hot liquids. Is this the wrong way around? 122.56.82.81 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  H2S solubiltiy