Talk:Inerting system

message: This article conveys the attitude that the world ends at the borders of the USA. Whatever any US organisation has said on the subject is irrelevant for the general information. This is an Encyclopedia and not a US news report. But if it is indeed regarded as relevant information, then this section should be marked with something along the lines of 'inerting system in the USA' AND also include information regarding the situation of inerting systems in other countries. CeshireCat (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Earliest aircraft citation I could find was on the B-47.  Please load up the article with other early references.  Tempshill 16:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I think something about ship inerting systems should be added to the article. On Modern Marvels (Engineering Disasters 14, I think), they said that this was required on oil tankers after the Sansinena blew up. They were filling the oil tanks with seawater for ballast, forcing the fumes out of the ship's deck. It wasn't windy, so the fumes did not disperse. They ignited and I think that the flames got into the tanks causing a second explosion. They said that the inerting systems used on other ships at the time was exhaust from the ship's engines. Taking a quick look online, it looks like it still might be used sometimes, along with carbon dioxide and nitrogen. -- Kjkolb 09:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed a ship's section should be added. For sure they are still used on ships, it is an obligation for tanker vessels above 20dwt under IMO legislation. hjooy 07:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: the following sentance is at odds with the CNN published report from Feb. 2004 
             The new, simplified inerting system was originally suggested to the FAA through public comment.
In UK there was a significant development programme immediately post WW2. A private company appears to have received a contract to look into the possibility of inerting aircraft fuel tanks using nitrogen gas; this was called the "RAE/Teddington Air & Gas Fuel Tank Pressurisation System". (RAE = Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough; Teddington = Teddington Aircraft Controls Ltd). It used nitrogen and/or engine bleed air to raise the pressure in the fuel tanks.
It was definitely intended that this equipment be used on several aircraft then being designed. These notably included Hawker Hunter, Supermarine Swift, Handley Page Victor and Avro Vulcan. Anyway, a snag was identified - when an aircraft climbs the air/gas in a fuel tank expands therby stopping any inerting gas (nitrogen) from entering. So, no fire protection was available at those times. The consequence was that   only engine bleed was used, the gas connections being either not drilled in valve castings or blanked.
By 1960 I was personally working on a proposal to bubble high pressure nitrogen gas through the fuel (using a stacked orifice restrictor) before take-off. I moved on but, as far as I know, it was never used.
Now, more than 45 years on, we are re-inventing the wheel!
Neither nitrogen, steam or carbon dioxide are inert gases or vapors. All of them will react violently with a number of chemicals. Therefore calling them "inert" is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.2 (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think you're being pedantic. The fuel tank is "inert", not the substances themselves. The purpose of an inerting system is to prevent fuel fires in the tank, and nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and steam can indeed displace oxygen and prevent fires. Shreditor (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The Handley Page Halifax had a nitrogen inerting system from around 1944, as it is mentioned in the relevant Pilot's Notes for the Halifax III and VII on page 6.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Same for the Short Stirling (p. 6) and Avro Lincoln B.II (p. 15).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hypoxic air technology for fire prevention discusses the same topic under an uncommon term for the process. A merge would be good for the encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, untagged the merge.  Application in buildings is different from tanks holding flammable substances, though I would like to read more about this subject here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest merge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Inerting system. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927083351/http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1981/PV1981_1638.pdf to http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1981/PV1981_1638.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606231547/http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=5785 to http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=5785
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm afraid there is some confusion regarding terminology on this page.  An inerting system supplies "inert" blanketing gas, typically because the gas has a reduced oxygen content.  But this is not the same as "inerting" as this concept is defined in NFPA 69 and NFPA 77.  The atmosphere in the tank is not "inert", it is much more precise to use the term "non-ignitable", which precisely is the stated goal inert gas blanketing.
I think the trouble starts in title, which probably should be Inert blanketing gas system.  There is then some overlap with Tank blanketing, which in itself has some problems, improper emphasis on a special valve, using for agitation.
FHHedlund (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused terminology