Friday, February 14, 2020

Natural Gas Boiler Plant Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Natural Gas Boiler Plant - Essay Example Stack gas analysis sought to find the composition of the stack gas, proportion of excess air, the average capacity of stack gas heat, composition of fuel, inlet and outlet temperatures and air to fuel ratio. A gas combustion analyzer was used to achieve this objective together with computation of various equations as follows. A bomb calorimeter could be defined as a device for measuring energy which combusts a specified amount of fuel in excessive air, comparing it to a baseline fuel which is of known calorific value. This would be achieved by measuring the change in temperature after a settling time in a given quantity of water. From this, the fuel calorific value would be computed from the ratio difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures. Determining the overall efficiency of the natural gas boiler called for arranging the collected information numerically. Efficiency was first determined using the input vs. output method. In this method, the energy input into the boiler (making use of fuel mass flow rate and calorific value) and that output from the boiler (making use of steam and feed water enthalpies and steam mass flow rate) would be compared. This method yields equation (ii). Alternatively, the efficiency of the boiler could be determined through the heat loss method. This has two major components: the first employs stack gas heat capacity together with the input and output temperatures; while the second uses the heat lost through radiation and convection. Equation (iii) represents this method. After weighing the fuel, it would be placed inside a crucible. This would then be dipped into an oxygen-filled bomb under a pressure of about 35 atmospheres. This bomb would then be placed into a container with predetermined amount of water. This container would then be placed inside a jacket. The impellor on the lid of the jacket ensures that heat is evenly distributed throughout the water while the thermometer

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person as a means to Essay

Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person as a means to saving some larger number of innocent people's lives Why - Essay Example However, according to Kantian principle, our duty is to do certain things irrespective of the motive, at least not from a sense of duty. Sometimes one may do something he or she thinks is the right thing to do but in the end the act is wrong. For example, killing one person to save more others may seem right but killing is a crime and as such it is wrong no matter what reason it was intended. So what makes right acts right? Is morality relative or absolute? These are questions that we need to ask ourselves in order to standard ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actions. The specific ethical issue to be tackled by this paper is whether it is permissible to kill one innocent person as a means to saving some larger number of innocent people’s lives. I will argue that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person as it leads to the greatest good of all at least based on Professor Moore’s moral theory. There is no question that society aims at ensuring the happiness of all and this would be achieved if many lives are saved. The argument in this case, is the means to achieve this goal. Is it by sacrificing an innocent person or allowing others to die? In order to answer this question, we need to understand what it means to be morally permissible. ... In this paper thus it will be taken for granted that morality is relative. As such, it depends on the circumstances at the time of the event. It may not be the act one ‘ought to’ has done thus a duty to do as expressed by Kant but the right action given the circumstances. For example, if one man threatens the life of others it is only right to kill that person to preserve the rights of those others. However, everyone has a duty to protect life and as such killing is wrong. One ought not to take another person’s life irrespective of the situation. The subject of morality is thus very confusing and always leads to ethical dilemmas. According to normative ethical theory such as utilitarianism it is assumed that the right act is always the one that results to greatest possible happiness (PHL 275 Week Six p.1) or according to Professor Moore’s ideal utilitarianism â€Å"actions productive of more good than could have been produced by any other action open to th e agent† (Ross 16). This means that we often do not know what is right or wrong because we cannot tell what the outcomes of doing a certain action will be. Every member of society has an inalienable right to liberty, property and pursuit of happiness and as such, promoting the good of the community is the ultimate aim. Now consider killing an innocent person for the sake of other innocent people. For example, a driver may opt to knock down a pedestrian to avoid colliding with an oncoming vehicle thus saving the lives of many innocent people. Is this morally permissible? According to consequentialist utilitarianism, the act is right only if it leads to producing more good or happiness. I would like to assume that many people would