docbuild
Mechanical
- Jan 23, 2018
- 16
Hello all,
I've constructed a prototype of a small, indoor-use consumer appliance. It uses a small cylinder of (liquid) butane. I'm shipping the prototype overseas to be tested.
However shipping the prototype has been problematic, due to butane tanks being "dangerous goods" (original posts: Need advice shipping prototype overseas safely, Flushing residual butane from cylinder). Even shipping it with the tank empty may not (or does not) disqualify the dangerous-good rating, since the tank USED to contain butane.
That got me to thinking... assuming I'm able to get this appliance to the production stage, does anyone know if "final" (off the assembly line) products would face the same shipping problems? These "new" products would never have had their tanks filled with butane (although it's possible the factory may have filled them with a test-gas?), so is anyone aware of any problems with shipping new-and-never-filled tanks that are meant for butane? I checked the IATA manual and I didn't see any mention of "empty tanks" as being a dangerous good.
If new-and-never-filled tanks are problematic to ship, then I was considering possibly switching the product to use liquid fuel instead. But that may not be possible, and would take a great deal of work, but I will try if I have to.
Actually, if anyone has (other) convincing arguments to make the switch to liquid fuel from compressed gas, please let me know. I currently don't see any benefits to make the switch (other than if empty gas containers may be a shipping problem), but if I've overlooked a design aspect, it would be great to have it pointed out.
Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance.
I've constructed a prototype of a small, indoor-use consumer appliance. It uses a small cylinder of (liquid) butane. I'm shipping the prototype overseas to be tested.
However shipping the prototype has been problematic, due to butane tanks being "dangerous goods" (original posts: Need advice shipping prototype overseas safely, Flushing residual butane from cylinder). Even shipping it with the tank empty may not (or does not) disqualify the dangerous-good rating, since the tank USED to contain butane.
That got me to thinking... assuming I'm able to get this appliance to the production stage, does anyone know if "final" (off the assembly line) products would face the same shipping problems? These "new" products would never have had their tanks filled with butane (although it's possible the factory may have filled them with a test-gas?), so is anyone aware of any problems with shipping new-and-never-filled tanks that are meant for butane? I checked the IATA manual and I didn't see any mention of "empty tanks" as being a dangerous good.
If new-and-never-filled tanks are problematic to ship, then I was considering possibly switching the product to use liquid fuel instead. But that may not be possible, and would take a great deal of work, but I will try if I have to.
Actually, if anyone has (other) convincing arguments to make the switch to liquid fuel from compressed gas, please let me know. I currently don't see any benefits to make the switch (other than if empty gas containers may be a shipping problem), but if I've overlooked a design aspect, it would be great to have it pointed out.
Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance.
