Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 43, No. 7.

pp
Printed in Cheat Britain.

PRESENTED

AT

CHEMICAL

0009-2509188
$3.00 + 0.00
0 1988 Pergamon Press plc

1427-1435.1988.

THIRD
P. V. DANCKWERTS
MEMORIAL
LECTURE
THE INSTITUTE
OF DIRECTORS,
4 MAY
1988

ENGINEERINGS

OCTAVE
Chemical Engineering Department. Oregon

GRAND

Direct

ethanol

scale

up

5%

cOnverSIOn

I-z
+

ADVENTURE

cases, conversion to product was low, between 1 and

5%. With this information lets try to come up with a
good scheme to treat 1 ton/day of feed (iZiG =
0.1 kg/mol) to 90% conversion, if experiments give
2% conversion for a gas feed rate of 1 cm3/s over a
reaction boat containing 1 g of liquid catalyst.
The first thought is to directly scale up from
experiment. However, a quick back-of-the-envelope
calculation shows that this would require about 6800
tubes in parallel, each containing over 110 boats of
catalyst, as sketched in Slide 2. But at fl.Yg,
the
cost of catalyst alone comes to about fl million.
And how would you like to engineer such a process?
I think you will agree that we should be able to do
better.
A second thought is to try the bathtub reactor of
Slide 3. This would require 12 tons of catalyst
costing f18 million? Out of the question.
A third idea would use the spray tower, as shown
in Slide 4. This would use less catalyst, about
f500,OOO worth, but this still is awfully costly. And
how would we overcome the mechanical problems
of dealing with a hot liquid?
These direct approaches just dont seem practical.
So let us put on our innovative thinking caps. If we
are imaginative enough we may come up with the
scheme of Slide 5. Mix, pelletize, calcine, reduce,
pack and then run with hot gas. What a simple idea!
No need to handle hot liquid, and all it requires is

Dehydrogenotion reaction
I-

U.K.

LEVENSPIEL
State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-2702, U.S.A.

Fellow chemical engineers, I am honored that you

have invited me to speak to you today. On this
occasion, most memorable for me, I ask that you
join me in exploring an important but little considered aspect of our activities.
Let me start by proposing that the mission and
essence of chemical engineering is to come up with
processes to make materials wanted by man-new
or improved processes to replace older less efficient
ones, and processes to make completely
new
materials. In a nutshell we are the chefs of science
and technology, and as I put it here, its a two-step
affair-conceiving
or dreaming up a scheme, and
then making it come real.
The second step of this affair, transforming the
idea into reality and teaching how to go about it is
what concerns most of us most of the time, and we
are very good at this. But what about the first step of
this two-step affair, the creative or inventive step,
the dreaming up of a scheme? Who does this and
how does the doer go about doing it? Can this be
taught and if so how is it taught today, and who
teaches it? It is this first step in the development of a
process that I wish to talk about today.
Let me illustrate what I mean with a quick
example. A while ago Japanese chemists discovered
that hot (450C)
liquid indium was a versatile
catalyst, capable of making a variety of useful
reactions go, as shown in Slide 1. However, in all

Reactant -

LONDON,

Liquid lndlum
-450=X
-

acetaldehyde
-

2 - butanol
cyclohexonol

MEK
-

Isopropanol -

Ll3

cyc10hexon0ne

ton/day
of feed

acetone

Slide 1.

reactIonboats

per tube

Slide 2.
1427

1428

OCTAVE

Bath tub reactor

12 tons of
450-C

,,f-at
/

indium

Slide 3.

Spray
column

Everything
at 450C

--

Slide 4.
SLC - supported

catalysts

liquid

MIX -

PelW

1ze

carc1ne
-8CUs:

WS

>%
98

Reduce

cmvers,o

wth

LEVENSPIEL

Villadsen did, and I wonder what it was in their

background that led them away from the traditional
thinking about bubble columns, spray columns and
the like to come up with this unconventional and
neat idea, so simple and obvious in hindsight.
Maybe this is a good place to look at what we do
teach future chemical engineers and see where we
encourage this kind of creative thinking. Put simply,
Slide 6 shows what we do in typical chemical
engineering programs. At the BS level we prepare
the young chemical engineer primarily for plant
operations. Then in postgraduate programs we focus
on research in a variety of areas: physicochemical
information, theory for predicting behavior, design
methods, ways of optimizing operations, and so on.
All this has as its final goal the transformation of a
design concept into an efficient reliable process for
making a product material.
But what about the breakthroughs which lead to
new and better processes. As shown in Slide 6 this
can follow the discovery of a new chemical pathway
or the creation of a new catalyst. It can also come
from dreaming up a new contacting concept.
Gossetts twig-filled windmill to give Britains first
industrial absorber, and Villadsens supported liquid
catalyst are such examples. This third step in Slide 6
is something which we in the educational world in
large part ignore. Why? Maybe we dont know how
to teach it, maybe we consider it to be unteachable.
Let us see whether we can gain an insight into this
activity by seeing how our profession actually goes
about doing it. For this lets select two examples,
pertinent today, for which there are many possible
routes from given reactants to given products.
First consider the production of liquid fuel from
shale rock. The concept is simple and is shown in
Slide 7. In step 1 shale rock is heated to about
500C. This drives off the organics but leaves some
fixed carbon on the rock. One may follow this
primary operation with a second step in which the
fixed carbon is burned off the rock with air. This
releases heat which is then recycled to heat the raw

Hz

-4ooC
Specks

03-

of

In

Operate

20$.,,
1

Pack
to

and

hecat

350C

Slide

5.

just a few grams of indium for the whole operation,

costing not much more than a good dinner in
London today.
Why didnt I think of it? A team at the Danish
Technical University headed by Professor John

Tmlnlng

of

US Pat # 4.224.190

Reactant

with understanding

* Handle
Make

emergencies
lmpmvements

Theory

developing

Language

new processes

Innovations
- New

catalyst

New

reoctlon

New

contoctlng

pathways
patterns

Slide

6.

Chemical engineerings
Liquid

fuels

from

moving

Downflow

shale

1429

grand adventure
Raw shale

beds

Volotiles
RCIW
step I

shale

Heat,

rnck
1

no q lr

tieat

released

may

X-e--

Paroho

Klviter

Tosco

feed

In

used

be

step

to

_____-x

stepl

(II

in the first step. Without

other source of energy,

or product

8 Petrosix

Slide 7.
shale
some

Air
go=

rn i.d.1

step 2 one has to use

usually a part of the

volatiles produced, to heat the shale rock.
This looks like a simple straightforward operation
so why shouldnt one single design concept emerge?
With autos we have settled on four wheels, for
railroads two tracks, for commercial aircraft one
body with just one wing on either side, so shouldnt
we all agree on moving beds or multifluidized beds,
or something else? Well, many large organizations
have worked on this and a whole host of distinctly
different design concepts have been selected, as
listed in Slide 8.
Let me sketch some of these concepts to show you
how different they are. First of all there is the
downflow moving bed of solids. As shown in Slide 9,
there are a number of commercial processes operating today which have opted for this approach. These
are not small pilot scale operations. For example the
Petrosix uses an 11 m i.d. unit, and the Brazilians
are planning to build 19 more of these giants. Slide
10 shows a horizontal moving bed design, in
operation today in Mexico. And to complete the
picture of moving-bed designs Slide 11 shows a U.S.

Cold product
gas

V
Spent shale

Slide 9.

Superior
Oib
horizontal
moving
bed
(merry

-go - round)

ws
Slide 10.

Unocals

IGT
Poroho

Counterflow
moving

Occidental
union 011

beds

Hot recycle

upflow

moving

bed

~0s

Pet robros
cross f low
n-wing

beds

Kerr - McGee
Kwiter
Superior Oit
Cities
Chevron

Clrculoting
solid schemes

Downflow
of

LUrQl
AX0

Shale

Qas

Shell

Rod iont heot

M~crowove heat
Vacuum extraction
Molten

solt

From Oil Processing TechnOloQy (Edited

Center for Professional
Advancement.

Slide 8.

by V. D. Allred 1
1982

ze

*---Rock
shale

Slide 11

pump pushes
upward

+ C

1430

OCTAVE

LEVENSPIBL

upflowing-solids process which just produced its first

barrel of commercial product last year. Upflow,
downflow, horizontal flow-shouldnt
one be best?
In the suspended-solid approach, Slide 12 shows
an all-fluidized circulating solid system; Slide 13
shows a variation of this in which hot and cold shale
are intimately contacted in a screw conveyer; and
Slide 14 shows the ball mill design wherein heat is
fed to cold fresh shale by circulating hot balls.
Most of the moving-bed processes are simple from
the engineering standpoint, but do not try to recover
the energy in the fixed carbon. Thus spent shale is
returned to the waste dump with a portion of its

Tosco II
(ball

l-l

Chevrons

Elevator

.I

STB

turbubnt

bed)

I
3:

__

(staged

miW

Lift

carbon

pipe

burn

UP
Raw

shale

/
c

I-bt

waste

gas

Slide 14.

_ Downflow
-bust
lift

aon

of

energy unextracted.
On the other hand, the
fluidized-bed processes are more complicated, but
in most cases they are designed to extract all the
energy from the shale.
Some designs go to great lengths to recover the
energy from the fixed carbon. As an example Slide
15 shows U.S. Shells concept. The left half of the
slide with its two fluidized beds and its circulating
heat-carrying steel balls has just one purpose, to
transfer heat from hot spent shale to fresh cold
shale.
Look at the designs of Slides 12, 13 and 15. In
their very different ways they all try to recycle heat
from spent shale to fresh shale. Thus solid-solid
heat exchange is the problem here, and an efficient
way of doing this may then be the key to a good
shale process.
We chemical engineers are quite comfortable with
fluid-fluid heat exchange. There are books upon
books on this subject. But what about solid-solid
heat exchange? There is hardly anything on this

soltds

I -3cm/s

p*pe

Solids
rotio

recycle
= 2-

Slide 12

Lurgi - Ruhrgas
(meatgrinder)
IL1

Shells

Spher

_..-..
Ti

Solid

and

recycle

rotio

= 2 -

bed concept

Hot balls
- -/

fuel

Slide 13.

Siide 15.

Chemical

engineerings

topic in the literature, and not one word on it in

Perrys Handbook. So let us probe in the literature
to see what is available.
Slide 16 shows Professor Leung and Chongs
proposed shell-and-tube design. Unfortunately, for
temperature
limitations
and
shale processing,
stability of operations would be serious problems
with this design. Slide 17 shows a somewhat simpler
alternative proposed by Professor Potter which uses
side-by-side fluidized beds, and this design could
possibly be incorporated into a shale process.
But now let our minds wander and explore other
ideas. Why not consider using heat pipes? These
devices were made practical about 25 years ago, and
are widely used today in consumer electronics and in
space applications. Even the Alaska pipeline uses
close to 100,000 of them. They are most efficient
heat transfer devices which can be designed to
operate in various temperature ranges from below
room temperature to 1000C and higher, and in any
orientation-vertical,
horizontal or around corners.
Slide 18 shows how heat pipes could be used in a
solid-solid heat exchanger. Sketch A shows what
happens when we just pour solids down past finned
heat pipes. Heat transfer is rapid, but unfortunately
Leung and Chongs SBT exchanger

Cooted fluidized
solids out

Hwted fluldized
solids out

Slide 16.

Potters fluidized

exchanger

l-lot

Cold
sol Ids

solids

Slide 17.

1431

grand adventure

heat exchanger

Heat pipe s/s

(A)

0C

48C

100C

52C

(El

Upflow

of condensate

Slide 18.

this arrangement represents cocurrent heat exchange for which the maximum heat recovery
efficiency is only 50%.
Of course if we are able to coax one stream of
solids to flow upward then we could approach 100%
efficiency. But how do you coax solids to flow
upward on their own? However, there is a simple
alternative. Rearrange the heat pipes as in sketch B
of Slide 18. This results in a downflow of both solid
streams with counterflow heat exchange and close to
100% heat recovery efficiency. Even better still,
locate the cold unit above the hot unit, as shown in
sketch C. Then the working fluids in all the heat
pipes condense in the upper unit and flow down to
the lower unit, a more efficient arrangement.
So why not consider incorporating heat pipes into
a shale process. Slide 19 shows a possible design.
With no need for very fine solids, no fluidizing gas,
gravity flow of solids throughout the exchanger
section, a process with this type of heat exchanger
should be much simpler than many of the present
designs on which so much effort and money have
been spent.
In looking at all these different ways of extracting
oil from shale rock-in
fluidized beds or moving
beds, using upflow, downflow or horizontal flow of
shale, with or without using inert heat-carrying
solids-it
should be evident that it is the first step in
the development of a process, the choice of process
concept, that we are considering here. Maybe youll
agree with me that this is the crucial step in the
development of a process, because once the process
concept is chosen it determines the path to be taken
in all the supporting research, testing, development
and design which follows.
In general terms, not just for shale processing,
what Id like to suggest is that before starting work

OCTAVE LEVENSPIEL

1432
DMB.HPC
Cold

row

downf low
bed heat
concept

stale

moving
pipe

(+I

No

on
(+)

remains

solids

No

N2

VOlOtlleS
I+1

No

(+)

Can

fuel

needed

handle

Large

solids
(+)

Cold

spent

S1mpte

shale

Slide 19.
on a particular process concept one should set out
the criteria for the ideal-never
mind whether
practical or not-and
then see how close one can get
to the ideal. This requires
thinking
research,
sitting around in easy chairs, discussing and discussing-all
this before building even the smallest of
pilot plants.
Lets try this type of thinking with another system,
the production
of synthesis gas from coal. This is
likely to become one of the most important processes worldwide
by early next century as coal will
progressively replace petroleum as the feedstock for
organic chemicals.
Slide 20 shows. in simple terms, that two reactions
are involved: the desired reaction of coal with steam
which is endothermic,
and a combustion
reaction
which supplies the heat for the desired reaction.
And since this would be a large-volume
operation
wed
like to use only cheap easily obtainable
feeds-air,
water and coal, and nothing else.
Synthesis
The

gas

rdeat

from

process

coal

should

only

In considering this operation we spot a number of

potential problems:
If coal is reacted with air and steam at the same
time then nitrogen is present in the product gas,
and this is costly to remove.
If we try to avoid this problem by reacting with
oxygen instead of air, then we would need an
oxygen plant-again
cost1 y.
We can avoid the nitrogen problem by running
the two reactions in different locations, but then
we have the problem of transferring heat from
one location to the other.
And in all of these schemes if the product gases
are rapidly cooled then a lot of tar forms and this
also is costly to remove. To avoid this we must
keep the product gases hot for a while to let the
tars crack into lower molecular
weight compounds.
These considerations
lead us to jot down the
requirements
for an ideal gasification
process, as
shown in Slide 21. Let me comment on the last two
items on this list. Thermodynamics,
reinforced
by
common sense, suggests that if we want to squeeze
the most from a process then ideally all the product
streams should leave the process at ambient conditions.
The last item on this list is most important, for to
dream up a process which is basically complex is
risky. An example
of this is the CO,-Acceptor
process in the U.S. for coal gasification.
It was a
beautiful concept and many millions were spent on
its development.
However,
the developers
had to
call it quits precisely because of its complexity.
Slide 22 shows that all sorts of schemes have been
dreamed up for coal gasification.
As you can see
there is no agreement on the best way to gasify coal.
Well, just for fun let us look at the four main
schemes and see how they compare with our six
criteria for the ideaI.
Scheme 1 (Slide 23) uses air and countercurrent
gas-solid
contacting
with both reactions
taking
place in one bed. During reaction a narrow hot zone
forms and the product gas quickly cools. The main
problems with this design are shown in Slide 23.

use

Requirements
COAL.

AIR

and

(+I

Onky

(+I

No

N,

+Q

(+I

No

tar

or liquid

(+I

No

O2

plant

Coat +

(+I

A11

flow

steam e
t;;:r,

CO

CO,

H,

+ (N,)

30

(+I
How

to

run

these

two

reactions

Slide

ideal

an

synthesis

gas process

WATER

Desired
Cool

for

20.

se

WATER

opemte

to

streams
must

be
and

and

with

leaves

Process
to

AIR.

COAL

product gas

formed
be

used

Leave

at

slmpk,

room

procticol,

control

SIide

21.

tempemture
and

easy

1433

Chemical engineerings grand adventure

Cool

gasification

- Brltlsh

concepts

Gas/Lurgi

Dry ash

SlagQlnQ

Lurgl

Gas lntegrote
IGI - two stage
moving

bed

fluldized
bed

beds
I

Entrained
gasi f iers

Also

fluldized

Hot zone

Air
Air
Air
Air
02
Air
Air

A,lr,

Air

Ponindco
Ruhrgas VOrtex
Shell - Koppers
Texo co

Air,
Air
Air,
Air,

Molten

0,
0,
0,
0,

Air
4
0,

Corp., krk

-Air

Cool

NoyeS

CO+Hz.
N,

zone

Ash

Scheme

Tars
O2 plant

(+I

No

tar

(+I

No

0,

(+I

Sample

&

plant

(-1

N,

(-1

Hot

with product
products

I
Air + steam

tar

.- - Ropld
coollg
l-lot

(-1
(- )

Ridge, NJ, 1981

Slide 22.
Coal

product

Scheme 3

N,

==%I
Concepts:

Cool

with product

CO + H,.

0,
0z

baths

Goslflcation

N,

Scheme
3 (Slide 2s) shows that nitrogen separation is the problem with single fluidized bed
processes, but not tar production,
because the
product gases stay hot for a reasonably long time.
Scheme 4 (Slide 26) keeps the reactions separate
in two or more tluidized beds. Its main problem
concerns complexity, and the CO*-Acceptor process
shows what happens when this question is taken
lightly.
There are many variations of these four basic
designs, and we will not go into them. It suffices to
note that none of the processes proposed
or
operating today approach, in principle, the ideals
listed in Slide 21. This means that it may be
worthwhile trying to conceive a radically different
and better concept, and not just an improvement of
existing technology.
So, keeping the ideal in mind, lets see what we
can come up with. Here are two of more than a
dozen ideas that our easy-chair research group in far

Air

Bionchi
i2 stages)
01 - gas
Combustion Engineering
Foster - Wheeler
(2 stages)
Koppers - Totzek

Simple

Slide 24.

Air

CQQos

No

(+I

02

0,

(3 stogesj
(3 stages)
(5 stages)

(+I

(+

NZ

V
Ash

Air

osh agglomerating

Scheme

Ha.

&@$@

Onty steam
Only steam
Air

CD, - acceptor
Cogas
ICI moving turden
Westinghouse

Doto

Y
&3$x8
02

Wlnkter

From Cool

$2
0
008 R
%o _,
,g
*
,.oea
4

A1r
A1r
Air
Air

Babcock - W11cox
Bell - Aerospace

flow

O2

Power go*
Thyssen Galoczy
UGI water gos
Weltmon
GoCusho
Wellman - Incandescent
Woodoll Duckham

IGT
hygos
TrIgas

Mutt i
fluldized
beds

A1r
Air.

tar

0,

Battelle
Two
ftuidired

02

Air

u - gas
1

Air.

Air

Exxon
Hoffman
HRI fast
Synthone

one

0 0,000

With 0,

( USBM)

~erpely
Leuno

Large

CO

Cool

(+)

Simple

(+I

No O2

plant

Slide 25

(+ 1 Cool products

(-1

Tar

(-1

N, with
product

Scheme 4
CO+Hz

N, + COz
(+I

No

(+I

No

N,
In
product
tar

(+ ) No Oz plant
needed

+ air

Slide 23.
Scheme
2 (Slide 24) shows how the nitrogen
problem is avoided, but unfortunately at the cost of
an upstream oxygen plant.

Steam

Ajr
Slide 26.

(-1

Not

(-1

Hot product

simple

OCTAVE LEVENSPIEL

1434

away Oregon plus one Missourian, Professor Mike

Dudukovic, came up with.
First, how about treating powdered coal-gas
mixtures in parallel flow channels which are forested
with finned heat pipes, or more properly, with
finned thermosiphons, as shown in Slide 27? This
would mean treating only slightly dusty gases-a
simple matter. We havent yet made the calculations
on this type of operation, in fact we dont even know
whether cocurrent or countercurrent flow of the two
streams is better, but it would be interesting to look
into this concept because of its simplicity.
Slide 28 shows a completely
different idea.
Instead of running the two reactions at the same
time but in different reactors, why not run them in
the same reactor but at different times? This leads to
the RE-GAS
process, standing for regeneratorgasifier.
In this operation the reactor consists of a large
long vertical vessel with insulated walls and packed
with structured solid. It operates like this.
l In the first step of the cycle feed fine coal powder
suspended in air (again very dilute in solids) to
the vessel. The coal burns, heats the bed solids,
and a hot front slowly moves up the vessel;
EX-GAS

(exchanger

- gasifier)

concept

/COz+

Slide 27.

RE - GAS
N,
t

(regenerator

- gasif ier 1 concept

CO,

H, +

co
t

tool

Hot

Powdered

Heating

Coal

Powdered CQQLf

(l,r

step

Gasif ication
Slide

28.

step

steam

Nz

however waste gases would leave at close to

ambient conditions. This is shown in the first
three sketches of Slide 28.
At the right time switch the feed to steam and
coal powder which on heating up and passing
through the hot solids produces the desired
product gas. During this operation a cold front
slowly moves up the bed, as shown in sketches
4-6 of Slide 28.
At the end of the cycle only the top of the bed
contains hot solid. One then repeats the whole
cycle of operations, but upside down.
Now if we compare this scheme with the ideal of
Slide 21 we see that it does satisfy all the requirements for an ideal process, especially the criterion of
simplicity since there is no circulation of solids
needed and since all external piping and valving is at
close to ambient conditions.
At this point one can raise a number of questions
with this type of operation. For example:
l would the unit plug up with ash?
l would
the spread of the heat front lower the
efficiency of operations drastically?
l would temperature
instabilities occur, and if so
how could they be controlled?
0 Are suitable materials of construction available?
l andsoon.
Of course such questions have to be considered.
However, answering these questions represents the
second step in the development of a process, and as
I mentioned at the beginning of this talk, this is
something that we chemical engineers are good at.
In any case, it should be noted that in principle the
RE-GAS
process is superior to those mentioned
earlier, and so much simpler since one is only
pumping cool slightly dusty gases. Shouldnt it be
looked at?
Let me go back to the question of conceiving new
process concepts.
(1) How does an organization come to its concept
for a process, whether it be the antigravity, or
meat grinder or merry-go-round or what have
you?
l Does the director of research come in one
morning and say Okay-Ive
been thinking that we should look into ball mills?
l Is it the result of the deliberations
of a
committee?
l Does the researcher ask his technician for a
small unit, which, if successful, is then
scaled up again and again?
l Does
the researcher deliberately look for
something different so. as not to infringe on
others patents?
I dont know what the answer is.
(2) Maybe the search for a process concept is best
of
done
by
getting
together
a group
knowledgeable free thinkers of varied background and interests, including mavericks,
technicians and wild men, and let them go
at it. Ideas need time to ferment, so let them

Chemical

engineerings

again and again until they all enthusiastically agree that theyve come up with the
very best.
(3) tt may be risky to start out with small bench
scale pilot plants without thinking through the
whole operation, because as one progresses
one has more and more invested in following
the path which has already been chosen-not
just money invested, but intellectual effort
and reputation. A momentum is developed to
follow a given path which makes it more and
more difficult to change direction, to admit
that some other way may be better and that
one should maybe start afresh in a different
direction.
(4) Some may suggest, especially after looking at
all the wildly different designs on Slides 8 and
22, that my whole discussion today may not
be pertinent because the difference in processing costs may represent only a minor
factor in the overall economics. However, in a
large-scale operation I doubt that this is so.
(5) To go back to the start of my talk, I pointed
out that the development of a process represents a two-step affair, thinking up a good
scheme and then transforming it into reality.
In chemical engineering education we focus
on the second step, and the way we teach this
is with courses of lectures. But would this
teaching method work with the first step?
meet

grand adventure

1435

Imagine trying to teach bicycle riding or

swimming in a course of lectures!
In a way learning to swim and developing
the knack of inventing new processes is done
the same way-by
practice, and then more
practice, not by lectures. For example, have
students work in teams trying to think up
schemes for making chemical y from x.
Encourage them to discuss, argue, throw out
the wildest ideas, but then have them rate
these schemes. Ill wager that a most interesting scheme will occasionally emerge from this
exercise.
This sort of program would be difficult to
set up, but isnt this important enough for us
educators to try?
(6) Finally, let me suggest that the driving force,
the raison d&tre of our profession is the
search for and the creation and development
of new processes to make materials wanted by
man. LeBlanc,
Solvay, Haber-Bosch
and
Ipatieff
and platinum,
FCC,
ammonia,
penicillin production, zeolites, these words
recall some highlights from the past. Who can
even dream of what will be tomorrow. This
then is the grand adventure of chemical
engineering.
Enough. 1 fear that Ive left you with too many
questions and too few answers. It is time to stop. I
thank you for your attention.