Difference between revisions of "Rainham Chemical Works"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
of the Range Works, Rainham, Essex | of the Range Works, Rainham, Essex | ||
WWI Manufacturing of a TNT substitute called Dinitrophenol began at an industrial facility previously used to make soap and candles for [[J. C. and J. Field]].<ref>[https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/community/3944] Lives of WWI</ref> | |||
1915 [[Samuel James Feldman]] (a retired solicitor) and [[Robert William Partridge]] (an art dealer) agreed to set up a plant for manufacture of picric acid using a process developed by Swiss scientists, Dr David Maron and Dr George Wyss. The plant was divided into 2 parts, one manufacturing for the [[Ministry of Munitions]] and the other for the owners to export. | 1915 [[Samuel James Feldman]] (a retired solicitor) and [[Robert William Partridge]] (an art dealer) agreed to set up a plant for manufacture of picric acid using a process developed by Swiss scientists, Dr David Maron and Dr George Wyss. The plant was divided into 2 parts, one manufacturing for the [[Ministry of Munitions]] and the other for the owners to export. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:24, 7 June 2017
of the Range Works, Rainham, Essex
WWI Manufacturing of a TNT substitute called Dinitrophenol began at an industrial facility previously used to make soap and candles for J. C. and J. Field.[1]
1915 Samuel James Feldman (a retired solicitor) and Robert William Partridge (an art dealer) agreed to set up a plant for manufacture of picric acid using a process developed by Swiss scientists, Dr David Maron and Dr George Wyss. The plant was divided into 2 parts, one manufacturing for the Ministry of Munitions and the other for the owners to export.
1916 Rainham Chemical Works Ltd was incorporated as a private company to manufacture picric acid (tri-nitro-phenol) and other purposes; the company was formed by Feldman and Partridge after negotiations with the Ministry of Munitions. [2]
1916 One of the feedstocks, di-nitro-phenol, was stored next to the nitrating shed where a fire occurred. This had major consequences because the owners and operators of the plant had not realised di-nitro-phenol was an explosive. The legal case concerning responsibility for damages was appealed to the House of Lords[3]