All The Claims

1. A computer-implemented method that validates at least one customer claim relating to performance in a network, comprising:
receiving a customer claim, the claim identifying a path in the network between a source and a destination and a time interval for which an outage was experienced;
identifying, via a computer processor, resources located on the path and servers associated with the identified resources located on the path, wherein identifying resources comprises:
parsing a first path from the source to the destination,
parsing a second path from the destination to the source, and
identifying resources located on the first and second paths; and

validating, via the computer processor, the customer claim by analyzing network status records relating to the servers associated with the identified resources to determine whether any of the identified resources experienced an outage lasting at least a predetermined period of time, wherein the analyzing the network status records comprises:
identifying portions of the path between the identified resources, and
analyzing network status records associated with each of the portions of the path.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
periodically collecting the network status records.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the network status records includes:
examining the network status records obtained during the time interval.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether to credit the customer based on a result of the analysis.
5. A system that validates at least one customer claim relating to performance in a network, a customer claim identifying a path in the network between a source and a destination and a time interval for which an outage was experienced, the system comprising:
a memory that stores instructions; and
a processor that executes the instructions stored in the memory to identify resources located on the path and servers associated with the identified resources located on the path, wherein when identifying resources, the processor is configured to parse a first path from the source to the destination, parse a second path from the destination to the source, and identify resources located on the first and second paths, and validate the customer claim by analyzing network status records relating to the servers associated with the identified resources to determine whether any of the identified resources experienced an outage lasting at least a predetermined period of time, wherein when analyzing the network status records, the processor is configured to:
identify portions of the path between the identified resources; and
analyze network status records associated with each of the portions of the path.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to:
periodically collect the network status records.
7. The system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to credit the customer based on a result of the analysis of the network status records.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by a computer to perform a method for validating at least one customer claim relating to performance in a network, a customer claim identifying a path in the network between a source and a destination and a time interval for which an outage was experienced, the method comprising:
receiving the customer claim;
identifying resources located on the path and servers associated with the identified resources located on the path, identified by the customer claim, wherein when identifying resources, the computer-readable medium is configured to:
parse a first path from the source to the destination,
parse a second path from the destination to the source, and
identify resources located on the first and second paths; and

validating the customer claim by analyzing network status records relating to the servers associated with the identified resources to determine whether any of the identified resources experienced an outage lasting at least a predetermined period of time, wherein when analyzing the network status records, the computer-readable medium is configured to:
identify portions of the path between the identified resources; and
analyze network status records associated with each of the portions of the path.
9. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, further configured to:
periodically collect the network status records.
10. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, further configured to:
determine whether to credit the customer based on a result of the analysis.
11. A method of validating at least one customer claim relating to a service-level guarantee, comprising:
receiving the customer claim from a customer, the customer claim identifying a first path in a network from a source to a destination, a second path from the destination to the source, and a time interval for which an outage was experienced in the network; and
validating, via a computer processor, the customer claim by analyzing network status data relating to servers associated with resources along the first and second paths to determine availability of the resources along the first and second paths and determining compliance with the service-level guarantee based on the network status data, wherein validating the customer claim includes: identifying portions of the first and second paths between ones of the resources;
and analyzing network status data associated with each of the portions of the first and second paths.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
collecting network status data.
13. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining whether to credit the customer based on a whether there was compliance with the service-level guarantee.
The claims below are in addition to those above.
All refrences to claim(s) which appear below refer to the numbering after this setence.

1.-29. (canceled)
30. A method implementable on a computer system for assessing exceedance of safe operating limits of a process, the process having equipment and having an instrument for measuring a process variable of said equipment, the computer system having access to equipment data for the process, instrument data for the equipment, and a process history database storing a process variable measured by the instrument, the method comprising:
(a) electronically importing equipment data for the process and instrument data for the equipment into a database for exceedance monitoring, wherein the instrument data comprises safe operating limits of the process;
(b) for a selected piece of equipment in the process having an associated instrument for measuring a process variable, completing a reporting record with information from the exceedance database, wherein the reporting record includes a defined instrument tag and defined limits including an exceedance limit value associated with safe operating limits for the process;
(c) electronically searching the process history database, based on the defined instrument tag and defined limits in the reporting record, for data values of the process variable measured by the instrument which exceed the exceedance limit value;
(d) electronically importing the data values from the process history database into the exceedance database as discrete exceedance values representing apparent exceedances;
(e) displaying as part of the reporting record one or more exceedance records each representing apparent exceedances for an interval of time representing the duration of the apparent exceedance for evaluation by a user; and
(f) electronically recording based on input from the user whether the apparent exceedance is valid or invalid.
31. The method of claim 30 further comprising, if the apparent exceedance is invalid, receiving user input to revise the defined instrument tag andor defined limits in the reporting record that led to the invalid exceedance.
32. The method of claim 31 wherein the information in the reporting record information to be revised includes one or more of correcting a wrong instrument tag and correcting a wrong safe operating limit.
33. The method of claim 31, further comprising repeating steps (c) through (f) with the defined instrument tag and defined limits in the revised reporting record resulting in one or more new exceedance records that exclude the invalid apparent exceedances.
34. The method of claim 31 further comprising receiving user input regarding the invalid exceedance selected from the list comprising incorrect limit-instrument range, incorrect limit-SOL, incorrect reading, and wrong instrument tag.
35. The method of claim 30 further comprising, if the apparent exceedance is valid, receiving user input to record the type of followup recommended.
36. The method of claim 35, further comprising, after the followup is accomplished, repeating steps (c) through (f) resulting in one or more new exceedance records.
37. The method of claim 35, further comprising receiving user input regarding followup for the valid exceedance selected from the list comprising investigate exceedance, check instrument name tag, check instrument range, reconfigure and reprocess, and maintain instrument.
38. The method of claim 30 wherein the instrument data for the equipment comprises one or more of type of safe operating limit, instrument tag name, value for safe operating limit, highlow range, exceedance limit value, and maximum or minimum measured values.
39. The method of claim 30 wherein the equipment data comprises one or more of SAP equipment number, equipment related documents, name, description, type, and flowsheet.
40. The method of claim 30 further comprising limiting the search of the process history database according to a defined time.
41. The method of claim 38 wherein the exceedance limit value is a more conservative value between the value for safe operating limit and the highlow range for type of safe operating limit.
42. The method of claim 30 wherein the exceedance record represents an average of the discrete exceedance values for the interval of time.
43. The method of claim 42 wherein the exceedance record represents a start of the interval, an end of the interval, a duration of the interval, and the average of the discrete exceedance values during the interval.
44. The method of claim 30 further comprising electronically merging into a single exceedance record adjacent exceedance records that are separated by a predefined interval.
45. The method of claim 44 wherein the merging is accomplished automatically prior to displaying the exceedance records.
46. The method of claim 44 wherein the merging is accomplished manually by receiving a selection of adjacent records from a user.
47. The method of claim 44 further comprising electronically unmerging a single exceedance record back into separate adjacent exceedance records.
48. The method of claim 30 further comprising rendering a graph of the discrete exceedance values displayed in conjunction with the safe operating limit for a selected exceedance record.
49. A method implementable on a computer system for assessing exceedance of safe operating limits of a process, the process having equipment and having an instrument for measuring a process variable, the computer system having access to a process history database storing a process variable measured by the instrument, the method comprising:
(a) receiving data to complete fields in a reporting record comprising, for a selected piece of equipment, equipment data for the process and instrument data for the equipment, wherein the instrument data comprises a defined instrument tag and defined limits including safe operating limits of the process and an exceedance limit value associated with safe operating limits for the process;
(b) using the defined instrument tag and defined limits in the reporting record to electronically search the process history database for data values of the process variable measured by the instrument which exceed the exceedance limit value;
(c) electronically importing the data values from the process history database into the exceedance database as discrete exceedance values representing apparent exceedances;
(d) displaying one or more exceedance records each representing apparent exceedances for an interval of time representing the duration of the apparent exceedance for evaluation by a user; and
(e) electronically recording based on input from the user whether the apparent exceedance is valid or invalid.
50. The method of claim 49 further comprising, if the apparent exceedance is invalid, receiving user input to revise the defined instrument tag andor defined limits in the reporting record that led to the invalid exceedance.
51. The method of claim 50, further comprising repeating steps (b) through (e) with the defined instrument tag and defined limits in the revised reporting record resulting in one or more new exceedance records that exclude the invalid apparent exceedances.
52. The method of claim 49 further comprising, if the apparent exceedance is valid, receiving user input to record the type of followup recommended.
53. The method of claim 52, further comprising, after the followup is accomplished, repeating steps (b) through (e) resulting in one or more new exceedance records.
54. The method of claim 49 wherein the exceedance record represents an average of the discrete exceedance values for the interval of time.
55. The method of claim 49 further comprising electronically merging into a single exceedance record adjacent exceedance records that are separated by a predefined interval.
56. The method of claim 55 further comprising electronically unmerging a single exceedance record back into separate adjacent exceedance records.
57. A computer-readable medium having instructions to perform a method implementable on a computer system for assessing exceedance of safe operating limits of a process, the process having equipment and having an instrument for measuring a process variable, the computer system having access to a process history database storing the process variable measured by the instrument, the method comprising:
(a) electronically importing equipment data for the process and instrument data for the equipment into a database for exceedance monitoring, wherein the instrument data comprises safe operating limits of the process;
(b) for a selected piece of equipment in the process having an associated instrument for measuring a process variable, completing a reporting record with information from the exceedance database, wherein the reporting record includes a defined instrument tag and defined limits including an exceedance limit value associated with safe operating limits for the process;
(c) electronically searching the process history database, based on the defined instrument tag and defined limits in the reporting record, for data values of the process variable measured by the instrument which exceed the exceedance limit value;
(d) electronically importing the data values from the process history database into the exceedance database as discrete exceedance values representing apparent exceedances;
(e) displaying as part of the reporting record one or more exceedance records each representing apparent exceedances for an interval of time representing the duration of the apparent exceedance for evaluation by a user; and
(f) electronically recording based on input from the user whether the apparent exceedance is valid or invalid, wherein if the apparent exceedance is invalid, receiving user input to revise the defined instrument tag andor defined limits in the reporting record that led to the invalid exceedance and selectively repeating steps (c) through (f) with defined instrument tag and defined limits in the revised reporting record resulting in one or more new exceedance records that exclude the invalid apparent exceedances.
58. A computer-readable medium having instructions to perform a method implementable on a computer system for assessing exceedance of safe operating limits of a process, the process having equipment and having an instrument for measuring a process variable, the computer system having access to a process history database storing the process variable measured by the instrument, the method comprising:
(a) receiving data to complete fields in a reporting record comprising, for a selected piece of equipment, equipment data for the process and instrument data for the equipment, wherein the instrument data comprises a defined instrument tag and defined limits including safe operating limits of the process and an exceedance limit value associated with safe operating limits for the process;
(b) using the defined instrument tag and defined limits in the reporting record to electronically search the process history database for data values of the process variable measured by the instrument which exceed the exceedance limit value;
(c) electronically importing the data values from the process history database into the exceedance database as discrete exceedance values representing apparent exceedances;
(d) displaying one or more exceedance records each representing apparent exceedances for an interval of time representing the duration of the apparent exceedance for evaluation by a user; and
(e) electronically recording based on input from the user whether the apparent exceedance is valid or invalid, wherein if the apparent exceedance is invalid, receiving user input to revise the defined instrument tag andor defined limits in the reporting record that led to the invalid exceedance and selectively repeating steps (b) through (e) with the defined instrument tag and defined limits in the revised reporting record resulting in one or more new exceedance records that exclude the invalid apparent exceedances.

1. A carbon pyrolyzate adsorbent, having the following characteristics: (a) CO.sub.2 capacity greater than 105 ccgram at one bar pressure and temperature of 273.degree. Kelvin; (b) CO.sub.2 Working Capacity greater than 7.0 weight percent; (c) CO.sub.2 heats of adsorption and desorption each of which is in a range of from 10 to 50 kJmole; and (d) a CO.sub.2N.sub.2 Henry’s Law Separation Factor greater than 5.
2. The adsorbent of claim 1, having an average particle diameter greater than 50 \u03bcm.
3. The adsorbent of claim 1, comprising particles of diameter in a range of from 150 to 500 \u03bcm.
4. The adsorbent of claim 1, having a bulk density greater than 0.55 gmL.
5. The adsorbent of claim 1, having a water adsorptive capacity of less than 5% by weight, based on weight of the adsorbent, at 303\xb0 Kelvin and 40% relative humidity.
6. The adsorbent of claim 1, having porosity characterized by average pore size below 1 nm.
7. The adsorbent of claim 1, having porosity at least 50% of the pore volume of which is constituted by pores in a pore size range of from 0.35 to 0.7 nm.
8. The adsorbent of claim 1, having an attrition rate index less than 1 wt %hr as measured by the procedure of ASTM D 5757.
9. The adsorbent of claim 1, having an N2 BET surface area of at least 800 m2 per gram.
10. The adsorbent of claim 1, having an N2 micropore volume of at least 0.2 milliliters per gram.
11. The adsorbent of claim 1, wherein the adsorbent is a pyrolyzate of a PVDC homopolymer or a PVDC copolymer.
12. The adsorbent of claim 1, characterized by CO2 capture recovery of at least 90% and CO2 capture purity of at least 90%, when contacted with a simulated flue gas composition comprising air containing 15% CO2 and saturated with water vapor, at 383\xb0 Kelvin and volumetric flow rate of 100 Lminute of simulated flue gas composition per liter of bed of the adsorbent.
13. The adsorbent of claim 1, characterized by CO2 heats of adsorption and desorption each of which is in a range of from 10 to 50 kJmole.
14. A method of making a carbon material for CO2 capture, said method comprising pyrolyzing a polymeric or copolymeric resin material under conditions that are effective to yield a carbon pyrolyzate material having the following characteristics:
(a) CO2 capacity greater than 105 ccgram at one bar pressure and temperature of 273\xb0 Kelvin;
(b) CO2 Working Capacity greater than 7.0 weight percent;
(c) CO2 heats of adsorption and desorption each of which is in a range of from 10 to 50 kJmole; and
(d) a CO2N2 Henry’s Law Separation Factor greater than 5.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the resin comprises a PVDC homopolymer or a PVDC copolymer.
16. A CO2 capture apparatus, comprising a carbon adsorbent according to claim 1, arranged for contacting CO2-containing fluid under conditions effecting adsorption of CO2 on the carbon pyrolyzate adsorbent.
17. The CO2 capture apparatus of claim 16, comprising a pressure swing adsorption system, a thermal swing adsorption system, or a vacuum swing adsorption system.
18. The CO2 capture apparatus of claim 16, wherein the apparatus is adapted to regenerate the carbon pyrolyzate adsorbent after it has become at least partially loaded with CO2.
19. A CO2 capture method, comprising contacting a CO2-containing fluid with a carbon adsorbent according to claim 1 under conditions effecting adsorption of CO2 on the carbon pyrolyzate adsorbent.
20. The CO2 capture method of claim 19, further comprising regenerating the carbon pyrolyzate adsorbent after it has become at least partially loaded with CO2.

The claims below are in addition to those above.
All refrences to claim(s) which appear below refer to the numbering after this setence.

What is claimed is:

1. A manufacturing method of an auger composed of an auger body integrally formed thereon with a spiral blade and at its opposite ends with a pair of shaft portions, comprising the steps of forming annular recesses on the shaft portions in a cutting process respectively, building up an anti-abrasive and anti-corrosive alloy by plasma-arc welding in the annular recesses of the shaft portions and finishing each built-up portion of the alloy in a grinding process to form a journal portion on the respective shaft portions of the auger,
wherein precipitation hardening stainless steel used as a base metal of the auger body is preheated for a predetermined time prior to the plasma-arc welding of the alloy and subjected to aging heat treatment caused by the preheating and welding heat during the plasma-arc welding process for precipitation hardening.
2. The manufacturing method of the auger as claimed in claim 1, wherein the precipitation hardening stainless steel used as the base metal essentially consists of 17Cr, 4Ni and 4Cu.
3. The manufacturing method of the auger as claimed in claim 1, wherein the precipitation hardening stainless steel used as the base metal essentially consists of 17Cr, 7Ni and 1Al.
4. The manufacturing method of the auger as claimed in claim 1, wherein the precipitation hardening stainless steel is preheated at a temperature of 300 C.-350 C. for twenty minutes to eighty minutes.
5. The manufacturing method of the auger as claimed in claim 1, wherein the anti-abrasive and anti-corrosive alloy contains, as main components, Co, Cr, Mo and Ni.