what to make of "conspiracy theories"?

Martin Schreader mschreader at npns.org
Wed Feb 13 08:12:21 MST 2002


Adam Levenstein wrote:
>
> First of all, it didn't need to *melt* the steel, only to weaken it.
> Second, jet fuel most certainly can achieve that temperature. From
> http://www.soton.ac.uk/~genesis/Level2/Tech/Jetprinc.htm
>
> "The temperature of the gas [fuel + air] after combustion is about 1800
> to 2000 °C. "

You should have quoted the whole thing. It is much more insightful. The
snippet you took is not only out of context, but almost completely
unrelated. The article you cite, "Principles of Jet Engine Operation", is
talking about the combustion of Jet A and air ... inside the combustion
chamber of a turbine jet engine.

Yes, with compressed air it can reach those levels. But that is not the
situation we are facing here. Or, are you implying that you think it is? I
mean, you wouldn't be the first to raise the theory that the jet fuel fire
was fed with forced air or some other accelerant.

Also, as for weakening the steel, the article says the following:

"The amount of fuel added to the air will depend upon the temperature rise
required. However, the maximum temperature is limited to within the range of
850 to 1700 °C by the materials from which the turbine blades and nozzles
are made. The air has already been heated to between 200 and 550 °C by the
work done in the compressor, giving a temperature rise requirement of 650 to
1150 °C from the combustion process. Since the gas temperature determines
the engine thrust, the combustion chamber must be capable of maintaining
stable and efficient combustion over a wide range of engine operating
conditions."

Perhaps someone familiar with the materials out of which the nozzles and
turbine blades of a jet engine are made could comment on this.

Comradely;
Martin


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list