It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
The hardness of a material is associated with molecular bonding and crystalline structures within the material and is fairly independant of actual mass.
...The mass of an amount of matter in a chemical substance is determined in part by the number and type of atoms or molecules it contains, and in part by the energy involved in binding it together...
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Pilgrum
The hardness of a material is associated with molecular bonding and crystalline structures within the material and is fairly independant of actual mass.
But that is part of what constitutes its mass, how the atoms bound together, the molecular bonding, so how is it independent of it?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by thedman
The fuel which penetrated the elevator shafts dispersed as an aerosol as
it fell down the shaft - the fuel aerosol mixed with air and formed an
explosive mix. Same principal as automobile engine - mix of fuel vapors
and air when ignited explodes
You keep saying this as if it's fact.
How did the fuel disperse as an aerosol?
No it's not the same as a car engine. It would have to be a diesel engine (jet fuel is diesel), so as well as atomising, through special jets, the fuel also has to be compressed, thus jet engines have compressor sections to compress the air before the fuel is added, car engines a piston.
How did the fuel get atomized in open air?. And even if the fuel did ignite it would not explode unless under pressure (compressed), how did the oxygen and fuel get compressed? This is a silly and impossible hypothesis.
I challenge you the dman, to go get some diesel fuel, or even jet fuel if you can, and see if you can get it to ignite and explode in open air.
To be a theory it has to be testable and that test repeatable. Until you can do that I'd drop this silly argument.
[edit on 3/21/2009 by ANOK]
A grain dust explosion caused extensive damage to a half-mile-long grain elevator facility. It also resulted in the deaths of seven employees. Ten employees were injured, and three employees are still in critical condition.
Urban Search and Rescue Team (USAR) personnel, many of whom had also worked on the scene of the Oklahoma City federal courthouse bombing, were faced with the daunting task of locating survivors and recovering bodies in an unstable structure filled with more than six million bushels of grain, the dust from which could explode again at any time.
For a dust explosion to occur, several factors must come together, according to Dust Explosions in Process Industries by Rolf K. Eckhoff. First, there must be fuel, or grain dust. The critical parameter for grain particle size is 0.1 mm or smaller. As the size of the particle decreases, the risk of a deflagration or explosion increases.
The dust concentration contributes to the dust’s flammability. In order for a dust explosion to take place, the concentration must be between 40 grams per cubic meter and 4000 grams per cubic meter. The actual limits may vary based upon particle size and composition.
Aerosols hazards are primary related to the widespread use of combustible fluids (i.e jet and diesel fuels) but also of heat transfer fluids (i.e. hydraulic fluid, lube oil) in process and manufacturing industries. Such fluids, that are normally thought safe since theirhigh boiling point, usually operate at elevated temperatures and pressures thatdramatically increase their risk of being aerosolized and becoming flammable. A great number of study has been focused on the fundamental ignition and combustion characteristics of aerosolized fuel with the aim of designing efficient combustion systems. On the other hand the flammability properties of these liquids in the form of aerosols is only addressed to a limited extent with respect to a safety point of view. The flammability of hydrocarbon liquids in aerosols form is very different from that inthe form of a liquid pool which is dictated by the flash point or vapor pressure (Willauer et al. 2007), since, aerosols can explode at temperatures well below their flash points
Originally posted by ANOK
Regardless aluminium has less mass than steel. Aircraft aluminium included. If they were to make it stronger than steel it would be too heavy for aircraft use. If they could use steel they would but it's too heavy.
One of the highest strength alloys available 7075 is ideally suited for high stress parts and is commonly used in aircraft structures. Arc or gas welding is not recommended. It is available in "Alclad" which improves corrosion resistance with only a minor reduction in strength. Use where highest strength is needed such as bearing housing and retention plates in rotor hubs. The accompanying charts indicate the characteristics of aluminum alloy plate and sheet that are suitable for aircraft construction. The most commonly used grades for structural components are 2024T3, 6061T6, and 7075T6. Tensile strength is listed in thousands of pounds per square inch (PSI) Bend radius is expressed in thicknesses of sheet and plate material. As an example 2t-4t denotes the minimum radius of a 1/4 inch plates should be 1/2 to 1 inch.
7075-T6
7075 tech sheet T6 temper 7075 has an ultimate tensile strength of 74,000 - 78,000 psi (510 - 538 MPa) and yield strength of at least 63,000 - 69,000 psi (434-476 MPa). It has elongation of 5-8%.
[edit] 7075-T651
T651 temper 7075 has an ultimate tensile strength of at least 67,000 - 78,000 psi (462 - 538 MPa) and yield strength of 54,000 - 67,000 psi (372-462 MPa). It has elongation of 3-9%.
7075 is widely used for construction of aircraft structures, such as wings and fuselages.
Originally posted by CameronFox
* There are no reports of anyone being killed by the blast. The principal danger was fire.
Originally posted by Griff
What happened to the reports posted by you Cameron of the guy with his clothes burnt off with his toungue on the floor or the woman who was still at her desk with her clothes burnt off as if she were still typing away?
I would consider those people "being killed by the blast", so therefore I can only conclude that Mr. Mackey is full of it.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
1.) wouldn't have been enough to cause damage on as many lower floors as it did
2.) although explosive, the power of the explosion wouldn't even come close to causing the heavy devastation in the parking garage and the other basement levels as in the pictures I posted
Originally posted by CameronFox
While I can not speak for him, the injuries that I have posted are consistent with burns from a fire ball. Not an explosive. As I have stated in the past, if you are close enough to a detonated bomb to get burned, you will have more than burns as your injuries.
Originally posted by Achorwrath
Fuel droplets in air fit that definition.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Achorwrath
Fuel droplets in air fit that definition.
Actually it does not fit. You took it out of context. It explicitly says FINE solid particles or FINE liquid droplets as from something pressurized or compressed.
A small particle or a liquid suspended in air
Originally posted by Achorwrath
Actually my example above is not accurate either, take the same glass of water and throw it at a wall or tree. does it maintain the shape? no it spatters