OT: Tianjin explosion

[bitrex]

This video compilation is pretty intense - I'm surprised the cameraman
in the third clip made it out alive (assuming so since we're watching
his recording)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a41CgfjCJjM

[bitrex]

The news says the second explosion was "20 tons TNT equivalent" which
judging by the video seems like at least an order of magnitude
underestimate...

[John Larkin]

It sure looks like there were some windows blowing out in some of
those shots.

Explosives are dangerous! There was once a dynamite factory a few
blocks from our house. Once.

China is a weird mixture of extreme political repression and
uncontrolled commercial excess.

[Dave Platt]

Hmmm. That does seem low, but it might actually be in the ballpark.
The destruction of a large explosion doesn't necessarily scale up
linearly with the TNT-equivalent number... the square-cube law kicks
in.

The Texas City explosion in '47 (worst industrial accident in the
U.S. according to some) had an effective yield of somewhere around
3,000 tons TNT equivalent. The Halifax explosion of 1917 was of a
similar size. Death tolls in those disaster ranged from high hundreds
up to a couple of thousand.

The Little Boy bomb at Hiroshima was in the 12-to-15-kiloton range.

The media is reporting 50 confirmed dead, and hundreds hospitalized in
the Tianjin explosion... a fraction of the Texas City and Halifax
numbers.

So, maybe it is "tens of tons" rather than "hundreds or thousands of
tons"?

It's also certainly possible that the Chinese government is
understating the magnitude of the explosion. Maybe there was more
hazardous material stored in that port location than they'd let on, or
more than the safety rules said was supposed to be there? Wouldn't be
the first time in the world that local officials had "bent the rules"
in order to meet quota or make a profit.

As with all such, it's a terrible tragedy... I have no doubt that a
lot of families will have been torn apart as the results of what has
happened.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

CNN reports two of the blasts were equivalent to Richter 2.3 and 2.9 earthquakes!

"Dangerous goods" indeed.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Tim Watts]

On 13/08/15 18:38, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:18:00 -0400, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> This video compilation is pretty intense - I'm surprised the cameraman
>> in the third clip made it out alive (assuming so since we're watching
>> his recording)...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a41CgfjCJjM
>
> It sure looks like there were some windows blowing out in some of
> those shots.

There were - a lot:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-33915683

See the video down the bottom half of the page - the reporter is in the
vicinity of the explosion.

> Explosives are dangerous! There was once a dynamite factory a few
> blocks from our house. Once.
>
> China is a weird mixture of extreme political repression and
> uncontrolled commercial excess.

Being married to someone from China, it's not half as bad as anyone
likes to think. The Internet is filtered to hell which is annoying but
not hard to get around.

As for "repression" - not much worse that many other western countries
IMO. You can't go and stand up and say "President Thingy is a wanker" -
at least not on public media. But no one gives a damn what you talk
about on the street. OTOH if you are French and draw a picture of some
historic figure... (Yes I know that's not the State - but freedom is
absolute).

Things in China move slow and I think they are moving for the better.
But slowly. Very very slowly. I think what they are afraid off is
something like Glasnost. Rapid throwing out of the old system to be
replaced by - well nothing effective. Look at the problems Russia has -
gangsters, wide boys and oligarchs moving in to every unaccounted bit of
power vacuum. They'd rather get there in tiny increments.


Anyway - back to the explosion. I thought initially, it might be a
fireworks stash - but it sounds like that may not have been the case.
Someone's going to be in deep doo-doo when they get to the bottom of
this. The head of a logistics company connected with the site has
already been held for questioning.

[bitrex]

In the clip starting at 11 seconds, it looked like the whole building or
fence or whatever in front of him was smashed to kindling.

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

I been past the site of the AZF factory in Toulouse a number times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZF_%28factory%29

by the looks of it, and the damages to the buildings around, it was gigantic and the say it was 20-40 ton TNT equivalent

-Lasse

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:38:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

> It sure looks like there were some windows blowing out in some of
> those shots.

It spalled the concrete on those close high rises which were at 1000 ft.

>
> Explosives are dangerous! There was once a dynamite factory a few
> blocks from our house. Once.

Sounds like these Dutch morons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S52p2AMISFk

>
> China is a weird mixture of extreme political repression and
> uncontrolled commercial excess.

Death toll will be 500 hundred before it's over, lots and lots of severe burn victims, even the U.S. would be challenged to handle that number, and that after flying them to burn units all over the country. I'm pretty sure PRC isn't going to bother.

This was chemical explosion, it was not HE explosion.

http://time.com/3995663/tianjin-binhai-explosion-china-disaster-toll/

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:18:00 -0400, bitrex
<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

This is horrible:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3195477/Fifty-people-injured-enormous-blast-explosives-shipment-hits-Chinese-city.html

Nearby apartment buildings look shredded. And cyanide?

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:13:18 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net>
wrote:

Church groups, yoga groups, all sorts of non-government group
activities are criminal in China. They don't treat ethnic minorities
very well, either.

As far as the explosion goes, they will probably execute a couple of
company managers, then back to business as usual.

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:08:38 -0700, dpl...@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:

>>> This video compilation is pretty intense - I'm surprised the cameraman
>>> in the third clip made it out alive (assuming so since we're watching
>>> his recording)...
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a41CgfjCJjM
>>
>>The news says the second explosion was "20 tons TNT equivalent" which
>>judging by the video seems like at least an order of magnitude
>>underestimate...
>
>Hmmm. That does seem low, but it might actually be in the ballpark.
>The destruction of a large explosion doesn't necessarily scale up
>linearly with the TNT-equivalent number... the square-cube law kicks
>in.
>
>The Texas City explosion in '47 (worst industrial accident in the
>U.S. according to some) had an effective yield of somewhere around
>3,000 tons TNT equivalent. The Halifax explosion of 1917 was of a
>similar size. Death tolls in those disaster ranged from high hundreds
>up to a couple of thousand.
>

This was pretty bad, too:

http://www.usmm.org/portchicago.html

[N. Coesel]

John Larkin schreef op 08/13/2015 om 07:38 PM:

> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:18:00 -0400, bitrex
> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> This video compilation is pretty intense - I'm surprised the cameraman
>> in the third clip made it out alive (assuming so since we're watching
>> his recording)...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a41CgfjCJjM
>
> It sure looks like there were some windows blowing out in some of
> those shots.

It surprised me as well that the blast wave had so much power even when
the people recording is where a couple of kilometers/miles away.

>
> Explosives are dangerous! There was once a dynamite factory a few
> blocks from our house. Once.

My experiments with simple fireworks for kids prooved that early on in
my life.

In the NL a fireworks depot exploded which destroyed an entire
neighbourhood. Some people filming from their doorstep where blown
inside by the blast wave. That fire went on for a while before the
explosion so most people got away (12 or 15 dead).

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:38:20 -0700, John Larkin
<jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> Gave us:

Only if one bribes the inspectors and those granting licenses to
'operate'.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:13:18 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net>

Gave us:

>Anyway - back to the explosion. I thought initially, it might be a
>fireworks stash - but it sounds like that may not have been the case.

Fireworks do not detonate all at once like that and when they do go
off, they go off in all direction with a lot more fanfare, as it were.

That was an explosives stash IMO. The detonation rate was too fast
for much else.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

Some of the chemicals there go into contact ignition with water. The fire department was at the scene prior to the explosion. The fire department usually sprays water on the fire and surrounding area. Do we have a match?

[John Larkin]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-33908168


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:16:10 -0700, John Larkin
<jla...@highlandtechnology.com> Gave us:

>On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:39:20 -0700, John Larkin
><jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

snip

>>As far as the explosion goes, they will probably execute a couple of
>>company managers, then back to business as usual.
>>
>
>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-33908168

"South Korean drama"? (was supposedly all they aired)

North Korean drama would have been the rumored execution of the Vice
Premier the other day.

I wonder if they used artillery this time.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:49:04 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DL...@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:16:10 -0700, John Larkin
><jla...@highlandtechnology.com> Gave us:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:39:20 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>>As far as the explosion goes, they will probably execute a couple of
>>>company managers, then back to business as usual.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-33908168
>
> "South Korean drama"? (was supposedly all they aired)

The number of reported deaths, 44 or 50, is absurd.

[Robert Baer]

Not to mention that CNN was hospitalized (according to their own
headline)...

[Tim Watts]

Not surprised - they do have a particular bee in their bonnet about "the
internet".

[Rob]

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DL...@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:13:18 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net>
> Gave us:
>
>>Anyway - back to the explosion. I thought initially, it might be a
>>fireworks stash - but it sounds like that may not have been the case.
>
> Fireworks do not detonate all at once like that and when they do go
> off, they go off in all direction with a lot more fanfare, as it were.

Tell that to the people in Enschede... some of them are still looking
for a conspiracy that explains how the explosion of a fireworks storage
facility resulted in such a major blast as happened in may 2000.
(with resulted in damage similar to what we see on the Chinese footage)

However, in China the pictures show large billowing fireballs more typical
of a fuel thermobaric explosion, the Enschede explosion was a detonation.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On 14 Aug 2015 08:15:15 GMT, Rob <nom...@example.com> Gave us:

>However, in China the pictures show large billowing fireballs more typical
>of a fuel thermobaric explosion, the Enschede explosion was a detonation.

There were fireworks flying all over the place, or do you not
remember?

Not the case in Wednesday's explosion.

[Klaus Kragelund]

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 1:28:43 AM UTC+2, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:13:18 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net>
> Gave us:
>
> >Anyway - back to the explosion. I thought initially, it might be a
> >fireworks stash - but it sounds like that may not have been the case.
>
> Fireworks do not detonate all at once like that and when they do go
> off, they go off in all direction with a lot more fanfare, as it were.
>

Fireworks do go off all at once, see the destruction from Danish fireworks factory a couple of years ago:

https://youtu.be/l4iNOguCNFQ

Cheers

Klaus

[Rob]

That was BEFORE the big explosions. Because it started as a small fire
inside the work areas of the facility that caused one-by-one lighting
of firecrackers and rockets, and only when a larger amount of stored
fireworks exploded it resulted in two major detonations.

[David Brown]

The latest report I heard is that there had been a fire in a storage
area, which the fire brigade were putting out with quantities of water
(as is the norm). Unfortunately, the storage contained a large store of
calcium carbide - adding water produces acetylene gas. Such an eruption
of acetylene does not take much to produce a massive explosion. To add
to the fun, there was also a lot of artificial fertilizer nearby - this
may or may not have contributed to the acetylene explosion.

(I don't know if calcium carbide is used in fireworks or not.)

[Martin Brown]

On 13/08/2015 19:08, Dave Platt wrote:
>>> This video compilation is pretty intense - I'm surprised the cameraman
>>> in the third clip made it out alive (assuming so since we're watching
>>> his recording)...
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a41CgfjCJjM
>>
>> The news says the second explosion was "20 tons TNT equivalent" which
>> judging by the video seems like at least an order of magnitude
>> underestimate...
>
> Hmmm. That does seem low, but it might actually be in the ballpark.
> The destruction of a large explosion doesn't necessarily scale up
> linearly with the TNT-equivalent number... the square-cube law kicks
> in.

[snip]

A friend filmed a UK explosion from what turned out to be rather too
close. He got away with it apart from ears ringing for days despite the
fact that RSJs were landing behind him. A professional TV team in a
block of flats half a mile away were cut to ribbons by flying glass.

> So, maybe it is "tens of tons" rather than "hundreds or thousands of
> tons"?

From the fireball scale and timing it looked to be more like a
fractional kT yield explosion rather than the 20T they are admitting to.
I'd be very surprised if it turns out to be less than 100T.

It should be possible to estimate explosive yield from the groundwave
seismic shocks which have been reported as Richter 3.5 equivalent.

>
> It's also certainly possible that the Chinese government is
> understating the magnitude of the explosion. Maybe there was more
> hazardous material stored in that port location than they'd let on, or
> more than the safety rules said was supposed to be there? Wouldn't be
> the first time in the world that local officials had "bent the rules"
> in order to meet quota or make a profit.

Problem is when someone smokes in an explosives storage warehouse.

>
> As with all such, it's a terrible tragedy... I have no doubt that a
> lot of families will have been torn apart as the results of what has
> happened.
>

Very nasty accident with housing so close to such a dangerous site.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Rob]

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Problem is when someone smokes in an explosives storage warehouse.
>>

> Very nasty accident with housing so close to such a dangerous site.

Newer information suggests that in was a storage warehouse where
large amounts of ammonium nitrate and calcium carbide were stored.

Not explosives that would by themselves detonate because of someone
smoking, but the combination of calcium carbide with water yields
acetylene gas that of course can explode thermally, and in combination
with ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer can detonate.

So when something unrelated caused a fire in the storage and it was
extinguished with water, the recipe for a big detonation was created.

One can of course question if it is wise to store a strong oxidizer
like ammonium nitrate together with a fuel or fuel-generating substance.
But in fact ammonium nitrate can even detonate alone. But not because
of someone smoking.

[Bill Sloman]

Ammonium nitrate explosions are rare and improbable, but they have been devastating in the past, and - because people can get away with doing stupid stuff for years, 20,000 times in one case - they'll probably keep on happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate_disasters

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Brown]

On 14/08/2015 14:14, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, 14 August 2015 21:21:43 UTC+10, Rob wrote:
>> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Problem is when someone smokes in an explosives storage warehouse.
>>>>
>>> Very nasty accident with housing so close to such a dangerous site.
>>
>> Newer information suggests that in was a storage warehouse where
>> large amounts of ammonium nitrate and calcium carbide were stored.
>>
>> Not explosives that would by themselves detonate because of someone
>> smoking, but the combination of calcium carbide with water yields
>> acetylene gas that of course can explode thermally, and in combination
>> with ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer can detonate.

Bulk calcium carbide can get hot enough in contact with water to self
ignite, but there may have been some commercial high explosive or other
present to create a shockwave strong enough to make ammonium nitrate go.
It will thermally decompose spectacularly but it melts and runs over
things first. If the things that it runs over are flammable all bets are
off once it gets to ignition temperature.

A fire can melt chemicals together in a way that it can make nasty
unstable explosive compounds - one such occurring in Gateshead 1854 and
well documented. It was a 100T class explosion.

http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DUR/GreatFire/Account.html

It is not for nothing that fireworks factories keep certain chemicals
exclusively in entirely separate sections of the works.

I suspect that the initial explosion ruptured storage tanks and the
secondary was some kind of fuel air bomb of materials dispersed by it.

>> So when something unrelated caused a fire in the storage and it was
>> extinguished with water, the recipe for a big detonation was created.
>>
>> One can of course question if it is wise to store a strong oxidizer
>> like ammonium nitrate together with a fuel or fuel-generating substance.
>> But in fact ammonium nitrate can even detonate alone. But not because
>> of someone smoking.
>
> Ammonium nitrate explosions are rare and improbable, but they have been
> devastating in the past,
> and - because people can get away with doing stupid stuff for years,
> 20,000 times in one case - they'll probably keep on happening.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate_disasters
>

At least one major AN detonation disaster at BASF was because they used
dynamite to break it up after it had set like rock in a storage silo and
pickaxes were not good enough! It was a low kT yield explosion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Phil Hobbs]

That didn't look to me as though it were primarily high explosive. HE
makes a much bigger *crack* and a lot less flame--see e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJEnfzlR1HY

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Rob]

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> That didn't look to me as though it were primarily high explosive. HE
> makes a much bigger *crack* and a lot less flame--see e.g.

I mentioned that before, it looked more like a gas or fuel thermobaric
explosion than a HE detonation. However the extensive damage on the ground
suggests a detonation. Maybe the one I saw on the video was the fuel
explosion and a second one, the detonation of the AN followed after that
and was not clearly filmed.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

NYT story this morning is the FD was putting out a car fire... then boom....

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRc1BhXjvA

[David Eather]

Some shots showed a sonic pressure wave so (the big bang) was not a
fuel-air or gas explosion

[Dave Platt]

In article <op.x3dq7...@phenom-pc.asus>,

David Eather <eat...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

>> I mentioned that before, it looked more like a gas or fuel thermobaric
>> explosion than a HE detonation. However the extensive damage on the
>> ground
>> suggests a detonation. Maybe the one I saw on the video was the fuel
>> explosion and a second one, the detonation of the AN followed after that
>> and was not clearly filmed.

>Some shots showed a sonic pressure wave so (the big bang) was not a
>fuel-air or gas explosion

It sounds to me as if there were a whole bunch of different nasties
being stored on site there... carbide, ammonium nitrate, and toluene
diisocyanate have all been mentioned. It's possible that these were
complex explosions with several different mechanisms taking place
almost at the same time... some flammable gasses touching off, some
detonation, and a bunch of flammable liquids being thrown outwards and
then burning at the periphery.

Ammonium nitrate can go through a "deflagration to detonation"
transition when it's on fire, apparently... perhaps this can happen
even partway through a kaboom?

[Bill Sloman]

That doesn't follow. A small shock wave propagating through an inflammable fuel-air mixture can create a condition where it speeds up combustion enough to make it a progressively larger shock wave.

Coal dust explosions in mines are the classic example - I seem to remember that it takes 400 feet of inflammable mixture to boost the shock-wave to the point where it becomes dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[David Eather]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:17:31 +1000, Dave Platt <dpl...@coop.radagast.org>
wrote:

I'm guessing that is exactly what happened

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

That's more like it. The so-called energetic HE material reaction is a form of shockwave that progresses through the material at a rate on the order of meters per microsecond. The aftermath would include a large and deep crater at ground zero and all the nearby material will be blown away or to bits. There was none of that here. Something originally dispersed a bunch of raw material outward spherically and far enough to allow the follow-on ignition to progress to shockwave status.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Riddle]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 23:58:17 +0200, "N. Coesel" <ni...@niks.nl> wrote:

>John Larkin schreef op 08/13/2015 om 07:38 PM:

>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:18:00 -0400, bitrex

>> <bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This video compilation is pretty intense - I'm surprised the cameraman
>>> in the third clip made it out alive (assuming so since we're watching
>>> his recording)...
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a41CgfjCJjM
>>

>> It sure looks like there were some windows blowing out in some of
>> those shots.
>

>It surprised me as well that the blast wave had so much power even when
>the people recording is where a couple of kilometers/miles away.

>
>>
>> Explosives are dangerous! There was once a dynamite factory a few
>> blocks from our house. Once.
>

>My experiments with simple fireworks for kids prooved that early on in
>my life.
>
>In the NL a fireworks depot exploded which destroyed an entire
>neighbourhood. Some people filming from their doorstep where blown
>inside by the blast wave. That fire went on for a while before the
>explosion so most people got away (12 or 15 dead).

In military, the percussion is the factor that determines damage and
death. I think the MOAB is a good example, it'll turn you into jelly.

Cheers

[David Eather]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:00:13 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill....@gmail.com>
wrote:

should have said a super-sonic shock wave - a basic property of high
explosives.

Fuel - air (not fuel oxygen) explosions never reach that speed. An
explosion can be 'Dangerous' even if not supersonic, so what; that is
hardly relevant or surprising.

[Bill Sloman]

Since supersonic aircraft reach that speed, driven by fuel-air combustion, you may want to think that out again.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Hobbs]

IIRC the definition of HE is that the detonation front propagates faster
than sound *in the unshocked material*. What happens in the air depends
on how far away you are.

[David Eather]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:41:22 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill....@gmail.com>

Issac Newton

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:57:46 +1000, "David Eather" <eat...@tpg.com.au>
Gave us:

Black powder and smokeless. Enclosed you get one result, and it gets
evidenced by the muzzle velocity. In an open petri dish you get an
entirely different view and think contrary to the facts.

Black powder flashes while the smokeless burns rather slowly.

Not the same as in the barrel, under pressure.

[Bill Sloman]

You missed the point. They use air-breathing engines so there are super-sonic shock-fronts in the combustion path.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[David Eather]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:29:43 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill....@gmail.com>

No there aren't. A jet turbine is designed to specifically avoid that. The
speed of sound goes up with both heat an pressure - it never goes
supersonic in the engine.

You missed the point because:

1. it is a Newtonian reaction engine. Static air enters the engine and is
exhausted out at higher speed. Mass x acceleration = thrust and that is
it, It does not have to be accelerated to supersonic to drive an aircraft
to supersonic speed. You are wrong.

2. It is the same sort of irrelevant drivel that you drag out all the
time. How the fuck does any of what you said relate to an uncontaminated
fuel air explosion of the type being discussed. Do me favor and
understand that nothing I say is an invitation for your drivel.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

You're wrong, asshole:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet

"... airflow in a scramjet is supersonic throughout the entire engine."

[John S]

Where are these scramjets used, Bill?

[John S]

Sorry - I meant Fred.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/08/22/hypersonic-scramjets-still-key-to-future-of-aerospace/

[John S]

So, only in research. Not in practical applications.

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

Proven engineering developmental models is beyond research. Applications are limited to ultra high speed, and thus ultra high altitudes. The technology is ready, the drawback is absence of commercial market.

[John S]

So, not in practical applications. Even the SR-71 (Mach 3) did not use
the Scramjet. Do you know why?

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:32:37 -0500, John S <Sop...@invalid.org> Gave
us:

Scramjets and ramjets only work after the airflow rate is above 500
mph already.

So, they'll see use in hypersonic applications..

They have no moving parts inside. So there is nothing for supersonic
effects to do damage to.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:38:08 -0500, John S <Sop...@invalid.org> Gave
us:
snip

>So, only in research. Not in practical applications.

So was the aerospike when it was first designed and tested. It is now
in use, and so are scramjets, jackass.

You are minimum a couple decades behind the skunkworks, but we knew
that already.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:41:18 -0500, John S <Sop...@invalid.org> Gave
us:
snip
>

>So, not in practical applications. Even the SR-71 (Mach 3) did not use
>the Scramjet. Do you know why?

Consumption rate. And it does not function under 500 mph.

And that tech then was RAMjets, not scramjets.

[Phil Hobbs]

There's a big difference between the speed of sound in -40C air and in
4000 C jet exhaust, so the hot exhaust can be subsonic (at 4000 C) while
propelling the plane supersonic (at -40C). (According to an old NASA
paper I found, with afterburners on, jet exhaust gets up to almost 3800
Reaumur (4750 C).)

The SR-71 engine was mostly subsonic, which was part of the point of
having the spikes coming out of the middle of the intakes--they slowed
and so compressed the intake air.

[Bill Sloman]

It has to leave the engine going backwards faster than the plane is going forwards (by conservation of momentum). If the plane is travelling forward faster than the speed of sound, the the exhaust gases have to leave the engine traveling at super-sonic speed relative to the engine.

There's a supersonic shock in there somewhere.

> 2. It is the same sort of irrelevant drivel that you drag out all the
> time. How the fuck does any of what you said relate to an uncontaminated
> fuel air explosion of the type being discussed. Do me favor and
> understand that nothing I say is an invitation for your drivel.

Do me a favour and learn to do joined up logic. You contradicted yourself without noticing that you'd done it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[David Eather]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:38:51 +1000, <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

There was no mention of scramjets at all just un-contained fuel air and
the idot introduction of jet turbines which are irrelevant to the
discussion as are scram jets

[David Eather]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:07:21 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill....@gmail.com>

The engine is traveling supersonically (at standard temperature and
pressure) NOT the air - the air while going through the engine also never
goes super sonic due to increases in the speed of sound due to increased
temperature and pressure.

>
> There's a supersonic shock in there somewhere.

No there is not and that is by conservation of momentum. Stationary air
with mass is accelerated to causes thrust which causes a reaction equal
and opposite. It doesn't matter what speed the engine is already moving at

Really? Lets see about the must be faster exhaust thingy shall we. A
rocket can travel at 25,000 miles per hour are you going to say that the
rocket exhaust must be faster than that?

>
>> 2. It is the same sort of irrelevant drivel that you drag out all the
>> time. How the fuck does any of what you said relate to an uncontaminated
>> fuel air explosion of the type being discussed. Do me favor and
>> understand that nothing I say is an invitation for your drivel.
>
> Do me a favour and learn to do joined up logic. You contradicted
> yourself without noticing that you'd done it.
>

The subject was un contained fuel air explosions. You just through in a
red herring to make yourself sound important and you were also wrong.

[Clifford Heath]

On 17/08/15 10:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 August 2015 23:36:02 UTC+10, David Eather wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:29:43 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> You missed the point. They use air-breathing engines so there are
>>> super-sonic shock-fronts in the combustion path.
>> No there aren't. A jet turbine is designed to specifically avoid that. The
>> speed of sound goes up with both heat an pressure

David is incorrect. Only temperature. Pressure has nothing to do with it
until you reach non-ideal gas behaviour (trans-sonic conditions).

The speed of sound is directly connected to the speed of individual
molecules. The temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of
those molecules bouncing off a boundary. Kinetic energy is proportional
to m*v^2; so v changes as sqrt(temp) (times a multiplier that depends on
the molecular mass and geometry).

For sea-level air, the speed of sound in m/s is almost exactly
20*sqrt(k) - where k is in degrees Kelvin.

> It has to leave the engine going backwards faster than the plane is going forwards

Bill, this is completely wrong. Any expulsion away from the direction of
travel imparts momentum.

As the space shuttle main engine approaches orbital velocity, its
exhaust is still travelling forwards at a significant multiplier. A
rocket is most efficient when the exhaust is stationary, because it
carries no waste kinetic energy (except you obviously can't launch like
that!)

Given the relatively fixed temperature limits of nozzle materials, a
rocket engine for low-speed flight needs an exhaust gas with a high
molecular mass and a low speed of sound (like the semi-burnt rubber of
the solid fuel boosters). For high-speed flight, you want a low
molecular mass and consequent high exhaust velocity - like H2O. Exactly
why the shuttle has solid fuel boosters for low-speed climb and H/LOX
engines for orbital insertion.

Clifford Heath.

[Clifford Heath]

On 17/08/15 01:38, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 17/08/15 10:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> It has to leave the engine going backwards faster than the plane is
>> going forwards
> Bill, this is completely wrong. Any expulsion away from the direction of
> travel imparts momentum.
> As the space shuttle main engine approaches orbital velocity, its
> exhaust is still travelling forwards at a significant multiplier.

A followup to this. The peak temperature in the shuttle main engine is
around 6000F, or 3588K. The speed of sound in steam at 100C is about
477.5m/s. Therefore the flow velocity in the nozzle constriction (0.26m
diameter) of the shuttle main engine (which is the local speed of sound)
is about 477.7*sqrt(3588/373) or 1481m/s, around (air) Mach 4.33. This
is calculated according to the ideal gas law. Non-ideal behaviour
increases the speed of sound. Of course, there's always expansion after
the throat too. So at full power, the exhaust can in theory surpass
minimum orbital velocity of 6900m/s (after expansion to 4.6 times the
nozzle throat velocity).

In any case, the question is moot. It doesn't have to surpass the
shuttle's velocity to impart momentum.

[Bill Sloman]

> >> >> >> I should have said a super-sonic shock wave - a basic property of

> >> >> >> high explosives.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Fuel - air (not fuel oxygen) explosions never reach that speed. An
> >> >> >> explosion can be 'Dangerous' even if not supersonic, so what;
> >> >> >> that is hardly relevant or surprising.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Since supersonic aircraft reach that speed, driven by fuel-air
> >> >> > combustion, you may want to think that out again.
> >> >>
> >> >> Issac Newton
> >> >
> >> > You missed the point. They use air-breathing engines so there are
> >> > super-sonic shock-fronts in the combustion path.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No there aren't. A jet turbine is designed to specifically avoid that.

> >> The speed of sound goes up with both heat and pressure

v = 331 m/s + (0.6 m/s/C)*T (where T is temperature in degrees Celcius)

> >> - it never goes supersonic in the engine.

Seems unlikely to be true.

> >> You missed the point because:
> >>
> >> 1. it is a Newtonian reaction engine. Static air enters the engine and
> >> is exhausted out at higher speed. Mass x acceleration = thrust and that is
> >> it, It does not have to be accelerated to supersonic to drive an
> >> aircraft to supersonic speed. You are wrong.
> >
> > It has to leave the engine going backwards faster than the plane is
> > going forwards (by conservation of momentum). If the plane is travelling
> > forward faster than the speed of sound, the the exhaust gases have to
> > leave the engine traveling at super-sonic speed relative to the engine.
>
> The engine is traveling supersonically (at standard temperature and
> pressure) NOT the air - the air while going through the engine also never
> goes super sonic due to increases in the speed of sound due to increased
> temperature and pressure.

The speed of sound doesn't change much with temperature, and less with pressure.

> > There's a supersonic shock in there somewhere.
>
> No there is not

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-things-work-supersonic-inlets-35428453/?no-ist

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

But you had to burn a lot of fuel to get the reaction mass up to near orbital speed before you ejected it. Jet engines aren't rockets. They collect one and a half O2 molecules from static air(48 atomic mass units) which they combine with one carbon and two hydrogen atoms to spit out one CO2 molecule and one water molecule (62 atomic mass units). There's a lot of nitrogen in there that rides along.

The plane that carries the jet engine stays aloft by accelerating air downwards (which is what the wings do) so there's extra momentum being bled out there.

It's aerodynamics rather than rocket science.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

After-burners are hideously inefficient - which is the only way the tail-pipe can survive. In practice the combustion temperature inside the engine is limited to about 2000 C, and a substantial part of the air coming out of the compressor isn't burnt, but rather routed through the exhaust turbine to cool the turbine blades below about 1300 C.

> The SR-71 engine was mostly subsonic, which was part of the point of
> having the spikes coming out of the middle of the intakes--they slowed
> and so compressed the intake air.

By creating shock waves at the intake. "Mostly" is a weasel word here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jasen Betts]

That's a rocket, jets are different.

if the jet exhaust is not faster than the rest of the air (all speeds measured
relative to the craft), the engine is imparting drag, not thrust.

there's a small amount of rocket effect from the fuel, but jet exhaust
is mostly air.

--
\_(ツ)_

[Phil Hobbs]

Sure. Except that the SR71 was on afterburners the entire time.
Otherwise the exhaust wouldn't have been not enough. Maximum exhaust
temperature is a key metric for rockets and afterburners.

<snip>

>
>> The SR-71 engine was mostly subsonic, which was part of the point
>> of having the spikes coming out of the middle of the intakes--they
>> slowed and so compressed the intake air.
>
> By creating shock waves at the intake.

Taking stationary air and getting it into an engine that's moving at
Mach 3.6 is going to be a bit violent, obviously. But that shock
*decelerates* the plane, which is not what you were getting at originally.

>"Mostly" is a weasel word here.

Not at all. I was making the exact same distinction you were--the
intake air was initially supersonic, but there was a shock boundary
partway into the intake. The rest of the SR71 engine was 100% subsonic.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:

>The plane that carries the jet engine stays aloft by
> accelerating air downwards (which is what the wings do)
> so there's extra momentum being bled out there.

Wings stay aloft from lift, not downward forced air. You're an idiot.

[Baron]

John S prodded the keyboard with:

What ! You mean that you have never heard of the V1 or Buzz bomb !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:25:10 +0100, Baron <ba...@linuxmaniac.net> Gave
us:

>What ! You mean that you have never heard of the V1 or Buzz bomb !

Neither of which utilized a scramjet. They were both slow as
molasses. Get a clue.

[Bill Sloman]

I'm afraid the idiocy is all yours. Lift is a complex phenomenon, and there were experts in hydrodynamics that asserted that it couldn't occur in a perfect fluid, but the force that holds the plane up is generated by accelerating air towards the ground. What confused the hydrodynamics experts was that this generated trailing vortices, which can't be created (or destroyed) in a perfect fluid. Thompon thought that atoms might be vortices in the ether.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/more_atoms.html

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

Sure. But the 4000 C temperature isn't reached until the air is outside the engine. It would melt any tail-pipe. That's why the after-burner is hideously inefficient, because it works by raising the pressure in the tail pipe, and thus the exhaust mass, rather than the exhaust velocity.

>
> <snip>
> >
> >> The SR-71 engine was mostly subsonic, which was part of the point
> >> of having the spikes coming out of the middle of the intakes--they
> >> slowed and so compressed the intake air.
> >
> > By creating shock waves at the intake.
>
> Taking stationary air and getting it into an engine that's moving at
> Mach 3.6 is going to be a bit violent, obviously. But that shock
> *decelerates* the plane, which is not what you were getting at originally.
>
> >"Mostly" is a weasel word here.
>
> Not at all. I was making the exact same distinction you were--the
> intake air was initially supersonic, but there was a shock boundary
> partway into the intake. The rest of the SR71 engine was 100% subsonic.

Seems unlikely. The air was supersonic when it went into the engine,and it's been heated and expanded to some tune when it emerges. The speed of sound in a 2000 C airstream would be about 2.8 times higher than in a 300 C air-stream, but we are talking about a Mach 3 aircraft, so the exhaust has to be travel faster than the local speed of sound as it goes out the tailpipe.

None of this validates David Eather's original claim, that you can't get a supersonic shock wave out of a fuel-air mixture. Scram-jets depend on exactly that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[John S]

Strange. For years I've been reading that lift is generated when the air
on the upper surface is forced to move faster than the air on the bottom
surface thereby creating a low pressure area on top of the wing.

Vortices are caused by the air moving from the bottom of the wing to the
lower pressure area on the top of the wing at the wing tips. Winglets
have been added to reduce this effect.

[David Eather]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:38:08 +1000, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net>
wrote:

> On 17/08/15 10:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Sunday, 16 August 2015 23:36:02 UTC+10, David Eather wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:29:43 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> You missed the point. They use air-breathing engines so there are
>>>> super-sonic shock-fronts in the combustion path.
>>> No there aren't. A jet turbine is designed to specifically avoid that.
>>> The
>>> speed of sound goes up with both heat an pressure
>
> David is incorrect. Only temperature. Pressure has nothing to do with it
> until you reach non-ideal gas behaviour (trans-sonic conditions).
>

OK, I can wear that.

[David Eather]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:25:31 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill....@gmail.com>

FFS NO! The air was STATIONARY when it went into the engine! The engine
was moving at supersonic speeds.

,and
> it's been heated and expanded to some tune when it emerges. The speed of
> sound in a 2000 C airstream would be about 2.8 times higher than in a
> 300 C air-stream, but we are talking about a Mach 3 aircraft, so the
> exhaust has to be travel faster than the local speed of sound as it goes
> out the tailpipe.
>
> None of this validates David Eather's original claim, that you can't get
> a supersonic shock wave out of a fuel-air mixture. Scram-jets depend on
> exactly that.
>

My claim (which I have repeated but you have ignored) was an unconstrained
fuel air explosion would not produce a supersonic shock wave. You're the
prat who wrenched a simple comment out of context.

END

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:58:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

<bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:

>On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 01:12:36 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
>> <bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:
>>
>> >The plane that carries the jet engine stays aloft by
>> > accelerating air downwards (which is what the wings do)
>> > so there's extra momentum being bled out there.
>>
>> Wings stay aloft from lift, not downward forced air. You're an idiot.
>
>I'm afraid the idiocy is all yours. Lift is a complex phenomenon,

No shit, SlowBoy.

> and there were experts in hydrodynamics that asserted that it
>couldn't occur in a perfect fluid, but the force that holds the plane
> up is generated by accelerating air towards the ground. What
>confused the hydrodynamics experts was that this generated trailing
> vortices, which can't be created (or destroyed) in a perfect fluid.
> Thompon thought that atoms might be vortices in the ether.
>
>http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/more_atoms.html

Gasses act differently than fluids.

The vacuum created above the wing in the gaseous lattice cause the
lift, and that cannot be demonstrated in a fluid experiment. Fluids
demonstrate laminar flows and do not exhibit the pressure differentials
found in a gas lattice.

So it is NOT "fluid dynamics" at work.
Hydrodynamics experts are wrong.

Helicopters get lifted into the air, not pushed up. Fixed wing
aircraft get lifted through the airstream not pushed away from their
rake angle in it.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 23:09:37 -0500, John S <Sop...@invalid.org> Gave
us:

The mistake the "experts" made was using fluid dynamics in an attempt
to describe something which occurs in a gaseous latticework.

[Bill Sloman]

They didn't make a mistake. They just didn't have the tools that let them tackle the problem in a useful way from that point of view. The tools have come on a lot since then.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 15:50:34 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:58:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
> <bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:
>
> >On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 01:12:36 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
> >> <bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:
> >>
> >> >The plane that carries the jet engine stays aloft by
> >> > accelerating air downwards (which is what the wings do)
> >> > so there's extra momentum being bled out there.
> >>
> >> Wings stay aloft from lift, not downward forced air. You're an idiot.
> >
> >I'm afraid the idiocy is all yours. Lift is a complex phenomenon,
>

> No shit, Sloman.

>
> > and there were experts in hydrodynamics that asserted that it
> >couldn't occur in a perfect fluid, but the force that holds the plane
> > up is generated by accelerating air towards the ground. What
> >confused the hydrodynamics experts was that this generated trailing
> > vortices, which can't be created (or destroyed) in a perfect fluid.
> > Thompon thought that atoms might be vortices in the ether.
> >
> >http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/more_atoms.html
>
> Gasses act differently than fluids.

Gases are fluids.

> The vacuum created above the wing in the gaseous lattice cause the
> lift, and that cannot be demonstrated in a fluid experiment. Fluids
> demonstrate laminar flows and do not exhibit the pressure differentials
> found in a gas lattice.

Fluids exhibit laminar flow for Reynold's numbers lower than 2100. Above that turbulence sets in, sometimes quite a bit above that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

> So it is NOT "fluid dynamics" at work.
> Hydrodynamics experts are wrong.

A minority opinion.

> Helicopters get lifted into the air, not pushed up. Fixed wing
> aircraft get lifted through the airstream not pushed away from their
> rake angle in it.

You may think so, but you are AlwaysWrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 15:01:52 UTC+10, David Eather wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:25:31 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 00:02:55 UTC+10, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> >> On 08/17/2015 04:54 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >> > On Monday, 17 August 2015 04:06:23 UTC+10, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> >> >> On 8/15/2015 10:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >> >>> On Sunday, 16 August 2015 07:57:42 UTC+10, David Eather wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:41:22 +1000, Bill Sloman
> >> >>>> <bill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Saturday, 15 August 2015 19:12:49 UTC+10, David Eather
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:00:13 +1000, Bill Sloman
> >> >>>>>> <bill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Saturday, 15 August 2015 08:53:36 UTC+10, David
> >> >>>>>>> Eather wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:30:44 +1000, Rob
> >> >>>>>>>> <nom...@example.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

<snip>

> > None of this validates David Eather's original claim, that you can't get
> > a supersonic shock wave out of a fuel-air mixture. Scram-jets depend on
> > exactly that.
>
> My claim (which I have repeated but you have ignored) was an unconstrained
> fuel air explosion would not produce a supersonic shock wave. You're the
> prat who wrenched a simple comment out of context.

You are the prat who made a stupid claim and continues to assert it without adducing any evidence to support it.

As Phil Hobbs has pointed out, burning jet-fuel in air can raise the temperature of the combustion products to 4000 C, which increases the volume they occupy by about a factor of 14. It doesn't take much of a compression wave to Joule-Thompson heat the air in the vicinity of the fuel to it's ignition temperature, so you've got a propagating ignition front, which can propagate faster than the local speed of sound.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.23536?journalCode=jpp

or more explicitly, see pages 37 and 38 of

http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/bk3/c15/Combustion%20kinetics.pdf

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-08-17, Baron <ba...@linuxmaniac.net> wrote:
> John S prodded the keyboard with:
>
>

> What ! You mean that you have never heard of the V1 or Buzz bomb !
>

pulse jets involve supersonic combustion?

--
\_(ツ)_

[Jasen Betts]

Newton's third law says your're wrong as usual.

--
\_(ツ)_

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-08-18, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DL...@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:58:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
><bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:
>

> The vacuum created above the wing in the gaseous lattice cause the
> lift, and that cannot be demonstrated in a fluid experiment. Fluids
> demonstrate laminar flows and do not exhibit the pressure differentials
> found in a gas lattice.

That vacuum pulls down on the air mass above causing brief downdraft
resulting in vortices.

> So it is NOT "fluid dynamics" at work.
> Hydrodynamics experts are wrong.
>
> Helicopters get lifted into the air, not pushed up. Fixed wing
> aircraft get lifted through the airstream not pushed away from their
> rake angle in it.

Next you'll be telling they don't cause a massive downdraft, and are
unsuitable for drying sportsfields.

Lift is the side effect of pushing or pulling air downwards.

--
\_(ツ)_

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On 18 Aug 2015 07:55:19 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> Gave us:

Wings work because of lift. Otherwise, the shape could be a knife
edge and no foil shape, as in a simple flat face. It is not the air
being pushed downward, it is the pressure differential created above the
wing that allows the air itself to PULL the wing upward.

We call it lift. We have called it that for decades and have been
right about it being the cause for decades. That did not suddenly
change because of idiots like you having a bent perception. The air
flow below the wing provides little or no assistance to the final
result.

Helicopter rotor is the same. One proof is that a pan can be placed
under the helicopter that matches the rotor diameter. and it still lifts
off even though none of the downward air pushes against the ground.

The LIFT force above the wing is greater than the air spilling off the
bottom.

And this honors Newton's third law, and you cannot even spell 'you're'
correctly, and you're the one who is wrong.

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 20:05:39 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2015 07:55:19 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> Gave us:
>
> >On 2015-08-17, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DL...@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:43:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
> >><bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:
> >>
> >>>The plane that carries the jet engine stays aloft by
> >>> accelerating air downwards (which is what the wings do)
> >>> so there's extra momentum being bled out there.
> >>
> >> Wings stay aloft from lift, not downward forced air. You're an idiot.
> >

> >Newton's third law says you're wrong as usual.

>
> Wings work because of lift. Otherwise, the shape could be a knife
> edge and no foil shape, as in a simple flat face.

Flat wings work. The lift to drag ratio isn't great. Look at classical windmills.

> It is not the air
> being pushed downward, it is the pressure differential created above the
> wing that allows the air itself to PULL the wing upward.

Word salad.

> We call it lift. We have called it that for decades and have been
> right about it being the cause for decades. That did not suddenly
> change because of idiots like you having a bent perception. The air
> flow below the wing provides little or no assistance to the final
> result.

In reality, the compression below the wing provides about 40% of the upward force, and rarefaction above the wing the other 60%, or it did in the example that I remember from my miss-spent youth.

> Helicopter rotor is the same.

A helicopter rotor is just a rotating wing (admittedly with a varying angle of attack as it rotates).

> One proof is that a pan can be placed
> under the helicopter that matches the rotor diameter. and it still lifts
> off even though none of the downward air pushes against the ground.

In the sort of proof that AlwaysWrong can comprehend.

> The LIFT force above the wing is greater than the air spilling off the
> bottom.

Air doesn't "spill off" anything, and the increased air-pressure under a moving wing contributes to lift in the same way as the decreased pressure above it.

> And this honors Newton's third law, and you cannot even spell 'you're'
> correctly, and you're the one who is wrong.

Typos aren't evidence of intellectual incompetence (otherwise you'd make a lot more of them). In this care you are still AlwaysWrong and Jason Betts happens to be right.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[John S]

On 8/18/2015 12:50 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:58:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
> <bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:

> Gasses act differently than fluids.

But a gas is a fluid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid

"Fluids are a subset of the phases of matter and include liquids, gases,
plasmas and, to some extent, plastic solids."

My 1960 Physics book says that glass is a super-cooled liquid.

>
> The vacuum created above the wing in the gaseous lattice cause the
> lift, and that cannot be demonstrated in a fluid experiment. Fluids
> demonstrate laminar flows and do not exhibit the pressure differentials
> found in a gas lattice.
>
> So it is NOT "fluid dynamics" at work.
> Hydrodynamics experts are wrong.
>
> Helicopters get lifted into the air, not pushed up. Fixed wing
> aircraft get lifted through the airstream not pushed away from their
> rake angle in it.

Have you looked at a symmetrical airfoil? I have flown aircraft and
models which have such airfoils. They perform equally well whether
inverted or not. Where is the lift?

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:10:09 -0500, John S <Sop...@invalid.org> Gave
us:

>But a gas is a fluid:

No, gas is" fluidic" up to a point and at certain velocities.

Howard Hughes proved that liquids are compressible, but he also proved
that the matrix compresses very little.

Gasses, however, are HUGELY compressible.

That is why a wing produces LIFT, and the spill beneath the wing is
NOT what takes the thing upward through the stream it travels through.

Flow of a gas over (and under) a wing and flow of a liquid over (and
under) a wing behave differently.

That is the very nature of my contention that fluid dynamic analysis
of an aerodynamic wing structure properties is the wrong path.

It works for submarine dive planes. In air, LIFT does the 'work'.

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 05:50:40 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:10:09 -0500, John S <Sop...@invalid.org> Gave
> us:
>
> >But a gas is a fluid:
>
> No, gas is "fluidic" up to a point and at certain velocities.

AlwaysWrong being typically daft.

> Howard Hughes proved that liquids are compressible, but he also proved
> that the matrix compresses very little.

And how did he do that? We'd like to know what it is that you are misunderstanding.

> Gasses, however, are HUGELY compressible.
>
> That is why a wing produces LIFT, and the spill beneath the wing is
> NOT what takes the thing upward through the stream it travels through.

Not entirely true, and based on a very poor cognitive model of what's actually going on.

> Flow of a gas over (and under) a wing and flow of a liquid over (and
> under) a wing behave differently.

Sure. Liquids are largely incompressible, but the lift-generating behaviour is - in fact - much the same.

> That is the very nature of my contention that fluid dynamic analysis
> of an aerodynamic wing structure properties is the wrong path.

So it's obvious nonsense.

> It works for submarine dive planes. In air, LIFT does the 'work'.

Capitalising a concept doesn't make it any more valid or useful."Lift" is just the useful part of the force acting on a structure moving through a fluid. "Drag" is the force that you normally want to minimise, though every time I sit in plane as it lands - and can see the wings - I can see structures folding up out of the wings to maximise drag and minimise lift.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[krw]

I think he meant that ramjets have been used but it's still wrong.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:

>> Howard Hughes proved that liquids are compressible, but he also proved
>> that the matrix compresses very little.
>
>And how did he do that? We'd like to know what it is that you are misunderstanding.
>

It was actually a quite famous event. I am not surprised that you are
unaware of it.

[David Brown]

On 18/08/15 21:50, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:10:09 -0500, John S <Sop...@invalid.org> Gave
> us:
>
>> But a gas is a fluid:
>
> No, gas is" fluidic" up to a point and at certain velocities.
>
> Howard Hughes proved that liquids are compressible, but he also proved
> that the matrix compresses very little.
>
> Gasses, however, are HUGELY compressible.
>
> That is why a wing produces LIFT, and the spill beneath the wing is
> NOT what takes the thing upward through the stream it travels through.
>
> Flow of a gas over (and under) a wing and flow of a liquid over (and
> under) a wing behave differently.
>

That is true - there is a significant difference between a gas and a
liquid (except in cases of extreme pressure or temperature points, where
the distinction breaks down). I don't think anyone is arguing that.

The key point of contention is the word "fluid" - there is absolutely no
doubt that gases and liquids are fluids. You seem to be using the word
"fluid" when you mean "liquid", and in this newsgroup people would
rather get hung up on a minor detail than discuss the main issue.

If everyone stops saying "fluid", and sticks to "gas" and "liquid", then
it is conceivable that progress will be made here before the thread
descends into the inevitable kindergarten name-calling.

(I don't know the physics here well enough to comment on how lift works
- I am merely listening in in case I learn something interesting.)

[JW]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:50:28 -0400 DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DL...@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in Message id:
<6oh5tatmb7p1ku9go...@4ax.com>:

>On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:58:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
><bill....@gmail.com> Gave us:

[...]

>>I'm afraid the idiocy is all yours.
>

> No shit,

Edited for brevity.

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:07 -0400, JW <no...@dev.null> Gave us:

Morphing post texts is your biggest problem (for years), and makes you
a bigger putz than SlowBoy.

[Bill Sloman]

> a bigger putz than Sloman.

But neither of us is competition for AlwaysWrong, who knows everything there is to know about being a putz, and demonstrates his expertise more or less non-stop, as here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[JW]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:01:23 -0400 DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

<DL...@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in Message id:

<mv29talbdpdh5dunc...@4ax.com>:

Being AlwayWrong is *your* biggest problem (for years), and makes you a
bigger putz than... well... err... Damn. Just about everyone. :)

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:10:25 -0400, JW <no...@dev.null> Gave us:

>Being AlwayWrong is *your* biggest problem

Nice try, putz. You are worse than Donald Trump. With the exception
that you could never make as much money, because you as dumb as a circus
flea too.

[Bill Sloman]

Donald Trump made a lot of money because he inherited a lot of money - not as much as he has now, but he could gamble on a larger scale than most of us, and a couple of his bets paid off big. Others didn't, but if you've got a lot money to start with a few duff bets won't break you.

--
Bill Slomn, Sydney

[Joe Gwinn]

In article <op.x3jr8...@phenom-pc.asus>, David Eather

A shock wave is most definitely produced. You can see it demolishing a
building in this video (BLU-96/B 2000lb Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE II)
Bomb):

.<https://youtu.be/GmRASCHJe2Q>

Here is a lower-scale test:

.<https://youtu.be/j9xCgNdZPKk>


Another example is the transition of a fire in ammonium nitrate into a
true detonation.



Joe Gwinn

[krw]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:28:43 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
wrote:

...and you believe it was supersonic because?

>Here is a lower-scale test:
>
>.<https://youtu.be/j9xCgNdZPKk>
>
>
>Another example is the transition of a fire in ammonium nitrate into a
>true detonation.

Not a fuel-air explosive.