Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Exploding Frying Pans

Most Jrefforum readers I am sure are well aware that oxygen itself does not burn, does not explode. But for the few readers who are perhaps not familiar with this basic point regarding the chemistry of fuels, it is worth bringing up here. I'll return to the issue and go over it in some detail later. The subject indeed merits a great deal of attention. I'll hit a couple of highlights here and cover the details later.

NASA's official story with regard to the Apollo 13 explosion goes something like this;

Inside the Apollo 13 Service Module's oxygen tank number two, there were some wires that had lost their Teflon covering, their insulation. These uninsulated wires provided the alleged "spark" at the time the switch was flipped to stir the cryo tank oxygen. Now oxygen itself is not a fuel, is not an explosive. Oxygen itself, pure oxygen, will not burn and it will not "explode", no matter how hot it gets, no matter how strong the "spark". Oxygen must combine with something; wood, gasoline, cotton, flesh. This is what it means for something to "burn". When something burns, it combines with oxygen. Oxygen in and of itself will not explode, will not burn. Oxygen must combine with a fuel, with a partner, and it is in this combing of oxygen with a fuel that results in the release of energy.

So, what did NASA claim was inside of Apollo 13's Oxygen Tank Number Two that resulted in an explosion equivalent to 7 pound of TNT? What was the fuel, what was oxygen's partner in this case? Teflon... Seriously, not kidding...... NASA claims that what "burned" inside of O2 tank number two and resulted in the 7 pounds of TNT equivalent explosion was the Teflon covering the other wires inside the tank.

Keep in mind Teflon is specially designed to not burn, to not combine with oxygen. I think that that NASA even ran some experiments after the staged Apollo 13 Mission which they claimed demonstrated that under the "right circumstances" Teflon will burn, will combine with oxygen and release energy.

So we are asked to believe there was a 7 pound TNT equivalent of TEFLON wiring inside oxygen tank number two.......Anybody want to buy some quality real estate in Antarctica?

One thing I find so compelling is that there is only rarely a mention of the fuel, the Teflon, in mainstream presentations of the Apollo 13 story. It is in Lovell's/Kluger's book, but that is unusual. Most of the time it is left out as the NASA perps hope general public scientific ignorance will keep people from wondering about this rather implausible scenario, the exploding frying pan scenario. That is, most Apollo 13 presentations in a sense feature an implication that it was the oxygen itself that blew up.

Pretty sneaky isn't it??????

 

[abaddon]

Most Jrefforum readers I am sure are well aware that oxygen itself does not burn, does not explode. But for the few readers who are perhaps not familiar with this basic point regarding the chemistry of fuels, it is worth bringing up here. I'll return to the issue and go over it in some detail later. The subject indeed merits a great deal of attention. I'll hit a couple of highlights here and cover the details later.

NASA's official story with regard to the Apollo 13 explosion goes something like this;

Inside the Apollo 13 Service Module's oxygen tank number two, there were some wires that had lost their Teflon covering, their insulation. These uninsulated wires provided the alleged "spark" at the time the switch was flipped to stir the cryo tank oxygen. Now oxygen itself is not a fuel, is not an explosive. Oxygen itself, pure oxygen, will not burn and it will not "explode", no matter how hot it gets, no matter how strong the "spark". Oxygen must combine with something; wood, gasoline, cotton, flesh. This is what it means for something to "burn". When something burns, it combines with oxygen. Oxygen in and of itself will not explode, will not burn. Oxygen must combine with a fuel, with a partner, and it is in this combing of oxygen with a fuel that results in the release of energy.

So, what did NASA claim was inside of Apollo 13's Oxygen Tank Number Two that resulted in an explosion equivalent to 7 pound of TNT? What was the fuel, what was oxygen's partner in this case? Teflon... Seriously, not kidding...... NASA claims that what "burned" inside of O2 tank number two and resulted in the 7 pounds of TNT equivalent explosion was the Teflon covering the other wires inside the tank.

Keep in mind Teflon is specially designed to not burn, to not combine with oxygen. I think that that NASA even ran some experiments after the staged Apollo 13 Mission which they claimed demonstrated that under the "right circumstances" Teflon will burn, will combine with oxygen and release energy.

So we are asked to believe there was a 7 pound TNT equivalent of TEFLON wiring inside oxygen tank number two.......Anybody want to buy some quality real estate in Antarctica?

One thing I find so compelling is that there is only rarely a mention of the fuel, the Teflon, in mainstream presentations of the Apollo 13 story. It is in Lovell's/Kluger's book, but that is unusual. Most of the time it is left out as the NASA perps hope general public scientific ignorance will keep people from wondering about this rather implausible scenario, the exploding frying pan scenario. That is, most Apollo 13 presentations in a sense feature an implication that it was the oxygen itself that blew up.

Pretty sneaky isn't it??????

That's just lovely.

Except "explosion"<>"combustion", which is quite an onion in your ointment.

 

[threadworm]

Oxygen in itself won't explode, but if things in it are on fire (and in 100% oxygen anything can burn), it will be heated. This will make it expand. Expansion of gas in a confined space = explosion.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13acc.html

56 hours into the mission, at about 03:06 UT on 14 April 1970 (10:06 PM, April 13 EST), the power fans were turned on within the tank for the third "cryo-stir" of the mission, a procedure to stir the oxygen slush inside the tank which would tend to stratify. The exposed fan wires shorted and the teflon insulation caught fire in the pure oygen environment. This fire rapidly heated and increased the pressure of the oxygen inside the tank, and may have spread along the wires to the electrical conduit in the side of the tank, which weakened and ruptured under the pressure, causing the no. 2 oxygen tank to explode. This damaged the no. 1 tank and parts of the interior of the service module and blew off the bay no. 4 cover.

 

[SUSpilot]

Less than one minute of research on my part produced this from the Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety:

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/cryogenic/cryogen1.html

Liquid Oxygen Hazard

Liquid oxygen contains 4,000 times more oxygen by volume than normal air. Materials that are usually considered non-combustible, (such as carbon and stainless steels, cast iron, aluminum, zinc and teflon (PTFE) [emphasis added]) may burn in the presence of liquid oxygen. Many organic materials can react explosively, especially if a flammable mixture is produced. Clothing splashed or soaked with liquid oxygen can remain highly flammable for hours.

Next.

 

[Patrick1000]

Arch Perpetrator Gene Kranz

Kranz is the Forest Gump of the Flight Directors, always in the right place at the right time kind-o-guy.

Recall how I pointed out that one is able to spot perpetrators at key decision points. Since the Apollo Missions are staged, the decisions are not real and the person "guiding" the direction of the staged scenario at the alleged/ostensible decision point can be identified as a perp.

As Kranz has in a sense ultimate authority at the time of the Apollo 11 staged landing, one may conclude solely based on his role there that Kranz is a perp. Recall how Kranz said that day they would crash, abort or land. Well since the thing is staged the only viable option is a phony landing. As Kranz was one of the few that could call an "abort", and given an abort was not a real option in the context of the staged Apollo 11 Mission, Kranz is so identified as a PERP.

Likewise with the Apollo 13 Mission, another staged adventure. Recall how when Lunney comes on duty, he works for a while to try and get the pressure up in oxygen tank number two. The one that was allegedly blown. One can tell right there that Lunney is clean. Were he on during the shift when the staged tank explosion occurred, he may have driven the scenario, the SIMULATION in an undesired direction.

So Kranz is on board at that time for the expressed reason of giving the rah rah rah speech, the let's not make it worse by guessing speech, the we have the LM as lifeboat speech, to drive the team in the direction the perps desire it to be driven in.

Recall as per my post above, per the Apollo 13 Voice Transcript, despite Lovell's jive in his book written with coperpetrator Jeffrey Kluger, the problem with O2 tank one, the tank's slow leak, was not noted until 28 minutes after Lovell claimed there was gas venting of a nonspecific nature. 28 minutes!!!!

So Kranz is the one tapped to deal with all of this in real time and after as a matter of fact. Witness the numerous interviews he gives post phony baloney mission in which he claims to have known all the details of the damage at the time of Lovell's venting comment when so many of the details were not known. He could not have known about the slow O2 leak until 28 minutes after his bogus speech were any of this real. It's a stone cold fact, right there in the voice transcript, O2 tank one problem not brought up until 28 minutes after the nonspecific venting comment. Lifeboat? Right.... How FAKE!

Gene Kranz a perp if there ever was one.

 

[nomuse]

Most Jrefforum readers I am sure are well aware that oxygen itself does not burn, does not explode. But for the few readers who are perhaps not familiar with this basic point regarding the chemistry of fuels, it is worth bringing up here. I'll return to the issue and go over it in some detail later. The subject indeed merits a great deal of attention. I'll hit a couple of highlights here and cover the details later.

NASA's official story with regard to the Apollo 13 explosion goes something like this;

Inside the Apollo 13 Service Module's oxygen tank number two, there were some wires that had lost their Teflon covering, their insulation. These uninsulated wires provided the alleged "spark" at the time the switch was flipped to stir the cryo tank oxygen. Now oxygen itself is not a fuel, is not an explosive. Oxygen itself, pure oxygen, will not burn and it will not "explode", no matter how hot it gets, no matter how strong the "spark". Oxygen must combine with something; wood, gasoline, cotton, flesh. This is what it means for something to "burn". When something burns, it combines with oxygen. Oxygen in and of itself will not explode, will not burn. Oxygen must combine with a fuel, with a partner, and it is in this combing of oxygen with a fuel that results in the release of energy.
...

Inefficient, repetitious writing. The above reads like Doctor Seuss with longer words.

Water doesn't "burn" either, and hot water has been the power source for numerous deadly accidents.

 

[SpitfireIX]

So, what did NASA claim was inside of Apollo 13's Oxygen Tank Number Two that resulted in an explosion equivalent to 7 pound of TNT? What was the fuel, what was oxygen's partner in this case? Teflon... Seriously, not kidding...... NASA claims that what "burned" inside of O2 tank number two and resulted in the 7 pounds of TNT equivalent explosion was the Teflon covering the other wires inside the tank.

I see we can add basic chemistry to the list of subjects that you know nothing about. Yet more evidence that you aren't a doctor.

Keep in mind Teflon is specially designed to not burn, to not combine with oxygen. I think that that NASA even ran some experiments after the staged Apollo 13 Mission which they claimed demonstrated that under the "right circumstances" Teflon will burn, will combine with oxygen and release energy.

If it's impossible for Teflon to burn, as you imply, then why does DuPont list "heat of combustion" on their web page covering the material's properties? Further, do you understand that an electric arc has an extremely high temperature--far, far higher than a stove or oven?

So we are asked to believe there was a 7 pound TNT equivalent of TEFLON wiring inside oxygen tank number two.......Anybody want to buy some quality real estate in Antarctica?

No. If you understood Gay-Lussac's Law^WP you'd know that when the temperature of a gas rises (as when there's a fire inside the container), and the volume is kept constant, the pressure must increase. This increase in pressure, probably combined with fire weakening of the conduit that allowed the electrical wires to enter the tank, is what caused the explosion. The tank was subjected to pressure over 1000 psi when it failed, IIRC. This is about 70 times normal atmospheric pressure, which is what gave the explosion its force.

One thing I find so compelling is that there is only rarely a mention of the fuel, the Teflon, in mainstream presentations of the Apollo 13 story. It is in Lovell's/Kluger's book, but that is unusual.

Because, as noted, the force of the explosion was almost entirely due to oxygen pressure. So it's not incorrect to say that an oxygen explosion occurred.

Most of the time it is left out as the NASA perps hope general public scientific ignorance will keep people from wondering about this rather implausible scenario, the exploding frying pan scenario.

That is, most Apollo 13 presentations in a sense feature an implication that it was the oxygen itself that blew up.

See above.

Pretty sneaky isn't it??????

No.

 

[Patrick1000]

I am aware of this......

Oxygen in itself won't explode, but if things in it are on fire (and in 100% oxygen anything can burn), it will be heated. This will make it expand. Expansion of gas in a confined space = explosion.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13acc.html

As mentioned, the above was a bit of an introduction simply intended to clue those in that might not be aware that oxygen itself does not burn nor does it explode. Nothing more, I am just getting warmed up.

Was there enough Teflon covered wiring such that when it "burned" in that tank it released enough heat to expand the O2 gas that COLD! to break that tank? Of course not. To suggest so is ludicrous beyond on the stars.....

 

[Garrison]

So, what did NASA claim was inside of Apollo 13's Oxygen Tank Number Two that resulted in an explosion equivalent to 7 pound of TNT? What was the fuel, what was oxygen's partner in this case? Teflon... Seriously, not kidding...... NASA claims that what "burned" inside of O2 tank number two and resulted in the 7 pounds of TNT equivalent explosion was the Teflon covering the other wires inside the tank.

So you clearly didn't bother to do any research as the Wikipedia page on Teflon has this to say:

Powdered PTFE is used in pyrotechnic compositions as oxidizers together with powdered metals such as aluminium and magnesium. Upon ignition, these mixtures form carbonaceous soot and the corresponding metal fluoride, and release large amounts of heat. Hence they are used as infrared decoy flares and igniters for solid-fuel rocket propellants.[13]

Keep in mind Teflon is specially designed to not burn, to not combine with oxygen. I think that that NASA even ran some experiments after the staged Apollo 13 Mission which they claimed demonstrated that under the "right circumstances" Teflon will burn, will combine with oxygen and release energy.

Please provide evidence to support this claim, the Wiki page makes it clear it was invented by accident decades before there was a space program.

Pretty sneaky isn't it??????

Yes your constant misrepresentations certainly are.

 

[Garrison]

As mentioned, the above was a bit of an introduction simply intended to clue those in that might not be aware that oxygen itself does not burn nor does it explode. Nothing more, I am just getting warmed up.

Was there enough Teflon covered wiring such that when it "burned" in that tank it released enough heat to expand the O2 gas that COLD! to break that tank? Of course not. To suggest so is ludicrous beyond on the stars.....

Please tell us what engineering qualifications you possess that let you make this judgement?

 

[Garrison]

Kranz is the Forest Gump of the Flight Directors, always in the right place at the right time kind-o-guy.

Recall how I pointed out that one is able to spot perpetrators at key decision points. Since the Apollo Missions are staged, the decisions are not real and the person "guiding" the direction of the staged scenario at the alleged/ostensible decision point can be identified as a perp.

As Kranz has in a sense ultimate authority at the time of the Apollo 11 staged landing, one may conclude solely based on his role there that Kranz is a perp. Recall how Kranz said that day they would crash, abort or land. Well since the thing is staged the only viable option is a phony landing. As Kranz was one of the few that could call an "abort", and given an abort was not a real option in the context of the staged Apollo 11 Mission, Kranz is so identified as a PERP.

Likewise with the Apollo 13 Mission, another staged adventure. Recall how when Lunney comes on duty, he works for a while to try and get the pressure up in oxygen tank number two. The one that was allegedly blown. One can tell right there that Lunney is clean. Were he on during the shift when the staged tank explosion occurred, he may have driven the scenario, the SIMULATION in an undesired direction.

So Kranz is on board at that time for the expressed reason of giving the rah rah rah speech, the let's not make it worse by guessing speech, the we have the LM as lifeboat speech, to drive the team in the direction the perps desire it to be driven in.

Recall as per my post above, per the Apollo 13 Voice Transcript, despite Lovell's jive in his book written with coperpetrator Jeffrey Kluger, the problem with O2 tank one, the tank's slow leak, was not noted until 28 minutes after Lovell claimed there was gas venting of a nonspecific nature. 28 minutes!!!!

So Kranz is the one tapped to deal with all of this in real time and after as a matter of fact. Witness the numerous interviews he gives post phony baloney mission in which he claims to have known all the details of the damage at the time of Lovell's venting comment when so many of the details were not known. He could not have known about the slow O2 leak until 28 minutes after his bogus speech were any of this real. It's a stone cold fact, right there in the voice transcript, O2 tank one problem not brought up until 28 minutes after the nonspecific venting comment. Lifeboat? Right.... How FAKE!

Gene Kranz a perp if there ever was one.

You repeat the same tired assertions that have been shown to be wrong by those with actual skills and knowledge in the topics you are clearly ignorant of. You keep dodging questions and refusing to acknowledge the painfully obvious mistakes you have made. There is no point in you referencing your previous posts as if they were some sort of authoritative response when they are just an archive of your failure.

 

[JayUtah]

Gene Kranz a perp if there ever was one.

You said you were ready to present your accusations to him in person. But I still don't have your contact information after several reminders.

Hence I conclude that you were lying about your willingness to confront the people you're libelling. Is that really a position from which you want to be handing out the "perp" label?

 

[threadworm]

As mentioned, the above was a bit of an introduction simply intended to clue those in that might not be aware that oxygen itself does not burn nor does it explode. Nothing more, I am just getting warmed up.

Was there enough Teflon covered wiring such that when it "burned" in that tank it released enough heat to expand the O2 gas that COLD! to break that tank? Of course not. To suggest so is ludicrous beyond on the stars.....

Sophistry.

Almost as if you're acknowledging your argument will fail before you've even made it.

 

[JayUtah]

Was there enough Teflon covered wiring such that when it "burned" in that tank it released enough heat to expand the O2 gas that COLD! to break that tank? Of course not. To suggest so is ludicrous beyond on the stars.....

...says the guy who admits he is not an engineer.

The "staged" demonstrations you say NASA performed to substantiate the combustibility of Teflon in the presence of high concentrations of oxygen, to "appease the masses," is repeated every year in various engineering classes the world over. Yes, there's an object lesson to be learned -- trust the numbers your stoichiometric and enthalpy computations give you, not your gut. But mostly it's to wake up lacklusterly attentive undergraduates.

Yes, basic inorganic chemistry goes on the list of Patrick Fail.

 

[fess]

I see that Rapid Thermal Expansion is another subject that Patrick has failed at. Especially in an oxygen enriched atmosphere.

 

[Robrob]

As mentioned, the above was a bit of an introduction simply intended to clue those in that might not be aware that oxygen itself does not burn nor does it explode. Nothing more, I am just getting warmed up.

So it wasn't true, you admit it wasn't true and you admit you intentionally posted untruth to further your point?

OK...

Was there enough Teflon covered wiring such that when it "burned" in that tank it released enough heat to expand the O2 gas that COLD! to break that tank? Of course not. To suggest so is ludicrous beyond on the stars.....

Feel free to provide actual facts and figures to support your argument from incredulity.

 

[R.A.F.]

...we have the LM as lifeboat speech...

...yes...you made a mistake when you posted that no "lifeboat assessment" had been made previous to that time...


WHEN WILL YOU ADMIT YOUR ERROR?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... I'll return to the issue and go over it in some detail later.

You mean, you'll have a wild stab at the issue and then, when everyone has pointed out why you're wrong, you'll tell us that was what you really meant all along. Right?

Pretty sneaky isn't it??????

It's getting a bit tired, to be honest.

As mentioned, the above was a bit of an introduction simply intended to clue those in that might not be aware that oxygen itself does not burn nor does it explode. Nothing more, I am just getting warmed up.

No, it wasn't. You don't get to pretend you didn't just tell us that Teflon doesn't burn.

A doctor would be familiar with the use of medical oxygen. So a doctor would know that oxygen under pressure is extremely dangerous and would have been warned that, say, inadvisedly greasing the valve on a cylinder can cause an explosion that could blow the valve right off the cylinder. How come you appear blithely unaware of how dangerous such a vigorous oxidiser becomes under high pressure?

Was there enough Teflon covered wiring such that when it "burned" in that tank it released enough heat to expand the O2 gas that COLD! to break that tank? Of course not. To suggest so is ludicrous beyond on the stars...

Would you like to take a stab at some maths to support your unevidenced claim?

 

[Loss Leader]

But mostly it's to wake up lacklusterly attentive undergraduates.

Seriously. If you can't impress a room full of freshmen by smoking an entire cigarette in eoght seconds, you have no business teaching.

 

[JayUtah]

You mean, you'll have a wild stab at the issue and then, when everyone has pointed out why you're wrong, you'll tell us that was what you really meant all along. Right?

That's how most of Patrick's arguments have gone. He wants to claim authorship for the myriad of corrections he's absorbed (or, more typically, reflected) over the past several months. In his mind it's a "journey" toward the "truth" rather than an ongoing litany of incorrigible error. In any case, stumbling toward the truth is not a good position from which to argue that one is essentially infallible.

You don't get to pretend you didn't just tell us that Teflon doesn't burn.

This is what becomes especially annoying in dealing with Patrick's claims. He'll mention one fact derisively -- so you know that he knows it exists -- and then clumsily try to claim that he meant something else by deriding it, and the fact that he mentioned it at all means that's what he "really" meant. He throws a shotgun of ideas out there, and then sees which horse he should climb on after the knowledgeable critics weigh in. Ever notice that any time I ask him to demonstrate knowledge and expertise up front, he acts like those requests were never made?

I think it was Nomuse who posted the evolution of his ideas on the Apollo 13 telecast, showing the distinct backpedaling that occurs whenever one of his arguments is shot down. Serious historians make all kinds of mistakes but they've learned not to backpedal and not to pretend they were never wrong.

In this case Patrick informed us derisively that NASA had "staged" some PTFE fires, suggesting that they were gimmicked to appease the lay public and insinuating that scientists and engineers surely knew that PTFE didn't actually burn. Of course Patrick maintains that engineers don't really know anything about Apollo anyway, and it's only his dedicated little army of "alternative" Apollo researchers that actually read accident reports. He didn't stop to to consider whether the supersaturation that occurred as part of the Apollo 13 forensic tests were the actual conditions that prevailed in the spacecraft, and that his layman's understanding of the behavior of PTFE under ambient oxidizer concentrations was really what science believed.

A doctor would be familiar with the use of medical oxygen.

And how! One of the points of intersection between medicine and engineering is the notion of saturating bedclothes with oxygen in rooms where patients are breathing supplementary oxygen. It's not that bedclothes are especially flammable, but that the layman's intuition of what will burn and what won't when the concentration of oxygen goes up generally doesn't apply there. That's why hospitals have to be careful about ignition sources around patients on oxygen.

Seriously. If you can't impress a room full of freshmen by smoking an entire cigarette in eoght seconds, you have no business teaching.

Closer to 0.08 second. And the rate of reaction isn't the only thing that's impressive. What will and won't burn under high concentrations of oxygen is also surprising. See, when there's lots of oxygen available and the fire burns hotter, more materials support self-sustating combustion than otherwise. PTFE is one of those materials.

The lesson to engineers is not to trust your intuition of what "burning" means under ambient oxygen conditions. Know the stoichiometrics of your application and compute whether the material in question is safe under those conditions.