My point about teflon was not whether it might burn or not under exotic circumstances, but that it is NEVER mentioned in popular accounts of what happened in the context of Apollo 13 disaster presentations, nor is aluminum mentioned either, the latter may have burned as well according to NASA.
Flip-flop.
Your original claim was that NASA staged these combustibility demonstrations for the benefit of the general public, who would thereby be fooled into thinking such available materials as PTFE and aluminum would burn, when scientists, engineers, and common sense knew they wouldn't. You went on at length about how there was no combustible fuel in the oxygen tanks, and how the public would eventually come to find out about this.
Now your claim is that enough wasn't done to bring to the public's attention the important fact that these materials would burn, such as all the scientists and engineers say. So now that tenacious public, who would supposedly discover that nothing combustible was in the tank in your first scenario, is too stupid to get hold of the public records of the Apollo 13 accident reports where the combustibility of the PTFE and aluminum are discussed. And coincidentally, you came to this conclusion only after they were brought to your attention by someone else.
Not only is that a complete turnaround of your "infallible" beliefs, it once again sets you up as the incontrovertible authority about what everyone else in the world should always be doing. Who made you the grand exalted pooh-bah of "popular accounts?" What makes your insight so special when all you've done is regurgitate what someone else told you by way of correction, then add your own lame spin to it?
I have only begun to investigate the details regarding NASA's claims about the fire in the tank.
Agreed. That's why your arguments, statements, and beliefs consistently lag beyond those of us who have studied these things for decades. You can't be considered the world's greatest authority on the subject if you're consistently having to play catch-up.
I stated in my first post about the teflon that it was an introduction to the subject.
Nonsense. In your first post on the subject you flat-out stated that PTFE was non-combustible. Now you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You made yet another glaring error in an elementary scientific field, had your head handed to you, and you're now engaged in your typically feeble exercise of damage control -- you know, the backpedaling and flip-flopping that we all plainly see.
More than a spark is required to set a house on fire most of the time, and given teflon's properties, it is all the more the case that more than a simple spark is required to set teflon off and burning.
Your house isn't filled with a high concentration of oxygen. Despite having been assertively refuted according to a chorus of science on this point, you're still trying to draw analogies between a specialized engineering context and your layman's understanding of ambient stoichiometrics.
Give it up, Patrick. You're never going to convince anyone that your opinion on this point has any sort of education behind it.
Teflon is designed especially not to burn.
You were asked to document this. Why have you not?
What is clear already, what one can see plainly is that teflon and aluminum fires are almost never discussed in popular accounts of Apollo.
Damage control. You were wrong, everyone knows it, but you won't admit it. You want everyone to go along with you and pretend this was what you meant all along. Sorry, not taking that bait.
I am in the process of investigating the details of an explanation which will address exactly why that is indeed the case, why it is that if one watches a film about Apollo 13, or hears Lovell, Haise, Kranz speak, they never mention teflon or aluminum.
Translation: I'm in the process of making up a whole bunch of nonsense that I'll never provide any evidence for, and for which I will never take any sort of meaningful responsibility by engaging the men I libel.
