Translation...I've been "caught" in another error, and I don't want to talk about it.
You'll never be taken seriously by anyone, Patrick, until you can admit your errors.
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Translation...I've been "caught" in another error, and I don't want to talk about it.
You'll never be taken seriously by anyone, Patrick, until you can admit your errors.
Tomblvd
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 821
More evidence that Patrick is not a doctor.
Every O2 feed in a healthcare setting has warnings all around about combustion.
In addition, because of the completely different situation (open area vs. closed container, etc., etc.), only an utter fool would expect that an "ICU is going to blow" if the oxygen ignited. It can and has caused very nasty fires, however.
A doctor (or even a hospital janitor) would know that.
You can't make so many elementary mistakes that have to be corrected by professionals and expect anyone to believe that you read the report properly or correctly understood the content. Frankly if you understood it I doubt you would have brought up the Teflon in the first place. Let's be clear, you made a completely spurious claim that Teflon wouldn't burn, if you understood the engineering/chemistry so well how could you make that error?
Please don't, please first admit your mistake about Teflon not being flammable. And you can't make a case for anything that involves engineering or chemistry when you've demonstrated little knowledge of either.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. You claimed there were no combustibles in the tank, since Teflon didn't burn. It was only after other people directed your attention to the detailed findings that you completely changed your argument. Do you think we don't have memory?
Translation: Please stop reminding me how badly I screwed up; I don't want to have to admit my error. I want to change the subject.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 69,003
Why do the qualified Engineers and Scientists with relevant experience who have studied the Apollo 13 reports think it hsppened the way it is described?
Why haven't any of them over the last 30 years pointed out that Teflon doesn't burn in a pure oxygen atmosphere?
Why haven't any of them over the last 30 years pointed out that Teflon doesn't burn in a pure oxygen atmosphere?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. Here is what you actually said.
How many Patrick lies are we up to today?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
This is the most misaligned version of reality I have ever read. I recently spent over a month in three different hospitals. In each and every one, the oxygen feeds were labeled very prominently in red. Every hallway had an oxygen junction box where the feed could be turned off, also labeled in red. There were no smoking signs everywhere. And in rooms where oxygen tanks were stored, there were warnings like these.
You just could not be more wrong.
Last edited:
threadworm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,832
There was teflon covering wires in Apollo 1, and it burned very well in the 100 % O2 environment after a spark lit it. It didn't do too good a job there of covering electrical wire when it was abraded away from it. Teflon as an insulator only works if it is actually covering the electrical wire properly, otherwise it may as well not be there at all.
Another point that occurs to me is ff the whole Apollo 13 crisis why choose an engineering cause like bad wiring that's bound to attract scrutiny of the Apollo hardware? Surely the last thing they would want? Why not go with some 'act of god' like a micrometeorite and spare anyone embarrassing questions about defective hardware?
Could the answer be because, despite Patrick1000's increasingly desperate proclamations, it was not a hoax and reality tends to be messy like that?
Could the answer be because, despite Patrick1000's increasingly desperate proclamations, it was not a hoax and reality tends to be messy like that?
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,447
Yes, the Teflon insulation was there on those wires for a reason, Patrick. Do you know what it was, though?
Was it;
a) fireproofing in case of sparks
or
b) electrical insulation to prevent sparks
I wonder if you can work it out before anyone has to tell you. I gave you a big clue, if you read more carefully than usual.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,447
I assumed it was the same way you usually appear to gain knowledge - you make an absurd claim and in response someone tells you the facts which you then regurgitate as if you knew them all along. It looks for all the world as if that happened this time too.
Only to cast doubt on it and handwave it away. You still can't bear to admit you were wrong to do so.
Run away rather than face the facts and admit you were wrong?
Naaaah. I, for one, would like to stay on the subject of Teflon until you admit you goofed. Specifically.
BTW, to help you with your research, google the phrase "cryogenic oxygen msds". You'd be surprised and enlightened at the number of open source documents you would find. (Along with being a flight instructor, I also know something about Title 49...)
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,447
I'd like to check something - is everyone now completely satisfied that Patrick really is not a doctor?
Does anyone still have lingering doubts that he might just be an incompetent doctor, or that he might just put aside everything he knows about doctorin' in his frantic attempts to convince someone - anyone - that Apollo was fake?
I was never quite sure before. But I am now convinced Patrick is not a doctor.
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
About what aspect of what I wrote?
Could not be more wrong about what aspect of what I wrote Loss Leader?
Admittedly, the intent of the post, the hospital example, was that of provocation. But provocation with good reason given that my point is more than excellent.
Once learning in a general sense from NASA's Apollo 13 Investigation Report that Tefllon of all things is involved, that Teflon was the O2 tank number 2 fuel, the first thing one cannot help but be curious with regard to is, "Can the reaction, "Teflon burning" really be exothermic? They put the stuff on frying pans for God's sake." And it turns out that it is. The reaction is indeed exothermic. That is spelled out very plainly in the NASA report on all of this.
Obviously, the stuff, Teflon, had been used for insulation well before NASA started to use it, and its thermodynamic properties were/are well known. So what's the mystery? Perhaps you don't think there is one Loss Leader, but I do. Here we have this insulating material, Teflon, that reacts exothermically with oxygen, yet people intentionally not only use it as wire insulation, but also they put it on frying pans and what not in light of its anti-stick properties, and despite the overall favorable thermodynamics of Teflon's burning, it doesn't matter how hot we seem to make it. It doesn't seem to burn.
So on the face of that, it is all most counterintuitive. Presumably, in order for the stuff to burn, Teflon?O2 has some insanely high activation energy. That is a guess on my part at this point. But I say this because as we are all cooking with the stuff, literally day in and day out, and even then there is not enough juice to get the thing going, to get the Teflon to start to burn.
So I don't know that for a fact. The activation energy "guess". It is my first sense/guess as to what it is about Teflon that makes it heat resistant. It doesn't burn if one heats it up, yet its combustion ostensibly is thermodynamically favorable in some absolute sense. That is , presumably, once the reaction gets going, it goes pretty well, at least according to NASA, and for now, I give them the benefit of the doubt with respect to that point. They's be fools to present bogus thermodynamic data. then it really would be over. So I bought in the first time I read the NASA report on the Apollo 13. I have no problem with the overall thermodynamics as presented.
The bit about the hospital was written not in jest. For the most part it is a serious statement given what we are dealing with here. That said, there is of course a hint of tongue in cheekiness to it all. The hospital example was intentionally provocative. The point being, here we are, surrounded by things that burn, and who ever would have guessed that Teflon burns? Certainly not me. But interestingly, they put this stuff on frying pans and use it as insulation for wiring, put it in places where they know it will not only get hot, but get very very hot in the presence of oxygen. So one may conclude though the burning of Teflon has in some absolute sense favorable thermodynamics, there is something that keeps it from mixing with oxygen readily. It's very hard to push the stuff over the line and get it to start burning. Why doesn't my wooden coffee table start burning? Why doesn't my skin start burning, in the hospital operating room where a surgeon is sparking away with a "Bovie"/electrocautery, 100% O2 in a tank next to the anesthesiologist, blah blah blah? We are surrounded by things that burn readily and plenty of oxygen, in some situations tons of oxygen. We are floating in a sea of the stuff.
The issue again with the Teflon and aluminum too for that matter has to do with studying the problem in light of the question, "Would it be reasonable to believe Teflon would burn in an Apollo cryogenic O2 tank?" Sure there is lots of O2, but it is pretty cold in there. Only 20% oxygen in my house, but my frying pan gets pretty dang hot. Why doesn't the Teflon burn then? Not as much oxygen, but there is a heck of a lot more activation energy available to get things going. The stuff resists not only sticking , but burning as well.
I honestly have not studied the problem yet in a formal sense Loss Leader. As mentioned before, my initial post was written to simply caution the curious about buying into the notion of an "exploding oxygen tank". Oxygen per se, oxygen in and of itself, does not burn. My claim is that the Apollo Fraud perpetrators suggested such was/is the case. They mean to suggest that oxygen does burn, and that O2 tank number two exploded because that is what oxygen does when there is a spark in a 100% O2 bath. That of course is not true.
My coffee table would burn if appropriately prompted, ditto for my house, the gas in my car, the cotton of my shirts, apples, oranges, Teflon, aluminum. The thermodynamics is "favorable" in all these cases. That is, once one gets the reaction started, the stuff will continue to "burn". So what one wants to do here is look at what starts things off burning, and specifically in this case, what might start Teflon and aluminum off burning. The answer is not obvious. One wants to ask oneself, "Was there enough umph to get things going, get things burning given the Apollo 13 cryo tank circumstances?" I suspect the answer will be no. I say this because Teflon is rarely discussed under these circumstances, in the context of the Apollo 13 drama, and aluminum is mentioned even less often.
Could not be more wrong about what aspect of what I wrote Loss Leader?
Admittedly, the intent of the post, the hospital example, was that of provocation. But provocation with good reason given that my point is more than excellent.
Once learning in a general sense from NASA's Apollo 13 Investigation Report that Tefllon of all things is involved, that Teflon was the O2 tank number 2 fuel, the first thing one cannot help but be curious with regard to is, "Can the reaction, "Teflon burning" really be exothermic? They put the stuff on frying pans for God's sake." And it turns out that it is. The reaction is indeed exothermic. That is spelled out very plainly in the NASA report on all of this.
Obviously, the stuff, Teflon, had been used for insulation well before NASA started to use it, and its thermodynamic properties were/are well known. So what's the mystery? Perhaps you don't think there is one Loss Leader, but I do. Here we have this insulating material, Teflon, that reacts exothermically with oxygen, yet people intentionally not only use it as wire insulation, but also they put it on frying pans and what not in light of its anti-stick properties, and despite the overall favorable thermodynamics of Teflon's burning, it doesn't matter how hot we seem to make it. It doesn't seem to burn.
So on the face of that, it is all most counterintuitive. Presumably, in order for the stuff to burn, Teflon?O2 has some insanely high activation energy. That is a guess on my part at this point. But I say this because as we are all cooking with the stuff, literally day in and day out, and even then there is not enough juice to get the thing going, to get the Teflon to start to burn.
So I don't know that for a fact. The activation energy "guess". It is my first sense/guess as to what it is about Teflon that makes it heat resistant. It doesn't burn if one heats it up, yet its combustion ostensibly is thermodynamically favorable in some absolute sense. That is , presumably, once the reaction gets going, it goes pretty well, at least according to NASA, and for now, I give them the benefit of the doubt with respect to that point. They's be fools to present bogus thermodynamic data. then it really would be over. So I bought in the first time I read the NASA report on the Apollo 13. I have no problem with the overall thermodynamics as presented.
The bit about the hospital was written not in jest. For the most part it is a serious statement given what we are dealing with here. That said, there is of course a hint of tongue in cheekiness to it all. The hospital example was intentionally provocative. The point being, here we are, surrounded by things that burn, and who ever would have guessed that Teflon burns? Certainly not me. But interestingly, they put this stuff on frying pans and use it as insulation for wiring, put it in places where they know it will not only get hot, but get very very hot in the presence of oxygen. So one may conclude though the burning of Teflon has in some absolute sense favorable thermodynamics, there is something that keeps it from mixing with oxygen readily. It's very hard to push the stuff over the line and get it to start burning. Why doesn't my wooden coffee table start burning? Why doesn't my skin start burning, in the hospital operating room where a surgeon is sparking away with a "Bovie"/electrocautery, 100% O2 in a tank next to the anesthesiologist, blah blah blah? We are surrounded by things that burn readily and plenty of oxygen, in some situations tons of oxygen. We are floating in a sea of the stuff.
The issue again with the Teflon and aluminum too for that matter has to do with studying the problem in light of the question, "Would it be reasonable to believe Teflon would burn in an Apollo cryogenic O2 tank?" Sure there is lots of O2, but it is pretty cold in there. Only 20% oxygen in my house, but my frying pan gets pretty dang hot. Why doesn't the Teflon burn then? Not as much oxygen, but there is a heck of a lot more activation energy available to get things going. The stuff resists not only sticking , but burning as well.
I honestly have not studied the problem yet in a formal sense Loss Leader. As mentioned before, my initial post was written to simply caution the curious about buying into the notion of an "exploding oxygen tank". Oxygen per se, oxygen in and of itself, does not burn. My claim is that the Apollo Fraud perpetrators suggested such was/is the case. They mean to suggest that oxygen does burn, and that O2 tank number two exploded because that is what oxygen does when there is a spark in a 100% O2 bath. That of course is not true.
My coffee table would burn if appropriately prompted, ditto for my house, the gas in my car, the cotton of my shirts, apples, oranges, Teflon, aluminum. The thermodynamics is "favorable" in all these cases. That is, once one gets the reaction started, the stuff will continue to "burn". So what one wants to do here is look at what starts things off burning, and specifically in this case, what might start Teflon and aluminum off burning. The answer is not obvious. One wants to ask oneself, "Was there enough umph to get things going, get things burning given the Apollo 13 cryo tank circumstances?" I suspect the answer will be no. I say this because Teflon is rarely discussed under these circumstances, in the context of the Apollo 13 drama, and aluminum is mentioned even less often.
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
The numbers are all over the NASA reports Loss Leader, one need not look elsewhere...
The numbers are all over the NASA reports Loss Leader, one need not look elsewhere..
As above, I assumed all of the numbers from the Apollo 13 Report on the accident with the tank were/are accurate. I have never doubted the accuracy of NASA's presentation with regard to the absolutes thermodynamics wise. That said, no way am I willing to accept the Teflon and/or aluminum in the Apollo 13 oxygen 2 tank actually burned, in the very same sense were I to come home and find my coffee table had burned up, I would wonder what accounted for the fire starting. IT wouldn't have "started by itself", so what happened? It would not obviously be simply the fact that there was oxygen in the air.
Even if my coffee table was sitting in a room full of 100% O2, I'd still wonder why it burned up, what started it.
How many NASA space capsules were filled with 100 % O2 before Apollo 1 blew? Real missions, dry runs, how many? Just because there is oxygen around, especially frozen oxygen doesn't mean there is going to be a fire, especially when the fuel is fire resistant Teflon.
I do not know what I shall decide here in this particular circumstance. As said above, with regard to this issue, I am just getting warmed up.
The numbers are all over the NASA reports Loss Leader, one need not look elsewhere..
As above, I assumed all of the numbers from the Apollo 13 Report on the accident with the tank were/are accurate. I have never doubted the accuracy of NASA's presentation with regard to the absolutes thermodynamics wise. That said, no way am I willing to accept the Teflon and/or aluminum in the Apollo 13 oxygen 2 tank actually burned, in the very same sense were I to come home and find my coffee table had burned up, I would wonder what accounted for the fire starting. IT wouldn't have "started by itself", so what happened? It would not obviously be simply the fact that there was oxygen in the air.
Even if my coffee table was sitting in a room full of 100% O2, I'd still wonder why it burned up, what started it.
How many NASA space capsules were filled with 100 % O2 before Apollo 1 blew? Real missions, dry runs, how many? Just because there is oxygen around, especially frozen oxygen doesn't mean there is going to be a fire, especially when the fuel is fire resistant Teflon.
I do not know what I shall decide here in this particular circumstance. As said above, with regard to this issue, I am just getting warmed up.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
And I still believe those points I made, that you referenced here Loss Leader...
And I still believe those points I made, that you referenced here Loss Leader are most excellent. I certainly do not mean to imply in any sense that I wish to "back off" from them. They are important considerations and may well lead to substantive objections to the official Apollo 13 story. On the other hand, these issues are rather "advanced" to say the least and for want of a better term. Talk about a royal understatement, not to mention getting way ahead of ourselves. At any rate, I shall address these considerations in detail in future posts.
First things first. I haven't even come close to finishing with Kranz yet. That said, I am anxious to get on with the thermodynamic details, it is a favorite subject of mine.
And I still believe those points I made, that you referenced here Loss Leader are most excellent. I certainly do not mean to imply in any sense that I wish to "back off" from them. They are important considerations and may well lead to substantive objections to the official Apollo 13 story. On the other hand, these issues are rather "advanced" to say the least and for want of a better term. Talk about a royal understatement, not to mention getting way ahead of ourselves. At any rate, I shall address these considerations in detail in future posts.
First things first. I haven't even come close to finishing with Kranz yet. That said, I am anxious to get on with the thermodynamic details, it is a favorite subject of mine.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
"... these issues are rather 'advanced'"? Why don't you just admit you simply don't understand them? That's certainly more accurate, if you are looking for a "better term."
That fact is clear to everyone else. Might as well admit it. And give up making garbage arguments.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You're comparing skillets with space ships?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
All of it. I have literally never read a conclusion of yours that was right. Virology, orbital mechanics, navigation, politics, computer programming, avionics, chemistry, physics ... you are just always wrong.
Utterly wrong in every sense. You clearly know nothing about the chemistry of fire or the role of oxygen. You are incapable of distinguishing between an environment that is 19% oxygen, an environment that is 100% oxygen, and an environment that is 100% oxygen under pressure.
You have to listen to me: I'm a lawyer. I haven't taken a science course since high school. I conned my way out of my science requirement in college. I have no idea what fire is or how it works. And yet even I know that the more oxygen available to a fire, the faster it is. Even I know that explosives like TNT work because they bring their own oxygen with them. That's why you can use some explosives underwater.
If I know this stuff, it's because it is extraordinarily easy to find and to understand. And, if you chose to, there is no reason why you couldn't become educated on this issue.
Why guess? Why not just find out?
Once again, even I know that there is a difference between something melting and the same thing catching fire.
This is absolute insanity. Why are you guessing on any of this when the facts are so easy to find? Ten minutes on my computer and I can tell you: Teflon's usefulness comes from the fact that it has a low coefficient of friction and repels water, not its high melting temperature. It sublimates to a set of very harmful gasses at 350 degrees C. That's hotter than anything we need to cook food, making it good for normal uses, but only a third as hot as an average kiln. It combusts, when it does, because it's mostly carbon by weight. Carbon - like in coal.
Wrong. Unlike coal, teflon does not carry any oxygen molecules. If you get it to catch fire, you could stop it by just depriving it of oxygen. With a thick enough bell jar, some oxygen and a remote starter, you could easily test this all yourself.
Unless there's an electrical short near the teflon. Then, it's like the teflon was hit by lightning. In fact, it's exactly like it.
No, your frying pan gets up to about 400 degrees F, well below the temperature at which teflon loses its solid chemical properties. However, if you'd like to ruin your frying pan, just stick it in the oven to broil. You know ... the way DuPont recommends you never do.
You haven't studied the problem in an informal sense. You and the problem haven't waved to each other from passing cars.
Bull hockey.
I am well aware that you believe you.
Last edited:
Irrelevant....when will you admit your mistakes??
- Status