Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Well since you "missed" the subtle provocation......

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.

Well since you "missed" the subtle provocation......

Why pray tell Loss Leader is it that if indeed an 100% oxygen environment is so very dangerous, and believe me, I for one do think it dangerous, did the NASA boys soak their astronauts in 100 % O2 until the time of the 1967 Apollo 1 fire? These people are not stupid now are they? What are the astronauts doing sitting in oxygen baths?

 

[R.A.F.]

...I still believe those points I made, that you referenced here Loss Leader are most excellent.

Really?...even though you can't find anyone to agree with you?

Your denial runs deep...

I certainly do not mean to imply in any sense that I wish to "back off" from them.

So, you're going to "stand by" your mistakes?....and admit them???

They are important considerations and may well lead to substantive objections to the official Apollo 13 story.

Not from you...you have nothing to offer to the Apollo 13 "narrative", stop pretending that you do.

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.

Irrelevant...you haven't even started addressing your errors, so why you think it proper to proceed?

I haven't even come close to finishing with Kranz yet.

It is very easy for anonymous internet posters to make "boasts" like that. It takes no courage at all.

I am anxious to get on with the thermodynamic details, it is a favorite subject of mine.

So you're going to embarrass yourself in, yet again, another of science?


Go ahead....

 

[AdMan]

I am just getting warmed up.

Here's a drinking game--take a shot every time Patrick posts this (and follows it up with even more nonsense).

 

[R.A.F.]

Why pray tell Loss Leader is it that if indeed an 100% oxygen environment is so very dangerous, and believe me, I for one do think it dangerous, did the NASA boys soak their astronauts in 100 % O2 until the time of the 1967 Apollo 1 fire? These people are not stupid now are they? What are the astronauts doing sitting in oxygen baths?

Please, please, please...don't anyone tell him why O2 was used...I'm tired of "wasting" knowledge on someone who refuses to learn...and anyway, he'll just claim later that they were "his" answers, so don't "give" those answers to him...let him find the answers for himself.

Maybe he'll learn something about actual investigation.


Well, Patrick...there is a rational, logical, and logistical reason for using pure O2...can you figure out what that answer is??

 

[SUSpilot]

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.

Did you read the Canadian OSH sheet about cryogenic oxygen? Says Teflon will burn.

So, you all three pieces of the fire triangle: fuel (Teflon), oxygen (in what is probably its purest, densest form), and a source of ignition (sparking wires). Although I haven't verified it, the tank exploding was more likely what is called a "BLEVE": Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion. When the heat of the fire caused the pressure of the tank to rise and rupture the tank, the release in pressure allowed more liquid oxygen to boil and continue the explosion.

BTW, this is one scenario that scares us in the industry where I work (the non-flight instructor part of my life): if a tank car of, say, LPG, catches fire, it's not the fire itself so much that worries us. It's the fact that the car may be heating enough that the relief valves can't keep up with the expansion of the gas and car ruptures as above. That's why response crews may just let the thing burn off while soaking the car with water.

Finally, are you saying that it was too cold in the tank to support combustion? That's a new one on me.

 

[SUSpilot]

Well since you "missed" the subtle provocation......

Why pray tell Loss Leader is it that if indeed an 100% oxygen environment is so very dangerous, and believe me, I for one do think it dangerous, did the NASA boys soak their astronauts in 100 % O2 until the time of the 1967 Apollo 1 fire? These people are not stupid now are they? What are the astronauts doing sitting in oxygen baths?

Because, as the NASA review board itself said, it was a serious error in judgement. The main reason was to keep the weight of the spacecraft down by not having to support a two gas atmosphere in the capsule. That had been done since the Mercury days. Since nothing bad had happened, it seemed a reasonable thing to do.

Sometimes, lessons get learned the hard way. At one time, jet aircraft in the US did not have to slow below 250 KIAS below 10,000 MSL - until 1958. I'll let you figure that one out

 

[nomuse]

Well since you "missed" the subtle provocation......

Why pray tell Loss Leader is it that if indeed an 100% oxygen environment is so very dangerous, and believe me, I for one do think it dangerous, did the NASA boys soak their astronauts in 100 % O2 until the time of the 1967 Apollo 1 fire? These people are not stupid now are they? What are the astronauts doing sitting in oxygen baths?

Another blow to the notion that you understand anything about physiology (or engineering, for that matter).

 

[Patrick1000]

your point is a good one, I overstated my point there...

And I did not claim that you said "teflon/aluminum were omitted from all references". For reference, here again is what you said, emphasis added:



Did you have a not-commonly-accepted definition of the word "NEVER" in mind when you wrote it in all caps? After all, a trivial search effort turned up at least one popular account in a popular magazine with the word "Popular" in its title...which effectively refutes the point you claimed to be making.

your point is a good one, I overstated my point there.., agreed.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Don't know where you work, no written warnings on our vents about O2......

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.

Don't know where you work, no written warnings on our vents about O2.....

 

[threadworm]

Well since you "missed" the subtle provocation......

Why pray tell Loss Leader is it that if indeed an 100% oxygen environment is so very dangerous, and believe me, I for one do think it dangerous, did the NASA boys soak their astronauts in 100 % O2 until the time of the 1967 Apollo 1 fire? These people are not stupid now are they? What are the astronauts doing sitting in oxygen baths?

With your advanced medical and engineering knowledge you can't think of a good reason why a 100 % oxygen environment makes more sense? With all that research and background reading into the Apollo missions you can't explain that?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why pray tell Loss Leader is it that if indeed an 100% oxygen environment is so very dangerous, and believe me, I for one do think it dangerous, did the NASA boys soak their astronauts in 100 % O2 until the time of the 1967 Apollo 1 fire? These people are not stupid now are they? What are the astronauts doing sitting in oxygen baths?

It took me less time to find a comprehensive answer to that question than it likely took you to type the question.

With all the research you claim to have performed, why are you ignorant of the answer? It's almost as unimpressive as your longwinded 'Fire - how the **** does that work?' post above.

 

[JayUtah]

your point is a good one, I overstated my point there.., agreed.....

No, you flat-out lied and changed your story. You said -- and emhasized -- that there was no popular mention of the combustion fuel. When one was easily provided, you failed to acknowledge it. Then when pressed you grudgingly noted it and other sources, but then disavowed ever having made the original claim.

You lied, and for the second time that day. You lie easily and habitually about who you are, what arguments you've previously made, and what your sources say. You continue today in much of the same deceptive behavior that got you banned at BAUT and Apollohoax, showing no remorse or intellectual conscience. Your arguments stem from systematic dishonesty.

And those dishonest arguments flatly accuse people of large scale fraud. You categorically decline to level those accusations in person and give your victims the satisfaction of facing their accuser. Based on cherry-picked quotes here and offhand comments there and recollections made decades after the fact, you point your finger at these accomplished men and yell "perp!" when the evidence of your own hypocritical and chronic dishonesty need look no farther than this thread alone.

 

[JayUtah]

I conned my way out of my science requirement in college.

As an engineer lament this, but in a perverse sort of way I'd say that the skill to accomplish that feat exemplifies what I look for in a lawyer.

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.

That is a service that I have at times provided for lawyers. Liability under the law almost always considers what the expected behavior of the real world should be, in order to distinguish culpability from "poop happens." Lawyers need to know how strong a case they have. They call me, we meet, we give a deposition if necessary, and on a few occasions I testify. But in the process the lawyer learns something he didn't know before.

However, if you'd like to ruin your frying pan, just stick it in the oven to broil.

Or let your kids cook with it. Many a Teflon-coated pan of mine has gone to the great kitchen in the sky because some kid left it on the burner with the element turned on. And yes, it gives me the willies because gaseous Teflon is not something you want wafting about your kitchen. This is why parents learn to say, every time, "Did you remember to turn off the burner?"

I am well aware that you believe you.

And I have to emphasize that no one else does. Patrick's mistakes are not the legitimate sorts of mistakes that experts make. They aren't even the sorts of mistakes well-meaning ordinary people make. They are the kinds of mistakes born of a deep desire to believe something, and to ignore all semblance of reality in order to support that belief.

 

[Patrick1000]

the question is rhetorical

It took me less time to find a comprehensive answer to that question than it likely took you to type the question.

With all the research you claim to have performed, why are you ignorant of the answer? It's almost as unimpressive as your longwinded 'Fire - how the **** does that work?' post above.

the question is rhetorical

 

[fess]

Don't know where you work, no written warnings on our vents about O2.....

I don’t know where you work either, or if you even work for that matter, but there are “Oxygen In Use” signs throughout medical facilities. Have you not heard of OSHA?

 

[Tomblvd]

Don't know where you work, no written warnings on our vents about O2.....

They aren't required at bicycle shops.

 

[Patrick1000]

we are talking about warnings primarily......

I don’t know where you work either, or if you even work for that matter, but there are “Oxygen In Use” signs throughout medical facilities. Have you not heard of OSHA?

The feeds coming off the walls in a standard med/surg room say "O2", nothing more, and nothing more is needed. There is NO "warning"...in an ICU where we use vents, the vents are not labeled(no warning) at all, go have a look....

 

[Andy_Ross]

Every Hospital I have ever been in has Oxygen Warningsigns in the Wards right next to the valves on the wall.

 

[Patrick1000]

What does the "warning sign" say?

Every Hospital I have ever been in has Oxygen Warningsigns in the Wards right next to the valves on the wall.

What does the "warning sign" say?

 

[JayUtah]

They aren't required at bicycle shops.

Hospitals, on the other hand, must conform to NFPA 99, part 8 (IIRC) regarding labeling of oxygen-carrying plumbing, storage, distribution, and point-of-use equipment, and the certified training of those who care for them.

Space engineering use of oxygen and other oxidizers is governed by a different set of federal regulations.