I agree the O2 thing is a diversion.....
So why do you keep asking questions about it?
I imagine Teflon can be induced to burn under a variety of exotic circumstances.
Combustion = fuel (Teflon) + oxygen (285 times the normal concentration) + an ignition source (electric arcs are
extremely hot).
Given my orientation, I obviously do not believe any Teflon did in fact burn in an O2 tank in Cislunar space back in April of 1970.
Frankly, no one cares what you believe. The problem is that you've predetermined your conclusion and you're just looking for ways to twist the facts to fit it.
What I do intend to do is take a look at NASA's argument for this occurring as well as their argument for aluminum possibly having burned as well.
You have demonstrated no credentials or expertise; why should anyone care?
I think you are missing my fundamental point Garrison. The question is not can this or that burn but do they burn, did they burn, under a given set of circumstances in April of 1970.
The combustion of Teflon in oxygen-rich environments has been studied by engineers outside NASA, and even outside the USA. Google "Teflon + autoignition + oxygen" and you'll find several papers and articles on the subject. Why do you feel the need to attempt to reinvent the wheel?
I can put a bucket of gasoline in my backyard on a hot June day and let it sit there. Many days may well pass and there will not be any kind of a fire unless someone is careless in some way, unless something untoward happens.
How is a short circuit in the tank not "untoward"?
So, I'll see what I think based on the activation energy of the reaction, what was alleged to be in the tank in terms of something/conditions that would account for the propagation of a Teflon combustion reaction, and what was alleged to have been in the tank with respect to the purported end result.
I gave you all the data you need to answer the very straightforward question of whether the Teflon and aluminum could have generated enough heat to rupture the tank; if, as you claim, you're "quite good" at thermodynamics, it shouldn't take you any time at all. So why haven't you responded? Do you need a hint?
I believe I mentio0ned this previously, though perhaps I did not fully emphasize it, I have not even gotten around to looking up figures for the reaction's activation energy, nor have I begun to investigate whether or not there may have been anything in the tank that might have served as a catalyst to lower the energy of activation.
Why don't you try determining whether the reaction would even require a catalyst before you start worrying about whether any was present? First, though, you claim that you at best "doubt . . . very much" that the Teflon and aluminum would have burned with enough heat to have caused the tank to have failed; again, why don't you answer that simple question first?
The only things I have looked at so far are NASA's own reports on the subject as they appear in the Apollo 13 Mission Report, and additional specialty papers by NASA that they wrote up on the subject. It will be some time before I make any determination with respect to this particular question. I mentioned before, I accept the overall thermodynamics as presented by NASA for the combustion of Teflon. Aside from that, everything else is suspect in my mind with regard to this issue.
As noted, many papers and articles have been published by non-NASA sources; a number of these are available online. Why don't you look at those?
I won't turn my full attention to this matter just yet as I am still reviewing newspaper articles, magazine articles and NASA tapes/Mission Control Tapes with respect to the Gene Kranz premature lifeboat call.
As has been explained to you
ad nauseam, it was not premature, and no one qualified in aerospace engineering believes it was.
I also am documenting how Lovell is prone to changing his story. One time he tells it, he says he has no idea as to what happened, another time he tells it, he claims he knew the venting was oxygen right away and he knew there was an explosion more or less right away.
As Jay pointed out, this is nothing but pseudohistorical nitpicking. Real historians understand that eyewitness accounts of true events tend to vary from witness to witness, and even from the same witness over time. You don't have to take my word for this, even though I have a BA in history; just go ask some history professors at one of your local colleges.
In my mind this sort of thing, Kranz's and Lovell's egregious inconsistencies are far more significant and important than the Teflon issue.
That's the
only place they're significant.
As you may recall, I introduced the issue with regard to the Teflon in an effort to emphasize how rarely the subject is touched on, let alone addressed in any meaningful sense. One hears more often than not, "an oxygen tank exploded", and my view is one hears things put that way as part of a program to intentionally deceive/mislead in a rather subtle way.
Asked and answered, repeatedly, but I'll recap anyway. Most laymen don't care about the details of
why the tank exploded; those who are interested mainly care that the explosion happened; that it put the lives of the crew at great risk; and that NASA, thorough skillful engineering and improvisation, was able to bring them home safely.
The issue with the Teflon may not be amenable ultimately to solution as it may not have been a study which has been repeated in any relevant sense.
As noted, you appear to be attempting to set up a scenario where you can reject all of the test results and studies as inapplicable or suspect, so that you can then proclaim the problem to be insoluble and thus "NASA can't prove it happened that way." However, the burden of proof is squarely on
you for your clearly extraordinary claim that goes completely against the generally accepted version of events, and is contradicted by an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Apollo missions happened substantially as advertised.
All this said, my initial point about rarely hearing anything about Teflon and always hearing something about an O2 tank explosion I believe is a good one.
And questioning whether Teflon might have actually burned under these exotic circumstances . . .
Do you, or do you not, understand that the higher the concentration of oxygen, the more likely it is that
any substance will burn?
. . . and questioning if such burning could result in 7 lbs of TNT worth of pop one way or the other is likewise more than reasonable.
No, it's not the least bit reasonable. First, despite your claims, there's no reason to believe that NASA lied about what happened. Second, if NASA did lie, how is it that no experts have ever questioned the story? Third, 7 kg of TNT is equivalent to approximately 30 MJ. The amount of energy released when the tank failed is again a straightforward problem in thermodynamics; you should be able to to solve it quickly and easily if you're "quite good."
