Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: driftdiver

Sure. But it took a hell of a lot more than a mere spark to get that boom. That’s my point.


61 posted on 03/11/2014 5:41:37 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: Norm Lenhart

Weren’t no spark that set off that explosion, unless you consider a warhead to be a spark.


64 posted on 03/11/2014 5:43:06 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

To: Norm Lenhart
I think you're pretty close to correct.

I've cut open a bunch of UST’s that had contained jet fuel, fuel oil, diesel, gasoline etc. Gasoline is definitely the most volatile and you almost always have a combustible atmosphere in tanks that have any gas at all remaining in them. Obviously you check the atmosphere with a CGI (combustible gas indicator) before opening up both ends of the tank. Usually that's done by pumping an inert gas into the tank or flushing the tank with compressed air while cutting and of course monitoring all the while.

The heavier fuel tanks very rarely have a combustible atmosphere. They may possibly if they're hot enough inside for the fuel to flash off creating a combustible atmosphere but in my experience that was rare. I'd usually go ahead and flush the tanks just to be sure, but I always liked cutting open fuel oil, jet fuel tanks etc as opposed to gasoline.

I never believed the nonsense about a spark inside the center tank on that 747. Even if somehow an ignition source was generated inside the tank the chances of a combustible atmosphere existing are close to nonexistent.

112 posted on 03/11/2014 6:53:59 PM PDT by bereanway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson