Burning Temperature of Jet Fuel

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by axiom, Jan 31, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. axiom Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    subject

    Does anyone know? I can't find any decent info on the web without having to read through 9/11 conspiracy theories.
     
  2. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    May I ask what is wrong with 9/11 conspiracy theories.
    If you can discredit any of the theories I'd be interested to hear.

    Sorry I can't answer your question.
     
  3. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    889
    There is a wide range of possible temperatures depending on a lot of variables like gas density, mixture, flows, etc. The exhaust temperatures of the jets that I used to fly ranged from some 400 in min power to 1080C The afterburner flame can melt most metals.
     
  4. Maddad Time is a Weighty Problem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    When you're googling include a -911 in the keywords. That will remove from the search all web pages mentioning 911.
     
  5. maxzuk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Most people don't know this but jet fuel is nothing but a grade of Kerosene:

    Link
     
  6. axiom Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    who said there's anything wrong with 9/11 conspiracy theories...or who said that it was my intention to prove or disprove them ? All I'm saying is that while trying to find info on the burning temperature of Jet Fuel, all I can really find is 9/11 conspiracy theories...that's not a good or a bad thing...but, it is indeed the way it is. The "-911" bit seems to be working a bit better, thanks.
     
  7. cooljayman Hangover's Best Friend Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    69
    Strange question. But I think anywhere from 600C to 1000C. There are many other variables involved. Please be more specific.
     
  8. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    What grade of fuel? Each one has a different ignition temperature.
     
  9. Billy T Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Fuel Staff Member

    Messages:
    20,363
    I don't think it is a question of "ignition temperature." I am no chemist, but think that the "burning" can generated heat but as temperature rises, the reverse reaction (or some other endothermic reactions) will soak up energy.
    Thus in a well insulated box, with fuel and oxidizing agent continuously present, one should go to a temperature where the forward burning raction is releasing heat at the same rate the the reverse endothermic reactions are soaking it up. This equal rate temperature (for the pressure conditions, concentrations etc.) is what determines the temperature achieved, not the ignition temperature. It seems possible, to me, that some fuels with low ignition temperatures could have higher "equal forward and reverse rate" tempertures than fuels with higher ignition temperature, but then again, I am not a chemist.
     
  10. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,927
    Not to jack the thread, but the problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories is the same as the problem with all conspiracy theories. The lack of evidence is always considered proof of how widespread the conspiracy is. To ask someone to disprove them is a logical fallacy.

    Shifting the burden of proof: demanding that the person denying and assertion prove his/her case, whereas the burden of proof is upon the person who argues the position.
    http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm

    Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.
     
  11. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    Ah, you're right, I misread his question. Good catch. I'm no chemist either but temperature of combustion is not an absolute - it depends upon extraneous variables such as atmospheric composition and pressure.

    I think I know what he's referring to now, and that is whether or not a petroleum fire would have been hot enough to erode the integrity of structural steel in the WTC towers. Lol.
     
  12. Odin'Izm Procrastinator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,851
    Jet A is aviation kerosene, it is very similar to the common kerosene used in home lamps and heaters. It is a clear liquid that is a mixture of different kinds of fuel molecules, hydrocarbons, made up of hydrogen and carbon. Kerosene is similar to gasoline and diesel fuel in that it is a mixture of hydrocarbons of different sizes. The sizes of the molecules are measured in terms of the number of carbon and hydrogen atoms in the each molecule. Jet A liquid contains molecules with between 4 and 20 carbon atoms.

    Ignition temperature is relatively low for avrage jet fuel (in atmospheric pressure) 300C

    Burning temperature With plenty of oxygen is 3500F, or 1900C.
     
  13. roscogre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    The statement that "jet exhaust will melt most metals" is extremely deceptive.
    1.An open air hydrocarbon fire will not get over 1200 F,1800 F with forced oxygen.
    2.Metals have an extremely wide range of melting points;sodium ignites spontaneously in air,mercury is liquid at room temp.,melting at -38 F,Aluminum will melt on your stove or in a wood fire,potassium melts at 146 F,magnesium will burn under water,lead will soften in the sun,osmium melts at 5477 F,and iron melts at 2795 F with construction steel melting at 2750 F.

    The best reference material for physical constants such as melting points,boiling points etc.,is the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

    Facts are stubborn things,and until the Ministry of Truth burns all the old science reference books,it is very hard for the propagandists to spin their tales of deceit and fool the educated.
     
  14. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Holy shit, that is the most useful thing I read today!
     
  15. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,118
    :bravo:
     
  16. error01120524 Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    It took me two and a half seconds to find the answer on google, jet fuel for common airliners is jet A-1 (as posted by odin). It's flash point is 38 °C and it's auto-ignition is higer than 220 °C. You guys can find the info at www(dot)shell(dot)com (why do I need 20 posts to post links?)
     
  17. Dr. dB Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    ...not quite right.

    Dear roscogre,

    “Andre” never claimed, "jet exhaust will melt most metals".
    What was said was, "The AFTERBURNER FLAME can melt most metals."

    As those “reheat” combustion temp.s can range from 1500-ish at initial ignition (a slight dip from the relatively-stable turbine exhaust temp as the first fuel “dumps” into the stream) to well over 2500F at full-bore, this statement is entirely correct.

    The erroneous notion that anything more than the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were needed to bring down the Twin Towers is not…

    A massive “conspiracy” surrounding 9/11 did, indeed, exist, but it did NOT involve explosives, thermite, thermate, or any of the other “obvious demolition techniques” bandied-about by various lay people and fringe-element websites.

    NONE OF THE ABOVE WAS REQUIRED!

    Many of the sixty-plus elevator shafts above the halfway point of the structure made excellent twenty-foot-wide blowtorches, once 24,000 gallons of jet fuel was poured down them and ignited…

    All it really took was decades of deliberate agitation of psychotic religious fanatics worldwide by our last three equally-psychotic Republican administrations, and for those self-styled “leaders” to turn a blind(ed) eye to known threats at crucial moments.

    Although they didn’t know the exact form it would take, and certainly weren’t prepared for the sheer scope of the event, various “black-op.s” groups within the CIA, NSA, FBI and the whole alphabet-soup of our so-called “intelligence community” had been striving diligently (at the behest of and with the full blessing of those same Republican lunatics) for some such “watershed” attack since the day the Berlin Wall came down, in order to preserve their precious d@mn&d BUDGETS from the inevitable result of the “ramping-down” of the cold war. Since any reduction in said budgets was, in their paranoid, delusional “judgment”, “…a threat to national security!” (read: “…a threat to our job security!”), they felt they had to do whatever it took to create a nice, solid, permanent, implacable “enemy” at whom we could be brainwashed into throwing billions of tax dollars for decades into the foreseeable future.

    This they achieved famously, if on a somewhat larger and more heinous scale than they anticipated.

    Never mind that their money and employment were never in any REAL danger (China, Israel, Korea, Pakistan, etc. etc., etc., would always have kept them busy enough) - they HAD to have their way, and they most assuredly have done so…

    Add-in the profit potential of a second, unnecessary Gulf War for the “Bush-Laden Oil’glomerate”, Haliburton, Blackwater and dozens of other “defense” contractors and filthy-rich (emphasis on “FILTHY”) Bush family campaign contributors, and you have the exact formula for “What Really Happened”, to commandeer the name of one of the loonier “See that puff of smoke? Obviously it was blown up with bombs!” websites.

    “Dr. dB”
     
  18. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,343
    That's something conspiracy nuts forget, that elevator shafts can channel flames, which of course, is why you shouldn't try and use on in a fire.

    Channelling fire increases it's potency incredibly. Once a friend and I were clearing out his shed, and throwing unwanted items on a bonfire. He had some louvre doors , three, linked by hinges, about three feet tall, so we arranged them around the rather tame bonfire, to corral it in. The louvres channelled air into the bonfire, and gave it an exit like a jet at the top, so the flames that had just been a couple of feet tall, were now about five feet tall, and the paint on the louvres flashed over, got sucked into the mix, and briefly, while that burned off, we had flames about seven feet tall.
     
  19. Corten Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    Without getting too deep into this conversation, JP4 could easily cause enough destructive force to destroy large structures such as buildings.

    That being said, the majority of JP4 in this country was removed from service by the early 90s.
     
  20. roscogre Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    Nice. A lot of ad hoc declarative false statements with nothing to back them up.
    Anyone who can watch those videos and think it is anything other than a demolition is a fool or a liar.
    No steel framed building has EVER suffered total collapse,much less cut and melted steel and turned concrete into dust,from fire,despite much longer,much hotter fires that engulfed the entire building.
    There was a bigger fire in the same building.
    Tons of thermite in the dust,and microspheres of iron which are formed when high explosive blasts molten steel.
    All the tell tale signs of controlled demolition were apparent that day,including firemen counting down the building 7 demolition,BBC and CNN reporting it's collapse BEFORE it happened(whoops)and the owner admitting he decided to demolish it.:splat:
    The fire was smoldering,almost out and people were standing in the hole made by the "plane" proving temperatures were extremely low.

    But CENTCOM is admittedly paying thousands of low level intelligence officers to propagandize the public.
    Thanks for helping to destroy our country.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page