Toad[^_^]

Not trying to be high and mighty or anything...
Originally posted by Barwick
JP-8 jet fuel was developed as a jet fuel in response to problems encountered in use of JP-4 jet fuel. By the fall of 1996, JP-8 completely replaced JP-4 in the United States Air Force. Compared to JP-4, JP-8 has a higher flash point and lower vapor pressure, making it less volatile; contains less benzene, a known carcinogen; and contains less n-hexane, a known neurotoxicant. However, as a kerosene-based fuel, JP-8 has a strong odor and is oily to the touch, while JP-4, a kerosene-gasoline mix, is less pungent and has a non-oily, solvent-like feel.

It has been estimated that approximately 60 billion gallons are used worldwide each year, with 4.5 billion used by the US Air Force, the US Army, and NATO. The US Navy uses JP-5, which is very similar to JP-8. JP-8 is also used to fuel heaters, stoves, tanks, and other vehicles in military service; and used as coolant for engines and other aircraft components. JP-8 is planned on being used at least until the year 2025 as the battlefield fuel for all U.S. military operations. The Department of Defense has recognized JP-8 as the single largest chemical exposure for its personnel. JP-8 without several additives is Jet A or commercial fuel.

If you want to know more click >>HERE<<
>>HERE<< and >>HERE<<

True, but how often are you exposed to jet fuel daily?

You mean P.E. or "Potential energy"?Potential energy (again)

You're actually correct there. Because of the additives in the fuel its flash point is in fact reduced. My mistake.

I would post information from my text but I'm afraid that I could be punished for doing so. Instead I have given you the above references. If this is still not enough information I will find more upon request.
I've said my piece. If you still want to argue, then do it amongst yourselves. I know when I'm right and when I am wrong, something that many people on this forum would do well to learn.

scathcart

No, I meant what I said. Activation energy is the amount of input energy required to start a chemical reaction. In internal combustion engines, this activation energy is provided by the spark; that is the purpose of the entire ignition system.

Potential energy is the total amount of energy in which a chemical reaction is capable of producing.
Again, this is not what I meant. I was talking about the energy produced during combustion, not the potential energy. Potential energy would only be fully released in usable form during complete combustion, which does not occur in internal combustion engines. So, when I said "energy produced by a exothermic chemcial reaction" with reference to the combustion of iso-octane, I meant the total energy produced by incomplete combustion.

It is true that there is no correlation related to the activation energy of a chemical reaction to the output of energy, whether the reaction is complete (potential energy) or not. What I said was completely correct.

Toad[^_^]

activation energy
n : the energy that an atomic system must acquire before a
process (such as an emission or reaction) can occur

potential energy
n : the mechanical energy that a body has by virtue of its
position; stored energy [syn: P.E.]

Online Dictionary

Toad[^_^]

Need more?

scathcart

How is this an arguement? You just proved I was right. On all accounts.

Pretty lame that some newb thinks he can argue by looking up simplistic definitions in the dictionary (that also prove I am correct) and put up an arguement against a university education. Honestly, this is grade 12 reaction kinetics.

You really suck at arguing. Normally, you try to prove yourself right, and not the person you are arguing against.


Input energy= energy that must be acquired. They are synonymous. Your dictionary just reworded what I said.

Potential energy: Energy stored. Stored energy can be released, or produced. Again, your definition just reworded EXACTLY what I said.

Seriously, guy, give it up. You were wrong, and you got called on it by someone with way more knowledge than you. Take a lesson and know when to sit down, and don;t post information in which you are nescient.

scathcart

Congratulations on your ability to quiz me on elementary physics. Too bad we're talking about chemistry.

This is just getting sad.

Toad[^_^]

The two definitions are similar but at the same time different. The term you used pertains to atomic reactions, not mechanical as you stated earlier. As for you're remarks about me being a n00b, you were once a newbie also. Although I am new to RX7's I'm not at all new to forums. As long as people like you are around giving misinformation and attacking people, people like me will always be around to put in their 2 cents at the least. It's a shame that mods don't intervene on this forum more often. Maybe they are to busy dealing with more important issues, or perhaps they would rather not waste time with juvenile comments and antics.

scathcart

You stated mechanical, not me. Find me where I stated Mechanical. I stated Chemical potential energy.

As for you're remarks about me being a n00b, you were once a newbie also.
Yep, I was. And guess what? I didn;t spout off to senior members about stuff I didn;t know **** all about.

As long as people like you are around giving misinformation and attacking people, people like me will always be around to put in their 2 cents at the least.
This is far too ironic. You started by attacking someone else, and giving completely false information. Hypocrisy at its peak...
And to top it off, I prove you wrong, and yet you still spout off...

s a shame that mods don't intervene on this forum more often. Maybe they are to busy dealing with more important issues, or perhaps they would rather not waste time with juvenile comments and antics.
What would the mods intervene? the intervene with flames and insults. Noob is not an insult, and I have only commented on your actions with the descriptives such as lame. Read the forum rules, this is completely within their boundaries.


I never stated anything about mechanical reactions (In fact, you brought up that completely irrelevant topic), I stated CHEMICAL reactions, in other words, reactions at the atomic level. I'd like you to quote me when I brought up mechaanical potential energy. Chemical reactions are atomic: IE The bonding of two oxygen atoms to form the O2 molecule is a chemical reaction.

Now since you say they are very different, perhaps you are comparing mechanical potential energy to chemical potential energy? Did you know they are different?

Let's have an example of both:

An object on the face of the earth with a mass of 10 kg (22.5lb) is lifted 10m (about 33 feet) above the surface of the earth. Thus, with a gravitational Potential energy is the 980 Joules.

Now, let's look at Chemical Potential energy, what I discussed in my post, and have been referring to all along.
Let's, say, take a battery. Did you know batteries are just a chemical reaction between lead and sulfuric acid? Its just a very simple electrolytic cell. Now we know that a battery has potential energy, as when you hook it up in circuit, you get a flow of electrons (energy).
Hey, look at that. A chemical reaction with potential energy.
In fact, we know, via the Nernst equation, that we can attriute chemical potential to electrical potential being equal:
Z e V = - k T ln ([in] / [out])
We can also determine the change in chemical potential energy in a chemical reaction via the Gibb's Equation:
G = Go + R T ln ([prod]/[react]) (Go is the known standard chemical potential energy at standard conditions), R is gas constant, and T is the temperature).


Owned again. geez, you don't give up.... I'm an engineer; I've spent years learning this ****. You don't even know the difference between mechanical potential energy and chemical potential energy...

Toad[^_^]

Ok you win

White_FC

Ok just a quick observation while reading this thread..

Toad[^_^], you seem to think that every single airplane out there uses Jet fuel...
Someone was talking about there being different grade, 'octane', plane fuels.
Obviously they,and you by the sounds of it, were just a little bit confused with the distinction between AVgas and Jet fuel...

Now that this has all been covered I have nothing else to add at this time, other than to say keep up the good work guys, I need a good chuckle every now and then.

Evil Aviator

It takes some time to sift through the posts on this forum, and even then it is not possible for the mods to read every single post.

Shoot, communicate, move on out. If you screw up the first two, you need to make darn sure you execute the last one in a timely manner.

Thread closed.