Geek woman news story of possible interest...

[Colin McGregor]

--- Scott Elcomb <psema4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:

[snip]
 
> On 9/25/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org> wrote:

[snip]

> > Also: current formulas of jet fuel are designed as
> to be highly
> > resistant to explosion.
> 
> Can you provide sources for this claim?  It's hard
> to imagine a fuel
> source for combustion-based engines as being
> "resistant to
> explosion."[2][3]  Also, I'm curious how much more
> this feature would
> cost - and how many airlines can afford to pay for
> it?

"highly" resistant is open to debate. This Wikipedia
entry notes the current situation with jet fuel:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8

The bottom line, the current fuel normally used by
airlines is resistant to explosions (highly resistant
is open to debate). On the other hand the US Navy uses
uses a fuel on aircraft carriers that is even more
resistant to explosions, but also far more expensive
(JP-5 anyone?). 


Colin McGregor

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists