Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Non\-flammable\s+fuel\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Non\-flammable\s+fuel\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. Non-flammable fuel (score: 1): Author: Eric Erickson <eric@erickson.on.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 02:47:41 +0000; A non-flammable fuel? Surely that is impossible (or a contradiction in terms at least)? The stuff really *has* to be able to burn quite readily, doesn't it?! Eric '68 MGB MkII; /html/mgs/1998-12/msg00752.html (6,766 bytes)
2. Re: Non-flammable fuel (score: 1): Author: "Paul Hunt" <paul.hunt1@virgin.net>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:58:21 -0000; The way it was explained seemed quite reasonable. Normal petrol has a flashpoint of about -40, if I remember correctly, whereas this new fuel is +40 - it doesn;'t even catch light if you apply a matc; /html/mgs/1998-12/msg00814.html (7,723 bytes)
3. re: Non-flammable fuel (score: 1): Author: Calvin Krug <ckrug@laf.cioe.com>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:21:46 -0500; As a vapor, yes, but not as a liquid. As I recall, most jet fuels have additives that prevent them from burning except when properly atomized. As a side note, the fuel used in the SR71 wouldn't even; /html/mgs/1998-12/msg00821.html (7,436 bytes)
4. Re: Non-flammable fuel (score: 1): Author: "Mike Lishego" <mikesl@tartan.sapc.edu>; Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 02:54:14 -0500; isn't all a fuel home. As an aside, I met an interesting fellow who once worked a cotton gin in the south in the earlier part of this century. If the cotton got a small "hot coal" in it, the protoco; /html/mgs/1998-12/msg00840.html (7,340 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]