Our station in Keys handled the radio comm's for the training carrier of that era USS LEXINGTON, CVT-16 so we saw most of the flight reports on mishaps and minor accidents. That took the glamour and excitement of flying away from me. Being a fighter pilot is a dangerous business.
For most of those hot shot pilots in the air there was an air crew that risked their lives training them.

After I left the station.

 

I'm pretty sure I'd barf.

 

I'd be quite content with just being the guy who puts the fuel in and makes sure the tires have the correct air pressure.

 

Highly enjoyable:

 

Highly enjoyable:

That was absolutely beautiful, dude... thanks for posting!

 

That was absolutely beautiful, dude... thanks for posting!

All of us know how a CE works, but how many have seen the actual thermodynamics in action?

That's why I liked it.

 

Highly enjoyable:

I've been watching those sort of YouTube videos and others for the last few days now since I dropped out of the 'let's idiotically debate nothing of value forever' thread. (Seemed like a far more intelligent and educational use of my time. )

 

Our station in Keys handled the radio comm's for the training carrier of that era USS LEXINGTON, CVT-16 so we saw most of the flight reports on mishaps and minor accidents. That took the glamour and excitement of flying away from me. Being a fighter pilot is a dangerous business.
For most of those hot shot pilots in the air there was an air crew that risked their lives training them.

After I left the station.

Were they using plain water for the fire on deck?

 

Were they using plain water for the fire on deck?

Agustín... I know about your long experience in the maritime industry... so I'm extremely curious to know the why of your question...

 

Were they using plain water for the fire on deck?

The crash team uses a foam mixture (AFFF(Aqueous Film Forming Foams)) for fuel fires to stop the oxygen source. It's limited to several large tanks near the flight deck to mix seawater and AFFF concentrate.

Firefighting agents are listed in Figure 47. The most prevalent agent, and the one on which we are the most reliant, is AFFF. AFFF was originally called "Light Water" when introduced in the Navy in the 1960s. AFFF works by causing an aqueous film to float on the top surface of fuel. Because of the difference in specific gravity between a flammable liquid and water, water normally settles to the bottom and the fuel floats on top. The film formation is caused by surface tension effects created by the fluorocarbon surfactants that are contained in AFFF.

The Navy converted to AFFF from protein foam at air stations in the 1960s and aboard ship in the 1970s. The big impetus for that change in aircraft carriers of course was the fires on the Forrestal and Enterprise. Compared to protein foam, AFFF will put the fire out with about one third the application rate. In other words, on a gallon-for-gallon basis, AFFF will put the fire out three times as fast with only one-third as much agent. The patent on AFFF is held by the Navy. Since its adoption by the Navy, it has become the standard foam agent in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and most foreign military services. AFFF is now the primary agent at almost all civilian airports in the United States. In a survey of the 25 largest airports in the U.S., 80% were using AFFF that is procured to the U.S. military specification. However, a potential problem now involves AFFF—an emerging environmental issue that could have future ramifications.

Training

Page 40 talks about fires.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA432176

 

Agustín... I know about your long experience in the maritime industry... so I'm extremely curious to know the why of your question...

For burning fuels, what I recall is (not always) the use of "foamy" liquids instead of plain water. Common fuels being less dense than water will float, so, what you are doing is actually displacing the whole thing somewhere else. In engine rooms and cargo holds the commonest is CO2 ((if you hear the alarm, please vacate NOW!). Maybe on main deck, if you are throwing it overboard, it would be fine (?) as in the video.

A much modern system is basically pressurized water sprayed from the nozzles in the ceiling. We are talking of kind of a fog, not a shower. It helps in suffocating the fire and cooling down while using a moderate amount of water. Do not forget that in vessels, flooded spaces do compromise stability (free surfaces in play).

You still use plain sea water to cool down bulkheads, to discourage propagation. We did precisely that in a fire on board caused by sparks coming from the funnel which started a fire on one of our lifeboats and in the emergency generator room. Thanks that, the tank located just few meters from the wheelhouse, with some tons of diesel oil did not take fire.

 

All of us know how a CE works, but how many have seen the actual thermodynamics in action?

That's why I liked it.

One thing I especially liked is how it shows very clearly that a LOT of the fuel's energy is pushed out the exhaust. It's essentially still burning as the exhaust valve opens. That's one reason the ICE is so inefficient.

 

One thing I especially liked is how it shows very clearly that a LOT of the fuel's energy is pushed out the exhaust. It's essentially still burning as the exhaust valve opens. That's one reason the ICE is so inefficient.

Both intake & exhaust. Thus, variable displacement.

 

Maybe he will do the same with a modern engine with full emissions control being visible.

 

Maybe he will do the same with a modern engine with full emissions control being visible.

The damn fan belt isn't even visible on modern engines!

 

One thing I especially liked is how it shows very clearly that a LOT of the fuel's energy is pushed out the exhaust. It's essentially still burning as the exhaust valve opens. That's one reason the ICE is so inefficient.

The acrylic head with the offset spark lowers compression significantly. Looking at the cross-section gives a huge increase to the compressed volume when the piston is at top dead center. An engine like that will have a 7:1 or 8:1 compression ratio. After tripling the compressed volume the compression ratio will be down to 3:1 or less. At that compression ratio the concentration of oxygen (in molecules per volume) is 1/3 of the concentration of the standard design.

Reaction rate kinetics would indicate that the fuel would burn at least 3x faster in an 8:1 compression engine.

 

The acrylic head with the offset spark lowers compression significantly.

I don't disagree, but how can you be sure? It's still cool, but a lot less interesting if it's an artifact.

 

I don't disagree, but how can you be sure? It's still cool, but a lot less interesting if it's an artifact.

The downards resultant force depends heavily on the geometry of the explosion propagation, which is a half-sphere that has its center at the ignition spark. That is why modern cylinders have a different geometry at the top.

That change in geometry is even more notorious in diesel engines, because the explosion propagates from a torch-like emission originating at the injectors.

 

Again, I don't disagree that a change in compression would cause artifacts in addition to the spark placement, but how are you inferring that the compression is lower with the acrylic head?