More on fuel
A reference was made in an earlier post to (fuel) chemists seemingly having disappeared from the thread. Well this chemist has not entirely disappeared and has continued to read all the posts on this admirable thread.
I have added nothing, having nothing new to say but a reiteration may be useful – the mods will decide.
My hypothesis (- a careful use of English) remains the same i.e. that either a stratification of the fuel as a function of relative density and / or water scavenging additives such as the friends of epoxy ethane et al, may have fed either low Relative Molecular Mass fuel components or scavenged water at sufficiently high concentrations when increased thrust was commanded by the FADECs, to induce cavitation sufficient to reduce effective flow rates to the donkeys at circa 700 feet.
The hypothesis sort of fits the incomplete I am sure evidence currently available in public domain but only up to a point is the problem and I am very happy to wait for the AAIB final report. The time scale for their reportage is entirely consistent with their SOPs and I have the very highest level of respect for these chaps.
The carefully preserved circa 9 tonnes of fuel are now of course very well mixed and (just one) problem with my hypothesis is the sheer complexity of replicating the conditions. As someone who calls himself an experimental chemist I blanch at the thought of the experimental need to (i) cold soak the necessary tonnes of fresh samples of Chinese fuel (ii) putting said fuel on top of the right amount of LHR fuel left in a 777 cold soaked main wing tank (iii) using the same rigs and (iv) then replicating in full the thermal history of the fuel back to LHR as far as it is known whilst (v) pumping from this tank in line with the data and (vi) constantly measuring the Heat of Combustion of the pumped fuel.
We need to wait.
Last edited by chris weston; 5th May 2008 at 09:52.
Reason: type face