Thread Content
This post was last edited by ljtjbx on 2015-10-8 07:50. The Americans are testing a super-high molecular weight polymer as an additive to be added to aviation fuel; this way, such fuel will not explode when it becomes foggy due to impact (there are videos showing how it is added) Or is it not allowed to add it at all? ). Similar polymers existed back in the 1980s; the Americans even crashed a 727 aircraft for final testing, but the results were not satisfactory. The project was restarted after 9/11, and it wasn’t until 2015 that relatively satisfactory results were achieved. It seems that innovation is truly not easy. Meanwhile, domestic literature uses water-in-oil microcapsules for flame retardancy and explosion suppression of diesel; why is there such a big difference in the approaches taken by these two groups? Which one is the right path?
For technological innovation and R&D, there needs to be a group of people who are willing to think about things and take action. It really doesn’t matter which one is the right path; as long as it is safe, reliable, and environmentally friendly and cost-effective, it’s a good approach.
The Americans used a 727 for testing; we just added a surfactant and stirred it, and that was enough. It seems like the Americans are really stupid, isn’t it? The cost issue here is really important!
After reading the posts about emulsified diesel, I learned that although it has many advantages, its shelf life is short; moreover, if it separates into layers in the fuel tank, the engine won’t start. Additionally, the emulsifiers used can cause damage to the engine. Someone in the forum discussed the corrosive effect of distilled water on stainless steel. Therefore, the idea of using emulsified diesel does not have practical significance at present.
Metabolomics training course, multivariate statistical analysis; those who are interested are invited to visit the official website of “Shanghai AQU Bio” for more details