Aluminum/magnesium Alloys Options

[Bill Duke]

Hello, and welcome to the forums.

I found an interesting article about Magnalium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnalium#Uses,

(edit) quote added
"Although they are generally more expensive than aluminium, the high strength, low density, and greater workability of alloys with low amounts of magnesium leads to their use in aircraft[2] and automobile parts. Alloys with about 50% magnesium are brittle and corrode easily, which makes them unsuitable for most engineering uses. However, these alloys are flammable when powdered, are more resistant to corrosion than pure magnesium, and are more reactive than pure aluminium and are therefore used in pyrotechnics as a metal fuel and to produce sparks."

I didn't know about its' use in pyrotechnics as well as aircraft skins.

cheers, lunk

Interesting to know, lunk.. I now wonder why they use aluminum and magnesium in any combination in airplanes given it's flammable nature under certain conditions. Must have much to do with the weight. You would think the use of those carbon materials similar to those used in bicycles would be an ideal material. But, again, what do I know as a retired carpenter!

[dMz]

Interesting to know, lunk.. I now wonder why they use aluminum and magnesium in any combination in airplanes given it's flammable nature under certain conditions. Must have much to do with the weight. You would think the use of those carbon materials similar to those used in bicycles would be an ideal material. But, again, what do I know as a retired carpenter!

Hi again Bill D.,

The new B787 is making heavy use of composites:
http://www.designnews.com/index.asp?layout...cleid=CA6441583

It appears that there has been a problem in the composite wing [stub] box though:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20650/?a=f

[albertchampion]

why is it that i doubt that you are a "retired" carpenter?

but, perhaps you are. were you a member of a carpenter's union, by the way?

if so, what local in what state?

the reason i wonder about you is your desire to promote the notion that aluminum aircraft alloys have an intrinsic tendency to vaporize when exposed to any level of elevated temperatures.

i have been studying aviation accidents for well over 30 years. i have yet to encounter one where the entirety of the aircraft disappeared via vaporization.

i suppose it could have occurred for some uninvestigated aircraft accident, but for all those investigated accidents, there is always a virtually complete bit of debris.

the finest illustration of this was twa800. purportedly blown out of the sky as the result of a jetA explosion[hah] and subsequent fire.

as you clearly don't recall, all the pieces of that bird were collected. and it was reassembled in a hangar on long island. virtually no major component was missing. virtually no structural component of that bird was missing because of vaporization.

it has long been my assertion that the aircraft purportedly involved in the events of 11/09/01 could have been as completely reassembled from the collision site debris. if anyone had wanted to do that. if there had been any aircraft debris to reassemble.

as to critical turbine components. it has been a long-time, but i used to know and fish with the chief engineer of howmet. he was an interesting individual. one of the few individuals that graduated from harvard as a metallurgist, as an undergraduate before ww2. and then after that war, returned for his masters.

harvard as significant player in metallurgy goes unnoticed. it is a significant player.

my friend's insight was that critical jet engine components had to be fabricated from nickel alloys in a homogenous crystalline state.

for many years, the process to produce these massive crystalline components was proprietary.

suffice it to say, they had extraordinary high temperature strength. and were highly impervious to melting, let alone vaporization.

the modern centrifugal compressor aircraft engines are fabricated using the most exotic high-temperature capable alloys ever devised.

no jet A fire at atmospheric could have "disappeared" those components.

[Bill Duke]

why is it that i doubt that you are a "retired" carpenter?

but, perhaps you are. were you a member of a carpenter's union, by the way?

if so, what local in what state?

the reason i wonder about you is your desire to promote the notion that aluminum aircraft alloys have an intrinsic tendency to vaporize when exposed to any level of elevated temperatures.

i have been studying aviation accidents for well over 30 years. i have yet to encounter one where the entirety of the aircraft disappeared via vaporization.

i suppose it could have occurred for some uninvestigated aircraft accident, but for all those investigated accidents, there is always a virtually complete bit of debris.

the finest illustration of this was twa800. purportedly blown out of the sky as the result of a jetA explosion[hah] and subsequent fire.

as you clearly don't recall, all the pieces of that bird were collected. and it was reassembled in a hangar on long island. virtually no major component was missing. virtually no structural component of that bird was missing because of vaporization.

it has long been my assertion that the aircraft purportedly involved in the events of 11/09/01 could have been as completely reassembled from the collision site debris. if anyone had wanted to do that. if there had been any aircraft debris to reassemble.

as to critical turbine components. it has been a long-time, but i used to know and fish with the chief engineer of howmet. he was an interesting individual. one of the few individuals that graduated from harvard as a metallurgist, as an undergraduate before ww2. and then after that war, returned for his masters.

harvard as significant player in metallurgy goes unnoticed. it is a significant player.

my friend's insight was that critical jet engine components had to be fabricated from nickel alloys in a homogenous crystalline state.

for many years, the process to produce these massive crystalline components was proprietary.

suffice it to say, they had extraordinary high temperature strength. and were highly impervious to melting, let alone vaporization.

the modern centrifugal compressor aircraft engines are fabricated using the most exotic high-temperature capable alloys ever devised.

no jet A fire at atmospheric could have "disappeared" those components.

albertchampion..Wow...Are you barking up the wrong tree.....I Am a retired carpenter, among other careers. I worked for myself, so never belonged to any union. I now live in McAlpin, Florida and as an only child, care for my 91 year old mother.

If you follow the above thread, you'll see where I am coming from. Been a truther for several years now..about five.

I started this inquiry as a result of a character ...Kem P. ....posting on a CD article about WTC 7. Somehow it evolved into our arguing over the events at the Pentagon. Personally, I have NEVER accepted the fact that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Truthfully, I have my doubts that any planes hit the towers. AND, I have absolutely NO DOUBT that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Silverstein himself said so.

If you were to follow the thread on Common Dreams that started on Saturday about the new NIST report/lies about WTC 7, you may understand who I am more clearly. I post as Willybill.

My last comment on that thread last night was questioning WHY the government has not issued a document detailing the parts that were found at ALL the sites and the serial #'s, so they may be compared to the actual planes that supposedly were destroyed in the attacks. Obviously they cannot..along with the 80 some odd videos they confiscated.

Apologies for any confusion, but I have NO AGENDA whatsoever other than to bring to light the lies told by the US government.

Incidentally, you are welcome to check with Tom at 911dvdproject.com..he knows me well and will attest to my sincerity.

[Bill Duke]

Hi again Bill D.,

The new B787 is making heavy use of composites:
http://www.designnews.com/index.asp?layout...cleid=CA6441583

It appears that there has been a problem in the composite wing [stub] box though:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20650/?a=f

Hello, dMole...Thanks for the additional info. Interesting to know that they are using composites to some degree.

Also interesting to see that this fellow albert-something actually thinks I'm some sort of mole...lol. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply an individual, like Diogenes, searching for truth and honesty.

NO attachments...no agenda.

Hope I did not offend him in any way.

Thanks again, BD

[dMz]

Here's another use for aluminum that damn few are likely to know: hydrogen production from water (the Cornish Patent).

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4702894.html

http://keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm

Note how Purdue is now (Feb. 20, 2008) claiming a "new invention" to produce hydrogen (20 years after Cornish's Oct. 27, 1987 patent).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80219133226.htm

All the lies that are "printed to fit," even at a science/research publication...

Has anybody got any solid platinum wire just laying around that they can donate to a good cause? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

EDIT: The European/World patent goes back to 1982 apparently.
"30 June 1982 European patent Publication N° 0055134A1 allowing a car effectively running on water and little aluminum ..." BMW was aware of this and duplicated the system back in Nov 1981, based upon their letter at the above link.

[Omega892R09]

Just to straighten a few things.

Titanium is used for a number of components in a gas turbine engine but not usually for turbine blades - this job, at the hotter end of the gas flow, is for nickel alloys which as albertchampion has stated are often produced from single crystals.

There are three common methods of casting turbine blades, chosen on the basis of cost, operating temperature and life expectancy. The cheapest method is Equiax, followed by directionally solidified and finally single crystal in order of cost and durability, cheapest first and most durable being single crystal which has creep limit life of about double that of Equiax.

Turbine blades operate at a temperature of around 1600 degrees Centigrade and are cooled by air ducted internally from the hot end of compressor stage. Cooling is relative here as the temperature of that air as it is bled from the high pressure end of the compressor can be 700 degrees Centigrade. For this reason nickel materials are used for the high pressure, and temperature, stages of the compressor and also combustion section components.

Titanium is used for the LP compressor stages and now in the ducted fan section of such engines in preference to composite materials which had problems with impact damage, although effort has been put into overcoming this.

Titanium is also used for structural components of the compressor and containment casings around fast rotating, highly stressed, components.

By purpose, much of the material in a jet engine is created with high temperatures in mind else there would be little point in using them and the chances of them being vaporized is so minimal as to be discounted – this would go for the ident’ plates also.

My sources are the Rolls Royce book The Jet Engine of which I have a recent edition covering the Trent series and older editions of Avon 100 and 200 series vintage.

Sanders may know of another use for titanium - as roofing tiles in Japan. I found a referrence to this in Materials for Engineers and Technicians by Raymond A Higgins, Fourth Edition 2006 ISBN 0-7506-6850-4. This book contains useful Temperature Equilibrium (Phase) diagrams for various metal alloys and is worth a look for those interested in materials technologies - has sections on plastics, ceramics and composites as well as ferrous and non-ferrous metals and alloys, such a book should be presented as an adjunct to any NIST report. If more people understood phase diagrams then NIST would have a tougher job convincing folk that they have done a proper job.

I had intended last evening to launch into a treatise on magnesium and aluminium alloys and their flammability, or normal lack thereof, but internet connectivity dropped out AGAIN! This given my 20 years in naval aviation working with these materials and being in the close proximity of a fire or three and a crash or two.

Most wheel fires are caused by friction heating and bursting brake unit seals with the leaking hydraulic fluid catching fire. Even then it is not all that often the mag' alloy of the wheel istelf starts to burn.

True one should not use water on such a fire - because the sudden temperature drop will cause the cast metal to fracture and the tyre pressure will do the rest. This is why one does not approach a burning wheel (on anything) from side on. For general aircraft fires there were dry powder extinguishers (DPE) but the standard DPE if used on a mag' alloy wheel would cause too rapid a temperature drop with a resultant explosion. For such fires a special black powder extinguisher was available.

It is unlikely that a free air carbon fuel fire would heat such alloys enough to cause ignition. Aircaft have often suffered local fires in the air - even from petrol (AVGAS) fires and not been totally destroyed as many WW2 bomber crews can attest.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jul 7 2008, 03:19 PM

[albertchampion]

my apologies billduke.

the way i read you was that you were promoting the notion that modern aircraft skin alloys could vaporize when subjected to some atmospheric incendiary event. not bloody likely.

as to the "truths" about the events of that day in september, in a very real sense, getting it down to the last i dotted, the last t crossed, is unnecessary now. the monstrosity of "official" prevarications is the brontosaurus[much larger than an elephant] in the room. and old bronty has a bad case of the "trots".

still, i encounter many "engineers" who continue to support the usg's version of events. i notice, however, that they are beginning to don scuba tanks and scuba regulators. and they aren't preparing to compete in beijing.

as ee cummings identified it, ca pue is growing. perhaps we "terrorists" can assist in the electorate discovering the source of that stink.

now, dmole....

pt is an interesting element. it is perhaps the most catalytically reactive element that i have sometimes used in my manufacturing operations. and it is a major player in the thermal pairs that we use in our high-temp measuring thermocouples.

in the presence of methane, when hot, it will initiate catalytic ignition.

and as i am sure you are aware, the refining, petrochemical industries are undoubtedly the largest users of pt as catalysts for their processing of hydrocarbons.

for your experiment, how much pt would you be wanting? and in what form? wire? plate?

i am pretty certain that i have some scrap 100% pt square wire[.040 x .040] hanging around in my vaults. and i am equally certain that i have similarly dimensioned 90pt10ir.

this is very expensive material today. a very small amount i might be willing to contribute.

even though i think your experiment to be quite unnecessary.

which leads me to a consideration of fuel cells. and the hydrogen economy. what a notion of passed methane.

[lunk]

The concept of the additional heat of vaporized magnalium igniting, and creating enough heat to explain the weakening of the steel to concur with the OCT of collapse, is really, really grasping at straws.

imo, lunk

but maybe that's not what you're getting at.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jul 7 2008, 10:29 PM

[Bill Duke]

my apologies billduke.

the way i read you was that you were promoting the notion that modern aircraft skin alloys could vaporize when subjected to some atmospheric incendiary event. not bloody likely.

as to the "truths" about the events of that day in september, in a very real sense, getting it down to the last i dotted, the last t crossed, is unnecessary now. the monstrosity of "official" prevarications is the brontosaurus[much larger than an elephant] in the room. and old bronty has a bad case of the "trots".

still, i encounter many "engineers" who continue to support the usg's version of events. i notice, however, that they are beginning to don scuba tanks and scuba regulators. and they aren't preparing to compete in beijing.

as ee cummings identified it, ca pue is growing. perhaps we "terrorists" can assist in the electorate discovering the source of that stink.

now, dmole....

pt is an interesting element. it is perhaps the most catalytically reactive element that i have sometimes used in my manufacturing operations. and it is a major player in the thermal pairs that we use in our high-temp measuring thermocouples.

in the presence of methane, when hot, it will initiate catalytic ignition.

and as i am sure you are aware, the refining, petrochemical industries are undoubtedly the largest users of pt as catalysts for their processing of hydrocarbons.

for your experiment, how much pt would you be wanting? and in what form? wire? plate?

i am pretty certain that i have some scrap 100% pt square wire[.040 x .040] hanging around in my vaults. and i am equally certain that i have similarly dimensioned 90pt10ir.

this is very expensive material today. a very small amount i might be willing to contribute.

even though i think your experiment to be quite unnecessary.

which leads me to a consideration of fuel cells. and the hydrogen economy. what a notion of passed methane.

Albert...No problem..Who can blame anyone for being paranoid in a paranoid universe?

Have you heard that some company is attempting to contract with DHS to provide wrist bands that deliver a shock to any airline passenger that gets out of hand?

I too have a pilot friend who accepts the government crap. Beats the hell out of me how any thinking being can accept their story.

Regards, BD

[dMz]

Alt. energy stuff (Cornish Patent, Al, H2, Pt) split to:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13102

[Bettawrekonize]

Shortly after 9/11 happened, I started looking into explaining things (and a lot of things still go unexplained). After reading about the occurring temperatures, it didn't take me very long to figure out that the symptoms were that of magnesium and, from there, it didn't take me very long to realize that airplanes often have magnesium parts. However, I still had problems buying this for a long period of time because I ran into the same problem that you guys ran into, and that is, how did the magnesium get ignited? I figured that they wouldn't put magnesium on a plane in a form that could be easily ignited because it would be too dangerous and they have no reason to, so they would tend to only have it in bulk, which is a form that's hard to ignite. Eventually, I figured out a very obvious answer.

While magnesium does burn at much higher temperatures than what would be required to melt the beams, if memory serves me correctly, magnesium in bulk requires hotter temperatures to ignite than the optimally hot temperatures of jet fuel (or than jet fuel under optimal burning conditions). It's not that much hotter, but it's enough to consider the possibility of ignition highly unlikely. I also don't really buy the notion that the jet fuel was under optimal burning conditions. However, from my understanding, magnesium in smaller amounts (not in bulk) can burn at lower temperatures. From my understanding, fuses on fireworks often have magnesium and it ignites despite the fact that your lighter or matches don't burn at jet fuel temperatures. It seems unlikely that an airplane would have magnesium parts in non - bulk for two reasons. There is no use for it and it would be too dangerous. However, if the airplane crashed and it did have magnesium parts in bulk, the impact could have fractured some of that magnesium making it easier to ignite. Once ignited, it would be easier for the fractured parts to ignite the bulk of the magnesium around it (or the bulk that the fractures are attached to, that is, the part of the bulk that is fractured might ignite and that could spread to the rest of the bulk). All of this still seems highly unlikely, but there does seem to be a lot of evidence that magnesium was involved.

http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index....showtopic=20220

Yeah, the magnesium is in bulk, but when the airplane hits the twin towers, is the magnesium still in bulk after facing such impact? Maybe not so much so anymore. After receiving such impact, it might be in smaller pieces, making it easier to ignite. I still think this whole thing is unlikely, but it's the best explanation I have so far.

[Bettawrekonize]

Basically, after the airplane hit the towers, the impact of the hit may have re - shaped the magnesium in such a way that would make it easier to ignite.

This post has been edited by Bettawrekonize: Nov 20 2008, 12:00 AM

[dMz]

Yeah, the magnesium is in bulk, but when the airplane hits the twin towers, is the magnesium still in bulk after facing such impact? Maybe not so much so anymore. After receiving such impact, it might be in smaller pieces, making it easier to ignite. I still think this whole thing is unlikely, but it's the best explanation I have so far.

Basically, after the airplane hit the towers, the impact of the hit may have re - shaped the magnesium in such a way that would make it easier to ignite.

Interesting Betta,

The "mights" and "maybes" are a little unsourced and weak IMHO. Did you read my posts #4 and #6 on this same thread then?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746072

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746075

[Omega892R09]

Basically, after the airplane hit the towers, the impact of the hit may have re - shaped the magnesium in such a way that would make it easier to ignite.

And in what way would the magnesium alloy have been reshaped?

Please detail the process and why it lead to easier ignition.

[Bettawrekonize]

Original: Omega892R09
And in what way would the magnesium alloy have been reshaped?

Well, if you threw a phone against a wall at 100 miles per hour, it's not difficult to imagine that it could re - shape it, breaking it into smaller pieces. Three things one has to consider are, how fast did the object hit the wall, how hard is the wall, and how hard is the object hitting the wall.

Please detail the process and why it lead to easier ignition.

Like I said, the whole thing still seems unlikely, but after hitting the towers, there is a tendency to stop the airplane (if you throw a phone against the wall, the wall has a tendency to stop the phone suddenly). It's not hard to imagine that things that go at a very high speed and come to an almost sudden stop tend to break. A breakage from such an impact can be said to be a reshapement of the original form. When a car hits a wall at high speeds, due to crash tests, it tends to re - shape the front end.

Original: dMole
The "mights" and "maybes" are a little unsourced and weak IMHO. Did you read my posts #4 and #6 on this same thread then?

My ideas are just intended as food for thought, something to consider. I do agree, there does seem to be many loopholes, but that's not to say that the idea shouldn't be proposed. While our current theories all seem far fetched, brainstorming is a good thing and could help guide us in the right direction. Until someone can just come up here and give us all the answers, I think the best we can do is brainstorm new ideas and throw things out there (even if they seem ridiculous at first, because everything we have thus far seems ridiculous, so lets at least try to look for less ridiculous explanations), examine them, try to improve them, etc... and, by peer reviewing each others new ideas and scrutinizing it and improving upon them, we can hopefully move in the right direction. I don't claim to have all the answers, and the fact that I do indicate uncertainty in my posts should indicate that these ideas are just intended as food for thought, not as definite answers that we should all just accept.

This post has been edited by Bettawrekonize: Nov 20 2008, 01:36 PM

[Omega892R09]

And in what way would the magnesium alloy have been reshaped?

Please detail the process and why it lead to easier ignition.

Like I said, the whole thing still seems unlikely, but after hitting the towers, there is a tendency to stop the airplane (if you throw a phone against the wall, the wall has a tendency to stop the phone suddenly). It's not hard to imagine that things that go at a very high speed and come to an almost sudden stop tend to break. A breakage from such an impact can be said to be a reshapement of the original form. When a car hits a wall at high speeds, due to crash tests, it tends to re - shape the front end.

My question had a specific qualifier, emphasised above, because I guessed that you may try to skate around the answer.

So it would appear that you cannot detail the process and fully answer the question.

I suspect that you flunk such questions in exam's.

Please note that I have aviation engineering and materials experience and qualifications. Do you?

[Bettawrekonize]

When you break things, more surface area tends to be exposed to the outside. Say you had a cube and the dimensions are 5 by 5 by 5 ft. If you cut the cube in half, now you have two cuboids with more surface area exposed to the outside (and the surface area to volume ration is higher). If this were magnesium, this would make it easier to ignite, especially since the surface area to volume ratio is higher (increasing the surface area exposed to the outside heat per unit volume would make it easier to heat up and ignite). Once some of the magnesium heats up and ignites, it could burn at extremely high temperatures and this could spread to surrounding magnesium. If you in any way modify the magnesium to change the surface area to volume ratio, you could make it easier to ignite. Also note, it's not just about the surface area to volume ratio of the entire thing combined, it's about the surface area to volume ratio of each and every intricacy. Say you had a cube of magnesium and you cut it. If you cut it in half, each side would be just as easy to ignite. However, it's possible to cut off a small slice of magnesium such that the surface area to volume ratio of that slice is high. This would be easier to ignite. But say you left a fraction of that slice still attached to the cube as a whole, just the end (so you cut, say, 90 percent through but you didn't cut that slice completely off). Furthermore, assume you bent it backwards and exposed it to fire. It would be easier to ignite and it could spread to the entire cube. So it's not just about the total surface area to volume ratio, it's also about the intricacies. All of this must be considered when trying to determine what happened (do I claim to have the answers, no, I'm just pointing out what needs to be considered). How did the impact affect the magnesium, how did it re - shape it, could it have re - shaped it in a way that would make certain portions of the magnesium easier to ignite, etc...

This post has been edited by Bettawrekonize: Nov 20 2008, 02:00 PM

[Omega892R09]

But say you left a fraction of that slice still attached to the cube as a whole, just the end (so you cut, say, 90 percent through but you didn't cut that slice completely off). Furthermore, assume you bent it backwards and exposed it to fire. It would be easier to ignite and it could spread to the entire cube. So it's not just about the total surface area to volume ratio, it's also about the intricacies.

Have you tried this experimentally?

The fact that you may believe this suggests that you have not.

From my own personal experience of air crashes and fires I would say that you are grasping at straws.

Besides the dynamics of aircraft components during a crash sequence does not lend to small slivers of material being left in enough quantity to ensure combustion of all mag' alloy components. Many mag' alloy components are substantial castings or forgings and would not become misshapen in the way that you suggest, they would behave like canon balls of old – through shots.

Note that the fires in WTC2 were practically out, so no sustained heat for long enough to ignite even mag' alloy forgings however distorted.

EDIT: punctuation

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Nov 20 2008, 04:03 PM

[dMz]

Aircraft wheels look to commonly be either AZ91 or AZ91E magnesium alloy.

http://www.hitchcockusa.com/engineering/magnesium.html

Here are some physical properties of AZ91 magnesium alloys:

http://members.tripod.com/Mg/asm_prop.htm