Huge black clouds over Lewes (sirens in background)
- Thread starter Wrong-Direction
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
half time scores
Well-known member
Commonly held non fact that Aluminium burns.
Because of the widespread use of aluminiumalloys in building, transport, home appliances andoffshore structures, it is necessary to addressthe issue of aluminium and fire and to answer thequestion, ‘does aluminium burn?’.
The answer is, of course, “No”. Each yearhundreds of thousands of tonnes of aluminiumscrap are fed into remelt furnaces and heated up to and beyond the melting point. The aluminiummelts when the temperature exceeds the meltingpoint, it does not burn. If it did, the recycling ofaluminium would not be possible.
During and following the Falklands conflict between Great Britain and Argentina, severalmisleading statements appeared in the press,suggesting that aluminium alloys, used in the superstructure of some of the ships that weresunk, had burned and contributed to the loss of these ships. Of the nine ships sunk in this conflict, only three had aluminium superstructures. All three vessels had steel hulls and in each case the damage inflicted suggested that these vessels would have sunk regardless of the materials of the superstructure. In no case did aluminium burn. HMS Sheffield, the first British destroyer to be sunk, was widely reported to have an aluminium
superstructure. This was, in fact, an all-steel ship with a steel hull and a steel superstructure. The Defence White Paper published on 14 December1982 concluded, ‘there is no evidence that aluminium has contributed to the loss of any vessel’. Similar conclusions were reached by the Ministry of Defence Working Party convened to review ship design. The Chairman of that Working
Party was reported in the Financial Times, 24 December 1982, ‘I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that any ship was lost because of the use of aluminium in its construction, nor was there any evidence that aluminium or aluminium alloys had burned or suffered from a series of small explosions. Aluminium, like any other material, has advantages and disadvantages in any given
set of circumstances. Where the balance is in favour, aluminium should be used in warships or elsewhere.’
In fire tests on aluminium materials, when the
temperature exceeds the melting point, in the range 600-660°C, the aluminium surface exposed to the fire can be seen to melt, but it does not burn. At the end of the fire test, the metal remains as a re solidified pool.
http://www.alfed.org.uk/files/Fact sheets/11-aluminium-and-fire.pdf
Because of the widespread use of aluminiumalloys in building, transport, home appliances andoffshore structures, it is necessary to addressthe issue of aluminium and fire and to answer thequestion, ‘does aluminium burn?’.
The answer is, of course, “No”. Each yearhundreds of thousands of tonnes of aluminiumscrap are fed into remelt furnaces and heated up to and beyond the melting point. The aluminiummelts when the temperature exceeds the meltingpoint, it does not burn. If it did, the recycling ofaluminium would not be possible.
During and following the Falklands conflict between Great Britain and Argentina, severalmisleading statements appeared in the press,suggesting that aluminium alloys, used in the superstructure of some of the ships that weresunk, had burned and contributed to the loss of these ships. Of the nine ships sunk in this conflict, only three had aluminium superstructures. All three vessels had steel hulls and in each case the damage inflicted suggested that these vessels would have sunk regardless of the materials of the superstructure. In no case did aluminium burn. HMS Sheffield, the first British destroyer to be sunk, was widely reported to have an aluminium
superstructure. This was, in fact, an all-steel ship with a steel hull and a steel superstructure. The Defence White Paper published on 14 December1982 concluded, ‘there is no evidence that aluminium has contributed to the loss of any vessel’. Similar conclusions were reached by the Ministry of Defence Working Party convened to review ship design. The Chairman of that Working
Party was reported in the Financial Times, 24 December 1982, ‘I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that any ship was lost because of the use of aluminium in its construction, nor was there any evidence that aluminium or aluminium alloys had burned or suffered from a series of small explosions. Aluminium, like any other material, has advantages and disadvantages in any given
set of circumstances. Where the balance is in favour, aluminium should be used in warships or elsewhere.’
In fire tests on aluminium materials, when the
temperature exceeds the melting point, in the range 600-660°C, the aluminium surface exposed to the fire can be seen to melt, but it does not burn. At the end of the fire test, the metal remains as a re solidified pool.
http://www.alfed.org.uk/files/Fact sheets/11-aluminium-and-fire.pdf
pearl
Well-known member
armed police at Lewes Stn this morning?
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,786
Insel affe
HellBilly
Are you sure that's not shoreditch
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
There's armed police at a lot of stations.
Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms
King of Sussex
Either they weren't there at 0720 or they're encouraging terrorists to use the side entrance
pearl
Well-known member
It was about 8.30 and they (two of them) were facing the main exit
They are at alot of stations round the country, I was at Redhill yesterday and they had two armed policeman walking around the platforms.
I expected to be met by a barrage of gun-toting plod when I arrived at Brighton station yesterday evening around 1845. One (unarmed) copper on the concourse and that was it!
Personally, I hope it stays that way!