On 11/07/16 10:21, newshound wrote:
On 7/10/2016 10:23 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/07/16 00:26, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Saturday, 9 July 2016 23:52:17 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:

We really have no idea what went on in the dark ages before petrol.

You only have to visit Eastern European countries to see how transport
is still by horse and of course coal fired steam engines were all the
rage, and indeed have a renaissance in the field of transport.

The point being exactly mine; one of practicality and availability. I
am pretty sure that if he had not been hamstrung by the pre-world war
two military complacency/lack of interest and investment, Whittle
might have investigated bunker oil for his jet.

In fact I have no idea why he worked with paraffin.


Exactly. You have no idea.

There are of course sound engineering chemical and physical reasons why
he did, but you don't know them.


We can't all know everything, it would surely be more helpful to explain.

Paraffin has a fairly low viscosity, therefore is convenient to handle
(compared to bunker oil which is typically heated to 90 C). It's also
relatively pure, giving fewer problem with injectors. The sulphur in
bunker oil is also going to corrode stuff downstream, it is hard enough
finding suitable materials for gas turbine blades without making life
deliberately more difficult.

energy density, viscosity, volatility, flammability, purity,
availability out of the refineries of the day, atomisation properties...

My point was that Weather****** made it sound like some deep technical
Mystery. It wasn't. It was a sober decision taken after balancing a lot
of variables.

It has stuck because it was nearly the optimum fuel.



--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone