OOTT: Our First Mutiny

R

Rich Grise

Guest
Well, it was on the news tonight - a squad of troops refused to haul
fuel, that they said was "contaminated" - a very handy excuse, since
the trucks had previously been used to haul "jet fuel," and on this
particular trip, they were loaded with "diesel fuel," but had not
"purged" the "jet fuel" so the "diesel fuel" was "contaminated."

That's kinda like saying your candle wax was contaminated with
paraffin.

Anyhow, there were like 18 Army reservists (!) who did a sit-down,
of which five are _being held_ as "ringleaders."

This could get interesting!

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:22:52 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Well, it was on the news tonight - a squad of troops refused to haul
fuel, that they said was "contaminated" - a very handy excuse, since
the trucks had previously been used to haul "jet fuel," and on this
particular trip, they were loaded with "diesel fuel," but had not
"purged" the "jet fuel" so the "diesel fuel" was "contaminated."

That's kinda like saying your candle wax was contaminated with
paraffin.

Anyhow, there were like 18 Army reservists (!) who did a sit-down,
of which five are _being held_ as "ringleaders."

This could get interesting!

Cheers!
Rich
Click to expand...
*Like* 18 Army reservists? I thought they WERE 18 Army reservists.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
 
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> says...
that they said was "contaminated" - a very handy excuse, since
the trucks had previously been used to haul "jet fuel," and on this
particular trip, they were loaded with "diesel fuel," but had not
"purged" the "jet fuel" so the "diesel fuel" was "contaminated."

That's kinda like saying your candle wax was contaminated with
paraffin.
Click to expand...
Diesel fuel is NOT the same as jet fuel. They use #2 Diesel in
hot climates such as Iraq, and it's not the same thing at all.

Jet Fuel (JP-8) Is very pure, very low-sulfur kerosene
with no additives at all. Sulfur adds lubricity in a
Diesel but is bad for a jet engine. Same for additives

#1 Diesel is kerosene that has more sulfur and may have
lubricity additives, detergent, and/or cetane boosters added.
It is used in cold climates.

#2 Diesel high sulfur is #2 heating oil without the red dye that
indicates that road tax has not been paid. It may have
lubricity, detergent, and/or cetane boosters added.

#2 Diesel low sulfur is #2 heating oil with reduced sulfur and added
lubricity additives. It may have detergent, and/or cetane
boosters added.

Arctic Diesel is #1 Diesel with further anti-gel additives (low
pour point) and very little wax (low cloud point).

Bunker C Diesel is a sticky black asphalt-like oil used in the
majority of large Diesel engines, and in industrial boilers and
furnaces.

All of these fuels vary in heating value, cetane, cloud point,
pour point, sulfur, wax, and additives, and we are talking about
entirely different kinds of base hydrocarbons as well.

That being said, #2 Diesel can be contaminated with a high percentage
of JP-8 with no problems, but JP-8 cannot be contaminated with even a
small amount of #2 Diesel.

Also, the issue as reported in the press was that they objected to
going on a suicide mission -- going out without an armed escort --
in order to deliver fuel that they had already tried to deliver, only
to have the delivery rejected because it tested as being contaminated.
 
More than you ever wanted to know:
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/purchase/noa/contracts/t1845.shtml#instruct

Don't miss these exiting sections:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR FUEL OIL #1, #2D AND WINTER MIX

ASTM STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR FUEL OIL

FEDERAL SPECIFICATION FOR DIESEL FUEL

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........
 
Rich Grise wrote:

*Like* 18 Army reservists? I thought they WERE 18 Army reservists.

Sorry - I was speaking slang - I wasn't sure if that was the number
I had actually heard, or if it had been given as an estimate. It was
on the radio news, so didn't really pay that much attention until
I heard something like "refused to follow orders..."
Click to expand...
So why not give us a link?

--
Mike Page BEng(Hons) MIEE www.eclectic-web.co.uk
Quiet! Tony's battling the forces of conservatism, whoever we are.
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:02:29 +0100, Mike Page wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

*Like* 18 Army reservists? I thought they WERE 18 Army reservists.

Sorry - I was speaking slang - I wasn't sure if that was the number
I had actually heard, or if it had been given as an estimate. It was
on the radio news, so didn't really pay that much attention until
I heard something like "refused to follow orders..."

So why not give us a link?
Click to expand...
It was on the radio. I'll do a search ...
http://www.google.com/search?q=soldiers+refuse+orders+iraq

HTH!
Rich
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:02:29 +0100, Mike Page wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

*Like* 18 Army reservists? I thought they WERE 18 Army reservists.

Sorry - I was speaking slang - I wasn't sure if that was the number
I had actually heard, or if it had been given as an estimate. It was
on the radio news, so didn't really pay that much attention until
I heard something like "refused to follow orders..."

So why not give us a link?
Click to expand...
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/10/15/670948-ap.html

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:22:52 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Well, it was on the news tonight - a squad of troops refused to haul
fuel, that they said was "contaminated" - a very handy excuse, since
the trucks had previously been used to haul "jet fuel," and on this
particular trip, they were loaded with "diesel fuel," but had not
"purged" the "jet fuel" so the "diesel fuel" was "contaminated."

That's kinda like saying your candle wax was contaminated with
paraffin.

Anyhow, there were like 18 Army reservists (!) who did a sit-down,
of which five are _being held_ as "ringleaders."

This could get interesting!

Cheers!
Rich
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/international/middleeast/16platoon.html?oref=login

It was jet fuel contaminated by diesel.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
 
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> says...

Aren't the above designations purely US types ?

AFAIK the JP fuel type designation is used for military jet fuels.

Commercial airliners run on Jet A or Jet A1.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I was thinking in terms of what the military in Iraq uses
and failed to mention commercial fuels. Thanks for pointing that out.

See
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/fuel/Tech21.h
tm
for example
Click to expand...
Really good webpage - had some info I didn't know before. It has
one minor mistake, though: "JP-7 has such a high flashpoint that
a burning match dropped into a bucket of it will not cause it to
ignite." This is true of most fuels. You can usually get away
with dropping a burning match into a bucket of gasoline; we used
to do that all the time back when we used gasoline to clean parts.
Every once in a while it would catch fire (putting the lid on
fixed that), but the match almost always went out.
 
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:32:06 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> says...

Aren't the above designations purely US types ?

AFAIK the JP fuel type designation is used for military jet fuels.

Commercial airliners run on Jet A or Jet A1.

You are correct. I was thinking in terms of what the military in Iraq uses
and failed to mention commercial fuels. Thanks for pointing that out.

See
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/fuel/Tech21.h
tm
for example

Really good webpage - had some info I didn't know before. It has
one minor mistake, though: "JP-7 has such a high flashpoint that
a burning match dropped into a bucket of it will not cause it to
ignite." This is true of most fuels. You can usually get away
with dropping a burning match into a bucket of gasoline; we used
to do that all the time back when we used gasoline to clean parts.
Every once in a while it would catch fire (putting the lid on
fixed that), but the match almost always went out.
Click to expand...
That's what they use in the SR-71. I used to work on them. The JP-7
is about the consistency of 3-in-1 oil. Heck, for all I know, it
might well _be_ 3-in-1 oil. :)

To ignite it in the engines, there's another chemical, TEB, that
they mix in, and it's pyrophoric. They spin up the engines with
a "starter cart" which has two V-8 Buick engines coupled together
and to a sort of chuck which pokes into the bottom of the engine.
It sounds like somebody doing the quarter-mile flat out, and
continuing on until the motor's about to pop, and then they
fire the jet engine. There's a flash of green/purple flame,
and the jet "catches", and the RPM goes up from there.

When the guy services the TEB, he wears a full flame-suit; the
TEB tank is pressurized with nitrogen, and there's a fire truck
parked right next to the airplane with that big nozzle on top
of the cab pointed at the guy so that if the stuff catches
fire, they can blast the guy off the top of the airplane so
he'll survive the blaze.

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:42:53 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:05:11 -0300, YD wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:22:52 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Well, it was on the news tonight - a squad of troops refused to haul
fuel, that they said was "contaminated" - a very handy excuse, since
the trucks had previously been used to haul "jet fuel," and on this
particular trip, they were loaded with "diesel fuel," but had not
"purged" the "jet fuel" so the "diesel fuel" was "contaminated."

That's kinda like saying your candle wax was contaminated with
paraffin.

Anyhow, there were like 18 Army reservists (!) who did a sit-down,
of which five are _being held_ as "ringleaders."

This could get interesting!

Cheers!
Rich

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/international/middleeast/16platoon.html?oref=login

It was jet fuel contaminated by diesel.


NO! NO! NO!

It was DEISEL fuel, "contaminated" by JET fuel.
In other words, the fuel is a red herring - they just didn't want
to drive to their certain deaths.

Please read the article carefully.
Click to expand...
From the article:

<QOUTE>
After the soldiers were released, Specialist McClenny called her
mother again and explained that the jet fuel the convoy had to carry
had been contaminated with diesel, and that because it had been
rejected by one base, it would likely be rejected by the Taji base.
</QOUTE>

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
 
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:42:53 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:05:11 -0300, YD wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:22:52 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Well, it was on the news tonight - a squad of troops refused to haul
fuel, that they said was "contaminated" - a very handy excuse, since
the trucks had previously been used to haul "jet fuel," and on this
particular trip, they were loaded with "diesel fuel," but had not
"purged" the "jet fuel" so the "diesel fuel" was "contaminated."

That's kinda like saying your candle wax was contaminated with
paraffin.

Anyhow, there were like 18 Army reservists (!) who did a sit-down,
of which five are _being held_ as "ringleaders."

This could get interesting!

Cheers!
Rich

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/16/international/middleeast/16platoon.html?oref=login

It was jet fuel contaminated by diesel.


NO! NO! NO!

It was DEISEL fuel, "contaminated" by JET fuel.
In other words, the fuel is a red herring - they just didn't want
to drive to their certain deaths.

Please read the article carefully.

Thanks,
Rich
Click to expand...
Well, this one says the other way around, but the comments are
interesting, considering the source:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-459795.php

as does this:
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=937337&tw=wn_wire_story

and this goes along with the NYT version:
http://www.world-crisis.com/news/940_0_1_0_M/

Looks like the reporters are as mixed up as the fuel.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
 
Company Commander relieved of command!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/20/iraq.reservist/index.html

As per usual- brain dead techno morons in SED pseudo-intellectualizing
over sulfer content of fuel missed the point. The CO was shit canned today.

{...snip retarded Grise mumbling ...]
 
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:36:31 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

And who in their right mind would want to drive a civilian fuel tanker
in a war zone?
Click to expand...
No one in their right mind starts wars in the first place.

Thanks,
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top