On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:03:24 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Doesn't a 747 have four engines?

Fair enough. But then apparently I used the takeoff figure for the amount
of air a jet sucks up, not the cruise figure which is somewhat lower.

Anyway, its still a ******** barrel scraping theory similar to the rubbish
Saab came out with in the 90s about their cars cleaning the air because of
their catalytic converters - so how come we still have smog?

Whats more , the engine is optimised to burn all the fuel injected into
it - if some of the O2 is used up burning methane then there will be unburnt
or partially burnt - ie soot - hydrocarbons chucked out the back. How is that
a better situation? Plus the methane on its own would have been destroyed in
about 10 years. The CO2 will hang around for a thousand times longer. Not much
of a trade off I think you'll agree.

--
Spud

In message , at 16:45:58 on Wed, 5 Jun
2013, remarked:
Doesn't a 747 have four engines?

Fair enough. But then apparently I used the takeoff figure for the amount
of air a jet sucks up, not the cruise figure which is somewhat lower.

The figure you quoted is correct for an RB211, as used on typical 747's.
It's the engines on smaller planes that peak around the same.
--
Roland Perry

On 6 June, 00:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:45:58 on Wed, 5 Jun
2013, remarked:

Doesn't a 747 have four engines?

Fair enough. But then apparently I used the takeoff figure for the amount
of air a jet sucks up, not the cruise figure which is somewhat lower.

The figure you quoted is correct for an RB211, as used on typical 747's.
It's the engines on smaller planes that peak around the same.
--

Never argue with a warmer. Climategate revealed that the evidence was
faked. But it is a matter of faith with these people. Evidence of
not, they believe in it. Leave them to their delusion