So alumina, for example, is supposedly added to jet fuel for purposes of being anti-corrosion and also being a surfactant (I.e. it decreases surface tension of the solvent)?
I think I understand what you’re saying but I’m just not sure how this additive would be rationalized. I would think alumina could increase corrosion if anything due to its electrical conductivity nature and potential abrasiveness (albeit not as conductive as silver or copper and also nanoparticles are extremely small).
anti-corrosive agents generally function by preferentially soaking up the oxygen radicals so yeah, it would work that way too, it is more reactive than iron, the main vulnerable metal in a jet turbine
I see, that makes sense - something to neutralize the charge.
I wonder why they don’t just install a concentrated sacrificial anode instead of dispersing the aluminum throughout.
because the only way that could be practically done would take a LOTTTA tungsten and probably rhodium or something to not wear out and be extremely expensive to maintain
the reaction is going on in gas phase also, the advantage of the dissolved alumina is it is dispersed enough in the gas phase to actually catch those oxidising radicals
That makes sense. Thanks for walking me through all this!
To tie this all back to the original topic would you say that alumina in jet fuel is a “necessary evil” to prevent corrosion?
IMO, it does seem to have a valid reason, but I’d have to then compare it against the climate and health impact. There’s incentive to hide or diminish that side of the argument.
