# Comment: You should clarify where your sentences start and end

(See in situ)

### You should clarify where your sentences start and end

It's confusing to read. I read your words as saying that specific heat and latent heat of vaporization are the same thing and equal to 970 (per your later correction). They are not the same. Specific heat (1 BTU/lb for water - i.e. "the standard") is the heat added (sensible - meaning stored with an external change like temperature or state) to a pound of water to raise it 1 degree F.

Heat of vaporization (making steam) is 970 BTU/lb and heat of fusion (melting ice) is 144 BTU/lb. These are both examples of latent heat which means stored heat without any external change in temperature. Specific heat does not apply to latent heat examples like making steam or melting ice. Those are only sensible.

Not sure why this matters to a 911 thread but just to complete the exercise, it important to note that the sensible or specific heat of solid ice and vaporized steam is only half that of water and varies with the pressure and volume acting on it.

I found a link with a good explanation and graph to visualize it better. Enjoy.
http://www.3dplumbing.net/ontplumbing/latent_heat.htm

In a manner related to this thread, BTU content is not the only factor, or even the largest one, for calculating the heat given off various fuels. Kerosene jet fuel (as opposed to naptha) is a higher BTU content per gallon than gasoline (135k vs. 125k) but it has a lower vaporization rate. This means it requires much more air turbulence to vaporize it. Think of how much more powerful aviation gas (BTU/g of only 120k) is than regular gasoline (because it can be compressed more). In the tower fires, this would mean the jet fuel would need an external blower to generate it's potential in heat of combustion. HTH

Still wondering why you linked a song whose lyrics started out, "Well, I'm so above you..."