On Mar 4, 10:05*pm, Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote :





On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:54:53 -0600, Bert Byfield
wrote:

I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it and
it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas to kill my
lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on the
mower deck to burn off the gas. *Somehow the gas in the tank
started on fire too, and my mower exploded and burned up, also
burning down my garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that
spilled gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas

Kerosene burns. Gasoline explodes. Read the warning labels.

Only in Hollywood.
On the tv show "mythbusters" they proved this.
A standard propane blow torch wasn't enough to cause gasoline to
explode.
They also shot at a car's gas tank that was full, with a high powered
rifle and all it did was puncture a pair of holes in it.

That's because the tank was full -- not much oxygen in the closed tank. *
They should have tried it with an "empty" gas tank.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Errm...they did. It also didn't work. The reason is that while the
tank is full of fumes, there isn't enough oxy to make a combustible
mix.

Harry K

On Mar 5, 5:49*am, richard wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:03:03 GMT, Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
m...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it and it
was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas to kill my lawn so I
quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on the mower deck to
burn off the gas. *Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too,
and my mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my garden
shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I put the gas
cap on tightly. *Why did the gas tank explode and burn too? *Now my
whole lawn is burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think
the gas tank on th mower was defective, and on Tuesday I am calling
my lawyer to sue the manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.

Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed with air
explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then internal combustion engines
couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it to burn
at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly higher
than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we all know is 451F. *
Matches don't give off much heat since they're so small, but gasoline is
highly flammable in the presence of oxygen. *Please don't try to confirm
this on your own.

Not true. On the tv show they experimented with various ways to cause
gasoline to explode. *Including simple matches, cigarettes and even a
propane torch. They found gas requires a temperature of 800 degrees to
ignite. A cigarette only produces 600 degrees.

The reason gas "explodes" in an internal combustion engine is due to
the fact that the gas is vaporized and compressed. In reality, it
still doesn't explode, it is the spark from the spark plug which
causes it to explode.

If gasoline were that easy to explode, you would not have it in your
car.

Diesel, OTOH, does explode on it's own when properly compressed, thus,
no spark plug is required.

In either case, it is not the fuel itself that igntes, but rather, the
vapors of. As there is now a higher concentration of oxygen to the
fuel.

I'm sure you've seen plenty of videos of various types where fuel is
on the surface of the water and burning brightly? So how come it never
explodes?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

partially correct. You can start gas to burn (not explode) with low
level heat (match) IF there is a bit of vapor above the gas - there
almost always is. If the heat source is buried below the vapor level,
then more heat is needed.

Diesel is hard (compared to gas) to ignite becuase it doesn't put out
that much fumes.

Diesel "explodes" (again it burns rapidly, not technically "explode")
when highely compressed and the heat of compression sets it off. Gas
will do the same thing. Jusst dump some gas into a diesel engien and
watch it destroy itself.

Harry K

richard wrote in
:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:03:03 GMT, Deadrat wrote:

richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it and
it was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to kill my lawn
so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on the mower
deck to burn off the gas. Somehow the gas in the tank started on
fire too, and my mower exploded and burned up, also burning down
my garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I
put the gas cap on tightly. Why did the gas tank explode and
burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up and ruined. I am
really upset. I think the gas tank on th mower was defective,
and on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the manufacturer of
the mower.

Ralph W.

Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!


Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. As usual. Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed with
air explodes. If the latter weren't true, then internal combustion
engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it to
burn at all.

Wrong. As usual. A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly higher
than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we all know is
451F. Matches don't give off much heat since they're so small, but
gasoline is highly flammable in the presence of oxygen. Please don't
try to confirm this on your own.

Not true. On the tv show they experimented with various ways to cause
gasoline to explode. Including simple matches, cigarettes and even a
propane torch. They found gas requires a temperature of 800 degrees to
ignite. A cigarette only produces 600 degrees.

Wrong. As usual. Please take my word for it that gasoline will ignite
with common objects found around the house. Your guess at the
temperature of a lit cigarette is off by a factor of 2. Not bad for you.

The reason gas "explodes" in an internal combustion engine is due to
the fact that the gas is vaporized and compressed. In reality, it
still doesn't explode, it is the spark from the spark plug which
causes it to explode.

I think we're in violent agreement here. Gas must be gas(eous) to
explode.

If gasoline were that easy to explode, you would not have it in your
car.

Diesel, OTOH, does explode on it's own when properly compressed, thus,
no spark plug is required.

In either case, it is not the fuel itself that igntes, but rather, the
vapors of. As there is now a higher concentration of oxygen to the
fuel.

I'm sure you've seen plenty of videos of various types where fuel is
on the surface of the water and burning brightly? So how come it never
explodes?

Once it's lit, it burns, so there's never the proper air/fuel mixture.

Steve Barker wrote in
:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it and
it was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to kill my lawn
so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on the mower
deck to burn off the gas. Somehow the gas in the tank started on
fire too, and my mower exploded and burned up, also burning down
my garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I
put the gas cap on tightly. Why did the gas tank explode and
burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up and ruined. I am
really upset. I think the gas tank on th mower was defective,
and on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the manufacturer of
the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. As usual. Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed with
air explodes. If the latter weren't true, then internal combustion
engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it to
burn at all.

Wrong. As usual. A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we all
know is 451F. Matches don't give off much heat since they're so
small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the presence of oxygen.
Please don't try to confirm this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. It burns
rapidly. This is the reason the internal combustion engines runs and
does not explode. you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does "NOT"
explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door on the left.
This is abuse.


steve

foad wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

the stupid animals in the heard

Fans of irony take note.


I use an irony to get the wrinkles out of my shirts.

TDD

I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it and
it was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to kill my
lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on the
mower deck to burn off the gas. Somehow the gas in the tank
started on fire too, and my mower exploded and burned up, also
burning down my garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that
spilled gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. Why did the gas

Kerosene burns. Gasoline explodes. Read the warning labels.

Only in Hollywood.

Not so. Perhaps "explode" is too strong a word, if you are thinking
of plastic explosive which creates a fireball, but it is way beyond
kerosene, as I learned when trying to use gasoline to burn out a
stump. I nearly lost my eyebrows.

On the tv show "mythbusters" they proved this.

Oh, well if it was on tv... ;-)

A standard propane blow torch wasn't enough to cause gasoline to
explode.

I dunno. I used a match, and it worked better than I expected.

They also shot at a car's gas tank that was full, with a
high powered
rifle and all it did was puncture a pair of holes in it.

Maybe so, but I remember a lady I knew once whose husband had died
trying to set his own house on fire, with her and their kids in the
upstairs bedrooms. The cops said they would never know if it was
suicide or ignorance on the part of the husband that he died in the
fire (the rest of the family survived), since Hollywood shows the
flames "walking" across the room for the sake of drama, and a lot of
people believe that's how it works, but in real life gasoline goes up
in a WHOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH! that can take the guy with the match by
surprise.

In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it and
it was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to kill my lawn
so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on the mower
deck to burn off the gas. Somehow the gas in the tank started on
fire too, and my mower exploded and burned up, also burning down
my garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I
put the gas cap on tightly. Why did the gas tank explode and
burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up and ruined. I am
really upset. I think the gas tank on th mower was defective,
and on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the manufacturer of
the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. As usual. Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed with
air explodes. If the latter weren't true, then internal combustion
engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it to
burn at all.

Wrong. As usual. A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we all
know is 451F. Matches don't give off much heat since they're so
small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the presence of oxygen.
Please don't try to confirm this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. It burns
rapidly. This is the reason the internal combustion engines runs and
does not explode. you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does "NOT"
explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door on the left.
This is abuse.



Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the internal
combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using the correct
word. This thread has largely focused on the differences between the two
phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms in a
casually interchangeable way.

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:01:09 -0500, richard
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it and it was
dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to kill my lawn so I
quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on the mower deck to
burn off the gas. Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too,
and my mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my garden shed.
I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I put the gas cap on
tightly. Why did the gas tank explode and burn too? Now my whole
lawn is burned up and ruined. I am really upset. I think the gas
tank on th mower was defective, and on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer
to sue the manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.

Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!


Most likely troll. People who know, know that gasoline does not
explode. Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get
it to burn at all.

Boy, are YOU dangerous!!!!!!!!!!!
Pour gas into/onto a hot mower engine and you get a lot of
evapouration - to the point a SPARK can light it. If it has a plastic
tank, when it melts and releases the half gallon of gasoline to the
atmosphere, a LARGE fire can result - including quite a "whoosh" of
flame.

I do think, however, that this is a troll.

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:38:16 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it and it
was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to kill my lawn so I
quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on the mower deck to
burn off the gas. Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too,
and my mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my garden
shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I put the gas
cap on tightly. Why did the gas tank explode and burn too? Now my
whole lawn is burned up and ruined. I am really upset. I think
the gas tank on th mower was defective, and on Tuesday I am calling
my lawyer to sue the manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. As usual. Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed with air
explodes. If the latter weren't true, then internal combustion engines
couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it to burn
at all.

Wrong. As usual. A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly higher
than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we all know is 451F.
Matches don't give off much heat since they're so small, but gasoline is
highly flammable in the presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm
this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. It burns
rapidly. This is the reason the internal combustion engines runs and
does not explode. you are wrong.

steve
Conflargation vs explosion is ALMOST a case of semantics.
For all practical purposes, a proper mixture of gasoline and oxygen in
a confined space explodes.

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it
and it was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to kill
my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on
the mower deck to burn off the gas. Somehow the gas in the
tank started on fire too, and my mower exploded and burned up,
also burning down my garden shed. I only wanted to burn off
that spilled gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. Why did
the gas tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. I am really upset. I think the gas
tank on th mower was defective, and on Tuesday I am calling my
lawyer to sue the manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. As usual. Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed
with air explodes. If the latter weren't true, then internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it to
burn at all.

Wrong. As usual. A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we all
know is 451F. Matches don't give off much heat since they're so
small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the presence of oxygen.
Please don't try to confirm this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. It burns
rapidly. This is the reason the internal combustion engines runs
and does not explode. you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does
"NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door on
the left. This is abuse.



Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the internal
combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using the correct
word.

I love it. This really is the day for irony. It's not "semantics," the
poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms in a
casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? Burning and exploding? You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. We wouldn't want to get
into semantics. Let's just say that putting a match to a pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting a
match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

On Mar 5, 12:12*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote innews




In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it
and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas to kill
my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on
the mower deck to burn off the gas. *Somehow the gas in the
tank started on fire too, and my mower exploded and burned up,
also burning down my garden shed. I only wanted to burn off
that spilled gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did
the gas tank explode and burn too? *Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think the gas
tank on th mower was defective, and on Tuesday I am calling my
lawyer to sue the manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it to
burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we all
know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat since they're so
small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the presence of oxygen.
Please don't try to confirm this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It burns
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion engines runs
and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does
"NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door on
the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the internal
combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using the correct
word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semantics," the
poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms in a
casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't want to get
into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting a
match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.- Hide quoted text -

Oh Dear...

So What Effect does all this have on Shouting "EXPLOSION!!" in a
Crowded Theater?

"Ready... AIM... EXPLODE!"

"YOU'RE EXPLODED!!"

"Goddamn `em To Explodey HELL!"

Yelling "THEATRE!!" on Explosion Island...

"Explode Up a Doobie..."

"S'plosion on The Moun-tehn, lahtnin in neh AHR..."

"Explosion Sign Theatre"...

"Explosion Water"...

"Three-Alarm Exposion"...

"I wanna Grow Up To Be an EXPLOSION Man! The EXPLODE Chief!"

"Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Explosion..."

Naughtius "I'm All EXPLODED Up!!" Maximus

Conflargation vs explosion is ALMOST a case of semantics.
For all practical purposes, a proper mixture of gasoline and
oxygen in a confined space explodes.

The US Navy sent me to bomb school where they taught that TNT produces
a quick rush of gas and not an "explosion" such as you get from other
chemicals. So it is relative. "Explosion" is not a precise term without
some sort of context to define it better than the dictionary does.

In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it
and it was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to kill
my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a match on
the mower deck to burn off the gas. Somehow the gas in the
tank started on fire too, and my mower exploded and burned up,
also burning down my garden shed. I only wanted to burn off
that spilled gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. Why did
the gas tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. I am really upset. I think the gas
tank on th mower was defective, and on Tuesday I am calling my
lawyer to sue the manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. As usual. Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed
with air explodes. If the latter weren't true, then internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it to
burn at all.

Wrong. As usual. A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we all
know is 451F. Matches don't give off much heat since they're so
small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the presence of oxygen.
Please don't try to confirm this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. It burns
rapidly. This is the reason the internal combustion engines runs
and does not explode. you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does
"NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door on
the left. This is abuse.



Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the internal
combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using the correct
word.

I love it. This really is the day for irony. It's not "semantics," the
poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms in a
casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? Burning and exploding? You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. We wouldn't want to get
into semantics. Let's just say that putting a match to a pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting a
match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of gasoline,
you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and "explode,"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion engine,
you're free to do your own research, or defend your own ignorance as you
see fit.

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it
and it was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to
kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a
match on the mower deck to burn off the gas. Somehow the
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower exploded
and burned up, also burning down my garden shed. I only
wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I put the gas cap
on tightly. Why did the gas tank explode and burn too?
Now my whole lawn is burned up and ruined. I am really
upset. I think the gas tank on th mower was defective, and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the manufacturer
of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. As usual. Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed
with air explodes. If the latter weren't true, then internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it
to burn at all.

Wrong. As usual. A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we
all know is 451F. Matches don't give off much heat since
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on your
own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. It burns
rapidly. This is the reason the internal combustion engines
runs and does not explode. you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does
"NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door
on the left. This is abuse.



Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the internal
combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using the correct
word.

I love it. This really is the day for irony. It's not "semantics,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms in
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? Burning and exploding? You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. We wouldn't want to
get into semantics. Let's just say that putting a match to a pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting a
match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. When you put a match to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the combustion
of the vapors from the surface. When you put a match to an enclosed
mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and "explode,"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion engine,
you're free to do your own research, or defend your own ignorance as
you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you. Your
refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr. Semantics,
depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."

In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it
and it was dripping on my lawn. I didnt want the gas to
kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a
match on the mower deck to burn off the gas. Somehow the
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower exploded
and burned up, also burning down my garden shed. I only
wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I put the gas cap
on tightly. Why did the gas tank explode and burn too?
Now my whole lawn is burned up and ruined. I am really
upset. I think the gas tank on th mower was defective, and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the manufacturer
of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.


Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. As usual. Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed
with air explodes. If the latter weren't true, then internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it
to burn at all.

Wrong. As usual. A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we
all know is 451F. Matches don't give off much heat since
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on your
own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. It burns
rapidly. This is the reason the internal combustion engines
runs and does not explode. you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does
"NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door
on the left. This is abuse.



Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the internal
combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using the correct
word.

I love it. This really is the day for irony. It's not "semantics,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms in
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? Burning and exploding? You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. We wouldn't want to
get into semantics. Let's just say that putting a match to a pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting a
match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. When you put a match to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the combustion
of the vapors from the surface. When you put a match to an enclosed
mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and "explode,"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion engine,
you're free to do your own research, or defend your own ignorance as
you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you. Your
refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.


Yes, I'm still beating my wife.

My understanding of "burn" and "explode" were passed on to me by my
father, a PhD university chemistry professor. You're free to assign your
own definitions to the terms, or pervert the dictionary definitions in
any way you like.

Based on that understanding, and the reading of many texts on
automobiles, I contend that the mixture of gasoline and AIR, which is a
far cry from OXYGEN, that *combusts* in an internal *combustion* engine,
does NOT explode. It uh, combusts. Burns.

"Nicht," I believe, is the spelling you were after in your humorous
slur. But you're as free to rewrite the German language as you are the
English dictionary, I imagine.

On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote innews




In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it
and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas to
kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a
match on the mower deck to burn off the gas. *Somehow the
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower exploded
and burned up, also burning down my garden shed. I only
wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I put the gas cap
on tightly. *Why did the gas tank explode and burn too?
Now my whole lawn is burned up and ruined. *I am really
upset. *I think the gas tank on th mower was defective, and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the manufacturer
of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it
to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we
all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat since
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on your
own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It burns
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion engines
runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does
"NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door
on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the internal
combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using the correct
word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semantics,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms in
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't want to
get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting a
match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a match to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the combustion
of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to an enclosed
mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and "explode,"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion engine,
you're free to do your own research, or defend your own ignorance as
you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you. *Your
refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr. Semantics,
depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He has defended his point extremely well. It is you who is way off
base. The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

They also BURN in an IC engine. If you could see a slowed down video
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

Harry K

On Mar 5, 9:19*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,





*Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on it
and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas to
kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and tossed a
match on the mower deck to burn off the gas. *Somehow the
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower exploded
and burned up, also burning down my garden shed. I only
wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I put the gas cap
on tightly. *Why did the gas tank explode and burn too?
Now my whole lawn is burned up and ruined. *I am really
upset. *I think the gas tank on th mower was defective, and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the manufacturer
of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mixed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get it
to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, certainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as we
all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat since
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on your
own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It burns
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion engines
runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does
"NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall, first door
on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the internal
combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using the correct
word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semantics,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms in
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't want to
get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting a
match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a match to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the combustion
of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to an enclosed
mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and "explode,"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion engine,
you're free to do your own research, or defend your own ignorance as
you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you. *Your
refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Yes, I'm still beating my wife.

My understanding of "burn" and "explode" were passed on to me by my
father, a PhD university chemistry professor. You're free to assign your
own definitions to the terms, or pervert the dictionary definitions in
any way you like.

Based on that understanding, and the reading of many texts on
automobiles, I contend that the mixture of gasoline and AIR, which is a
far cry from OXYGEN, that *combusts* in an internal *combustion* engine,
does NOT explode. It uh, combusts. Burns.

"Nicht," I believe, is the spelling you were after in your humorous
slur. But you're as free to rewrite the German language as you are the
English dictionary, I imagine.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Machs" He will also have to rewrite that. I'd give him a clue but
apparently clues don't work for him

Harry K

harry k wrote in
:

On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:





In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on
it and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too, and my
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas
and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas tank
explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up and
ruined. *I am really upset. *I think the gas tank on th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mix
ed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get
it to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, certai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as
we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat since
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on your
own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
burn
s
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion engines
runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using
the correct word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semantics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms
in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't want
to get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting
a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a match
to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to
an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different
phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend
your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you. *
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr. Semantics,
depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."

He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. In fact, he hasn't even stated a
point other than to say I'm wrong. I may be wrong; I even admitted to
being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you simply
state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal, "I'm
about to burst." and then claiming that the person is incorrect because
he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. If you could see a slowed down video
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you
put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common usage is
incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.




Harry K

harry k wrote in
:

On Mar 5, 9:19*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,





*Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas
on i
t
and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow th
e
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower
exploded and burned up, also burning down my garden
shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I
put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas tank
explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up
and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think the gas tank
on th mower was defective,
and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor m
ixed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
interna
l
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to
get i
t
to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, cert
ainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as
we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat
since they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable
in the presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm
this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
bu
rns
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correc
t
word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semanti
cs,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the
terms i
n
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't want
t
o
get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool
of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match
to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustio
n
of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to an
enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different
phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode,
"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion
engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend your own
ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you.
*Your
refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Yes, I'm still beating my wife.

Thanks for sharing. But while I have no idea whether you beat you wife
or not, I certainly can tell bald statements without evidence or
argument.

My understanding of "burn" and "explode" were passed on to me by my
father, a PhD university chemistry professor.

Oh, well. In *that* case, you must be correct. In cyberspace, anyone
can have a "PhD university chemistry professor" for a father.

You're free to assign
your own definitions to the terms, or pervert the dictionary
definitions in any way you like.

I'll repeat my claim for you as well:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the
result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a
[quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

Based on that understanding, and the reading of many texts on
automobiles, I contend that the mixture of gasoline and AIR, which is
a far cry from OXYGEN, that *combusts* in an internal *combustion*
engine, does NOT explode. It uh, combusts. Burns.

And I'll extend the same offer: Please continue to make bald statements
without argument or evidence, and claim that your talk of combusts,
burns, and explodes isn't a semantic argument.

You may also continue to make claims of erudition on your part and on the
part of members of your extended family

"Nicht," I believe, is the spelling you were after in your humorous
slur. But you're as free to rewrite the German language as you are
the English dictionary, I imagine.

Actually the spelling I was after is "nix." It isn't real German of
course, but English slang meaning "it makes no difference." You got the
point that it was supposed to be "humorous," but you still decided to
lecture me on German vocabulary. Amazing. And somehow you've also got
the idea that it's a slur. For something comparable, consider the
British translation of the German motto as "Got mittens."

"Machs" He will also have to rewrite that. I'd give him a clue but
apparently clues don't work for him

You couldn't hand anyone a clue if you had a pair of tongs. But Daddy
was a PhD, and you use emoticons.

Harry K

On Mar 6, 8:56*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote :





On Mar 5, 9:19*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

*Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas
on i
t
and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow th
e
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower
exploded and burned up, also burning down my garden
shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas and I
put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas tank
explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up
and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think the gas tank
on th mower was defective,
and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor m
ixed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
interna
l
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to
get i
t
to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, cert
ainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as
we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat
since they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable
in the presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm
this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
bu
rns
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correc
t
word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semanti
cs,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the
terms i
n
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't want
t
o
get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool
*of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match
to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustio
n
of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to an
enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different
phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode,
"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion
engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend your own
ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you.
*Your
refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Yes, I'm still beating my wife.

Thanks for sharing. *But while I have no idea whether you beat you wife
or not, I certainly can tell bald statements without evidence or
argument.



My understanding of "burn" and "explode" were passed on to me by my
father, a PhD university chemistry professor.

Oh, well. *In *that* case, you must be correct. *In cyberspace, anyone
can have a "PhD university chemistry professor" for a father.

You're free to assign
your own definitions to the terms, or pervert the dictionary
definitions in any way you like.

I'll repeat my claim for you as well:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the *
result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a
[quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

Based on that understanding, and the reading of many texts on
automobiles, I contend that the mixture of gasoline and AIR, which is
a far cry from OXYGEN, that *combusts* in an internal *combustion*
engine, does NOT explode. It uh, combusts. Burns.

And I'll extend the same offer: *Please continue to make bald statements
without argument or evidence, and claim that your talk of combusts,
burns, and explodes isn't a semantic argument.

You may also continue to make claims of erudition on your part and on the
part of members of your extended family

"Nicht," I believe, is the spelling you were after in your humorous
slur. But you're as free to rewrite the German language as you are
the English dictionary, I imagine.

Actually the spelling I was after is "nix." *It isn't real German of
course, but English slang meaning "it makes no difference." *You got the
point that it was supposed to be "humorous," but you still decided to
lecture me on German vocabulary. *Amazing. *And somehow you've also got
the idea that it's a slur. *For something comparable, consider the
British translation of the German motto as "Got mittens."

"Machs" *He will also have to rewrite that. *I'd give him a clue but
apparently clues don't work for him

You couldn't hand anyone a clue if you had a pair of tongs. *But Daddy
was a PhD, and you use emoticons.



Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not only do you not have a clue, you can't even tell to whom you are
replying. That post is a mish mash of replies to two different posts.

BTW - insults are usually the sign of a poster who has lost the
debate.

Thanks for playing anyhow, now why don't you go back to school and
learn the difference between explode and burn?

Harry K

On Mar 6, 8:25*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote :





On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on
it and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too, and my
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas
and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas tank
explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up and
ruined. *I am really upset. *I think the gas tank on th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mix
ed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get
it to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, certai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as
we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat since
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on your
own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
burn
s
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion engines
runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using
the correct word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semantics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms
in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't want
to get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting
a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a match
to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to
an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different
phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend
your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you. *
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr. Semantics,
depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."
He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. *In fact, he hasn't even stated a
point other than to say I'm wrong. *I may be wrong; I even admitted to
being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you simply
state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal, "I'm
about to burst." and then claiming that the person is incorrect because
he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. * If you could see a slowed down video
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? *Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you
put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common usage is
incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.





Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Okay, tell us, oh wise one, just what is the difference between the
combustion of gasoline vapors in open air and in a compressed state?

You can check with any engineer you like and you will get the same
asnwer - there is none.

Harry K

On Mar 6, 8:25*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote :





On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on
it and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the gas
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too, and my
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas
and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas tank
explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up and
ruined. *I am really upset. *I think the gas tank on th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mix
ed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get
it to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, certai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as
we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat since
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on your
own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
burn
s
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion engines
runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using
the correct word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semantics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms
in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't want
to get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting
a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a match
to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to
an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different
phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend
your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you. *
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr. Semantics,
depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."
He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. *In fact, he hasn't even stated a
point other than to say I'm wrong. *I may be wrong; I even admitted to
being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you simply
state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal, "I'm
about to burst." and then claiming that the person is incorrect because
he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. * If you could see a slowed down video
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? *Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you
put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common usage is
incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.





Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, by the way, I have never claimed I am not arguing semantics. In
fact I basically said it is semantics although not in those terms.

Now back to regular programming. Defend your claim:

When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. When you
put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.

Yep, I asked for that twice in this post. Wanted to make sure you
didn't miss it.

Harry K

harry k wrote in
:

On Mar 6, 8:56*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:7a075188-7bc7-4bb4-89d6-c3
:





On Mar 5, 9:19*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

*Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some
gas on i
t
and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the
gas to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap
and tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off
the gas. *Somehow th
e
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower
exploded and burned up, also burning down my garden
shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas
and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas
tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think
the gas ta
nk
on th mower was defective,
and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapo
r m
ixed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match
to get it
to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, c
ert
ainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which
as we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much
heat since they're so small, but gasoline is highly
flammable in the presence of oxygen. Please don't try
to confirm this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode.
*It burns
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of
gasoline does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down
the hall, first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correc
t
word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "sema
nti
cs,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between
the two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use
the terms i
n
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't
wan
t
t
o
get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustion
of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to an
enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a
different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode,
"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion
engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend your
own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to
their meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest
with you.
*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Yes, I'm still beating my wife.

Thanks for sharing. *But while I have no idea whether you beat you
wife or not, I certainly can tell bald statements without evidence or
argument.

My understanding of "burn" and "explode" were passed on to me by
my father, a PhD university chemistry professor.

Oh, well. *In *that* case, you must be correct. *In cyberspace,
anyone can have a "PhD university chemistry professor" for a father.

You're free to assign
your own definitions to the terms, or pervert the dictionary
definitions in any way you like.

I'll repeat my claim for you as well:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the
result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you
put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a
[quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

Based on that understanding, and the reading of many texts on
automobiles, I contend that the mixture of gasoline and AIR, which
is a far cry from OXYGEN, that *combusts* in an internal
*combustion* engine, does NOT explode. It uh, combusts. Burns.

And I'll extend the same offer: *Please continue to make bald
statements
without argument or evidence, and claim that your talk of combusts,
burns, and explodes isn't a semantic argument.

You may also continue to make claims of erudition on your part and on
the part of members of your extended family

"Nicht," I believe, is the spelling you were after in your
humorous slur. But you're as free to rewrite the German language
as you are the English dictionary, I imagine.

Actually the spelling I was after is "nix." *It isn't real German of
course, but English slang meaning "it makes no difference." *You got
the
point that it was supposed to be "humorous," but you still decided to
lecture me on German vocabulary. *Amazing. *And somehow you've also
got
the idea that it's a slur. *For something comparable, consider the
British translation of the German motto as "Got mittens."

"Machs" *He will also have to rewrite that. *I'd give him a clue
but apparently clues don't work for him

You couldn't hand anyone a clue if you had a pair of tongs. *But
Daddy was a PhD, and you use emoticons.



Harry K

Not only do you not have a clue,

As irony meters explode everywhere. Or did they combust?

you can't even tell to whom you are
replying. That post is a mish mash of replies to two different posts.

Sorry. One of the posts didn't make it to misc.legal. Deal with it.

BTW - insults are usually the sign of a poster who has lost the
debate.

What? No emoticons to emphasize how clever you are? I've gone back and
looked at my posts in this thread, and while I've made fun of your
seeming inability to advance an arguent (or even to keep to the topic),
I've not offered up any personal insults.

BTW - if you have to declare yourself the winner of the debate, you
usually aren't. (And BTW, don't you just love these acronyms the kids
are all using?)

Thanks for playing anyhow, now why don't you go back to school and
learn the difference between explode and burn?

Well, why have you spent these posts claiming how clever you are instead
of simply demonstrating it? Pray tell us the difference. It doesn't
really matter for the point of the discussion -- see the quoted claim
above -- but why not do it anyway? Maybe Dad can help with the phrasing.

While you're at it, why not post the explanation in German as well.


Harry K

harry k wrote in
:

On Mar 6, 8:25*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:c1aaa0e5-0598-4d3e-919f-c5
:





On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas
on it and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want
the ga
s
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too, and
m
y
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled
gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the
gas tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think
the gas tank on
th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor
mix
ed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to
get it to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, cer
tai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which
as we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat
sinc
e
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on
your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
burn
s
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correct word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semant
ics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between
the two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use
the terms in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't
want to get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a
match to a pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result
of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or
defend your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to
their meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest
with you.
*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr.
Semantics, depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."
He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. *In fact, he hasn't even stated
a point other than to say I'm wrong. *I may be wrong; I even admitted
to being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you
simply state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal,
"I'm about to burst." and then claiming that the person is incorrect
because he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. * If you could see a slowed down
vide
o
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? *Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When
you put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen,
you get a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common
usage is incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.





Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Okay, tell us, oh wise one, just what is the difference between the
combustion of gasoline vapors in open air and in a compressed state?

Who mentioned a compressed state? I merely said enclosed. Are you
claiming there's no difference?

You can check with any engineer you like and you will get the same
asnwer - there is none.

I guess you are.

Harry K

harry k wrote in
:

On Mar 6, 8:25*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:c1aaa0e5-0598-4d3e-919f-c5
:





On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas
on it and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want
the ga
s
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too, and
m
y
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled
gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the
gas tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think
the gas tank on
th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor
mix
ed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to
get it to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, cer
tai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which
as we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat
sinc
e
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on
your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
burn
s
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correct word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semant
ics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between
the two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use
the terms in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't
want to get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a
match to a pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result
of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or
defend your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to
their meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest
with you.
*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr.
Semantics, depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."
He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. *In fact, he hasn't even stated
a point other than to say I'm wrong. *I may be wrong; I even admitted
to being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you
simply state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal,
"I'm about to burst." and then claiming that the person is incorrect
because he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. * If you could see a slowed down
vide
o
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? *Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When
you put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen,
you get a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common
usage is incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.





Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, by the way, I have never claimed I am not arguing semantics. In
fact I basically said it is semantics although not in those terms.

Then you're wasting everybody's time. Hard to get noticed doing that on
misc.legal. Congratulations.

Now back to regular programming. Defend your claim:

When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. When
you put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen,
you get a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.

Yep, I asked for that twice in this post. Wanted to make sure you
didn't miss it.

Harry K

Are you seriously claiming there's no measurable difference, say in rate
of energy release, expansion of the volume of combustion, or presence of
a shock wave?

On Mar 6, 9:24*pm, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote :





On Mar 6, 8:25*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:c1aaa0e5-0598-4d3e-919f-c5
:

On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas
on it and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want
the ga
s
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too, and
m
y
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled
gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the
gas tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think
the gas tank on
th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor
mix
ed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to
get it to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, cer
tai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which
as we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat
sinc
e
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on
your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
burn
s
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correct word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semant
ics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between
the two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use
the terms in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't
want to get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a
match to a pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result
of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or
defend your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to
their meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest
with you.
*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr.
Semantics, depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."
He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. *In fact, he hasn't even stated
a point other than to say I'm wrong. *I may be wrong; I even admitted
to being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you
simply state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal,
"I'm about to burst." and then claiming that the person is incorrect
because he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. * If you could see a slowed down
vide
o
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? *Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When
you put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen,
you get a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common
usage is incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Okay, tell us, oh wise one, just what is the difference between the
combustion of gasoline vapors in open air and in a compressed state?

Who mentioned a compressed state? *I merely said enclosed. *Are you
claiming there's no difference?



You can check with any engineer you like and you will get the same
asnwer - there is none.

I guess you are. *





Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ahah, I see I misread it. You _didn't_ say compressed. Makes no
difference as there is still no difference.

I am beginning to think you flunked your physics classes.

BTW - explosives do not have a "flame front" the entire mass detonates
basically simultaneously and is due to a shock (usually), not 'fire'.

Harry K

On Mar 6, 9:35*pm, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote :





On Mar 6, 8:25*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:c1aaa0e5-0598-4d3e-919f-c5
:

On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas
on it and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want
the ga
s
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
*Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too, and
m
y
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled
gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the
gas tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think
the gas tank on
th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor
mix
ed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to
get it to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, cer
tai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which
as we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much heat
sinc
e
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on
your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. *It
burn
s
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correct word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "semant
ics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between
the two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use
the terms in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't
want to get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a
match to a pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result
of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or
defend your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to
their meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest
with you.
*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr.
Semantics, depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."
He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. *In fact, he hasn't even stated
a point other than to say I'm wrong. *I may be wrong; I even admitted
to being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you
simply state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal,
"I'm about to burst." and then claiming that the person is incorrect
because he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. * If you could see a slowed down
vide
o
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? *Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When
you put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen,
you get a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common
usage is incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, by the way, I have never claimed I am not arguing semantics. *In
fact I basically said it is semantics although not in those terms.

Then you're wasting everybody's time. *Hard to get noticed doing that on
misc.legal. *Congratulations.



Now back to regular programming. *Defend your claim:

*When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When
you put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen,
you get a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.

Yep, I asked for that twice in this post. *Wanted to make sure you
didn't miss it.

Harry K

Are you seriously claiming there's no measurable difference, say in rate
of energy release, expansion of the volume of combustion, or presence of
a shock wave?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes other than the fact that there is more 'fuel' in the compressed
volume - it is still a combustion, not explosion. Again that is using
the correct, 'technical' terminology or 'semantics' if you will.



Harry K

On Mar 6, 9:22*pm, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote :





On Mar 6, 8:56*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:7a075188-7bc7-4bb4-89d6-c3
:

On Mar 5, 9:19*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

*Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some
gas on i
t
and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt want the
gas to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap
and tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off
the gas. *Somehow th
e
gas in the tank started on fire too, and my mower
exploded and burned up, also burning down my garden
shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas
and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why did the gas
tank explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is
burned up and ruined. *I am really upset. *I think
the gas ta
nk
on th mower was defective,
and
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode..

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapo
r m
ixed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal
combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match
to get it
to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot, c
ert
ainly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which
as we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off much
heat since they're so small, but gasoline is highly
flammable in the presence of oxygen. Please don't try
to confirm this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode.
*It burns
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of
gasoline does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down
the hall, first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correc
t
word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "sema
nti
cs,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between
the two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use
the terms i
n
a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't
wan
t
t
o
get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool of
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match to a
pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustion
of the vapors from the surface. *When you put a match to an
enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a
different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode,
"
as well as the theory and operation of an internal combustion
engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend your
own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to
their meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest
with you.
*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Yes, I'm still beating my wife.

Thanks for sharing. *But while I have no idea whether you beat you
wife or not, I certainly can tell bald statements without evidence or
argument.
My understanding of "burn" and "explode" were passed on to me by
my father, a PhD university chemistry professor.

Oh, well. *In *that* case, you must be correct. *In cyberspace,
anyone can have a "PhD university chemistry professor" for a father.

You're free to assign
your own definitions to the terms, or pervert the dictionary
definitions in any way you like.

I'll repeat my claim for you as well:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the
result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When you
put a
match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a
[quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

Based on that understanding, and the reading of many texts on
automobiles, I contend that the mixture of gasoline and AIR, which
is a far cry from OXYGEN, that *combusts* in an internal
*combustion* engine, does NOT explode. It uh, combusts. Burns.

And I'll extend the same offer: *Please continue to make bald
statements
without argument or evidence, and claim that your talk of combusts,
burns, and explodes isn't a semantic argument.

You may also continue to make claims of erudition on your part and on
the part of members of your extended family

"Nicht," I believe, is the spelling you were after in your
humorous slur. But you're as free to rewrite the German language
as you are the English dictionary, I imagine.

Actually the spelling I was after is "nix." *It isn't real German of
course, but English slang meaning "it makes no difference." *You got
the
point that it was supposed to be "humorous," but you still decided to
lecture me on German vocabulary. *Amazing. *And somehow you've also
got
the idea that it's a slur. *For something comparable, consider the
British translation of the German motto as "Got mittens."

"Machs" *He will also have to rewrite that. *I'd give him a clue
but apparently clues don't work for him

You couldn't hand anyone a clue if you had a pair of tongs. *But
Daddy was a PhD, and you use emoticons.

Harry K

Not only do you not have a clue,

As irony meters explode everywhere. *Or did they combust?

you can't even tell to whom you are
replying. *That post is a mish mash of replies to two different posts..

Sorry. *One of the posts didn't make it to misc.legal. *Deal with it.

BTW - insults are usually the sign of a poster who has lost the
debate.

What? *No emoticons to emphasize how clever you are? *I've gone back and
looked at my posts in this thread, and while I've made fun of your
seeming inability to advance an arguent (or even to keep to the topic),
I've not offered up any personal insults.

BTW - if you have to declare yourself the winner of the debate, you
usually aren't. *(And BTW, don't you just love these acronyms the kids
are all using?)

Thanks for playing anyhow, now why don't you go back to school and
learn the difference between explode and burn?

Well, why have you spent these posts claiming how clever you are instead
of simply demonstrating it? *Pray tell us the difference. *It doesn't
really matter for the point of the discussion -- see the quoted claim
above -- but why not do it anyway? *Maybe Dad can help with the
...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

plonk the person who has nothing but insults to offer the
disucussion and refuses to defend his _incorrect_ claims.

Harry K

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:30:35 -0800 (PST), harry k
wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:25Â*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote :





On Mar 5, 8:43Â*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:

In article ,
Â*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
Â*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some gas on
it and it was dripping on my lawn. Â*I didnt want the gas
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap and
tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off the gas.
Â*Somehow the gas in the tank started on fire too, and my
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that spilled gas
and I put the gas cap on tightly. Â*Why did the gas tank
explode and burn too? Now my whole lawn is burned up and
ruined. Â*I am really upset. Â*I think the gas tank on th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

Â*People who know, know that gasoline does not explode.

Wrong. Â*As usual. Â*Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vapor mix
ed
with air explodes. Â*If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match to get
it to burn at all.

Wrong. Â*As usual. Â*A match flame is surprisingly hot, certai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns, which as
we all know is 451F. Â*Matches don't give off much heat since
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in the
presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm this on your
own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode. Â*It
burn
s
rapidly. Â*This is the reason the internal combustion engines
runs and does not explode. Â*you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of gasoline
does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics, down the hall,
first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's using
the correct word.

I love it. Â*This really is the day for irony. Â*It's not "semantics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between the
two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use the terms
in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? Â*Burning and exploding? Â*You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. Â*We wouldn't want
to get into semantics. Â*Let's just say that putting a match to a
pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from putting
a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool of
gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. Â*When you put a match
to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the result of the
combustion of the vapors from the surface. Â*When you put a match to
an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get a different
phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or defend
your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to their
meanings. Â*Thus the burdens of production and proof rest with you. Â*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr. Semantics,
depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."
He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. Â*In fact, he hasn't even stated a
point other than to say I'm wrong. Â*I may be wrong; I even admitted to
being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you simply
state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal, "I'm
about to burst." and then claiming that the person is incorrect because
he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. Â* If you could see a slowed down video
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? Â*Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is
the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. Â*When you
put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and oxygen, you get
a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common usage is
incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.





Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Okay, tell us, oh wise one, just what is the difference between the
combustion of gasoline vapors in open air and in a compressed state?

You can check with any engineer you like and you will get the same
asnwer - there is none.

Harry K

Speed of burn and rate of pressure rise. Mostly the latter, since
pressure rise in an open space is very low, while in a contained space
it is very high.
In a combustion chamber of FIXED VOLUME the pressure rise is extremely
fast, and detonation can occur (like in an engine running at full
throttle and low speed(lugging).) In this case, the end gasses DO
explode - very violently I might add.

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 06:47:14 -0800 (PST), harry k
wrote:


BTW - explosives do not have a "flame front" the entire mass detonates
basically simultaneously and is due to a shock (usually), not 'fire'.

Harry K

Bwhahahahahahahaa!

wrong

harry k wrote in
:

On Mar 6, 9:24*pm, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:887bb7a3-9fc1-466c-bed1-7c
:





On Mar 6, 8:25*am, Deadrat wrote:
harry k wrote
innews:c1aaa0e5-0598-4d3e-919f-c5
:

On Mar 5, 8:43*pm, Deadrat wrote:
Smitty Two wrote
innewsrestwhich-6AF8AB.2034
:

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*Deadrat wrote:

Steve Barker wrote in
om:

Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
m:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
om...
I filled the gas on my lawnmower and spilled some
gas on it and it was dripping on my lawn. *I didnt
want the ga
s
to kill my lawn so I quickly put on the gas cap
and tossed a match on the mower deck to burn off
the gas. *Somehow the gas in the tank started on
fire too, an
d
m
y
mower exploded and burned up, also burning down my
garden shed. I only wanted to burn off that
spilled gas and I put the gas cap on tightly. *Why
did the gas tank explode and burn too? Now my
whole lawn is burned up and ruined. *I am really
upset. *I think the gas tank on
th
mower was defective, an
d
on Tuesday I am calling my lawyer to sue the
manufacturer of the mower.

Ralph W.
Tuesday is the best day to call lawyers.

Hmmm,
Fool's way of learning a lesson. Or poor troll.
Better call a lawyer who has same IQ as yours, LOL!

Most likely troll.

Almost surely.

*People who know, know that gasoline does not
explode.

Wrong. *As usual. *Liquid gasoline burns; gasoline vap
or
mix
ed
with air explodes. *If the latter weren't true, then
internal combustion engines couldn't use gasoline.

Also that you need a higher temperature than a match
to get it to burn at all.

Wrong. *As usual. *A match flame is surprisingly hot,
cer
tai
nly
higher than the temperature at which paper burns,
which as we all know is 451F. *Matches don't give off
much hea
t
sinc
e
they're so small, but gasoline is highly flammable in
the presence of oxygen. Please don't try to confirm
this on your own.

even an air/fuel mixture of gasoline does NOT explode.
*I
t
burn
s
rapidly. *This is the reason the internal combustion
engines runs and does not explode. *you are wrong.

I was wrong once.

1967.

March.

First week.

If you'd like to argue that an air/fuel mixture of
gasoline does "NOT" explode, then you want semantics,
down the hall, first door on the left. This is abuse.

Steve is correct, there is no "explosion" involved in the
internal combustion engine. That isn't "semantics," that's
using the correct word.

I love it. *This really is the day for irony. *It's not "sem
ant
ics
,"
the poster says, just using the "correct" word.

Well, as long as it isn't semantics.

This thread has largely focused on the differences between
the two phenomena, so this isn't the time and place to use
the terms in a casually interchangeable way.

Which two phenomena? *Burning and exploding? *You don't say.

But, please, be sure not to define your terms. *We wouldn't
want to get into semantics. *Let's just say that putting a
match to a pool o
f
gasoline gets you a quantifiably different phenomenon from
putting a match to a mixture of oxygen and gasoline vapor.

Liquids don't burn, Mr. Rat. When you put a match to a pool
of gasoline, you are igniting the vapors emanating from it.

Of course, and nothing I wrote says otherwise. *When you put a
match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get is the
result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface. *When
you put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and
oxygen, you get a different phenomenon.

As far as the meaning of the words "semantics," "burn," and
"explode," as well as the theory and operation of an internal
combustion engine, you're free to do your own research, or
defend your own ignorance as you see fit.

It's your claim that the words in use are in contradiction to
their meanings. *Thus the burdens of production and proof rest
with you.
*
Your refusal or inability to defend your position is noted.

Machs nixt to me. I'm content to just make fun of you, Mr.
Semantics, depending, of course, on what I mean by "fun."
He has defended his point extremely well.

He hasn't defended his point at all. *In fact, he hasn't even
stated a point other than to say I'm wrong. *I may be wrong; I
even admitte
d
to being wrong once before.

It is you who is way off base.

And you continue the tradition, apparently believing that if you
simply state something, everyone must take it as gospel.

The best you can do is defend your point by claiming gasoline
vapors 'explode' in the common useage even though it is
incorrect.

This is equivalent to listening to someone say after a large meal,
"I'm about to burst." and then claiming that the person is
incorrect because he really isn't about to burst.

They also BURN in an IC engine. * If you could see a slowed down
vide
o
of a gas vapor cloud "exloding" you would see a flame front
progressing through it from the point of ignition.

So I would see a flame front, presumably exerting great pressure,
rapidly expanding from the point of ignition? *Imagine that.

For your convenience, I'll repeat my claim:

quote
When you put a match to a pool of gasoline, the phenomenon you get
is the result of the combustion of the vapors from the surface.
*When you put a match to an enclosed mixture of gasoline vapor and
oxygen, you get a [quantitatively] different phenomenon.
/quote

But, by all means, continue to tell me I'm wrong because "common
usage is incorrect."

After that, you can claim you're not arguing semantics.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Okay, tell us, oh wise one, just what is the difference between the
combustion of gasoline vapors in open air and in a compressed
state?

Who mentioned a compressed state? *I merely said enclosed. *Are you
claiming there's no difference?



You can check with any engineer you like and you will get the same
asnwer - there is none.

I guess you are. *





Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ahah, I see I misread it. You _didn't_ say compressed. Makes no
difference as there is still no difference.

I am beginning to think you flunked your physics classes.

BTW - explosives do not have a "flame front" the entire mass detonates
basically simultaneously and is due to a shock (usually), not 'fire'.

Harry K

Now was that so hard? It's all you really had to say at the first,
really: "I'd like to break in here with an annoying semantic argument
and point out that technically gasoline isn't an explosive." Everyone
would have thanked you profusely, while pointing out that the combustion
of an enclosed gasoline vapor/oxygen mixture qualifies as an explosion,
or at least as a much different characteristic of energy release from the
combustion of (the vapor from a) burning pool of liquid gasoline.

Thank your dad for me.