harry k wrote:
On Mar 7, 7:40 am, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:30:35 -0800 (PST), harry k





wrote:
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
:
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, 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
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Otherwise known as "ping" which can destroy an engine in short
ordfer. The cause is a secondary ignition point from the planned
one. I have been wondering whether that is an 'explosion' or anothe
example of 'combustion' gone wrong. I don't know.

Harry K

It is actually just a second flame front, which collides with the first
one to make the 'ping' and resulting extreme cylinder pressures. Still
not an explosion. Gasoline cannot 'explode'. It merely burns, and
sometimes rapidly.

s

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 10:17:54 -0800 (PST), harry k
wrote:


What do you suppose the word explode means?

*...to burst forth with sudden violence or noise from internal energy:
as a: to undergo a rapid chemical or nuclear reaction with the
production of noise, heat, and violent expansion of gases

An explosion is merely rapid oxidation or combustion. Igniting a
gasoline/air mixture matches the definition of "explosion" perfectly.

If you look at a slow-mo of dynamite exploding, you can observe the
same flame front you described above.

Ever see what happens when dust explodes in a factory?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This entire discussion with Mr. Rat is basically semantics. Dynamite
does not have a flame front. Dust does.

Again. TECHNICALLY a gas vapor, contained or not, does not 'explode'
although that _is_ the common term.

Neither you nor him can seem to get that point.

Harry K

I guess you'll just have to go through life deliberately uninformed,
then.

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 10:22:06 -0800 (PST), harry k
wrote:

I don't know.

Harry K

Well, at least you got that right!

On Mar 7, 12:22*pm, Steve Barker wrote:
harry k wrote:
On Mar 7, 7:40 am, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:30:35 -0800 (PST), harry k

wrote:
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
news:Qp6dncpYrbJUSDLUnZ2dnUVZ_gyWnZ2d@gi ganews.com:
Deadrat wrote:
richard wrote in
news:qsmuq4ta0c50kjgoca57282v72u3bg83k :
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:54:45 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:
Zorro the Geek wrote:
wrote in message
news:r9mhc19f1rmnb1psnv0g0jfr6nlvbn ...
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
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Otherwise known as "ping" which can destroy an engine in short
ordfer. *The cause is a secondary ignition point from the planned
one. *I have been wondering whether that is an 'explosion' or anothe
example of 'combustion' gone wrong. *I don't know.

Harry K

It is actually just a second flame front, which collides with the first
one to make the 'ping' and resulting extreme cylinder pressures. *Still
not an explosion. *Gasoline cannot 'explode'. *It merely burns, and
sometimes rapidly.

s- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you shouldn't try to educate the the people who "know what I know
and don't confuse me with facts"

Harry K

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 10:22:06 -0800 (PST), harry k
wrote:

On Mar 7, 7:40Â*am, wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Otherwise known as "ping" which can destroy an engine in short
ordfer. The cause is a secondary ignition point from the planned
one. I have been wondering whether that is an 'explosion' or anothe
example of 'combustion' gone wrong. I don't know.

Harry K
A "ping" can be pre-ignition or detonation. Detonation IS explosion -
but not technically of gasoline/oxygen mixture.
Detonation occurs when the "end gasses" in the chamber dissassociate
forming hydrogen free radicals - which are extremely unstable, and DO
explode.
By the way, pre-ignition CAN cause detonation, and detonation often
does cause pre-ignition - yet they are two totally separate
phenonmenons.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:22:07 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

harry k wrote:
On Mar 7, 7:40 am, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:30:35 -0800 (PST), harry k





wrote:
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
:
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, 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
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Otherwise known as "ping" which can destroy an engine in short
ordfer. The cause is a secondary ignition point from the planned
one. I have been wondering whether that is an 'explosion' or anothe
example of 'combustion' gone wrong. I don't know.

Harry K

It is actually just a second flame front, which collides with the first
one to make the 'ping' and resulting extreme cylinder pressures. Still
not an explosion. Gasoline cannot 'explode'. It merely burns, and
sometimes rapidly.

s
Your understanding of detonation in an engine is faulty and car from
complete. It is FAR more than two flame fronts colliding.Far more
complex, and DEFINITELY involves "explosion" - on the same order as
C4.