Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it to burn? I.e., will it support
combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and near the end they have
everyone dying from lack of oxygen in the air but are having no problem keeping
generators running on propane.

Harry K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

To: Harry K
On Monday, December 8, 2014 9:33:15 AM UTC-6, Harry K wrote:
Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it to burn? I.e., will it
support combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and near the end they have
everyone dying from lack of oxygen in the air but are having no problem keeping
generators running on propane.

Harry K

No it will not...wouldn't they be dying from CO?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

To: Harry K
On 12/8/2014 10:33 AM, Harry K wrote:
Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it
to burn? I.e., will it support combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome"
and near the end they have everyone dying from
lack of oxygen in the air but are having no problem
keeping generators running on propane.

Harry K

Propane needs to be mixed with air (that data
is out there some where on the web). It is
possible that propane generators can run on
lower air / oxygen than people.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:48:37 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Monday, December 8, 2014 9:33:15 AM UTC-6, Harry K wrote:
Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it to burn? I.e., will it
support combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and near the end they have
everyone dying from lack of oxygen in the air but are having no problem keeping
generators running on propane.

Harry K

No it will not...wouldn't they be dying from CO?

It's like any other fossil fuel. It needs oxygen to burn.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

On 12/8/2014 10:54 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:48:37 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Monday, December 8, 2014 9:33:15 AM UTC-6, Harry K wrote:
Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it
to burn? I.e., will it support combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and
near the end they have everyone dying from lack of
oxygen in the air but are having no problem keeping
generators running on propane.

Harry K

No it will not...wouldn't they be dying from CO?

It's like any other fossil fuel. It needs oxygen to burn.


Which came first? The people passing out,
or the generators quitting? Egging you on,
you're not chicken?

If ice storms and people turning cherry
red in the house is any indication.....

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

Real men can live without oxygen.
We did it in Nam.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

To: Harry K
On 12/8/2014 10:33 AM, Harry K wrote:
Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it to burn? I.e., will it
support combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and near the end they have
everyone dying from lack of oxygen in the air but are having no problem keeping
generators running on propane.

Harry K

Artistic license or call it what you want.
Is that stupid show still on, way past its original expiration date.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

To: Col. Edmund Burke
On 12/8/2014 10:09 AM, Col. Edmund Burke wrote:
Real men can live without oxygen.
We did it in Nam.

What is Nam?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

On 12/8/2014 2:40 PM, IGot2P wrote:
On 12/8/2014 10:09 AM, Col. Edmund Burke wrote:
Real men can live without oxygen.
We did it in Nam.

What is Nam?



Where you meet gooks.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

To: Stormin Mormon
On 12/8/2014 2:46 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/8/2014 2:40 PM, IGot2P wrote:
On 12/8/2014 10:09 AM, Col. Edmund Burke wrote:
Real men can live without oxygen.
We did it in Nam.

What is Nam?


Where you meet gooks.


What's a gooks?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

"Harry K" -cdt-this wrote in
:

Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it to burn? I.e., will
it support combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and near the end they
have everyone dying from lack of oxygen in the air but are having no
problem keeping generators running on propane.





It's Stephen King not thinking too deeply when he wrote that book.

"Under the Dome" is Stephen King's worst book. Ever. By a country mile.

The entire premise is stupid, up to and including the reason why the
"Dome" is shaped the way it is.

He has folks acting in ways that they do NOT act in real life, which
violates one of the the very first rules of fiction-writing.


--
Tegger

On 12/9/2014 1:17 PM, Tegger wrote:
"Harry K" -cdt-this wrote in
:

Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it to burn? I.e., will
it support combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and near the end they
have everyone dying from lack of oxygen in the air but are having no
problem keeping generators running on propane.





It's Stephen King not thinking too deeply when he wrote that book.

"Under the Dome" is Stephen King's worst book. Ever. By a country mile.

The entire premise is stupid, up to and including the reason why the
"Dome" is shaped the way it is.

He has folks acting in ways that they do NOT act in real life, which
violates one of the the very first rules of fiction-writing.



Show was originally just supposed to be a summer special and ending was
something about kids being aliens as I recall from son that read the
book. When it became very popular, they decided to continue it well
past its expiration point.

Funny is that Stephen King used to be one of my favorite authors but I
found later books to be too tedious to read and now discover I don't
like his original books.

On 2014-12-09, Tegger wrote:

"Under the Dome" is Stephen King's worst book. Ever.

How can you tell?

nb

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:01:56 -0500, Frank
wrote in

Funny is that Stephen King used to be one of my favorite authors but I
found later books to be too tedious to read and now discover I don't
like his original books.

+1

I'm guessing that his past few books are were "ghosted".
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 12/9/2014 4:48 PM, CRNG wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:01:56 -0500, Frank
wrote in

Funny is that Stephen King used to be one of my favorite authors but I
found later books to be too tedious to read and now discover I don't
like his original books.

+1

I'm guessing that his past few books are were "ghosted".


I don't know but I went back to look at "The Stand" which was my
favorite book and did not like it anymore. I did not recognize it at
the time but his verbiage is at least twice that required to tell the
story. His Bachman books were better because they were more succinct.

On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 10:17:30 AM UTC-8, Tegger wrote:
"Harry K" -cdt-this wrote in
:

Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it to burn? I.e., will
it support combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and near the end they
have everyone dying from lack of oxygen in the air but are having no
problem keeping generators running on propane.





It's Stephen King not thinking too deeply when he wrote that book.

"Under the Dome" is Stephen King's worst book. Ever. By a country mile.

The entire premise is stupid, up to and including the reason why the
"Dome" is shaped the way it is.

He has folks acting in ways that they do NOT act in real life, which
violates one of the the very first rules of fiction-writing.


--
Tegger

Dead on right! Used do be one of my favorite writers but the 'Dome' sucked from page one. The ending was specially bad, almost as if he had written himself into a dead end and was desperate to end it.

Harry K

In article , harry.k@1 says...

Does propane need an oxidant introduced with it to burn? I.e., will it support
combustion on its own?

Reason I ask is I was reading "Under the Dome" and near the end they have
everyone dying from lack of oxygen in the air but are having no problem keeping
generators running on propane.

Harry K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: e (1:249/999)
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
SpaceSST BBS Usenet Fidonet Gateway

This is the sort of fiction that requires the viewer to accept whatever
scientific laws the writer invents or dismisses to tell the story.
Ignoring CO, for example. The more you know, the more distracting (and
less entertaining) these stories are.

Stephen King is an incredible author, IMO. I've found myself binge-
reading the first half of many of his books. Then he pulls out his well
worn artistic license and I lose interest. I haven't finished reading
more than a handful of them.

Star Trek, in contrast, took great liberties with our current
understanding of Physics. But, with a few very rare exceptions, it was
always plausible.

On 12/10/2014 9:37 AM, Mike Hartigan wrote:

Star Trek, in contrast, took great liberties with our current
understanding of Physics. But, with a few very rare exceptions, it was
always plausible.

We've got communicators. Not yet seen tricorders,
or transporter. Who can tell? Maybe later.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Another who is long past his prime is Dean Koontz. His early books were very good reads. The ones from the latter years are loaded with obvious padding to drive the word count up. Particularly boring descriptions of his monsters that go on and on to the point I have had the urge to scream "GET ON WITH THE STORY ALREADY!!"

Harry K

On 12/10/2014 11:00 AM, Harry K wrote:
Another who is long past his prime is Dean Koontz. His early books were very good reads. The ones from the latter years are loaded with obvious padding to drive the word count up. Particularly boring descriptions of his monsters that go on and on to the point I have had the urge to scream "GET ON WITH THE STORY ALREADY!!"

Harry K



I've come to feel the same way about Koontz as I do King.
I'm not sure so much it is change but becoming familiar with their
techniques and tiring of them.

On 12/10/2014 9:50 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/10/2014 9:37 AM, Mike Hartigan wrote:

Star Trek, in contrast, took great liberties with our current
understanding of Physics. But, with a few very rare exceptions, it was
always plausible.

We've got communicators. Not yet seen tricorders,
or transporter. Who can tell? Maybe later.

-
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Transporter, never. It was put in story originally because of their low
budget. Years ago I saw the Star Trek exhibit at the Smithsonian air
and space museum and you would not believe how cheesy their props were.
Communicator was like a painted block of wood with what looked like
clothing buttons attached. If you saw it close up, it did not look good
enough to be a kids toy. Television was not HD and they could get away
with it.

Maybe Stephen King should stick to escaped psychopathic convicts from mental hospitals chopping up young ladies with an axe.

That seems to be his forte, and Hollywood is full of undiscovered starlets that could be the feedstock of a whole series of axe-murderer movies. You could butcher a dozen women in every movie and still have more waiting their turn to scream their heads off as they're cornered in an old abandoned building by a deranged axe murderer.

I often wondered why they don't have a "Best Scream-stress" catagory in the Acadamy Awards.

Frank wrote in news:m69t0q$qu5$1@dont-
email.me:


Transporter, never. It was put in story originally because of their low
budget. Years ago I saw the Star Trek exhibit at the Smithsonian air
and space museum and you would not believe how cheesy their props were.
Communicator was like a painted block of wood with what looked like
clothing buttons attached. If you saw it close up, it did not look good
enough to be a kids toy. Television was not HD and they could get away
with it.



Yep. I have quite a number of Star Trek "making of" books that were
purchased in my teens, and somehow never hit the trash. They discuss props
and sets in some detail, and seem to relish the cheesiness and ad-hoc
nature of them.

Dr. McCoy's "detectors" or whatever they were that he used to wave over
patients to diagnose them were actually salt-shakers.

There was one episode where the cast was supposed to run down the stairs of
a stone castle, except that the set's stairs were wooden and echoed like
crazy. Apparently the cast broke up in uncontrollable laughter on the first
take on account of the incongruity, and the boomy echo had to be edited out
in the final print.

--
Tegger

Frank wrote in news:m69t0q$qu5$1@dont-
email.me:

Television was not HD and they could get away
with it.


Movies are differnt kettle of fish.

There is a Die Hard movie where Bruce Willis's character throws some 9mm
rounds into a frying pan and flees the scene. The bad guys enter his
apartment, only to be killed by the exploding ammo in the frying pan.

Obviously, that's Hollywood unrealistic silliness. But those rounds were
not as they appeared. I saw the actual props that were used. The 9mm cases
were turned out of actual solid brass, and were made to look as realistic
as possible, right down to the primer hole. In real-life, those cases were
about the height of quart milk-cartons. Huge. Apparently this had to do
with how movie cameras work. It was not possible to use ammunition that was
life-size because the cameras couldn't work properly with things that
small.

--
Tegger

On 12/10/2014 9:12 PM, Tegger wrote:
Yep. I have quite a number of Star Trek "making of" books that were
purchased in my teens, and somehow never hit the trash. They discuss props
and sets in some detail, and seem to relish the cheesiness and ad-hoc
nature of them.

Dr. McCoy's "detectors" or whatever they were that he used to wave over
patients to diagnose them were actually salt-shakers.

There was one episode where the cast was supposed to run down the stairs of
a stone castle, except that the set's stairs were wooden and echoed like
crazy. Apparently the cast broke up in uncontrollable laughter on the first
take on account of the incongruity, and the boomy echo had to be edited out
in the final print.


The one scene where that ugly salt sucking creature
named Nancy Pelosi, was it? They had to steal a salt
shaker from the studio cafeteria, they didn't have
a salt shaker on hand.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:47:25 AM UTC-6, Stormin Mormon wrote:


I remember calling them Full Ton Torpedoes.

Her boobs weren't THAT large!