cold weather powder

[Rifleman]

ET- Good question and the answer is a simple one. Only form of matter that will burn is gas. Matter comes in 3 forms ( some may argue plasma as a 4th) but we all grew up in school learning that matter is either liquid, solid, or gas. Liquids do not burn, solids do not burn, only gas burns. Ah but one may say, oh man Rman is crazy, gasoline is a liquid and it burns. Nope, it gives off flammable vapors that burns. Same thing with any solid, it must be heated to the point that it gives off a gas, and then the gas burns. Next time you are sitting in front of a campfire watch the logs closely. There is a gap between the flame and the log. Only Gases burn.

[ET]

Rifleman

You’re absolutely right about gasoline and am aware of the flammability of the vapor and not the liquid. I’m also aware of liquids that if exposed to air will burst into flames but again vaporization with the mixture of oxygen has to occur.

I have watched many a campfire and been caught with the hypnotic affect of flames that appear dancing on the wood.

But where I am having difficulties of accepting the gases state only burns concept is when I see metals such as magnesium or even titanium burn when heated to their flashpoint. There are other elements when combined will also burn in a rapid volatile state when a certain level of energy such as heat is applied to it and this is how I currently see gun powder reacting.

No I don’t think Rman is crazy and am not here too challenge his statement but seeking a better understanding of something I’m not really educated with.
What I find ironic is that when I was a little guy or even a teen going to school I was always anxious to too stop learning and get out into the real world. But once out there I find I have never stopped learning and in some cases desire to learn much more. I can honestly say the learning process itself just never ceases.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.


Ed

[Rifleman]

But where I am having difficulties of accepting the gases state only burns concept is when I see metals such as magnesium or even titanium burn when heated to their flashpoint.

You just answered your own question. Flashpoint is the point where a substance is heated to the point it will give off a vapor. Often the term flashpoint is confused with the term " ignition point", which is the temperature said gas will ignite. Often these two points are very close together, but they are not the same thing. So the substance is heated to where it gives off a gas ( which is flammable) then it is ignited when the gas reaches the temperature at which it will burn. It might look like that solid bar og magnesium is burning, but it is the vapors coming off of it. Once a material gets hot enough it will sustain this reaction until the fuel is gone or the cycle is broken ( like putting on a agent that removes the heat or O2).

[ET]

Rman

I’m sorry and respectfully can’t quite agree with you on this at this point in time.

I would like you to read a summary I pulled from the net while doing a little research.


“Solid fuels account by far for most of the combustibles consumed in both structure and wildland fires. Because of pyrolysis and solid-air (glowing) combustion, their behavior in fire is more complex than that of gases or liquids, which evaporate and then mix more freely with air. Those processes are, nonetheless, fairly predictable if all appropriate variables and vagaries are considered. For example, an appreciation of the mechanisms of heat transmission by radiation, convection, and flame impingement is important if the investigator is to understand the ignition and combustion of solids. Although its complete chemistry is too complex to be fully examined here, the role of pyrolysis in decomposing a solid fuel to simpler, oxidizable components must be understood. Only one element is now missing from our examination of the fire process—that of a source of ignition. No matter whether the fuel is solid, liquid, or gas, without ignition there will be no fire to investigate.”

This summary does recognize difference between solid, liquid and gas fuels. It expresses their behavior when ignited responds differently. This behavioral difference alone suggests a more complex chemical process is occurring and not one restricted to gas burning.


Ed

[Rifleman]

"This behavioral difference alone suggests a more complex chemical process is occurring and not one restricted to gas burning."

Ed you are correct, it is more complex then gas burning, but it is only gas that burns, after reading the article, what I understand what the article is refering to is the process whereby the solid fuel is transformed to a gas. Feel free to disagree, it is a free country, however the article you quoted simply refers to the complex methods that solids break down under heat. I do not see at all where it is stating that solids burn prior to the conversion. Char- yes, but that is part of the process of the breakdown into a gas form. As far as I know I still maintain that only gas will burn, that your article defends my postion and that no credible source provides information that anything but gas will burn. However I am not above being corrected, I am always glad to learn more, I just don't think the information you provided did that.

[ET]

Rman

I’m not trying to correct you, convert you or change your stance on the subject.
Just expressing why I can’t fully accept the gas burning only concept.
It’s been an interesting discussion and no sense in dragging it out.


Ed

[Rifleman]

No problem Ed. In my line of work ( I am an operator in a coal fired electrical generating station) I have to have a working knowledge of the physics of what I do to be good at what I do. We also deal with a constant threat of unwanted fires and receive a great deal of fire training. To the best of my knowledge what I am saying is not only true, but is considered fact by those that fight fire as well of those who must understand the science of fire to accomplish what they do. However since I have such a vested interest in understanding this subject, I am open to receiving further education about the subject. I am just saying that I am open to more complete information if it is presented. So far no new information on the subject has been presented. You can certainly believe what ever you like about this subject, I highly doubt it will have much of an effect on any thing that matters in the long run anyhow.

[ET]

Rman

I have no doubt as to your credentials and you have a large responsibility as an operator at a coal fired station.

But for a point of interest let me share some of mine as an inspector and licensed NDT, along with a few other trades.

My line of work allows me to not only visit Coal Fired Generating Stations but also Waste Heat Generating Stations, Nuclear Generating Stations and all types of Refineries. Anything that involves ASME Pressure Work and specific inspections.
I’m the guy that also writes Inspection Test Plans for specific installations.
And yes a lot of knowledge can be learned from each location where different applications are employed.
Something simple as why coal is pulverized before being injected into the furnace of the boiler or why huge coal piles are watered periodically to why steam has to have a certain percentage of dryness before being released to turn turbines.

A requirement here for being allowed to enter or work on any construction site or industrial plant you must have a Safety Indoctrination first to cover all hazardous exposure and response required from you if you find yourself in such a situation as outlined by your indoctrination. This is mandatory law here.

I’ve also been trained using simple explosives in metal forming and have done such work in Electrical Generating stations that use steam to drive the turbines. Here the Feed Water Heaters had to have stainless inserts for their inlet and out let tube ends installed. In this case it was usually a total of 800 inserts.
I’ve even done tube expansion in the middle of a refinery using explosives. You can imagine there is some responsibility involved also. But herein is also why I can’t just accept the flame only propagation of a burn. In my training there never once was a reference to flame propagation supporting the rapid burn of a solid that can result in an explosion. Basically when smokeless powder, a solid is ignited with a specifically level of energy we are in a way producing a controlled explosion.
You might ask why the mention of a specific level of energy for ignition. Okay let’s take prima-cord that’s used with explosives and can be used as an explosive itself. It’s a tube filled with a powder (solid) and has an interesting response say when a flame from a match is applied to it. It establishes a flame and burns like a candle. Now put a blasting cap to it and the burn will propagate at about 5-miles a second. Can a flame even be supported at this velocity?

I once asked how to define an explosion. The response was; It involves a chemical reaction that rapidly generates hot expanding gases.
Again I won’t try to discredit your statement but without further proof or knowledge I can’t totally support it either.

Maybe in the end it doesn't matter for the resulting outcome.

Ed

[wilmsmeyer]

I think we are over thinking this as it applies to shooting. It is interesting though.

[Rifleman]

Ed No doubt that is one heck of a resume. On occasion I have the opportunity to deal with your peers. There is one gentleman I know who has a similar resume to yours that comes to our station about once a year and sometimes I am the poor schmuck who has to follow him around and take notes since I am just about the only one who takes such an interest enough to try and even understand him. He is an engineer who specializes in loss prevention and the guy is a walking talking encyclopedia of the NFPA code. I would suppose you have something similar to NFPA in Canada. From your statement I see we have alot of the same policies in common. Anyway, this fella is the sharpest guy on Fire Science that I know and if I get a chance to see him when he comes around this fall I will run this question by him. I am more interested in getting the right answer then being right as I am sure you are. However I do think we are boring everyone else to death. So maybe we can discuss this more in the pm section. Anyway I will leave off with this thought. Explosions are different in some fundamental ways then a burn, anyways I think they are, and when dealing with smokeless gun powder we are talking about a controlled burning process, not an explosion. I think right now it would be interesting to get input from a professional ballistician.

[ET]

Rman

Agreed

But 1-clarification is needed for the record. I’m not in the class of an engineer but am his helper and watchdog. I collect data and report, do specific testing and watch that his procedures for construction are followed to achieve the results necessary. Like you I ask questions, take notes and learn.

Also I would like to apologize to Pfw4666 for participating in directing this thread away from his intended purpose.
Lets just say I got caught up in the heat of the moment.


Ed