Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[triforcharity]

Um, wood is a hydrocarbon.

Sorry, too many big words?

An oil based product? Such as plastics, foams, and other synthetic materials.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Um, wood is a hydrocarbon.

Wrong on two counts.

First of all, wood is a plant structure, not a single chemical, so
your sentence contains a glaring category error.

Even if we ignore that blunder, the two main chemicals in wood
are cellulose and lignin. Neither is a hydrocarbon.

 

[ergo]

Sorry, too many big words?

An oil based product? Such as plastics, foams, and other synthetic materials.

No, you were right the first time. Wood burning releases hydrocarbons. Correction.

 

[ergo]

Wrong on two counts.

First of all, wood is a plant structure, not a single chemical, so
your sentence contains a glaring category error.

Even if we ignore that blunder, the two main chemicals in wood
are cellulose and lignin. Neither is a hydrocarbon.

Yes, but our college professor didn't catch that.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, but our college professor didn't catch that.

I figured you would be lost with big words like cellulose and lignin.

 

[ergo]

[
The reason a fire may profuce a slight difference in smoke, is the fire can sometimes become very hot, and begins a more complete breakdown of the material burning. This really only applies to wood and natural objects, as opposed to hydrocarbons.

This is exactly what I've been saying. What about anything I've said contradicts this?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I figured you would be lost with big words like cellulose and lignin.

"Smoke" and "fire" are getting away from this guy.

 

[triforcharity]

This is exactly what I've been saying. What about anything I've said contradicts this?

grey smoke=small/smoldering fires

Small fires produce more smoke than raging fires.

Not to mention the fact that you never stated that you were speaking of natural fuels. Since we were talking about a building fire, in context, that would be a hydrocarbon fire.

 

[ergo]

I'm getting tired of this. The smoke versus fire debate goes back probably six pages now. I wish you would read what I wrote and have been saying about this.

Smoke emanating from a building for hours with little sign of flames on its active side and no sign of flames on any other side of the building indicates what kind of fire, Mr. Fire Professor?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The reason a fire may profuce a slight difference in smoke, is the fire can sometimes become very hot, and begins a more complete breakdown of the material burning. This really only applies to wood and natural objects, as opposed to hydrocarbons.

Um, wood is a hydrocarbon.

The reason a fire may profuce a slight difference in smoke, is the fire can sometimes become very hot, and begins a more complete breakdown of the material burning. This really only applies to wood and natural objects, as opposed to hydrocarbons.

This is exactly what I've been saying. What about anything I've said contradicts this?

See above.

I'm getting tired of this. The smoke versus fire debate goes back probably six pages now. I wish you would read what I wrote and have been saying about this.

Why should he try to understand what you wrote when you so obviously don't?

 

[ergo]

Just let him answer the question.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I wish you would read what I wrote and have been saying about this.

That's the problem for you, we have been. And it has been phenomenally stupid.

Smoke emanating from a building for hours with little sign of flames on its active side and no sign of flames on any other side of the building indicates what kind of fire, Mr. Fire Professor?

If there's little ventilation to bring in cool air as well as fresh oxygen, it will probably be a very hot one. Even a smoldering fire can increase the temperature of a room dramatically as long as the ambient temperature isn't being bled off.

 

[ergo]

And actually, he never did explain this:

You will have a lot of smoke at the beginning of a fire before it really gets going, and then the smoke itself burns, so there's much less of it.

This is absolutely incorrect.

S.o.t., give it up.

 

[ergo]

Fire professor doesn't want to answer my question. What a surprise.

Audi.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

S.o.t., give it up.

Sorry, couldn't see the facts and evidence for the whining.

What were you trying to say?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

No, you were right the first time. Wood burning releases hydrocarbons. Correction.

When wood is burnt, the primary combustion products are water vapor, carbon dioxide, wood ash, and incompletely oxidized products such as carbon monoxide and soot.

To produce hydrocarbons in quantity from cellulose or lignin, you'd have to reduce the cellulose or lignin, not oxidize it. Translated into language that ergo will nevertheless find some way to misunderstand: To get hydrocarbons in quantity from wood, you'd have to go in the opposite direction; you'd have to un-burn the wood.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Without flames, and without ever igniting, yes, it seems it can be. The article you just quoted says that the volume of smoke is less important than its velocity. You will have a lot of smoke at the beginning of a fire before it really gets going, and then the smoke itself burns, so there's much less of it.

I haven't seen images of fast, horizontally ejecting plumes and billows coming out of WTC 7. Maybe my original description that you quote isn't terribly accurate, but my position hasn't changed.

It's pretty simple, really. Significant building fires are very obvious. They don't leave you guessing.

Isn't accurate? The article you linked says that thick dark smoke is a sign of a hot fire. This is directly at odds with your previous statements. Who is right? The author of that article or you?

Where are you going with this "smoke itself burns" line? That only occurs in a fire where the fuel isn't fully combusted. We didn't see any smoke explosions on WTC7. This is yet one more sign that the fire was not oxygen starved as you claim it was.

 

[Newtons Bit]

When wood is burnt, the primary combustion products are water vapor, carbon dioxide, wood ash, and incompletely oxidized products such as carbon monoxide and soot.

To produce hydrocarbons in quantity from cellulose or lignin, you'd have to reduce the cellulose or lignin, not oxidize it. Translated into language that ergo will nevertheless find some way to misunderstand: To get hydrocarbons in quantity from wood, you'd have to go in the opposite direction; you'd have to un-burn the wood.

He's still trying to wing it, even though we keep telling him it's a bad way to go. You'd at least think he'd learn to wikipedia words he doesn't understand before writing them.

Nah, that would require learning and that would cause pain.

 

[alienentity]

I'm getting tired of this. The smoke versus fire debate goes back probably six pages now. I wish you would read what I wrote and have been saying about this.

Smoke emanating from a building for hours with little sign of flames on its active side and no sign of flames on any other side of the building indicates what kind of fire, Mr. Fire Professor?

Another empty strawman. You're still chasing your tale and will fail (and my rhymes will make you pale), and have the comprehension of a snail.

Let me isolate one of the particularly stupid and false things you just wrote, shall I?
'no sign of flames on any other side of the building'

Let's begin with this video, which shows plenty of flame visible from the SE view, and lots of billowing smoke, indicating a condition firefighters described as 'fully involved'. It also includes some footage of the East face, with multiple large fires visible leaping out of windows, and thick dark smoke as well.
Once again, Ergo's flimsy attempt to prevaricate, to invent phony data about fire science is revealed as a complete fraud: We have flames and dark or black smoke, just as Ergo claimed would NOT be happening.

Hint: This is not a wood fire, so drop the references to wood fires please.



Next, we directly refute Ergos false claim that there was 'no sign of flames on any other side' in the context of the North face.

Get ready to be pwned again Ergo - you asked for it, you're getting it.

 

[beachnut]

WTC 7, invisible fire.