• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Black Smoke=Incomplete Combustion?

ergo said:
Smoke itself is incomplete combustion. Black smoke has different causes. Heavy black smoke with attendant flames suggests some petroleum product-based (hydrocarbon) fire. Without attendant flames, it suggests that it's either just started or it's struggling or smouldering. Heavy volumes of other-coloured smoke without attendant flames also suggests smouldering.
Click to expand...
Can we agree that this whole smoke color argument is pointless and does not advance the "truther" cause? You do agree Temp can not be determined by smoke color, right?
 
ergo said:
Smoke itself is incomplete combustion. Black smoke has different causes. Heavy black smoke with attendant flames suggests some petroleum product-based (hydrocarbon) fire. Without attendant flames, it suggests that it's either just started or it's struggling or smouldering. Heavy volumes of other-coloured smoke without attendant flames also suggests smouldering.
Click to expand...

The trade tower fires had both, heavy black smoke and massive fire.

8 acres of fire at bare minimum.
 
Blender Head said:
I see, thanks. How exactly would "incomplete combustion" affect the fires in the Towers, or in nature in general?
Click to expand...

Absolutely none. Unless of course it's in an engine or something of the sort, where you need complete combustion of the fuel to produce some kind of work.

Other than that, none whatsoever.
 
Actually, I wouldn't call it incomplete combustion. I would call it the effects of an organic process.

Smoke is actually the hydrocarbons evaporating. (About 300 deg. F for wood) When the fire gets hot enough to burn the hydrocarbons, there is no smoke produced.

This RARELY occurs in plastics or other oil-based fires, because the fire will need to be quite hot, possibly upwards of 3,000 deg. F or so, to burn the hydrocarbons in plastics.
 
A W Smith said:
hmmm Smoke,, nope,, nothing about incomplete combustion there either
Click to expand...


Yes, I see you've done extensive research on the matter.

I hate to stand in the way of your obvious knowledge on the subject, but here is another search you could try...
 
From the second result, besides this thread;

sciencedaily said:
Smoke is a suspension in air (aerosol) of small particles resulting from incomplete combustion of a fuel.
Click to expand...
Not some smoke, Ergo, not smoke under certain conditions. All smoke. All of it. Black, grey, white, purple, neon green, whatever color.

You might want to get someone to take a look at that hole in your foot.
 
000063 said:
From the second result, besides this thread;

Not some smoke, Ergo, not smoke under certain conditions. All smoke. All of it. Black, grey, white, purple, neon green, whatever color.

You might want to get someone to take a look at that hole in your foot.
Click to expand...

They used simulators on 9/11? :jaw-dropp

(for the uninitiated, that was sarcasm. :D)
 
000063 said:
Not some smoke, Ergo, not smoke under certain conditions. All smoke. All of it. Black, grey, white, purple, neon green, whatever color.
Click to expand...

Gosh, thanks for clearing that up for me. Because it apparently wasn't clear to me when I made this statement:

ergo said:
Smoke itself is incomplete combustion.
Click to expand...


I'm so glad I logged out just to read your post.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Smoke itself is incomplete combustion. Black smoke has different causes. Heavy black smoke with attendant flames suggests some petroleum product-based (hydrocarbon) fire. Without attendant flames, it suggests that it's either just started or it's struggling or smouldering. Heavy volumes of other-coloured smoke without attendant flames also suggests smouldering.
Click to expand...

And? You do realize that qualifies any number of material such as plastics, rubbers, laminates, glues, paints, lubricants, foams, etc.

All of which were present in high volumes at the WTC.
 
ergo said:
Yes, I see you've done extensive research on the matter.

I hate to stand in the way of your obvious knowledge on the subject, but here is another search you could try...
Click to expand...
I am shocked that a Google search using terms "incomplete combustion" would return results including the words "incomplete combustion" Shocked I tell you. It's almost as if some jackass 911 troll was trying to quote mine skewed results!

ergo said:
Gosh, thanks for clearing that up for me. Because it apparently wasn't clear to me when I made this statement:




I'm so glad I logged out just to read your post.
Click to expand...
oh a wiki article! Edited by people on the interwebs

Note: This page refers to an article that is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the article Smoke at Wikipedia.org. See the Wikipedia copyright page for more details
 
ergo said:
Gosh, thanks for clearing that up for me. Because it apparently wasn't clear to me when I made this statement:

I'm so glad I logged out just to read your post.
Click to expand...
I apologize. I had no idea you actually made an assertive claim. That's your quota for the month, I believe. Now for you to get back to dodging questions about whether the sun can be used to tell time, being snide, using incorrect "bedunker" arguments, and indirectly asserting by questioning in a manner that prevents you from being pinned down.

DGM said:
Can we agree that this whole smoke color argument is pointless and does not advance the "truther" cause? You do agree Temp can not be determined by smoke color, right?
Click to expand...
There's a question for you to-not answer, Ergo. Better get to it.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Here's a little test you can all run, if you feel like it, to determine whether a black, smoking flame can be as hot as a smokeless one. Have someone pour a cubic centimeter of kerosene in your right hand, and alcohol on your left. Have them light it. Observe which produces the most smoke. Observe which one hurts the most.

I'm betting it is the kerosene.

I have had both burning on my skin. Alcohol aint that bad, and it leaves a lot less soot.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but I think I'm going to skip experiments that involve setting parts of my body on fire, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom