• 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?

A W Smith said:
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!

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
Click to expand...


This is unintelligible. Are you saying that Google is returning false results? As an experiment I googled "Smoke is hotter than fire", and I'm not exactly getting a lot of pages that confirm this statement. Next I googled "Smoke is cuddly puppies" and I don't get anything really talking about smoke at all.

Are you suggesting that smoke is not 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...
article-1249885-083AA80E000005DC-387_470x627.jpg


So I see LOTS of flames and dark smoke. So we are all agreed its a hot hydrocarbon based fire. And this picture was after WTC2 had fallen so the jet fuel is long gone up in flames.........
 
sheeplesnshills said:
[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/article-1249885-083AA80E000005DC-387_470x627.jpg[/qimg]

So I see LOTS of flames and dark smoke. So we are all agreed its a hot hydrocarbon based fire. And this picture was after WTC2 had fallen so the jet fuel is long gone up in flames.........
Click to expand...
I'm seeing 20'-30' flames in that picture. That can't be that hot.

:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
I'm seeing 20'-30' flames in that picture. That can't be that hot.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm looking at that picture, and I held a ruler up to it. Those flames are not more than 1, maybe 2 inches high. You shills aren't fooling me at ALL.
 
twinstead said:
I'm looking at that picture, and I held a ruler up to it. Those flames are not more than 1, maybe 2 inches high. You shills aren't fooling me at ALL.
Click to expand...


It's all about the pixels, will no one think of the pixels?
 
ergo said:
Are you suggesting that smoke is not incomplete combustion?
Click to expand...

I am.

Here, let me repeat myself.

"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. "

So no, it's not really incomplete combustion. It's the fact that the fuel burns at a lower temperature than it takes for the hydrocarbons to burn. It's still complete combustion, because there is fire.

If there was no fire, there would be no smoke at all. If the fire is burning really, really hot (like in a blast furnace) then the hydrocarbons would be able to burn off.

"Incomplete combustion) in my eyes implies some type of error. It's not. It's physics and the laws of thermodynamics.
 
Trifor, there's no way you teach fire science.

Everything you just "explained" illustrates why smoke is incomplete combustion.

There's no value judgment on "complete" versus "incomplete" processes. It's just nature. Wherever you got the idea that it's "some type of error", or that you think others think this, I cannot fathom.

You really should just stop talking.
 
Smoke is a byproduct of fire. Always. Black smoke indicates what it burning. Usually oil based hydrocarbons. Plastics, foams, and the like.

Black smoke never indicates a "cool" fire. Ever. Want to test the theory?

Burn some pvc pipe. Stick your face above it. It will burn your face. Every. Single. Time.

You can almost NEVER get a complete combustion of a fuel. It's damn near impossible. You seem to be implying that you could do something to make it combust completly.

I challenge you to try. Please, feel free.
 
triforcharity said:
Black smoke never indicates a "cool" fire. Ever. Want to test the theory?

....

You can almost NEVER get a complete combustion of a fuel. It's damn near impossible. You seem to be implying that you could do something to make it combust completly.
Click to expand...

The fact that you've now moved on to two new strawmen arguments, after providing "explanations" about incomplete combustion that were already provided in my posts suggests to me that you've now conceded the point. Good.

What's the next topic? Why smoke can't weaken steel?
 
Quote his entire post, you dishonest sophist, before you call anyone out for alleged straw men.
 
Darn, can't read any of zero, zero, zero, zero 63's posts.
 
ergo exactly what qualifications do you have in the study of fire again?
 
ergo said:
The fact that you've now moved on to two new strawmen arguments, after providing "explanations" about incomplete combustion that were already provided in my posts suggests to me that you've now conceded the point. Good.

What's the next topic? Why smoke can't weaken steel?
Click to expand...

Your. Arguments Are. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Blender Head said:
Some Truther on YouTube (The reliable information clearinghouse) sent me a message on "Fire Facts"



[emphasis added]

Can someone more knowledgeable in fire facts help me sort this gobbledigook out?
Click to expand...

I've been helping with a camp cleanup and burning some stuff. Somethings like plastic can cause black smoke including other materials that were present in the WTC's. Of course logs were not present in the twin towers and just using Black smoke = fire is cooler is absurd. The color smoke does not tell much about the fire at all, and its one of the misconceptions of what 9/11 mysteries puts down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom