• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

From the humor section: but what would really happen?

SLD

Contributor
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Messages
5,623
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
AF7DCDBA-5499-4771-BD0D-0A26DF1F836C.jpeg

OK this was posted in the humor section, and I’ve used it on Facebook in response to many photos of hoarders.

Very funny. But then I thought: what would actually happen?

Would the gas vapors ignite? If the gas wasn’t sloshed around and the candles didn’t drop burning wax or embers from the wicks into the gas would nothing happen?

If it did ignite, would it just burn, or explode like a Napalm bomb?
 
View attachment 33599

OK this was posted in the humor section, and I’ve used it on Facebook in response to many photos of hoarders.

Very funny. But then I thought: what would actually happen?

Would the gas vapors ignite? If the gas wasn’t sloshed around and the candles didn’t drop burning wax or embers from the wicks into the gas would nothing happen?

If it did ignite, would it just burn, or explode like a Napalm bomb?

Petroleum vapour mixed with air is explosive, and easy to ignite.

The explosion would help to distribute burning liquid gasoline over a wide area; You would get a small explosion* followed by a large and vigorous fire.

The octane fraction that we use today for gasoline was, about a century ago, burned off at the refinery as it was considered too hazardous to store or transport, and had few practical uses. Oil companies at the time were interested in the heavier stuff - kerosene, heating oil, lamp oil, and bitumen.

Gasoline is pretty dangerous stuff unless stored and transported with great care, and in accordance with safety regulations.

People hoarding it in unapproved containers are taking a huge risk.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colonial-pipeline-gas-hoarding-hummer-b1847884.html

Contrary to expectations set by Hollywood, you shouldn't expect explosions when a car crashes, as long as the gasoline is in the tenk and/or properly designed containers.

*Technically it's a deflagration, not an explosion, as the flame front propagates at less than the speed of sound; But it's going to be enough to spray burning fuel quite a good distance, and certainly across the whole of any reasonably sized bathroom.
 
When I was a kid tere was a report of a welder igniting fumes from a gas station being filled. The premature and breezes spread it out over the ground. When a tank truck is filling gas station tanks you can smell it a ways off.

You do not want to be smoking a cigarette while filling your gas tank. at the staton.

It was a problem on early petroleum railroad tankers. Thermal expansion and pressure force the early designs to have vents on the top.

You can probably find videos of somebody throwing a lir match into a bucket of gas, There is not enough O2 for compunction. Carburetors and fuel injection in cars crate an air-gas mixture. Kaboom.

Explosives are rated by rate of reaction. Dynamite is a high explosive. Gas explosions propagate fast. Loose black powder in an area and it just burns. Put it in a sealed metal pipe and you have a pipe bomb. The movie idea that you can outrun a gas explosion is fiction.

Mythbusters did an experiment. They built a small

In another they tried to detonate a propane tank by shooting at it and failed.
 
Gas vapor is not to be trifled with. The amateur linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf famously used this as an example of the principle later named the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, ie., the idea that language itself shapes the way we perceive the world as opposed to just passively describing it. He noted that in his day job as a fire inspector, he observed that people were often careful around "full" gas barrels but fatally careless around "empties". He thought that this was because in English, "empty" often means entirely devoid of content, but can also mean, as here, merely empty of its usual contents. If it weren't for the customry "empty/full" metaphor, it would never occur to anyone to think of a gas barrel as ever being empty and thus safe to smoke around. No such contruction exists in Dineh Bizaad, for instance, You would say "the barrel containing air", or if you knew something about petroleum barrels, "the barrel containing vapor".
 
Gas vapor is not to be trifled with. The amateur linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf famously used this as an example of the principle later named the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, ie., the idea that language itself shapes the way we perceive the world as opposed to just passively describing it. He noted that in his day job as a fire inspector, he observed that people were often careful around "full" gas barrels but fatally careless around "empties". He thought that this was because in English, "empty" often means entirely devoid of content, but can also mean, as here, merely empty of its usual contents. If it weren't for the customry "empty/full" metaphor, it would never occur to anyone to think of a gas barrel as ever being empty and thus safe to smoke around. No such contruction exists in Dineh Bizaad, for instance, You would say "the barrel containing air", or if you knew something about petroleum barrels, "the barrel containing vapor".

Or as they would say in Jamaica, the barrel is full of empty.
 
upper/lower flammability limits.
too little vapor, no ignition
too much vapor, no ignition
I don't know why people "get off" on arson jokes.
 
upper/lower flammability limits.
too little vapor, no ignition
too much vapor, no ignition
I don't know why people "get off" on arson jokes.

Yes, that really 'burns my ass' too.
 
Unless you have been brain dead for the last 50 years, obviously culture shapes language and language affects culture,.

The current cerebration is constantly inventing new terms.
 
Unless you have been brain dead for the last 50 years, obviously culture shapes language and language affects culture,.

The current cerebration is constantly inventing new terms.
As an interesting tangent on that idea, it strikes me that there seems to be a dichotomy of people that can be delineated between "those who force language to conform to ideas" and "those who force ideas to conform to language".

Of course everyone does both to some extent, but there seems to be this wide gulf, where people sit either on one side of it or the other.

The thing is, I don't tend to see people many people insisting on X means (1)... (2)... Ever being the same people to engage in "here's an old word that seems useless so I'm going to just redefine it a little bit to mean this thing that seems useful to discuss".

Edit: contributing to something a little more on topic, it is my understanding that the plastic trash bags they are using for this shit will dissolve partially or entirely in the gasoline. Not to mention that both the bag material and I believe also the gasoline can act as charge carriers prior to a static discharge. I don't think you even really need a flame in a room with a soon-to-be-open vat of gasoline. Not to mention that a contactor in a light switch or an outlet could just as easily set it off...
 
I think it goes both ways.

We no longer call illegal immigrants illegal, they are undocumented. Language forcing a conformity. New concepts and situations force language to adapt.

News shows periodically highlight new terms that surface.
 
I think it goes both ways.

We no longer call illegal immigrants illegal, they are undocumented. Language forcing a conformity. New concepts and situations force language to adapt.

News shows periodically highlight new terms that surface.

Plenty of people call other people "illegals". You just did yourself. And aside from losing a bit of respect from most people who read it, you faced no consequences.

Dumb imaginary persecution complexes impress no one.
 
Start a thread on social science on the topic.

Knee jerk ad homs.

If people cross the border illegally they are what? They are here illegally. The narrative was changed on the left by forcing a PC term 'undocumented' to be substituted for illegal to intentionally infer anyone has a right to walk across the border. It worked, in the media the word illegal in main stream media is gone. If you use it you are racist and anti-immigration. That is obvious and that is how politics uses words to shape culture. It is not exactly profound revelation.

Hitler was a master at it, albeit an evil master.


Dude, that is political propaganda and mind control. Lest I seem biased, on the right Trump shaped the conservative culture in the same way. Conservatives since forever have equated any social programs with communism ad totalitarianism. The anti health care for all was organized and changed the narrative to equate national health care with loss of individual rights and freedoms in general. Anyone who supported national health care was a commie, like progressives calling anyone who says illegals is racist.

The same techniques on both sides attempting to shape culture with words.

Just watch TV commercials. They reflect the symbiotic back and forth between culture shaping words and words shaping culture. Adverting feeds n it.

I'll add unless ypu actually see the negatives up close in person of the illegal immigration consequences you have no clue what you are talking about.

End of derail.
 
Start a thread on social science on the topic.

Knee jerk ad homs.

If people cross the border illegally they are what? They are here illegally. The narrative was changed on the left by forcing a PC term 'undocumented' to be substituted for illegal to intentionally infer anyone has a right to walk across the border. It worked, in the media the word illegal in main stream media is gone. If you use it you are racist and anti-immigration. That is obvious and that is how politics uses words to shape culture. It is not exactly profound revelation.

Hitler was a master at it, albeit an evil master.


Dude, that is political propaganda and mind control. Lest I seem biased, on the right Trump shaped the conservative culture in the same way. Conservatives since forever have equated any social programs with communism ad totalitarianism. The anti health care for all was organized and changed the narrative to equate national health care with loss of individual rights and freedoms in general. Anyone who supported national health care was a commie, like progressives calling anyone who says illegals is racist.

The same techniques on both sides attempting to shape culture with words.

Just watch TV commercials. They reflect the symbiotic back and forth between culture shaping words and words shaping culture. Adverting feeds n it.

I'll add unless ypu actually see the negatives up close in person of the illegal immigration consequences you have no clue what you are talking about.

End of derail.
So, if we put illegal immigrants in a tub and light candles along the edge, no fire, no explosion, no explosion that causes a fire. The only potential consequence would be the people getting angry you put them in your tub, for like no reason at all. Got it.
 
So, if we put illegal immigrants in a tub and light candles along the edge, no fire, no explosion, no explosion that causes a fire. The only potential consequence would be the people getting angry you put them in your tub, for like no reason at all. Got it.
I've never experienced illegal aliens getting angry when I put them in the tub.... Well maybe once when I tried to squeeze that eighth one in.
 
So, if we put illegal immigrants in a tub and light candles along the edge, no fire, no explosion, no explosion that causes a fire. The only potential consequence would be the people getting angry you put them in your tub, for like no reason at all. Got it.
I've never experienced illegal aliens getting angry when I put them in the tub.... Well maybe once when I tried to squeeze that eighth one in.
It's cause they're not gasoline, they're diesel.
 
Back
Top Bottom