Unthreaded
EM I understand no one was hurt in this disastrous launch of Elon Musk's latest subsidy scheme, and you are inviting us to speculate? Ok .....
Did they leave the mains charger in when starting to pump in real fuel, that none of Musk's staff knew was dangerous?
Did the self destruct and recycle function get activated too soon?
Did Musk want to prove his cars are so reliable, he can use the same technology to travel into space?
As it was an Israeli "communications satellite" that was destroyed, will we ever find out?
golf charlie
I was watching the BBC video of the SpaceX Falcon explosion.
. Stopping it 1 second in shows that the explosion began at the bottom of the payload fairing, at the top of the lower stage, and not in the main engines. I wonder what went wrong.
Entropic man
Pcar - you are talking nonsense. I take it you never studied chemistry?
Of course carbon burns. It is complete bollocks to say it does not burn. It is the fuel (in the form of coke or charcoal) for blast furnaces. It burns like buggery when it's hot and supplied with forced air.
... The blast furnace is a huge, steel stack lined with refractory brick, where iron ore, coke and limestone are dumped into the top, and preheated air is blown into the bottom....American Iron and Steel Institute
The heat comes from breaking the C-H bond. No C-H bonds in carbonfibre.
Sep 1, 2016 at 7:28 PM | Registered CommenterPcar
This is plain wrong. It takes energy to break the C-H bonds in normal fuels. Breaking those bonds does not release energy.
Here are some numbers:
Energy released by burning 1kg of carbon: 32.8 MJ
[ref: Sustainable Energy, Richard Dunlap]
Energy released by burning 1kg of hydrogen: 142 MJ
Energy released by burning 1kg of methane: 55.5 MJ
[ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density]
Atomic weight of C = 12
Atomic weight of H = 1
So 16 kg of methane (CH4) contains 12kg of C, 4kg of H.
Burning 16kg of methane gives 16 × 55.5 = 883 MJ
Burning 12kg of carbon and 4kg of hydrogen gives 12 × 32.8 + 4 × 142 = 962 MJ
962 MJ is greater than 883 MJ. (E&OE)
Conclusion: Burning pure carbon and pure hydrogen gives more energy than burning the same masses of C and H in the form of methane. So energy is absorbed, not liberated, when the C - H bonds are broken.
Martin A
AK & EM,
They are not burning, they are oxidising.
Is a white hot filament in a lamp "burning". Is a red hot electric fire element "burning"?
@AK,
You stated you "know" glass does not burn - how do you know this? Is it because it seems intuitive or obvious? Have you seen proof?
I can not prove CF, GF, Kevlar, Nomex, glass, concrete, slate.... are non-flamable. I accept the fact they are.
If you want proof ask God or manufacturers.
.
Your constant picking holes in others posts and demands for proof, more proof and yet more proof and ignoring questions directed to you when you have been proved wrong is why I and others have called you a troll.
Pcar
EM. Indeed, but graphite is also crystalline carbon.
ACK
Pcar
Even crystalline carbon burns.
Look for "burning diamonds" on YouTube.
Entropic man
PCar. Look up graphite, it's pure carbon. It burns brightly.
ACK
@AK,
It is not "clearly wrong" - pure carbon does not burn.
As I said, contact the manufacturers.
Ask Nomex why their fabric does not burn.
Pcar
@GC, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:41 PM
stewgreen, I thought if you tipped petrol on a cat and ignited it, it went WOOF!
ROFL :)
As many arsonists have found out, along with bonfire and barbecue enthusiasts, the vapour burns explosively, before the liquid ignites.
I blame TV/Movies for that. Viewers see the bad guy sloshing petrol around then throwing a match on it and a flame slowly spreads. Similar to hiding behind a car door for protection from gunfire - bullet makes a round hole in thin metal door-skin and is then miraculously stopped by a thin piece of cardboard.
Shame more of the idiots don't win a Darwin award.
Pcar
Hurricane Hermine
Storm Surge Cam: Cedar Key, FL