Talk:Dust explosion

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 65.94.138.239 in topic A Certain Magical Index

Five conditions for a dust explosion

edit

I too think the section about the 5 conditions is incorrect. It is cited to https://web.archive.org/web/20050921011158/http://esf.uvm.edu/sirippt/prevdustex/index.htm, but the powerpoint presentation at that link says all 5 must be present and that "the dust must be confined." I think the paragraph relating to the 5 sources of ignition should be corrected. 2602:306:315D:C270:E8B1:FCFB:697F:6C54 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)rnashReply

Five conditions for a dust explosion

edit

Can someone figure out what it means for there to be five necessary conditions for a dust explosion, except one of them isn't necessary? 75.167.202.118 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe not the best worded paragraph. You need all five for an explosion. If the dust cloud is not confined, then it just burns rapidly from the ignition source to the extremities of the cloud, so one gets a deflagration and not an explosion (i.e. you have a subsonic combustion) - so more of "Whoosh", rather than a "Bang" - if that makes sense.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
This really needs to be explained much more clearly. For example, the article claims that dust explosions are used for special effects; most of these are in the open air (for cinematic visibility). The Formosa Fun Coast explosion article currently refers to a "dust explosion". If a careful distinction is to be made between an "explosion" and a "deflagration", ample WP:RS need to be found. Simply claiming that certain incidents aren't proper "dust explosions" and ignoring the closely-related "dust deflagration" without clear explanation will cause more confusion and disputation.
In addition, the related injury characteristics and hazard of ensuing fires need to be covered. Reify-tech (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have done a lot of cleanup and expansion, but more refs are still needed. The German and Italian versions of the article have some useful info that could be imported. Reify-tech (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dust explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dust explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dust explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Language question

edit

Are the words 'within in' in the first sequence of the article correct? --CiaPan (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Removed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Notable incidents

edit

Do we have a clear policy for what should be included here? It looks like a random selection, predominantly US. I would suggest basing it on one of the following:

  1. Ranked by highest death toll
  2. Ranked by highest casualties
  3. One or two examples per industry
  4. One or two examples per situation
  5. Ranked by (inflation adjusted) value of property destroyed
  6. Economic effects.

Discussion

edit

1 & 2

edit

Easiest to do, but would exclude may economically significant explosions.

3 & 4

edit

Closely related. Consider though a grain elevator: is this an elevator incident or a grain incident. Editors would need to exercise judgement as to whether an explosion was in an existing category or should be in a new one.

5 & 6

edit

Much the hardest way to select. Option 5 has problems the further back in history we go (comparing the value of an 1830s coal explosion with a 2010s wood flour mill is difficult). Option 6 is probably impossible without a reliable source. Impact could be considered at global, national, regional or local levels and again the history makes life difficult.

Preferences

edit

2 Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

A Certain Magical Index

edit

There is a reference to these by Accelerator at end of episode 13, could be useful to mention in a popular culture section. 65.94.138.239 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Galena Park, Texas 1976 silo explosion

edit

This article talks about the one in Galena Park in 1876. http://www.gendisasters.com/texas/12987/galena-park-tx-grain-elevator-explosion-feb-1976