Talk:Pittsburgh gasometer explosion

Article title

One point that came up on the AfD was that the current title of this article (Pittsburgh Gasometer Explosion) is less-than-ideal, and I would agree. As a minimum, it should be "Pittsburgh gasometer explosion" to comply with WP:MOS para 1.1. I also feel that adding the year would be beneficial, and it appears that the word "gasometer" is decidedly obsolete in the US. My suggestion would therefore be "Pittsburgh gas explosion (1927)". An alternative title, suggested by Pburka, is "Equitable Gas explosion", as this is apparently a common name for the incident. Any opinions are welcome. Tevildo (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion would probably be easiest to find through a search. From looking at Category:Gas explosions, though, I think that "1927 Pittsburgh gas explosion" might be more consistent with other article titles. Pburka (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.wqed.org/mag/columns/sebak/2006/1106_explosion.shtml
  • In 1927 Pittsburgh gas explosion on 2011-05-25 02:56:59, 404 Not Found
  • In 1927 Pittsburgh gas explosion on 2011-06-02 03:32:21, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

floating gasometer? No!

citing the actual version of the article: "The leak was found, but the tank full of natural gas then floated into the air like a balloon and exploded, ..."

1. Floating of the tank needs buoyant forces being greater then the iron weight.

http://www.gaswerk-augsburg.de/europaabgerissen.html biggest tank volume is 141,500 m3

as a model I take a 50 x 50 x 50 m cubus with 125,000 m3

weight of displaced air (density = 1.2 kg/m3) = 150,000 kg = 150 t(ons)

iron sheet of tank wall will not be thinner than 2 mm. -> total of (equivalent) iron thickness including overlapping, rivets, stiffeners, ladders. tubes shall be at least 4 mm

5 sides of - underneath open - cubus = 2,500 x 5 = 12,500 m2 surface

4 mm x 12,500 m = 50 m3 iron -> density near 8 t / m3 -> iron mass of (cubus) gasometer = 400 t

lets say - 10 % if cylindrically and another - 10 % for upscaling from 125,000 to 141,500 m3 volume leaves 320 t iron weight (@ 125,000 m3)

even if you rise the temperature of the gasometers gas content (gas, air, burnt gas) to ten times 273 K = 2730 K (about hottest flame temperature) 10 % of (air) density remains inside with (more than) 0,1 kg / m3, which gives over 125,000 m3 volume 12.5 t weight of gases inside.

Net buoyant "force" (as mass) of gas outside - inside = 150 -12.5 = 137.5 t lifting capacity, which never ever can lift a 400 t heavy iron tank.

2. If the gas expands to 10 times its original volume, the gasometer maybe starts like a rocket, but as the construction is bolted or heavily fixed to the ground rather is blown into pieces.

3. Possible for me seems that a free moving upper circular wall of the gasometer has maybe been accelarated like a piston in a cylinder and rises about 50 m higher than gasometer original height, as there has been 50 m to develop the acceleration (by about a = 1 g) inside.

4. A gasous fire ball is partially covered by black smoke, is lighter than the surrounding air and virtually rises like a ballon. In our case the fire ball may have been mixed with parts, iron sheets, burning wood ... of the exploded gasometer.

Text changed in this sense. --Helium4 (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the sources in the article support the floating gasometer description. Rather, both seem to describe a fireball which rose into the air. This seems to make more sense. Pburka (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why leave this nonsense in the article? I've taken it out. --Gnomus (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)