Alternative Power sources - Propane vs heating oil nonsense

Author

Propane vs heating oil nonsense

Tom

2005-09-21, 1:21 am

I thought I would share some research and my findings with this group
about the costs of propane vs oil. I decided to make the switch from
oil to propane after being tired of spending the maintenance costs of
the oil burner and still having problems almost every winter. In my
search for info I found outright lies and BS.
Many sites show the cost being double for propane along with other
misinformation. Now let me share my findings. First off propane
prices vary from 1.49 to 2.60 per gallon up here in the northeast.
Not true with oil. The price for oil is 2.50 to 2.80 per gallon.
Most people are under the assumption that an oil burner runs at 85%
efficiency. It does if you spend 250.00 per year maintaining it.
Otherwise except 80% or lower. The cheapest I can get fuel oil is
2.55 per gallon. I have 500 gallons of propane coming at 1.49 per
gallon. In the end I will paying 10 cents less per Btu gallon at
this price. When I factor in the new propane unit running at 95%
The total savings per heating season totals about 350.00 + another
250.00 in maintenance costs savings. Now will this be true for
everyone? The answer is no. What I am saying is do your homework and
ignore most the bull shit on websites, yahoo and Google. Call around
your area and compare prices. If you can purchase your propane tank
you can shop the market better and possibly save even more.

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-09-21, 4:21 am

Tom <tgiorgi1REMOVE@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>I thought I would share some research and my findings with this group
>about the costs of propane vs oil. I decided to make the switch from
>oil to propane after being tired of spending the maintenance costs of
>the oil burner and still having problems almost every winter. In my
>search for info I found outright lies and BS...

A friend near DC has had trouble finding people to maintain the propane
furnace and water heater in his basement. HVAC people tell him they are
happy working with natural gas (which is lighter than air), but concerned
that a propane leak may fill up his basement and blow the house up.

Nick

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss

2005-09-21, 5:21 am

"Tom" <tgiorgi1REMOVE@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fgn1j1lftuhq7h7fjsja2a4l1l4k1b30uo@4ax.com...
> I thought I would share some research and my findings with this group
> about the costs of propane vs oil. I decided to make the switch from
> oil to propane after being tired of spending the maintenance costs of
> the oil burner and still having problems almost every winter. In my
> search for info I found outright lies and BS.

All those savings are fine until your whole house explodes from a gas leak.
Even if oil did cost more, I would avoid gas at all costs. Too dangerous.

GeekBoy

2005-09-21, 5:21 am

Tom

2005-09-21, 10:21 am

On 21 Sep 2005 02:47:57 -0400, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

>Tom <tgiorgi1REMOVE@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>A friend near DC has had trouble finding people to maintain the propane
>furnace and water heater in his basement. HVAC people tell him they are
>happy working with natural gas (which is lighter than air), but concerned
>that a propane leak may fill up his basement and blow the house up.
>
>Nick

Yes propane can blow up your house. That said I have lived here
39 years and know of only one accedent like this. Belive it or not
Most explosions I am aware of were casued by natural gas leaks. As
far a maintaing a propane unit goes what maintenece are you refering
to? They can run for years without needing anything. Once again Im
not advocating people switch, nor do I endorse either fuel. Im simply
arming people with the facts. Funny I have an HVAC guy installing my
frunace. He is not concered, but then again he knows what he is
doing. He is running black iron pipe to the outside hook up.
A gas furnace should be fail safe. If the pilot goes out the gas
supply shuts down. I have never heard of a failure that would cause
it to do otherwise.

Philip Lewis

2005-09-21, 10:21 am

"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> writes:
>All those savings are fine until your whole house explodes from a gas leak.
>Even if oil did cost more, I would avoid gas at all costs. Too dangerous.

hmmm... my furnace is circa 1955... that's 50 years of nat gas in my
house (although the discussion was on propane).

still standing.

--
be safe.
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")

Derek Broughton

2005-09-21, 10:21 am

GeekBoy wrote:

>
> "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:878Ye.1562$vw6.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> I've had Natural Gas in my house for 40 years. No problems.

That's not at all the same as propane, as Nick stated. I have propane stove
and fridge and would love to get rid of the noxious and obnoxious oil heat
stove, but I still have concerns about propane. Of course, I also have a
slab-on-grade house, so I'm not worried about a pool of propane in the
basement. Even if you have a natural gas leak, it implodes rather than
explodes (not much help if it implodes in _your_ house, but much easier on
the neighborhood).

Tom, it must be nice to have the option to buy propane at a reasonable cost.
We only have two suppliers and their prices are practically identical. We
have only one oil supplier.
--
derek

harry k

2005-09-21, 11:21 am

GeekBoy wrote:
> "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:878Ye.1562$vw6.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> I've had Natural Gas in my house for 40 years. No problems.
>
>
> I am sure backwards people also said the same thing about electricity 100
> years ago.
>
>

Goes right along with the beliefs back when that automobiles couldn't
travel over x mph because the passengers wouldn't be able to breath.

I live in a region with a lot of propane and natural gas heating.
Haven't heard of even one house blowing up and I've been here over 30
years.

Harry K

Solar Flare

2005-09-21, 7:21 pm

When I was young I had an oil furnace blow apart in front of me. The house
wasn't damaged however.

"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:878Ye.1562$vw6.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

"Tom" <tgiorgi1REMOVE@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fgn1j1lftuhq7h7fjsja2a4l1l4k1b30uo@4ax.com...
> I thought I would share some research and my findings with this group
> about the costs of propane vs oil. I decided to make the switch from
> oil to propane after being tired of spending the maintenance costs of
> the oil burner and still having problems almost every winter. In my
> search for info I found outright lies and BS.

All those savings are fine until your whole house explodes from a gas leak.
Even if oil did cost more, I would avoid gas at all costs. Too dangerous.

Jim Baber

2005-09-21, 8:21 pm

Jim wrote:
These folks that are concerned about the safety of propane are not
just imagining problems, and no one should confuse the hazards of
natural gas and propane.

They are quite different. Propane is heavier than air and will sink
to the lowest point (like a basement or crawl space), while natural gas
(usually a mix of mostly methane and other light forms of hydro carbon
gases) is lighter than air and will rise. Both gases do diffuse (mix)
with air that is present to differing degrees, with the lighter natural
gas mixing better (or worse from the hazard standpoint) however, this
does mean that the natural gas will dissipate in surrounding air more
rapidly than propane.

Both will explode! The people who sell either one are usually quite
happy to come to your home and perform safety checks for free or for
very reasonable fees. But, they will turn off your gas supply if you
have problems and don't allow them to immediately correct any problems
they find.

Solar Flare wrote:

>When I was young I had an oil furnace blow apart in front of me. The house
>wasn't damaged however.
>
>"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:878Ye.1562$vw6.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>"Tom" <tgiorgi1REMOVE@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:fgn1j1lftuhq7h7fjsja2a4l1l4k1b30uo@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>All those savings are fine until your whole house explodes from a gas leak.
>Even if oil did cost more, I would avoid gas at all costs. Too dangerous.
>
>
>
>
>

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss

2005-09-22, 12:21 am

>
> I've had Natural Gas in my house for 40 years. No problems.
>
>
> I am sure backwards people also said the same thing about electricity 100
> years ago.

Consider yourself lucky.
Natural gas mains and pipelines have a tendency to explode when contractors
dig in the area.

I was having a debate over the safety of piped-in natural gas in 1987 on a
home repair FIDONet discussion group. I made my arguments, and several other
people argued how 'safe' gas was.
The very next day, a 36" gas main ruptured in New Jersey, at a condo complex
called Wilton Woods. One building was vaporized almost immediately. The
others were heavily damaged. Survivors were quoted as stating that they
thought that a nuclear bomb had exploded. They were quoted describing
'brilliant yellow light' from the secondary explosion that erupted above
ground. The photos I saw on channel 5 news were remeniscent of Hiroshima,
Japan right after we dropped a nuke on it. Needless to say, the people I was
arguing with had no further comments on the topic.

Gas can be safely handled, but in a municipal environment, too many factors
and too many incompetent operators can produce disastrous results.

I too had gas heat for a couple years when I first moved into my unfinished
house. I had two 200lb propane tanks in rotation feeding a Reznor gas space
heater. I had no accidents with it, but on the whole, the transportation,
storage and use of gas presents an increased danger to all who reside within
a mile of it.

I love my oil burner. I installed it in 1972 and I still maintain it to this
day. Last year, I rebuilt the Kaowool firebox and did a thorough clean out
of the entire boiler. It runs beautifully, reliably and safely.

--
Take care,

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss

VIDEO PRODUCTION • FILM SCANNING • DVD MASTERING • AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: http://www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
Business sites at:
www.dv-clips.com
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-

Vaughn

2005-09-22, 7:21 am

"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dlpYe.2412$QE1.489@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> Consider yourself lucky.
> Natural gas mains and pipelines have a tendency to explode when contractors
> dig in the area.

This thread is certainly well named.

Vaughn

barry@sme-online.com

2005-09-22, 11:21 am

There are all sorts of risks involved with the use of oil or gas, from
global warming to military casualties, to local accidents.

On the local level, it's hard to conclude that oil has any safety
advantage over gas, mainly given the much higher likelihood of
mechanical malfunction with oil burners. (Nothing like an ignition
failure with an oil-burner and a hot firebox.)

Leaks seem to be a prime failure mode.
Oil pumped into the basement of a house is a pretty big deal.
Natural gas at a couple of inches (water-column) pressure leaks slowly;
control-valves are the main protection against ignition failures.
Propane gas in tank would be at ~70psig, so you'd depend on pressure
regulator and control-valve as with NG. (What is normal pressure
delivered to appliance?)

Human error seems to be the common thread:
Oil-delivery person not noticing 750 gal. delivered to 500 gal. tank,
NG distribution pressure-regulation failing,
Lack of proper service/checking,
Damage to lines & fittings at installation or afterwards..

On finding problems, yes, they should be fixed immediately. Then the
relative and absolute local safety risks would be kept so low as to not
be worth discussing. And oil-burners still should be carefully serviced
at least annually- can't get past that.

HTH,
J

Ulysses

2005-09-22, 1:21 pm

"Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:878Ye.1562$vw6.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tom" <tgiorgi1REMOVE@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:fgn1j1lftuhq7h7fjsja2a4l1l4k1b30uo@4ax.com...
>
>
> All those savings are fine until your whole house explodes from a gas
leak.
> Even if oil did cost more, I would avoid gas at all costs. Too dangerous.

I find this interesting that people are afraid of natural gas and propane.
I live in South California and if you live in the city or suburbs you have
natural gas. If you live rural you have propane (with a few minor
exceptions). I have had natural gas heating all my life (I almost a senior
citizen) and I've never heard discussions like these about the house
possibly blowing up. The only real concern we have is leakage from
earthquakes but very few people really worry about that and if you want you
can get an earthquake activated shut off valve. Heating oil does not even
exist here and I'm not even sure what it is. I've never seen a piece of
coal either. I've also never seen a house with a basement so I suppose that
could change things.

>
>

Eric

2005-09-23, 1:21 am

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote:

>
> "Tom" <tgiorgi1REMOVE@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:fgn1j1lftuhq7h7fjsja2a4l1l4k1b30uo@4ax.com...
>
>
> All those savings are fine until your whole house explodes from a gas
> leak. Even if oil did cost more, I would avoid gas at all costs. Too
> dangerous.

When you have untrained yahoo's installing gas (piping, fixtures, appliances
furnaces, dryers etc) its definitely a hazard and a risk. But I can assure
you that when done right, gas is safe and in a lot of places, a lot cheaper
too.
Eric

funkbastler

2005-09-23, 3:21 pm

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:27:51 -0300, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
wrote:

>GeekBoy wrote:

<snip>

>basement. Even if you have a natural gas leak, it implodes rather than
>explodes (not much help if it implodes in _your_ house, but much easier on
>the neighborhood).

WHAT??!!!?????

Where did you come up with that?

--
-fb-

Dave Hinz

2005-09-23, 3:21 pm

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:03:47 -0500, funkbastler <funkbastler@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:27:51 -0300, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
> wrote:

[color=darkred]
> WHAT??!!!?????
> Where did you come up with that?

Dunno. Never heard such a thing in a dozen years of firefighting
training either.

andre_54005@yahoo.com

2005-09-23, 4:21 pm

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:03:47 -0500, funkbastler <funkbastler@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dunno. Never heard such a thing in a dozen years of firefighting
> training either.

I think it comes from that hydrogen oxygen, Brown's gas type crap that
is all over the net. Where they show a mixture of gas in a sealed
container, ingnite the mixture and show that the pressure in the
container is less after the magic reaction. They ignore the
superheated steam and CO2 phase.
__________
Andre' B.

Derek Broughton

2005-09-23, 6:21 pm

Dave Hinz wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:03:47 -0500, funkbastler
> <funkbastler@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dunno. Never heard such a thing in a dozen years of firefighting
> training either.

Well, it was promotional literature about NG for vehicles initially. Turns
out they exaggerated a little, but the general principle still holds:

Basic chemistry: 1 Mole each of _any_ 2 gases occupy the same volume at the
same temperature.

NG: CH4 + 2(O2) => CO2 + 2(H2O)
[ie, they lied to me, it's really an equal volume + some extra because its
been heated]

Propane: C3H8 + 5(O2) => 3(CO2) + 4(H2O)
[propane occupies a greater volume after combustion - ie, it explodes]

When propane combusts, the end products take up more space than the inputs.
--
derek

Derek Broughton

2005-09-23, 6:21 pm

andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> I think it comes from that hydrogen oxygen, Brown's gas type crap that
> is all over the net. Where they show a mixture of gas in a sealed
> container, ingnite the mixture and show that the pressure in the
> container is less after the magic reaction. They ignore the
> superheated steam and CO2 phase.

You think basic science is crap?
--
derek

Dale Farmer

2005-09-25, 12:21 am

GeekBoy wrote:

> "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX294@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:878Ye.1562$vw6.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> I've had Natural Gas in my house for 40 years. No problems.
>
> I am sure backwards people also said the same thing about electricity 100
> years ago.

Next town over from mine had a house blow up from a natural gas
explosion just last week. Fortunately the firefighters who were ventilating
the house had just opened several doors and windows, and quickly
exited when their explosimeter sounded it's alarm. It went boom
when they had gotten partway down the front walk. I would rather have
a home heated by something other than gas, or if I had gas, that it went
to a separate structure that contained the furnace. None of the houses
that my grandfather built used gas heat.

--Dale

Vaughn

2005-09-25, 12:21 pm

"Dale Farmer" <dale@cybercom.net> wrote in message
news:43360A2B.1F6B6E48@cybercom.net...
>
>
> Next town over from mine had a house blow up from a natural gas
> explosion just last week. Fortunately the firefighters who were ventilating
> the house had just opened several doors and windows, and quickly
> exited when their explosimeter sounded it's alarm. It went boom
> when they had gotten partway down the front walk. I would rather have
> a home heated by something other than gas, or if I had gas, that it went
> to a separate structure that contained the furnace. None of the houses
> that my grandfather built used gas heat.

Dale, you are certainly entitled to harbor any phobia you wish, but can you
name a type of heat that presents zero hazard to the occupants and structure? I
have lived all of my life in neighborhoods that were served by natural gas
and/or propane. The actual risk of gaseous fuel must be very low because I
don't recall any fire insurance company even bothering to ask about natural
gas...but they sure as hell ask about fireplaces!

Vaughn

2005-09-25, 6:21 pm

I am a gas tech 2 in Ont. Canada work on lots of ng and lp both are safe if
you know what you are doing. Only had 1 propane explosion around here in the
last couple of years. cust tried to save some money and do his own maint.
Propane is cheaper oround here at this time.

" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:770803-4a9.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
> GeekBoy wrote:
>
dangerous.[color=darkred]
>
> That's not at all the same as propane, as Nick stated. I have propane
stove
> and fridge and would love to get rid of the noxious and obnoxious oil heat
> stove, but I still have concerns about propane. Of course, I also have a
> slab-on-grade house, so I'm not worried about a pool of propane in the
> basement. Even if you have a natural gas leak, it implodes rather than
> explodes (not much help if it implodes in _your_ house, but much easier on
> the neighborhood).
>
> Tom, it must be nice to have the option to buy propane at a reasonable
cost.
> We only have two suppliers and their prices are practically identical. We
> have only one oil supplier.
> --
> derek

Dale Farmer

2005-09-26, 12:21 am

Vaughn wrote:

> "Dale Farmer" <dale@cybercom.net> wrote in message
> news:43360A2B.1F6B6E48@cybercom.net...
>
> Dale, you are certainly entitled to harbor any phobia you wish, but can you
> name a type of heat that presents zero hazard to the occupants and structure? I
> have lived all of my life in neighborhoods that were served by natural gas
> and/or propane. The actual risk of gaseous fuel must be very low because I
> don't recall any fire insurance company even bothering to ask about natural
> gas...but they sure as hell ask about fireplaces!
>
> Vaughn

The only heat that presents zero hazard is body heat. Sleep with your
friends!

--Dale

Vaughn

2005-09-26, 8:21 am

"Dale Farmer" <dale@cybercom.net> wrote in message
news:43376670.A5C229CC@cybercom.net...
>
> The only heat that presents zero hazard is body heat. Sleep with your
> friends!

I dunno, perhaps you should ask John Wayne Bobbit about that.

Honestly, now that you mention it, body heat is my favorite also. I have
been married to the same lady now for 30 years and every night is a true
pleasure.

Vaughn

>
> --Dale
>
>

Bruce in Alaska

2005-09-26, 3:21 pm

In article <34EZe.1838$wR4.331002@monger.newsread.com>,
<caskanette@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am a gas tech 2 in Ont. Canada work on lots of ng and lp both are safe if
> you know what you are doing. Only had 1 propane explosion around here in the
> last couple of years. cust tried to save some money and do his own maint.
> Propane is cheaper oround here at this time.
>
> " <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:770803-4a9.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca...
> dangerous.
> stove
> cost.
>
>

Just another datapoint here....In my cabin, I have an open pot, oil
burning, naturally asperated, cook/heat stove that uses #1 Diesel, that
also runs the gensets. Any Propane/NG system would be bad, in my
esimation, due to the constant ignition point of that stove, should
there be a leak into the structure. I therefor have a wood burnng
heater for backup heat, and use electrics for clothes drying, ect.

Bruce in alaska
--
add a <2> before @

andre_54005@yahoo.com

2005-09-26, 4:21 pm

Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> You think basic science is crap?
> --
> derek

When it is portrayed as some mystical world saving magic energy source,
it is not science.
_________
Andre' B.

Derek Broughton

2005-09-27, 10:21 am

andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> When it is portrayed as some mystical world saving magic energy source,
> it is not science.

Nobody was talking about any such thing. Simply that the combustion
products of a chemical reaction may take more or less volume than the
original chemicals - dependent on the state of the original chemicals and
the number of different gases created in the combustion.

Specifically, you wrote:
> I think it comes from that hydrogen oxygen, Brown's gas type crap that
> is all over the net. Where they show a mixture of gas in a sealed
> container, ingnite the mixture and show that the pressure in the
> container is less after the magic reaction. They ignore the
> superheated steam and CO2 phase.

which shows a lack of understanding of _basic_ chemistry. "superheated
steam" and "CO2 phase" don't apply. First, "dry steam" - water vapor, no
liquid - follows the rule as stated, that one mole of any gas always
occupies the same volume at the same temperature. If the "steam" actually
contains superheated water in suspension, this takes much _less_ volume.
CO2 is not found in solid or liquid phase at the temperatures of these
experiments, so always acts as a gas. What these experiments demonstrate
not only takes into account the steam and CO2 (though where you get the CO2
in a hydrogen-oxygen reaction is beyond me) but depends on them.
--
derek

daestrom

2005-09-27, 9:21 pm

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:h4rn03-4l9.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Nobody was talking about any such thing. Simply that the combustion
> products of a chemical reaction may take more or less volume than the
> original chemicals - dependent on the state of the original chemicals and
> the number of different gases created in the combustion.
>
> Specifically, you wrote:
>
> which shows a lack of understanding of _basic_ chemistry. "superheated
> steam" and "CO2 phase" don't apply. First, "dry steam" - water vapor, no
> liquid - follows the rule as stated, that one mole of any gas always
> occupies the same volume at the same temperature. If the "steam" actually
> contains superheated water in suspension, this takes much _less_ volume.
> CO2 is not found in solid or liquid phase at the temperatures of these
> experiments, so always acts as a gas. What these experiments demonstrate
> not only takes into account the steam and CO2 (though where you get the
> CO2
> in a hydrogen-oxygen reaction is beyond me) but depends on them.

While it certainly is true that if you take one mole of methane (CH4) and
combine it with two moles of oxygen (O2), you form one mole of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and two moles of water vapor (H2O), it is not so simple to say
that the resulting products occupy the same volume as the reactancts. They
will, *if* you restore their temperature and pressure to the same as the
reactants, but that is not the state they will be in after reacting.

The statement a while back that a natural gas accident is actually an
'implosion' is just plain wrong. The energy released during the combustion
guarantees the products will be at a much higher temperature (and therefore
occupy a much larger volme) than the products.

In addition to the obvious expansion afforded by the ideal gas law and
conservation of energy, the typical natural gas accident also involves about
eight moles of nitrogen (N2) found in the atmosphere with the oxygen. While
this is chemically inert, it too is heated by the combustion and expands to
a larger volume.

When the products form and are heated rapidly, along with the rapid heating
of the nitrogen, a large pressure pulse occurs. With the right mixture,
this pulse can travel at nearsonic velocities (i.e. becomes 'explosive'),
and the damage to surroundings is obvious.

daestrom

daestrom

2005-09-27, 9:21 pm

"Bruce in Alaska" <bruceg@btpost.net> wrote in message
news:bruceg-B83C28.10015626092005@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <34EZe.1838$wR4.331002@monger.newsread.com>,
> <caskanette@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Just another datapoint here....In my cabin, I have an open pot, oil
> burning, naturally asperated, cook/heat stove that uses #1 Diesel, that
> also runs the gensets. Any Propane/NG system would be bad, in my
> esimation, due to the constant ignition point of that stove, should
> there be a leak into the structure. I therefor have a wood burnng
> heater for backup heat, and use electrics for clothes drying, ect.
>

Many homes in the lower 48 are heated with NG, and they too have many
'constant ignition' sources. My furnace for example has several electric
contactors that arc/spark each time the blower motor starts/stops. The hot
water heater has a pilot lamp that is always lit. Other electrical
appliances cycle on/off frequently to provide an ignition source in many of
homes.

Yet, the occurance of a home 'exploding' from a natural gas leak is very
rare. When one does occur, amateur maintenance by the home owner is often
found to be the culprit, and "Gee, I smelled gas, but I didn't think it was
that bad...."

NG can be quite safe when handled with the respect it deserves. But like
any high energy system, it can be dangerous if not handled properly.

(even #1 diesel can be dangerous if the open pot rusts out on one side
letting oil dribble out onto the floor ;-)

daestrom

andre_54005@yahoo.com

2005-09-28, 10:21 am

Derek Broughton wrote:
> andre_54005@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Nobody was talking about any such thing. Simply that the combustion
> products of a chemical reaction may take more or less volume than the
> original chemicals - dependent on the state of the original chemicals and
> the number of different gases created in the combustion.
>

They were wondering where the idea of natural gas imploding came from,
I gave my opinion.

> Specifically, you wrote:
>
> which shows a lack of understanding of _basic_ chemistry. "superheated
> steam" and "CO2 phase" don't apply. First, "dry steam" - water vapor, no
> liquid - follows the rule as stated, that one mole of any gas always
> occupies the same volume at the same temperature. If the "steam" actually
> contains superheated water in suspension, this takes much _less_ volume.
> CO2 is not found in solid or liquid phase at the temperatures of these
> experiments, so always acts as a gas. What these experiments demonstrate
> not only takes into account the steam and CO2 (though where you get the CO2
> in a hydrogen-oxygen reaction is beyond me) but depends on them.
> --
> derek

Burning a hydrocarbon results in CO2 and water, if you are using
hydrogen or the Brown's gas then you can drop the carbon out of the
picture. Water at the temperature and pressures in the flame is going
to be superheated steam. In a small container the mixture rapidly
cools, (low volume to surface area in the small container) as it cools
the steam condenses into liquid water. The resulting drop in pressure
is typically given as "proof" of an implosion rather then an explosion.
Some present it as a science experiment and those are fine, others try
to pass it off as some new power of hydrogen that can be used to fix
all the worlds energy problems, those are the crap.
If you cannot understand that you are on your own.
_____________
Andre' B.

Derek Broughton

2005-09-28, 10:21 am

daestrom wrote:

> While it certainly is true that if you take one mole of methane (CH4) and
> combine it with two moles of oxygen (O2), you form one mole of carbon
> dioxide (CO2) and two moles of water vapor (H2O), it is not so simple to
> say
> that the resulting products occupy the same volume as the reactancts.
> They will, *if* you restore their temperature and pressure to the same as
> the reactants, but that is not the state they will be in after reacting.

Agreed. I said that earlier.
>
> The statement a while back that a natural gas accident is actually an
> 'implosion' is just plain wrong. The energy released during the
> combustion guarantees the products will be at a much higher temperature
> (and therefore occupy a much larger volme) than the products.

I also agreed that it was not strictly true - that I'd got it from NG sales
literature and hadn't actually checked it. However, volume follows a very
simple formula - V = nRT/P (boyle's law?? it's so long ago...), where T is
in degrees Kelvin. I think that you'll find the higher temperature is not
enough to make it a _much_ larger volume, when you also take into account
that some of that H2O vapour immediately condenses. In any case, it is
always going to be a lesser volume than combusting the equivalent volume of
propane.

> When the products form and are heated rapidly, along with the rapid
> heating
> of the nitrogen, a large pressure pulse occurs. With the right mixture,
> this pulse can travel at nearsonic velocities (i.e. becomes 'explosive'),
> and the damage to surroundings is obvious.

No argument - I also said that whether it imploded or exploded wouldn't be
much comfort if it happened in your house.
--
derek

Derek Broughton

2005-09-28, 11:21 am

Derek Broughton wrote:

> daestrom wrote:
>
>
> No argument - I also said that whether it imploded or exploded wouldn't be
> much comfort if it happened in your house.

btw, nitrogen doesn't apply. What expands due to heating expands in the
same ratio as the other gases - so it adds nothing to any explosive force.
All combustion products of nitrogen take the same or less volume than the
constituents.
--
derek

daestrom

2005-09-28, 7:21 pm

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:gt7p03-959.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> daestrom wrote:
>
>
>
> Agreed. I said that earlier.
>
> I also agreed that it was not strictly true - that I'd got it from NG
> sales
> literature and hadn't actually checked it. However, volume follows a very
> simple formula - V = nRT/P (boyle's law?? it's so long ago...), where T
> is
> in degrees Kelvin. I think that you'll find the higher temperature is not
> enough to make it a _much_ larger volume, when you also take into account
> that some of that H2O vapour immediately condenses.

You under estimate the temperature change involved in combustion. When a
fuel such as methane combusts with the right proportions in air, the energy
released can do one of two things. It can be lost/transferred to
surroundings, or it can increase the temperature of the reactants. In very
rapid reactions, the amount lost/transferred to surroundings approaches nil
and we can calculate the theoretical maximum temperature rise. This is
known as the adiabatic flame temperature.

For butane ('between' methane and propane), this temperature is about 4300R
(2389K) on the Rankine scale, compared to the initial product temperatures
around 540 R (300K). A temperature change of 2389/300 => ~7.9 times larger
volume.

The water vapor doesn't begin to condense until it contacts some surfaces
and cools down (at least to the 'critical point' for water (~706F)). But by
then, the pressure pulse has already done the damage.

daestrom

daestrom

2005-09-28, 7:21 pm

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:bpiq03-ss8.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
> btw, nitrogen doesn't apply. What expands due to heating expands in the
> same ratio as the other gases - so it adds nothing to any explosive force.
> All combustion products of nitrogen take the same or less volume than the
> constituents.
> --

Well, nitrogen's role is complicated. If there were no nitrogen, then the
energy from combustion would be constrained into just the chemical products,
a much smaller mass. That would mean the flame temperature would be much
higher, implying the combustion products would attain a higher
volume/pressure. But adding nitrogen to the system also means there is just
plain more material being heated by the combustion. So while the percentage
change in volume would be lower (owing to a lower temperature), the absolute
change in volume in number of cubic feet could be higher. It all depends on
the specific heats of nitrogen versus those of the combustion products. How
far it lowers the temperature versus how much larger initial volume there
is.

daestrom

LinkBot