Why can't we just light it on fire and let God sort it out?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

because long chain hydrocarbons don't burn easily... (have you ever tried setting asphalt on fire? now compare that to lighting a natural gas burner)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Can't be any harder to burn than a candle let's say, since it is liquid after all.

And if they're having to evacuate people due to the fumes, i bet there's some volatile organics around just waiting to burn.

I still say we should light it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Water is also liquid. Have you ever tried to light it on fire?

Oh, glass is also liquid.

-Max

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Glass is an amorphous solid.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

If it's a hydrocarbon and it's a liquid, it has a lower molecular weight than wax. Which implies it has a higher vapor pressure, flash point, etc.

And yes, I agree that water doesn't ignite. I can also categorically say water is not a hydrocarbon.

And oh, glass is not a liquid, at least not at room temperature and at times scales that are relevant. This has more to do with philosophy than science, but still... not a liquid.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Hahaha, okay, fair enough. :-)

-Max

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

i'll go stand in a pool of diesel and drop a match to prove the point to you...

"fuel oil" is even less combustible...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Ok. Go for it. Send me the video. I'd love to see that.

I'm not saying dropping a match in it will light it (I never said anything about matches), but I'm confident you can make it burn. The flash point of wax is ~400 C, for bunker fuel it's ~100 C (the best I can tell). I unwaveringly stand my statement that we can ignite it. It probably won't be impressive to watch, but it'll burn.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

don't worry, cowboy

2 million gallons of RAW SEWAGE should do the trick

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/531891/bay_spill_nets_record_fine_18_million_gallons_spilled/index.html

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

to get anything to burn, it generally has to be either volatile enough, or atomized enough-
fuel oil is simply not volatile enough to remain lit in a pool, and in a floating-on-water scenario doesn't get atomized enough, nor is there enough of a containment of the vapors-

mythbusters did something that will show this- taking a blowtorch to diesel VS gasoline- look it up :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I like to get all my "know-how" from entertainment tv too...

I really think everyone needs some more imagination here. It shouldn't be "that stuff just won't burn," it should be "how can we get that stuff to burn." How else will God do his sorting?

Also, the use of the term "atomized" is cute.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> I like to get all my "know-how" from entertainment tv too...

That's not where the know-how comes from, it's just a reference to an easily-accessible example so as to avoid my having to perform any monkey stunts for your amusement.

> I really think everyone needs some more imagination here. It shouldn't be "that stuff just won't burn," it should be "how can we get that stuff to burn." How else will God do his sorting?

Outside of academia we solve real-world problems, so we realize that putting the oil in to a burnable state is effectively the same as cleaning it up, negating the need to burn it in the first place, so we quickly decide not to waste any cycles on this masturbatory fantasy.
If you've got some alternate theory on burning it then by all means you should try it out.

> Also, the use of the term "atomized" is cute.

The Z is just for you, big boy.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I was rather looking forward to your "monkey stunt"... You volunteered. I was only hoping you weren't entirely full of shit. But then again, saying you're willing to stand in a pool of diesel and actually doing it to prove a point are rather different things.

And in the real world, we actually understand the difference between an obviously ridiculous statement (i.e. joke) and someone who actually thinks igniting a massive environmental disaster is a solution.

I'm glad that you attack academics. We should all strive to be idiots. Fuck people who actually create and discover something new and make an attempt to understand the world we live in. Yes academics are fools. All they have are papers that say they know things. Fools all of them. Myself (obviously) included. If someone who knew shit about chemistry were trying to prove me wrong, I might actually accept it. I can tell that's not the case.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

whatever, you figure out how to get an oil spill in to a burnable state, you let me know :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

That sucks :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)

It's weird to see police cars blocking the roads down to Fort Point and Baker Beach, driving home through the Presidio... :\

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I'm not sure if hearing about things a day after everybody else is a bad thing. Not knowing about an oil spill the day of probably also means you are unaware of Current Celebrity Drama.

I was out of the country this weekend, the only thing I "missed" was the Android announcement.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

that's really sad :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)