jrjuday
ArboristSite Operative
Kieth hasn't been the same. LOL.
The science behind burning wood
- Thread starter johncinco
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Diesel nut
ArboristSite Operative
I think pook was like a brother to Keith. LOL! :hmm3grin2orange:
jrjuday
ArboristSite Operative
Maybe Kieth drove Pook away with those ribs&beans he mentioned!
jrjuday
ArboristSite Operative
I think that the whole ,mass of wood, in VS. mass of ash, out, equation rests on the fact that plants (trees, in our case) convert small compact elements & molecules into relatively large, complex molecules. These molecules are subsequently arranged in configuration that serve as the plants structure. Fire, converts these large structures back into small atoms & molecules, which are gassed-off on the smoke, or, left behind as ash.
ks_osage_orange
ArboristSite Operative
Ahhhhh..... but .0000008 lbs is still .0000008 lbs, is it not?
It most certainly is. I can calculate it OK, I just wouldn't want to try and measure it. And measurement is most definately part of the "science of burning wood"
atvdave
ArboristSite Operative
Who cares where the smoke is going... I want to know how them things in your avatar pic go so big?? I want to let my wife in on the secret.
johncinco
Addicted to ArboristSite
This is amazing too: "The dangerous thing about the chemical reactions in fire is the fact that they are self-perpetuating. The heat of the flame itself keeps the fuel at the ignition temperature, so it continues to burn as long as there is fuel and oxygen around it. The flame heats any surrounding fuel so it releases gases as well. When the flame ignites the gases, the fire spreads."
You don't have to keep relighting a new fire, as long as you feed it fuel, it will keep burning forever. Somewhere, there is a fire that has been burning for decades or millennia, simply because it has a fuel source.
Married men will recognize this principle quite easily and falls under the "Science of Arguments". Once you have an argument going, it never really goes away. It may dwindle and grow faint, but eventually some new fuel arrives, and it rejuvenates almost magically like it was never gone.
That would be the "Science of Girlfriend". One of the previous elements already mentioned come into play. In the reaction Girlfriend (G) converting to Wife (W) it takes adding C (Carbon) usually provided by Man (M). G is in a constant state of flux from little g to big G. All the while seeking out C to complete the transition. Some G have elements that are adequate to attract M and thus C is produced. Other G are limited in elements, and have to self sustain elements that affect M for C will be produced. Many G opt for Silicone (S) to prompt M into producing C for them, to complete the transition. This equation is represented by oo +S= {O}{O}.
There is another quite complex conversion that can be worked out, if you are extremely careful. M can bring G, S instead of C. While the effects can be favorable, it can also back fire and you create too good of a G and other M are attracted to G and show up with C.
Your question I believe is how to get W to look like G. My friend, that is a secret that man has been searching for since we were all C based. First, W has to want to imitate G. M even suggesting it will likely create XW, and lead back to the stagnate and long thought dead argument mentioned above. If by chance W seeks this change, M should move forward as quickly as possible forgoing any C, $, or new wood cutting equipment and procure S for W. This will likely quell any argument for a very extended period of time. You may even create little gg and bb in the process. Unfortunately and often resulting in this transition, W with the new {O}{O} begins to attract M and the result is XW and all your $ leaving. But then you are free to seek G all over again. You see, that fire never goes out either.
Below is the complete elemental chart.
(o)(o) Perfect
(+)(+) silicone
( * )( * ) Perky
(@)(@) Big nipple
oo A cups
{O}{O} D cups
(oYo) Wonder bra
( ^ )( ^ ) Cold
(o)(O) Lopsided
(Q)(O) Pierced
(p)(p) Hanging tassels
\o/\o/ Grandma’s
( - )( - ) Against the shower door
o | | o | Android
( $ )( $ ) Martha Stewarts
You don't have to keep relighting a new fire, as long as you feed it fuel, it will keep burning forever. Somewhere, there is a fire that has been burning for decades or millennia, simply because it has a fuel source.
Married men will recognize this principle quite easily and falls under the "Science of Arguments". Once you have an argument going, it never really goes away. It may dwindle and grow faint, but eventually some new fuel arrives, and it rejuvenates almost magically like it was never gone.
That would be the "Science of Girlfriend". One of the previous elements already mentioned come into play. In the reaction Girlfriend (G) converting to Wife (W) it takes adding C (Carbon) usually provided by Man (M). G is in a constant state of flux from little g to big G. All the while seeking out C to complete the transition. Some G have elements that are adequate to attract M and thus C is produced. Other G are limited in elements, and have to self sustain elements that affect M for C will be produced. Many G opt for Silicone (S) to prompt M into producing C for them, to complete the transition. This equation is represented by oo +S= {O}{O}.
There is another quite complex conversion that can be worked out, if you are extremely careful. M can bring G, S instead of C. While the effects can be favorable, it can also back fire and you create too good of a G and other M are attracted to G and show up with C.
Your question I believe is how to get W to look like G. My friend, that is a secret that man has been searching for since we were all C based. First, W has to want to imitate G. M even suggesting it will likely create XW, and lead back to the stagnate and long thought dead argument mentioned above. If by chance W seeks this change, M should move forward as quickly as possible forgoing any C, $, or new wood cutting equipment and procure S for W. This will likely quell any argument for a very extended period of time. You may even create little gg and bb in the process. Unfortunately and often resulting in this transition, W with the new {O}{O} begins to attract M and the result is XW and all your $ leaving. But then you are free to seek G all over again. You see, that fire never goes out either.
Below is the complete elemental chart.
(o)(o) Perfect
(+)(+) silicone
( * )( * ) Perky
(@)(@) Big nipple
oo A cups
{O}{O} D cups
(oYo) Wonder bra
( ^ )( ^ ) Cold
(o)(O) Lopsided
(Q)(O) Pierced
(p)(p) Hanging tassels
\o/\o/ Grandma’s
( - )( - ) Against the shower door
o | | o | Android
( $ )( $ ) Martha Stewarts
ks_osage_orange
ArboristSite Operative
impressive johncinco. Does it violate the laws of physics to show this to my wife? I wouldn't want to create a paradox and spontaneously destroy the universe.
johncinco
Addicted to ArboristSite
Not at all. Though if it goes wrong, you may have to turn in your Man card. You also may run the risk of re-igniting a long dead argument. And you may be asked for additional C, or $, as the approaching historical day marking the union of M&W comes around.
Its a risk you may want to avoid. Unless of course the rewards far outweigh any costs. In which case, pictures will be required to later validate your decision.
I'm thinking pot roast for lunch. How bout you guys?
Its a risk you may want to avoid. Unless of course the rewards far outweigh any costs. In which case, pictures will be required to later validate your decision.
I'm thinking pot roast for lunch. How bout you guys?
There was a really good Candaian government site about heating with wood, it had a readable and still somewhat intersting explanation of heating, gas conversion (excluding chili & beans), and combustion phases. I printed it out about 10 years back, and don't know if it still online. I am out of town and can't get the exact title or address.
I do however find johncincos explanation a more interesting read, and can vouch for its scientific and historical accuracy at least in some cases.
I do however find johncincos explanation a more interesting read, and can vouch for its scientific and historical accuracy at least in some cases.
johncinco
Addicted to ArboristSite
You can tell who paid attention in class, and who was chasing skirts between classes.
Yes, I have experienced 2(XW-$) so I just stick with G+ (o)(o) and stay much happier. Occasionally you have to throw in some C+AU, but I have snuck by with CZ, just never get caught. When she takes the good stuff out, keep the Little Red Box.
Yes, I have experienced 2(XW-$) so I just stick with G+ (o)(o) and stay much happier. Occasionally you have to throw in some C+AU, but I have snuck by with CZ, just never get caught. When she takes the good stuff out, keep the Little Red Box.
madstone
ArboristSite Lurker
Very good thread I learned more about chemistry here than I did I high school. All I know is I put wood in my stove andon acouple of days later my.ash bucket is full. Works for me I put in 2 tons of wood and get back 10 pounds of ash and my house is 72 degrees. No gas bill either.
Ahhhhh..... but .0000008 lbs is still .0000008 lbs, is it not?
You are applying a nuclear physics equation to a simple chemical oxidation reduction reaction (exothermic one at that). Keep is simple....easier that way and it all balances out in the end...
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
OLD husqvarna rancher 50 not starting - seems to have spark, compression, fuel, timing?- Latest: Bob Hedgecutter
-