undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSomeone123411y ago0 comments

> No, this a different concept and is a different mechanism at work.

They both use shockwaves to smother the fire. Seems like the same mechanism to me, and also a very similar concept.

No clue why you posted that then almost contradicted that line with:

> They both do retard access of oxidizer of course, but then so does nearly every other extinguishing method, starting from fire blankets.

Seems like you just wanted to be disagreeable for the sake of it, but then rolled back your disagreement almost completely one line later.

0 comments

jerf11y ago

"They both use shockwaves to smother the fire."

That speaker isn't emitting "shockwaves": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave That's obviously a standard speaker cone and is entirely subsonic.

I would have to agree that a true high-explosive shockwave is a beast of a different color.

Trisell11y ago

Using dynamite to 'blow out' the fire by forcing the burning fuel and oxygen away from the fuel source.

It sounds to me like they were using the explosives to essentially force a change in fuel air mixture. Essentially the same idea as when the wind blows out your lighter or match. Just way more fun, because explosives. :D

Edit: Quote is from Oil Wikipedia Article above.

varjag11y ago

You misunderstand the concept of shockwave, and no, there is no contradiction in my statement. I'm pretty sure you understood the sentence, but decided to move the conversation towards my personal behavior.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse