Re: now ~CT-infested -- Re: Q: For Sy Liebergot (Yeah, it's new safe CT-free topic fodder!)

In article <nqcd71h0nakffh3dlnj3ao7oood32ru33r@xxxxxxx>,
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) <reunite.gondwana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> OK, so we can add Jack Swigert to the list of people calling it an explosion.
>
>As I understand the technical definitions, not the ordinary English
>definitions[1], an explosion has to have a flame front that moves at
>or above than Mach 1. Anything slower is a deflagration (?), not an
>explosion.

Anything faster is a detonation. They're all explosions.

Even in technical literature, "explosion" is routinely used to cover most
anything that goes boom and produces flying debris. Boiler explosions,
thermal explosions (aka flameless explosions -- runaway bulk vaporization
of a superheated cryogenic liquid), transformer explosions are all called
explosions in technical literature, but none involve a flame front of any
kind.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages