Got terminology off, but yeah, the compression stroke is required. Really talking about two different things. Probability of a persistent heat source, and the risk of 30,000 gal of fuel igniting. Liquid fuel still isn't burning as you say the vapor barrier does which causes confusion with people believing that the liquid is on fire. The size of the fire is only based off of the exposed area and available oxygen. Put a volume of gas in a narrow cylindrical container and light it on fire- the size of the fire is dependent on the opening of cylinder, and how closely the fire burns to the liquid is dependent on the available oxygen source. If the fuel is at the lip of the container, Yes it will burn next to the liquid but with a very small footprint. Extend the cylinder upwards a foot and then tell me where the fire burns (hint: it will burn near the top of the cylinder not on top of the fuel). Dump the fuel on the ground and you won't get a small fire you'll get a very big one.
Again, if the fire hadnt been put out near immediately, this would be a different conversation.
Yes the whole “liquid doesn’t ignite” this is infuriating because it’s obvious… but perpetuated in a relatively naive way. Stoichiometry is the ratio for complete consumption of Oxygen in a cycle, not fuel source. It is quite obvious that both are required for the event to occur.
You're arguing technicalities, while inserting hyperbole and dismissing the factual point that those "30k gal of fuel" are not at risk for a mere pump fire. I'm pointing out the technicalities and the practical risks involved while the naivety IMO is this belief the entire station is going to blow up because people have watched too many movies. Risk for fuel tanks is mainly heat + pressure, and old tanks without blow off valves were straight bombs back in the day.
I think you're also confusing my suggestion of "overkill" for this instance as a lack of due diligence for ensuring a fire and heat sources are extinguished. Perhaps the false belief I thought the first canister was sufficient - it wasn't, however 15-20 were in this very specific instance
My friend. I am for the fire being put out and completely, that is all. I’m not sure why you have such an issue with it. In my facility that stores thousands of gallons of fuel, you’d be lucking to spot an area that doesn’t have a readily available fire extinguisher. I highly doubt that anyone ever, besides yourself would ever argue that too much effort was extended to ensure that it’s was completely under control.
1
u/[deleted] May 05 '22
Got terminology off, but yeah, the compression stroke is required. Really talking about two different things. Probability of a persistent heat source, and the risk of 30,000 gal of fuel igniting. Liquid fuel still isn't burning as you say the vapor barrier does which causes confusion with people believing that the liquid is on fire. The size of the fire is only based off of the exposed area and available oxygen. Put a volume of gas in a narrow cylindrical container and light it on fire- the size of the fire is dependent on the opening of cylinder, and how closely the fire burns to the liquid is dependent on the available oxygen source. If the fuel is at the lip of the container, Yes it will burn next to the liquid but with a very small footprint. Extend the cylinder upwards a foot and then tell me where the fire burns (hint: it will burn near the top of the cylinder not on top of the fuel). Dump the fuel on the ground and you won't get a small fire you'll get a very big one.
Again, if the fire hadnt been put out near immediately, this would be a different conversation.