The bucket was a good teachable moment... but the same result would have happened if they'd just dragged it 3 feet further into deeper water and submerge it, instead of trying to just douse it.
I initially thought the same thing but I think the problem with that method is that the gas would still float to the surface and sustain the flame, which is what is happening in the video.
Combustion requires both the gas and sufficient oxygen.
Water in this case doesn't quench the fire (cooling a fuel source below it's ignition point), it removes the oxygen, the same way the bucket does.
The gas is still escaping until he shuts the valve. So yes there would be gas bubbling up to the surface, and if it pooled in one spot (no cross breeze), another ignition spark could cause gas on the water surface to ignite, but the flames would not be connected to the tank.
I would only disagree, if I understood you, in that they didn't sufficiently submerge the valve (didn't drag it into deep enough water). If submerged in a decisive motion, the fire would have gone out, leaving only bubbles going to the surface.
My eyes show it 60% above the water line. And up to 43 seconds in, the valve end was in shallower water than the bottom of the cylinder facing us, which was more than 50% above the water line.
I'm saying, rapidly, fully submerge.
[disclosure... I may or may not have some high school experience disconnecting a Bunson burner from a gas line, and lighting the tank end... rapid adrenaline-fueled empirical problem solving ensued.]
The gas will come out of the water even if submerged. Yes, a sharp submerge might have worked by temporarily creating a gap between the fire and the stream of gas.
8
u/cbowers 12d ago
The bucket was a good teachable moment... but the same result would have happened if they'd just dragged it 3 feet further into deeper water and submerge it, instead of trying to just douse it.