| |
|
Article: <5g94nh$8fs@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: TUNGUSKA
Date: 13 Mar 1997 14:58:57 GMT
In article
<Forum.858016314.29323.richard.caldwell@OSF25.oklaosf.state.ok.us>
Richard Caldwell writes:
> It's just my opinion, but I don't think that a cloud of
> methane/air mixture, however large could create the kind
> of energetic explosion that is evidenced at Tunguska. Could
> it blow down tents, sure. Could it blow limbs off of trees,
> probably. Could it blow whole trees down, maybe a few. But,
> it could not blow down *every* tree for miles around. That
> requires something like a Mt. St. Helens, or a blast of equal
> size.
> Richard Caldwell <richard.caldwell@OSF25.oklaosf.state.ok.us>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You're speaking about relative SIZE. A gas cloud explosion could occur when compressed
only by other gasses. It could blow down trees, tear limbs off, etc. Take the size of a gas
cloud you might imagine would rise above a serious break in a natural gas line, or the size
of the explosion if an entire city block had a gas leak that filled all the houses during winter
with their windows closed until a spark of some sort occurred. These things would go
BOOM, but multiply that by a hundred, perhaps a thousand fold. Why would such a gas
cloud, such as circumstances, not REALLY GO BOOM.
Its all relative!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])