|WikiProject Explosives||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
"Deflagration modeling" might be a better title for the section called "Flame physics". Also that section needs refernce as the stated formulas are by o means obvious even to a chemist.
Proposal to merge into combustion
Deflagration just means "burning". I propose a merge into combustion. Shiggity (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Deflagration has s a very specific meannig and indicates burning at a rate lower than the speed of sound and is still explosive, though of the low variety, the entry could however be moved to explosives (redirected to explosive materials) or explosive materialsStevenxlead (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Formerly unsectionized comments
" rapid burning of a gunpowder in a firearm " Is that accurate? I thought that "propellant" rather than "gunpowder" would be more accurate.
Can a more generalist explanation also be given - the maths is probably beyond what most people have.
Is the insert about "Astrophysics" and Type 1a supernovae really relevant? I think not. We're talking about a chemical reaction, and the paragraph heading is "Applications", not "Astronomical Phenomena" 188.8.131.52 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion for article
This article is quite technical, and the math is beyond the understanding of most readers. There is no clear definition of the difference between an explosion and a deflagration. It would be improved by a clear statement along the following lines:
When the chemical reaction travels through the reacting substance at more than the speed of sound, it is considered to be an explosion. When the chemical reaction travels through the reacting substance at less than the speed of sound, it is considered to be a deflagration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmorford (talk • contribs)
- It's worse than that. Both deflagrations and detonations can be called "explosive". For example, the combustion in an internal combustion engine should generally not be a detonation. In other words, detonation is a technical term whereas explosion is not. —Ben FrantzDale 11:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
A deflagration is not any combustion phenomenon that is not supersonic. It is a premixed flame structure where heat and chemical components diffuse forwards in a fuel/oxidizer premixture and initiate a chemical reaction. In particular, the log burning picture is not a deflagration - it is mostly a diffusion flame. In fact, unlike the article claims, most flames that the general populace thinks of are diffusion limited flames. Unless I get major objections in the next week or so, I intend to do a major rewrite of all relevant sections to reflect this. I have raised a similar objection on the detonation page. Thermodude 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I would vote against merging. The combustion entry is already long and apt to get longer -- it's a big topic, after all. A link to deflagration would suffice there, and for those of us just wanting to know what deflagration is, it saves us having to tackle the big combustion article to find out. --Remotelysensed (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Agree Stevenxlead (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Deflagration versus Combustion
They aren't the same. Deflagration can generate enough heat to cause combustion -- so can detonation. A flame, I think, is characteristic of combustion but is not characteristic of the other two reaction types. -- Kernel.Package (talk) (not logged in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
remove fire picture at head of article
- Yes. Transfer it to combustion article.