Talk:Propane

Template:Vital article

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1

Crystal structure

I don't know if the crystal structure of propane is important enough to be included in this article. Maybe it would be better placed at Alkane#Melting point as an example of the crystal structure of an odd-numbered n-alkane (these have lower melting points due to poorer packing than even-numbered n-alkanes) . Any views, anyone?

• 
• 

Ben (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do propane canisters actually explode when you shoot them? Or are they designed specifically to prevent that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.126.117 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is substantial overlap between the content of Liquefied petroleum gas and that of Propane. In general, Propane is of higher quality. I suggest we extract the useful and well-referenced content from LPG, add it to Propane, and make a redirect. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

---

ALTERNATE PROPOSAL

LPG is a generic term for mixtures of hydrocarbon compounds ranging from C2 to C7, whereas Propane is a specific chemical compound with definitive properties.

There is commercial use of various marketing terms for LPG compounds; one of these is "Propane" which is usually a mixture of chemical compounds propane (C₃H₈), propylene (C₃H₆), and an odourant.

I propose that the separate entry for Propane MUST be retained, and rather that the above 2 sentences be appended to the entry for LPG to explain the conflict in terms. -- -- 01:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Foster00 (talk)

---

• Oppose merge, per Foster00. Merging LPG and propane would imply that butane, etc should also be merged in. --Athol Mullen (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Foster and Mullen. Keeping these entries separate will disambiguate LPG. The light hydrocarbons and their alcohols are being touted as "latest breakthrough" in large-scale energy systems. Economic and politic issues aside, better to have drill-down in Wiki to allow individuals to investigate chemical and technological components in-depth.

Trioculite (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. It seems that someone incorrectly thought that propane and LPG were one in the same. The fact that they are NOT THE SAME has been cleared up.--Bodybagger (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, per Foster00. Propane gas purchased commercially for heating or backyard grilling is commonly referred to as LPG. This causes confusion in the general community; a few lines should disambiguate LPG from propane. This article should be retained and discuss Propane as an unique chemical species. BeastRHIT (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Propane pipes

What about underground propane delivery to houses and business, in lieu of natural gas? All I know of this is what a documentary on the Humberto Vidal Explosion said, so I can't really add anything here, but the article should say something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

MJ/kg

This expression should has the equivalent value in BTU,maybe in ( ).BrianAlex (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see {{convert}}. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Heating value is currently in MJ/kg should be represented in BTU/lb for English units. BTU/gal is not a good conversion because a sample volume of gas varies with respect to temperature and pressure. No reference state (temp. and pressure) is listed with the figure. Mass is constant. BeastRHIT (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead Links

22 is a dead link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"The gross heat of combustion of one normal cubic meter of propane is around 91 megajoules"

This afirmation is not correct.There are no such info in the doc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.115.215.251 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The source gives ~46 MJ/kg, which is consistent with 91 MJ/m3, given the density of about 2 kg/m3 (temperature dependent). Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Boiling Point Range

The value of 231.11 K comes from Yaws, Carl L., Chemical Properties Handbook, 1999, McGraw-Hill(New York) isbn= 0-07-073401-1, page 9JSR (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2013

The explanation of the flame temperature seems to be off, blame flame should be hotter than red flame. Please double check.. 24.130.150.22 (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The colors do not represent the appearance of the flame. Please review the source paper.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Energy Content

Hello, I found your note and wish to respond. The article on propane under the energy content section contained an error, a statement similar to 40.2 kJ/g ... 50 MJ/kg which contradicted itself. As this did not answer the question and contained conflicting information, I went on a search taking much time and aggravation to find the correct answer to my question of how much energy is released by the combustion of propane. I found the information which I considered to be reliable at the NIST, and so, having found my answer I thought to share it with Wikipedia. I do not appreciate your removing the efforts of my work. As it is from the NIST I doubt you can find it inaccurate, so I am left wondering why you so deliberately chose to re-edit the section.

Per the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the heat of combustion of propane is -2219.2 kJ/mol ± 0.46 kJ/mol. The molecular weight of propane is 44.09562 g/mol, and this comes out to be 50.327 MJ/kg ± 0.0104 MJ/kg.

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Name=propane&Units=SI&cTG=on&cTC=on&cTR=on 70.210.11.234 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Craig

Restored significant digits and updated reference link. Yes, it is enthalpy; I chose to write simply. And you are correct, it is not per the NIST, rather per the NIST website, but one supposes the NIST in placing it on their website considers it accurate. I wonder why you didn't correct the original Wikipedia energy content error and now try to use my research with your edit?70.210.11.234 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Craig

Please don't correct -2219.2 ± 0.5 to -2219.2 ± 0.46, which is not a scientific presentation of accuracy. (The accuracy of 0.46 is "too accurate" and should be rounded to 0.5, except for some special cases, which this one is not). Further, even the NIST link gives a spread between different datasets. Your IP is floating and I can't reach you on your talk page, thus posting here. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Propane Risks and Alternate Fuels

This section does not have any value and little or no references. I almost deleted it, but I opted to put this section here to give a bit of discussion first. CNG evaporates??

I vote to remove the section.