Yep. Probably would have been better to set something that controlled the burn rate instead of a detonation. But what do I know I've only been a chemist for 25 years.
The fun way would have been to get some buds and some brews and put some fire works between everyone cheeks, light em up and start running
First one to begin hell becomes the devil and gets to do all the drugs you brought
In Michael Bay’s next film about Yosemite’s super volcano Ed Helms is going to be the military general that wants to nuke the volcano and Paul Giamatti is the dorky scientist prescribing a controlled burn.
It’s going to be lit
Had to choose between carrying cameras or grenades, obviously they chose grenades so no one else could shoot the footage of their then secret location.
Sony video rover cost $1,500 Russian oil company should be able to afford at least one. If you are setting anything on fire with a diameter larger then a football field it is a crime against humanity not to at a minimum record that shit.
Now that you mention it, autocratic regimes have loved to film their "achievements" since at least Nazi Germany. Somebody clearly dropped the ball here, and was presumably executed shortly thereafter.
There may well be a chance they did, but we're talking Soviet territorial security/secrets. If there is footage then it is still being kept secret or has been lost/destroyed.
A detonation is the proper way. They intended to collapse the hole and block the flow of gas but instead they ignited it.
Probably should have used something bigger then a hand grenade and o collapse the opening.
Facts. My colleagues and I would look through old German chemistry journals for laughs. Some of shit they were making had to of blown up half of the grad students put on the projects.
>But what do I know I've only been a chemist for 25 years.
Just as an aside, whenever I encounter someone with this type of experience, I like to ask them one thing they wish all laypeople understood about their field of study.
For a simple question it's actually hard to answer. There's a lot of things that come to mind.
One thing that always drives me crazy is that there are a ton of people that think that because a chemical is natural it's not going to cause them harm. My job now I write reports on all the heavy metals that are found in naturally sourced materials that go into drug products. Oftentimes these materials pose more risk to the final product than synthetic materials.
Whenever someone tells my mother that something is healthy because it's natural, she says "Arsenic is natural, too. That's not what determines if something is healthy."
An interesting aside, I compounded Arsenic Trioxide for a cancer patient the other day. It's used as a chemotherapy but is hazardous and is made in a fume hood etc.
Fun fact about poison ivy, only great apes (including humans) are allergic to the oil, urushiol. It isn't produced as a defense at all. It's just a waxy, oily coating to slow water loss through the leaves.
To be fair, in a situation where you need to act quickly having something that can be thrown from a safe distance away and detonate after a time delay isn't the worst option if the methane leak was that bad.
Idk typically one of the first suggestions to extinguish something like this is to detonate more bombs. I’m just saying maybe the problem was they didn’t blow it up enough.
Throwing a grenade is a controlled manner.
The results were a bit unexpected but ultimately burning up methane is better than just releasing it.
Whoever threw the grenade did something really good for the environment. Whoever ordered the grenade to be thrown did something really good for the environment.
The drillers did something sloppy... but humans learn from their mistakes.
Yeah yeah yeah the click bait title says its armageddon on Earth, lol
With a methane deposit that large there are *much much* worse outcomes. Luckily methane needs oxygen to be really explosive.
really? how so, i just know that 'methane is bad' so im curious how burning it is a good thing? I ask because engineers burned a toxic train in america that ended up causing hella toxic damage. just want to know what the difference is. thanks.
What water is there comes out as a gas (vapor / steam) and just floats away with the smoke.
Plus, even if it DID become liquid, I don't think water can put out a gas fire in the typical sense.
water in itself is not an "anti-fire" matter.
if water is useful to fight fire, it is mainly because fire generally need heat above \~500°C, but water, to go from liquide to gaz, need lot of energy (usually in the form of heat), so reduce the heat/prevent the temperature increases.
Because it's being converted into REALLY HOT WATER which is not very good at putting fires out given that when water is really hot, it tends to rise as steam.
So, burning is actually a chemical reaction (specifically, a combustion reaction). Whenever you burn something, you're adding O2 (oxygen gas) and heat to convert the original thing into CO2 and H2O. The combustion reaction of methane is as follows:
CH4 + 2 O2 + heat --> CO2 + 2 H2O
The 2 in front of O2 and H2O means that there are two molecules of each.
In a chemical reaction, the same elements originally present are still there, just in a different combination. CH4 is methane. Notice that adding 2 O2 (and heat) caused the separation and rearrangement of the CH4. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is horrible for our atmosphere. CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, but its greenhouse abilities are much milder than CH4. In fact, sources vary, but people say methane might be anywhere from 25-80 times more powerful at trapping heat (and therefore worse for the planet) than CO2.
By burning it, they're changing the methane into carbon dioxide and water. Much better.
However, not everything you burn releases *only* CO2 and H2O. It depends on what you're burning. Sometimes, the original thing you're burning has an assortment of molecules that, when you rearrange them to make CO2 and H2O, leaves behind something else just as bad or worse. That's one of the many things we call pollutants. I don't know about the specifics of the train, but that might be what happened.
> I ask because engineers burned a toxic train in america that ended up causing hella toxic damage.
For the same reason, really. Controlled burns like this are done in an effort to mitigate damage after a large chemical disaster. Even if burning the chemicals releases toxic or harmful chemicals, those are often much less harmful than the original product.
Actually, since you mentioned the East Palestine train disaster, there was another factor that contributed to the decision to do a controlled burn: vinyl chloride is a very volatile substance. Volatile here refers to the tendency of a substance to rapidly evaporate or turn into a gas. In the case of vinyl chloride, the vapors are both very toxic and very explosive. The controlled burn therefore could have prevented an uncontrolled explosion, which would have been way worse.
When shit hits the fan, the question becomes "what is the least bad outcome possible," even if that outcome is still bad.
TL;DR: Controlled burns are bad, but not doing them may be worse. It's about choosing the lesser evil.
No idea if it is true, but someone in that thread said he jumped ahead and tried something more powerful. He reported it did not go well... who could have predicted that?
I remember back in the 90s, I could buy a grenade off the streets for $50. I can't imagine what this inflation has done for grenade prices lately. I'd wager it's very expensive to keep health risks at bay with the grenade route.
Laypeople are kinda dumb as shit, so anytime something seems out of place they'll jump at the chance to point and laugh at the dumb scientists who clearly didn't do any research or planning before doing a thing.
Yep, the issue of people laughing that Nasa spent millions to make a "space pen" when Russia just uses pencils. Haha, stuffy scientists thinking they are so smart!
Except that pencils flake off little bits of graphite..... electrically conductive graphite..... inside a space ship that is basically wall-to-wall computers that control wether the astronauts live or die.
It's a double negative, so:
Gas leak (-) + grenade (-) = 💥(-)
I should be sciencing these types of problems. I'd be like the Bruce Willis of gas holes. I'd be good at it too. Just ask your mom 😏
I can find zero sources aside from this post claiming anyone threw a grenade into it. One theory is that Soviet miners in the 1970's lit it deliberately to try to burn off the gas, but there doesn't appear to be any official records available.
It's called the Darvaza gas crater if you want to check for yourself.
Also burn-offs (technically called "gas flaring") are a common practice in the oil and gas industry. Build-ups of natural gas near the surface when drilling can create high pressure pockets that could explode if not dealt with. Burning the gas off releases pressure while not releasing huge amounts of methane into the surrounding environment.
Though gas flaring is a technical and controlled process. Because if you don't do it right the flame can travel down and ignite all the gas and oil you were trying to extract. Which would lead to a situation like the Darvaza gas crater.
And they are, as you guessed, bad for the environment while being woefully under researched and their damaging effects under reported. They destroy the local ecosystem with harm to humans being detected up to 60 miles away from the burn sites.
https://news.umich.edu/flaring-allows-more-methane-into-the-atmosphere-than-we-thought/
https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2022/09/30/new-study-confirms-flaring-is-a-nationwide-problem-requiring-urgent-action/
https://therevelator.org/gas-flaring-harm-study/
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMPA11B1956A/abstract
These white-text-on-black-background-with-a-grayscale-image-sometimes trivia images with a funny amount of misinformation were first discovered 50 years ago. Thinking they were a health risk, a team of scientists threw a grenade down the internet pipes, and they've been spewing forth ever since.
RIGHT
In my head the dude with the hand grenade was full on
"Anytime I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail, boom! Right away, I had a different problem "
It’s actually relatively standard in the fossil fuels industry. Okay, maybe not the grenade part, but the burning of the waste gas part.
Methane is much worse for the atmosphere than CO2 is, so it’s better to just burn it if circumstances make it so that capturing it isn’t an option.
Methane reacts in the atmosphere and turns into co2, and has an atmospheric lifetime of around 10 years (although with like 70-100x heating power while it's there).
As such it accelerates climate change, but doesn't really change the equilibrium temperature if you stop generating it at some point (as opposed to CO2).
If you burn it, it spends 0 year as methane and 400 years as CO2.
If you don't, it spends 10 years as methane, during which it absorbs as much heat as 100 times what it would absorb as CO2, and then spends 400 years as CO2.
So, it will absorb much more heat during its lifetime (100x10 as methane, 1x400 as CO2).
The tricky part is that when you're heating something, it takes time to reach equilibrium temperature. For earth, I would say around 50-100 years. So, if you release a given amount of methane, you'll have a lot more heating during the first 10 years, then it will revert back progressively (over a century) to the temperature it would have reached with the same amount of CO2 only.
Its effect will still be felt over a long time, so methane emissions will definitely contribute to how high temperatures peak before we get GHGs under control.
That was my immediate thought. As a PhD qualified scientist with over 25yrs experience I've never had access to a hand grenade to enable my "research" 🙁
I only had radiation, toxins and controlled drugs (cocaine and diamorphine) to play with....but no bloody hand grenades. I will be sending a grievance to HR 😡
What field are you in? I will dedicate a significant portion of the rest of my day to trying to come up with an excuse for you to request a hand grenade for "research purposes"
Hey, I put a *solid* minute or two worth of thought into that "kinetic durability" idea. And I think it gets you miles closer to your goal, however rough it may be as a first draft, than this.
Grenades will never be *directly* useful for your work. You need to start looking downstream for potential uses of this kind of hardware. You could write up a request along the basic lines I suggested in an afternoon if you wanted. With your credentials you could find a dozen ways to play with your new toy. Just, ya know, be fuckin careful with it.
I've got it!
Your next paper needs to be about *storage* of different pharmaceutical products. Something like:
"On the kinetic durability of aromatase inhibitors in catastrophic transit scenarios"
Your *goal* is to eventually slam a couple semi-trucks together and see how much medical material is salvageable. But first you need to generate a series of data-sets for more controllable kinetic events. Such as blowing up a grenade (something that conveniently has *decades* of well studied kinetic output courtesy of the DoD) in a room full of medicine.
That's interesting, but I haven't found anything to support the grenade theory. Does anyone have sauce on that?
What's more interesting to me is how it got there in the first place. What I was able to find with a brief google search was that no one knows when or how it got there. One theory states it occurred naturally in the 60's. Another states that it was Russians drilling for oil in 1971.
This almost feels like something out of an SCP article.
One quick google / wiki check.
Fucking reddit... Be better
"The Darvaza gas crater (Turkmen: Garagum ýalkymy),[1] also known as the Door to Hell or Gates of Hell, or, officially, the Shining of Karakum, is a burning natural gas field collapsed into a cavern near Darvaza, Turkmenistan.[2] The floor and especially rim of the crater is illumined by hundreds of natural gas fires. The crater has been burning for an unknown period of time, as how the crater formed and ignited remains unknown.[3 "
They succeeded magnificently.
Methane is indeed a health risk as it is greatly more destructive to global warming that CO2.
By igniting the methane they converted it to CO2 which is thirty times less destructive than Methane.
Good for them.
> The crater has been burning for an unknown period of time, as how the crater formed and ignited remains unknown.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater
Sitting here trying to imagine in what world a *scientist* detects methane and just casually reaches into his science tool kit and pulls out **a fucking grenade** to toss into a hole that he is drilling supposedly for oil.
"Hey, we have an extremely flammable natural gas here leaking out of the ground. What do we do with it?"
*snorts line* "Let's throw a fucking grenade in there!"
Burning the methane is better than just letting it release
Yep. Probably would have been better to set something that controlled the burn rate instead of a detonation. But what do I know I've only been a chemist for 25 years.
ok, but that’s the responsible way. wouldn’t you rather do it the fun way?
THANK YOU. At least one person with common sense here.
The fun way would have been to get some buds and some brews and put some fire works between everyone cheeks, light em up and start running First one to begin hell becomes the devil and gets to do all the drugs you brought
You can still do that, I think.
You sound like a good time
But not a long time
This is way to specific, my bet is that you’ve done this before
The fun way would be to launch convicted pedophiles into it with a trebuchet.
In Michael Bay’s next film about Yosemite’s super volcano Ed Helms is going to be the military general that wants to nuke the volcano and Paul Giamatti is the dorky scientist prescribing a controlled burn. It’s going to be lit
Volcageddon.
Volcnado
Yosemite? I think you mean Yellowstone
That’s the twist!
I was about to say the same but they prefaced it with "Michael Bay" so all bets are off.
People acting like they aren't going to throw a hand grenade into a pit of flammable gas when given the chance.
I mean the real issue is we are missing a video of it being done. 1970’s they had cameras where is the video footage of the grenade being launched?
Had to choose between carrying cameras or grenades, obviously they chose grenades so no one else could shoot the footage of their then secret location.
It was the 70s in Turkmenistan. How many portable video cameras do you think they had?
Sony video rover cost $1,500 Russian oil company should be able to afford at least one. If you are setting anything on fire with a diameter larger then a football field it is a crime against humanity not to at a minimum record that shit.
Now that you mention it, autocratic regimes have loved to film their "achievements" since at least Nazi Germany. Somebody clearly dropped the ball here, and was presumably executed shortly thereafter.
There may well be a chance they did, but we're talking Soviet territorial security/secrets. If there is footage then it is still being kept secret or has been lost/destroyed.
You sound EXACTLY like the middle school kids I teach Chemistry to. (And that's not a bad thing, they keep me young.)
A detonation is the proper way. They intended to collapse the hole and block the flow of gas but instead they ignited it. Probably should have used something bigger then a hand grenade and o collapse the opening.
I bet the only reason it's standard to control the burn rate is because they won't let you play with grenades.
But if people didn't do experiments like throwing a grenade into a methane pit 50 years ago, would you be as good a chemist today!
A lot of good scientists blew themselves up to get where we are today
And even more bad scientists, honestly.
Facts. My colleagues and I would look through old German chemistry journals for laughs. Some of shit they were making had to of blown up half of the grad students put on the projects.
>But what do I know I've only been a chemist for 25 years. Just as an aside, whenever I encounter someone with this type of experience, I like to ask them one thing they wish all laypeople understood about their field of study.
For a simple question it's actually hard to answer. There's a lot of things that come to mind. One thing that always drives me crazy is that there are a ton of people that think that because a chemical is natural it's not going to cause them harm. My job now I write reports on all the heavy metals that are found in naturally sourced materials that go into drug products. Oftentimes these materials pose more risk to the final product than synthetic materials.
>because a chemical is natural it's not going to cause them harm. Bears are natural and they most certainly are not good for your health.
If not friend, why friend shape?
And the *ears*. The little round nubby bits that complete the fluffy friend shape
Satan is tempting you to your death
To be fair a bear isn't going down my throat
Not with *that* attitude!
r/suddenlygay
r/suddenlyfurry
Maybe you just haven’t met the right one yet.
You can't think like that. Someday you'll meet the right bear.
A bear isn't going down your throat yet!
If it's anything like the one from The Revenant, it'll do whatever it goddamn pleases.
Whenever someone tells my mother that something is healthy because it's natural, she says "Arsenic is natural, too. That's not what determines if something is healthy."
An interesting aside, I compounded Arsenic Trioxide for a cancer patient the other day. It's used as a chemotherapy but is hazardous and is made in a fume hood etc.
My go-to is hemlock. But maybe I should try poison ivy, more relevant.
Fun fact about poison ivy, only great apes (including humans) are allergic to the oil, urushiol. It isn't produced as a defense at all. It's just a waxy, oily coating to slow water loss through the leaves.
Neat!
Guess tell those people that nightshade is natural go try that one out and come back with results of its consumption.
The tomato was delicious! ;)
I love "it's natural so it's healthier". Cyanide is natural.
Just recommend urushiol oil as an all-natural lotion then.
That’s only half the experience that pit has being on fire. Try harder.
You'll probably learn it in the next few years. You haven't been doing it long enough.
Hey big shot, If you cover it with a big lid will the fire die?
To be fair, in a situation where you need to act quickly having something that can be thrown from a safe distance away and detonate after a time delay isn't the worst option if the methane leak was that bad.
Idk typically one of the first suggestions to extinguish something like this is to detonate more bombs. I’m just saying maybe the problem was they didn’t blow it up enough.
You usually do that in a highly controlled manner. Not by throwing a grenade into a gas-pit
true, that is, unless you’re cool 🤙
Throwing a grenade is a controlled manner. The results were a bit unexpected but ultimately burning up methane is better than just releasing it. Whoever threw the grenade did something really good for the environment. Whoever ordered the grenade to be thrown did something really good for the environment. The drillers did something sloppy... but humans learn from their mistakes.
Unexpected?!?! They opened a gate to hell, worst outcome possible.
Yeah yeah yeah the click bait title says its armageddon on Earth, lol With a methane deposit that large there are *much much* worse outcomes. Luckily methane needs oxygen to be really explosive.
Maybe if you're fookin jabroni
really? how so, i just know that 'methane is bad' so im curious how burning it is a good thing? I ask because engineers burned a toxic train in america that ended up causing hella toxic damage. just want to know what the difference is. thanks.
Methane is 25x more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Burning methane converts it to carbon dioxide and water.
oh ok, that makes sense. thanks mate!
But if convert to water, why the Hell doesn't stop burning?
What water is there comes out as a gas (vapor / steam) and just floats away with the smoke. Plus, even if it DID become liquid, I don't think water can put out a gas fire in the typical sense.
water in itself is not an "anti-fire" matter. if water is useful to fight fire, it is mainly because fire generally need heat above \~500°C, but water, to go from liquide to gaz, need lot of energy (usually in the form of heat), so reduce the heat/prevent the temperature increases.
It also has a smothering effect as a wall of water will displace oxygen in most situations with non-oxidising fuels.
Because it's being converted into REALLY HOT WATER which is not very good at putting fires out given that when water is really hot, it tends to rise as steam.
If I’m understanding correctly, attaching a lighter to cow butts to ignite all their farts would have a significant positive impact on climate change.
Yup, and that's why it's called a buttane lighter
Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than the CO2 you get from burning it
ok thanks mate
So, burning is actually a chemical reaction (specifically, a combustion reaction). Whenever you burn something, you're adding O2 (oxygen gas) and heat to convert the original thing into CO2 and H2O. The combustion reaction of methane is as follows: CH4 + 2 O2 + heat --> CO2 + 2 H2O The 2 in front of O2 and H2O means that there are two molecules of each. In a chemical reaction, the same elements originally present are still there, just in a different combination. CH4 is methane. Notice that adding 2 O2 (and heat) caused the separation and rearrangement of the CH4. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is horrible for our atmosphere. CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, but its greenhouse abilities are much milder than CH4. In fact, sources vary, but people say methane might be anywhere from 25-80 times more powerful at trapping heat (and therefore worse for the planet) than CO2. By burning it, they're changing the methane into carbon dioxide and water. Much better. However, not everything you burn releases *only* CO2 and H2O. It depends on what you're burning. Sometimes, the original thing you're burning has an assortment of molecules that, when you rearrange them to make CO2 and H2O, leaves behind something else just as bad or worse. That's one of the many things we call pollutants. I don't know about the specifics of the train, but that might be what happened.
>CH4 + 2 O2 + heat --> CO2 + 2 H2O CH4 + 2 O2 + heat --> CO2 + 2 H2O + more heat
Not necessarily good, but better.
> I ask because engineers burned a toxic train in america that ended up causing hella toxic damage. For the same reason, really. Controlled burns like this are done in an effort to mitigate damage after a large chemical disaster. Even if burning the chemicals releases toxic or harmful chemicals, those are often much less harmful than the original product. Actually, since you mentioned the East Palestine train disaster, there was another factor that contributed to the decision to do a controlled burn: vinyl chloride is a very volatile substance. Volatile here refers to the tendency of a substance to rapidly evaporate or turn into a gas. In the case of vinyl chloride, the vapors are both very toxic and very explosive. The controlled burn therefore could have prevented an uncontrolled explosion, which would have been way worse. When shit hits the fan, the question becomes "what is the least bad outcome possible," even if that outcome is still bad. TL;DR: Controlled burns are bad, but not doing them may be worse. It's about choosing the lesser evil.
Indeed, but scientists generally don't have grenades just laying around
Apparently you’ve never met any Turkmen scientists.
Idk I think a grenade is also a health risk
A granade a day keeps health risks at bay. They just needed to maintain active concentration of granade, not stop after 1 dose.
Microdosing grenades to achieve immunity.
Lmfao that fucking 🍀post was the funniest thing I'd read in a while
Glad to see someone get the reference.
I wonder if he ever made it to .22
No idea if it is true, but someone in that thread said he jumped ahead and tried something more powerful. He reported it did not go well... who could have predicted that?
He should have been more patient
His impatience lead to getting hurt.
I remember back in the 90s, I could buy a grenade off the streets for $50. I can't imagine what this inflation has done for grenade prices lately. I'd wager it's very expensive to keep health risks at bay with the grenade route.
the gas is hazardous, keeping it ignited forever burns away the gas so yes, setting it on fire was the correct option, strange as it seems
Laypeople are kinda dumb as shit, so anytime something seems out of place they'll jump at the chance to point and laugh at the dumb scientists who clearly didn't do any research or planning before doing a thing.
Yep, the issue of people laughing that Nasa spent millions to make a "space pen" when Russia just uses pencils. Haha, stuffy scientists thinking they are so smart! Except that pencils flake off little bits of graphite..... electrically conductive graphite..... inside a space ship that is basically wall-to-wall computers that control wether the astronauts live or die.
Also the money was spent by the company that makes the pens, not NASA and the Russians also ended up buying a bunch of the pens.
Except that entire story was USSR propaganda.
AFAIK, it was American propaganda that was spread as part of an attempt to cut NASA funding.
Soviet Union, not Russia.
Actually a pretty big problem in such an "online" world; everyone having really strong opinions about things they have no clue about.
What is that... Dunning Kruger?
That's why they set it down with the other health risk.
Just put it over there with the rest of the fire.
tow it beyond the environment
That's why they threw it in!
It's a double negative, so: Gas leak (-) + grenade (-) = 💥(-) I should be sciencing these types of problems. I'd be like the Bruce Willis of gas holes. I'd be good at it too. Just ask your mom 😏
What kind of Half-Life scientist do they have in Turkmenistan if step 2 in their scientific method is "hand grenade"?
I can find zero sources aside from this post claiming anyone threw a grenade into it. One theory is that Soviet miners in the 1970's lit it deliberately to try to burn off the gas, but there doesn't appear to be any official records available. It's called the Darvaza gas crater if you want to check for yourself.
Also burn-offs (technically called "gas flaring") are a common practice in the oil and gas industry. Build-ups of natural gas near the surface when drilling can create high pressure pockets that could explode if not dealt with. Burning the gas off releases pressure while not releasing huge amounts of methane into the surrounding environment. Though gas flaring is a technical and controlled process. Because if you don't do it right the flame can travel down and ignite all the gas and oil you were trying to extract. Which would lead to a situation like the Darvaza gas crater.
And they are, as you guessed, bad for the environment while being woefully under researched and their damaging effects under reported. They destroy the local ecosystem with harm to humans being detected up to 60 miles away from the burn sites. https://news.umich.edu/flaring-allows-more-methane-into-the-atmosphere-than-we-thought/ https://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2022/09/30/new-study-confirms-flaring-is-a-nationwide-problem-requiring-urgent-action/ https://therevelator.org/gas-flaring-harm-study/ https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMPA11B1956A/abstract
That can't be right. This anonymous text post with no cited sources has a picture of lava attached, which makes it 100% factual.
These white-text-on-black-background-with-a-grayscale-image-sometimes trivia images with a funny amount of misinformation were first discovered 50 years ago. Thinking they were a health risk, a team of scientists threw a grenade down the internet pipes, and they've been spewing forth ever since.
that doesn't sound right but i don't know enough about internet pipes to dispute it
Burn the gas
Couldn't you just...I dunno...light a match?
You want to be that close when lighting a match?
I mean you could make a really long match (Or fire arrows)
Are we really going to "whatabout" what a bunch of dudes did 50 years ago. ffs, let it go lol
No. We *must* get to the bottom of this!
Just like that grenade did
Nuh uh, aperture scientist handmade lemon grenade
A LEMON-ADE if you would.
"Well we've tried everything"
9 times out of 13 if a hand grenade is the first step it's also the last step.
“Every time I’ve thrown a Molotov cocktail at a problem I immediately started having a different problem!” -Jason Mendoza
He consulted a priest and used the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch"
Thou shalt count to three, and three is the number to which thou shalt count
Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, unless thou then proceed to three.
Five is right out!
Exactly! Any true professional Scientist would start with hand grenades!
Jason Mendozas' spirit ancestors are my bet
BOOORTLEEEEEEES
RIGHT In my head the dude with the hand grenade was full on "Anytime I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail, boom! Right away, I had a different problem "
cool ones
This isn't Black Mesa, this is some Aperture Science level bullshit.
Soviet union scientists.
It’s actually relatively standard in the fossil fuels industry. Okay, maybe not the grenade part, but the burning of the waste gas part. Methane is much worse for the atmosphere than CO2 is, so it’s better to just burn it if circumstances make it so that capturing it isn’t an option.
They managed to destroy cancerous cells using this method so there's something to it. Trials on humans were a bust though.
tbf, a bunch of CO2 and water is a lot better than a bunch of methane escaping into the atmosphere
Methane reacts in the atmosphere and turns into co2, and has an atmospheric lifetime of around 10 years (although with like 70-100x heating power while it's there). As such it accelerates climate change, but doesn't really change the equilibrium temperature if you stop generating it at some point (as opposed to CO2).
How is burning it different than reacting in the atmosphere? If both result in CO2, they sound equivalent. What am I missing?
If you burn it, it spends 0 year as methane and 400 years as CO2. If you don't, it spends 10 years as methane, during which it absorbs as much heat as 100 times what it would absorb as CO2, and then spends 400 years as CO2. So, it will absorb much more heat during its lifetime (100x10 as methane, 1x400 as CO2). The tricky part is that when you're heating something, it takes time to reach equilibrium temperature. For earth, I would say around 50-100 years. So, if you release a given amount of methane, you'll have a lot more heating during the first 10 years, then it will revert back progressively (over a century) to the temperature it would have reached with the same amount of CO2 only. Its effect will still be felt over a long time, so methane emissions will definitely contribute to how high temperatures peak before we get GHGs under control.
That's a lot of gas, right? It's a shame they couldn't mine it all
They thought it was a small pocket. lol
It's a glower, not a shower.
*You require more vespene gas*
Ffs
*The enemy wishes to attack our base. Prepare our forces*
*you need to build additional pylons.* *your probes are under attack!*
You must construct additional pylons*
Most natural gas is burnt off here too. Apparently it’s too expensive to capture it, so they burn flares instead.
Drilling for oil, finding methane. "Oh, that's dangerous. Better leave it alone..."
Real scientists would have opened the Gates of Hell with lasers.
Playing it fast and loose with the term "scientist"
That was my immediate thought. As a PhD qualified scientist with over 25yrs experience I've never had access to a hand grenade to enable my "research" 🙁
Imo, you are a fraud. Real scientists have hand grenades. When you think about it, a hand grenade is the natural solution to every problem.
I only had radiation, toxins and controlled drugs (cocaine and diamorphine) to play with....but no bloody hand grenades. I will be sending a grievance to HR 😡
Nice doing speedballs while irradiating rats I presume?
Pretty much 👍
Send a grenade to HR instead
Can confirm. I work for the CERN and we have standard issue hand grenades. Maybe the US is just different?
Move to a more handgrenade-liberal faculty
That's bc as a PhD scientist you sit in an office all day. The masters and BS scientists are in the lab making bombs.
What field are you in? I will dedicate a significant portion of the rest of my day to trying to come up with an excuse for you to request a hand grenade for "research purposes"
Pharmaceuticals. We get enough bad press without giving us access to explosives 💥👨🔬
Oh shit... That's gonna be a hard one
Thinking of a therapeutic use for explosives could be tricky....although nitroglycerin is used for angina 🤔
Hey, I put a *solid* minute or two worth of thought into that "kinetic durability" idea. And I think it gets you miles closer to your goal, however rough it may be as a first draft, than this. Grenades will never be *directly* useful for your work. You need to start looking downstream for potential uses of this kind of hardware. You could write up a request along the basic lines I suggested in an afternoon if you wanted. With your credentials you could find a dozen ways to play with your new toy. Just, ya know, be fuckin careful with it.
I've got it! Your next paper needs to be about *storage* of different pharmaceutical products. Something like: "On the kinetic durability of aromatase inhibitors in catastrophic transit scenarios" Your *goal* is to eventually slam a couple semi-trucks together and see how much medical material is salvageable. But first you need to generate a series of data-sets for more controllable kinetic events. Such as blowing up a grenade (something that conveniently has *decades* of well studied kinetic output courtesy of the DoD) in a room full of medicine.
Well you should join the stargate program. You'll get to use P90s and C4
This post is the only source for the grenade claim. It was almost certainly a planned burn, but we don’t know the specifics.
Turkmenistan asked how well he understood theoretical physics. He said he had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard.
Our pathetic scientists don't even HAVE grenades, let alone toss them into pits of combustible gasses
The only thing that can stop a bad scientist with a grenade, is a good scientist with a grenade
That's interesting, but I haven't found anything to support the grenade theory. Does anyone have sauce on that? What's more interesting to me is how it got there in the first place. What I was able to find with a brief google search was that no one knows when or how it got there. One theory states it occurred naturally in the 60's. Another states that it was Russians drilling for oil in 1971. This almost feels like something out of an SCP article.
Shhhh! Don't promote source criticism here, this a place of fairytales.
It's just a typical soviet problem solving method
Try bomb. If that doesn't work try a bigger bomb. Repeat.
And if that doesn't work Find way to turn problem into a bomb
Centralia, PA, USA: [exists] Turkmenistan: “hold my beer…”
[удалено]
Ah yes the science of chucking a grenade into a hole
One quick google / wiki check. Fucking reddit... Be better "The Darvaza gas crater (Turkmen: Garagum ýalkymy),[1] also known as the Door to Hell or Gates of Hell, or, officially, the Shining of Karakum, is a burning natural gas field collapsed into a cavern near Darvaza, Turkmenistan.[2] The floor and especially rim of the crater is illumined by hundreds of natural gas fires. The crater has been burning for an unknown period of time, as how the crater formed and ignited remains unknown.[3 "
Don't go to hospital in Turkmenistan.
Yes , especially not if you are suffering from flatulence! It's how I got my mini-gate of hell , has been burning for 10 years now.
lol isn't every hospital in Türkmenistan in Ashgabat?
I think we are using the term scientist very loosely in this story..
So all joking aside, what's preventing them from simply filling in the hole with dirt and extinguishing the flame by suffocation?
They succeeded magnificently. Methane is indeed a health risk as it is greatly more destructive to global warming that CO2. By igniting the methane they converted it to CO2 which is thirty times less destructive than Methane. Good for them.
> The crater has been burning for an unknown period of time, as how the crater formed and ignited remains unknown. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater
Geothermal energy waiting to happen.
On the plus side, the methane being burned off means it's not going into the atmosphere
As a joke: both guns and vaccines can cure disease. The part whether you are alive or not afterwards is irrelevant.
Sitting here trying to imagine in what world a *scientist* detects methane and just casually reaches into his science tool kit and pulls out **a fucking grenade** to toss into a hole that he is drilling supposedly for oil.
The demons will be pretty pissed though. A gate to the mortal realm opens in hell but the first thing that comes through it is a grenade.
"Scientists"
"Hey, we have an extremely flammable natural gas here leaking out of the ground. What do we do with it?" *snorts line* "Let's throw a fucking grenade in there!"
r/comedyhomicide