Talk:Dust explosion

Five conditions for a dust explosion
I too think the section about the 5 conditions is incorrect. It is cited to https://web.archive.org/web/20050921011158/http://esf.uvm.edu/sirippt/prevdustex/index.htm, but the powerpoint presentation at that link says all 5 must be present and that "the dust must be confined." I think the paragraph relating to the 5 sources of ignition should be corrected. 2602:306:315D:C270:E8B1:FCFB:697F:6C54 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)rnash

Five conditions for a dust explosion
Can someone figure out what it means for there to be five necessary conditions for a dust explosion, except one of them isn't necessary? 75.167.202.118 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not the best worded paragraph. You need all five for an explosion.  If the dust cloud is not confined, then it just burns rapidly from the ignition source to the extremities of the cloud, so one gets a deflagration and not an explosion (i.e. you have a subsonic combustion) - so more of "Whoosh", rather than a "Bang" - if that makes sense.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This really needs to be explained much more clearly. For example, the article claims that dust explosions are used for special effects; most of these are in the open air (for cinematic visibility). The Formosa Fun Coast explosion article currently refers to a "dust explosion". If a careful distinction is to be made between an "explosion" and a "deflagration", ample WP:RS need to be found.  Simply claiming that certain incidents aren't proper "dust explosions" and ignoring the closely-related "dust deflagration" without clear explanation will cause more confusion and disputation.


 * In addition, the related injury characteristics and hazard of ensuing fires need to be covered. Reify-tech (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have done a lot of cleanup and expansion, but more refs are still needed. The German and Italian versions of the article have some useful info that could be imported. Reify-tech (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dust explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050921011158/http://esf.uvm.edu:80/sirippt/prevdustex/index.htm to http://esf.uvm.edu/sirippt/prevdustex/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dust explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130814224030/http://www.safedust.com/ to http://www.safedust.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dust explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408222412/http://www.mnopedia.org/event/1878-washburn-mill-explosion to http://www.mnopedia.org/event/1878-washburn-mill-explosion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Language question
Are the words 'within in' in the first sequence of the article correct? --CiaPan (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Removed.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable incidents
Do we have a clear policy for what should be included here? It looks like a random selection, predominantly US. I would suggest basing it on one of the following:
 * 1) Ranked by highest death toll
 * 2) Ranked by highest casualties
 * 3) One or two examples per industry
 * 4) One or two examples per situation
 * 5) Ranked by (inflation adjusted) value of property destroyed
 * 6) Economic effects.

1 & 2
Easiest to do, but would exclude may economically significant explosions.

3 & 4
Closely related. Consider though a grain elevator: is this an elevator incident or a grain incident. Editors would need to exercise judgement as to whether an explosion was in an existing category or should be in a new one.

5 & 6
Much the hardest way to select. Option 5 has problems the further back in history we go (comparing the value of an 1830s coal explosion with a 2010s wood flour mill is difficult). Option 6 is probably impossible without a reliable source. Impact could be considered at global, national, regional or local levels and again the history makes life difficult.

Preferences
2 Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A Certain Magical Index
There is a reference to these by Accelerator at end of episode 13, could be useful to mention in a popular culture section. 65.94.138.239 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Galena Park, Texas 1976 silo explosion
This article talks about the one in Galena Park in 1876. http://www.gendisasters.com/texas/12987/galena-park-tx-grain-elevator-explosion-feb-1976