Kenadian Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 The gas burns at that temperature. Doesn't mean the stadium will be heated to that temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 They've dug a gasline under the concrete floor to the floor center. It's going to be a steel - glass flame tower. You don't need a gasline for a holographic projector. Stop trying to deny the inevitable. Funny how JLousa never comes on here. We never hear from Orangevest either. I'm still owed a nice big juicy steak for winning the roof bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 (edited) How do you know its going to be 2000 degrees? A little inukshuk told me it's going to be 2010 degrees!!! Can you imagine what the cauldron of Riyadh 4852 will burn at?? Edited May 27, 2009 by baron-pierreIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Adiabatic flame temperature (constant volume) of common gases Fuel Oxidizer Tad (°C) Tad (°F) Acetylene (C2H2) air: 2,500 C / 4,532 F Oxygen: 3,100 C / 5,612 F Butane (C4H10) air: 1,970 C / 3,578 F Butane (C4H10) Oxygen: 2,718 C / 4,925 F Hydrogen (H2) air: 2,210 C / 4,010 C Hydrogen (H2) Oxygen: 3,200 C / 5,792 F Methane (CH4) air: 1,950 C / 3,542 F Natural gas air: ~1,950 C / ~3,542 F Propane (C3H8) air: 1,980 C / 3,596 F Propane (C3H8) Oxygen: 2,526 C / 4,579 F MAPP gas Methylacetylene (C3H4) air: 2,010 C / 3,650 F MAPP gas Methylacetylene (C3H4) Oxygen: 2,927 C / 5,301 F BBBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Note the temperature this gas burns at (2010!!!) : MAPP gas Methylacetylene (C3H4) air: 2,010 C / 3,650 F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 /\ Hmmmmmmm. You sure know all your gases and burning temperatures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Why is this the only thing you care about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 You sure know all your gases and burning temperatures... Or at least how to cut and paste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4gamesandcounting Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Is it just me or is this conversation a load of hot air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Look! Mr. X / X2 / Nitronuts thinks I've destroyed this forum! "Originally Posted by jlousa It's nice to see this thread civil and not littered. You can't say the same for the 2010 section at GamesBids, it's almost as if he who must not be named dropped a bomb in there...his latest topic: http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/inde...3&a...t=0&start=0 With no moderation, he has single handedly destroyed that forum." You can read more of Mr. X / X2 / Nitronut's nonsense here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread...228&page=38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowninginair Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I know..don't feed the trolls.. Anyways, first off its not about the temperature that the flame burns at, but rather the heat generated by the flame. There is an important difference in the two terms that is often missed. Temperature is different than heat. The olympic torch in Salt Lake City generated 8x10^6 BTU/hr. I'd submit that this figure is waaaayy high for anything they'd build indoors...but for the sake of a 'worst case' analysis, lets hold taht 8x10^6 figure. Wow...that sounds like alot eh? 8 MILLION BTU/HR....Holy ****...the roof is gonna blow! Orrr...maybe not. The average human at rest generates approx 350 BTU/hr. Assume that roughly 65,000 people will be in BC Place for the OC (60,000 spectators, 5,000 performers). This results in a heat generation of 22.75x10^6 BTU/hr just from the PEOPLE being inside the building......Roughly 2.8x the heat generated by a flame on the order of Salt Lake City's. Or to frame it another way. The heat given off by a flame of this type is the equivalent of that generated by about 23,000 people sitting around doing nothing..... If you think having 23,000 people sitting inside BC Place for 2 weeks would cause such a strain on the HVAC and Pressurization system that it would be unable to cope and would explode.......well.....I can't help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.x Posted May 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Look! Mr. X / X2 / Nitronuts thinks I've destroyed this forum!"Originally Posted by jlousa It's nice to see this thread civil and not littered. You can't say the same for the 2010 section at GamesBids, it's almost as if he who must not be named dropped a bomb in there...his latest topic: http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/inde...3&a...t=0&start=0 With no moderation, he has single handedly destroyed that forum." You can read more of Mr. X / X2 / Nitronut's nonsense here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread...228&page=38 I don't think anyone can help you if you think that isn't true....reality is, most people here [except you] think that. I can only wonder why you were banned from Skyscraperpage....15 times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I know..don't feed the trolls..Anyways, first off its not about the temperature that the flame burns at, but rather the heat generated by the flame. There is an important difference in the two terms that is often missed. Temperature is different than heat. The olympic torch in Salt Lake City generated 8x10^6 BTU/hr. I'd submit that this figure is waaaayy high for anything they'd build indoors...but for the sake of a 'worst case' analysis, lets hold taht 8x10^6 figure. Wow...that sounds like alot eh? 8 MILLION BTU/HR....Holy ****...the roof is gonna blow! Orrr...maybe not. The average human at rest generates approx 350 BTU/hr. Assume that roughly 65,000 people will be in BC Place for the OC (60,000 spectators, 5,000 performers). This results in a heat generation of 22.75x10^6 BTU/hr just from the PEOPLE being inside the building......Roughly 2.8x the heat generated by a flame on the order of Salt Lake City's. Or to frame it another way. The heat given off by a flame of this type is the equivalent of that generated by about 23,000 people sitting around doing nothing..... If you think having 23,000 people sitting inside BC Place for 2 weeks would cause such a strain on the HVAC and Pressurization system that it would be unable to cope and would explode.......well.....I can't help you. Thanks for that analysis. The air inside the stadium is monitored and can be adjusted. Reports indicate that the 2007 pop and deflation was the result of a miscommunication where 3x the pressure needed to hold up the roof. During the Olympics, I'm sure they will be monitoring the air pressure and communicating very closely. And while the 2007 incident was a costly and embarrassing error, that is the only time in the stadium's 25 year history where the roof tore and deflated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 drowninginair, your analysis is too symplistic. The heat generated by the flame is eminating from one point. The heat generated by 55,000 people is spread throughout the stadium. The heat from the flame will rise to the top of the dome and cause it to expand. So don't tell me that 55,000 people generate as much heat as a flame cauldron burning at 2000 degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Call an engineer or physics expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I actually posed the question on skyscraperpage and got a bunch of half ass responses by people who have their heads up their asses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 So what? Most people on internet forums are not experts. If you want an accurate response, call up or write an expert from an engineering firm or an engineering professor from a credible university. Or someone from Daily Planet or Bill Nye the Science Guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowninginair Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 So what? Most people on internet forums are not experts. If you want an accurate response, call up or write an expert from an engineering firm or an engineering professor from a credible university. Or someone from Daily Planet or Bill Nye the Science Guy. I actually am an engineer. M. Eng with an undergrad in Civil Engineering. Most of my work is transportation related, but I do have at least some background in structural work and heat transfer. @towerguy3. Yes, this is obviously a 'back-of-the-napkin' estimation. I don't have the time, data or patience to do a full engineering calculation of this absurd idea. Two points: - It would seem that you're again missing the difference between heat and temperature. Both a match and a bonfire will burn at the same temperature....but they won't generate the same amount of heat. Heat is transferred due to a difference in temperature. - The fact that a flame is a point source, and body heat would be dispersed is irrelevant unless you plan on putting that flame within probably about 5-10 meters of the roof. Think of it as analogous to how a fire's heat dissipates and warms the whole room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Meaning that such a flame would not be on a tower but rather at floor level. The key is to keep the heat source as far away from the teflon fabric as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 When you examine the design of the dome, one thing is apparent. The furthest point in the stadium from any point on the teflon roof is... drum roll please... the center of the floor. As you move to the extreme edges of the floor the distance between that point and a point directly above on the roof decreases. It's a result of the geometry of the dome. The highest point (the apex) is the center 200 feet up. Makes sense that the best, and ONLY, place to safely put a Flame is the center of the floor and close to floor level. Thus the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowninginair Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 When you examine the design of the dome, one thing is apparent.The furthest point in the stadium from any point on the teflon roof is... drum roll please... the center of the floor. As you move to the extreme edges of the floor the distance between that point and a point directly above on the roof decreases. It's a result of the geometry of the dome. The highest point (the apex) is the center 200 feet up. Makes sense that the best, and ONLY, place to safely put a Flame is the center of the floor and close to floor level. Thus the hole. So what you're saying is that properly designed and placed flame could work inside BC Place? So whats the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
towerguy3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Of course you could make the flame so small that it could work and not cause any problems. How about a flame 6 inches high? Is that going to look good on NBC and International TV broadcasts around the world? Two billion people seeing a flame twice as long as your hand? That's how British Columbia should be represented? By a flame 12 inches high? If this Government hadn't had it's collective head up it's ass and had the Retractable Roof done BEFORE the Olympics rather than AFTER, we could have a Roof that opens and a huge bright Flame to show the world and be proud of. Not a flame 6 inches high just so it doesn't stress the roof. There's no doubt you can make the flame small enough that it doesn't create a problem. The issue is: we could've done better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Is flame height what determines a successful Olympics? Frankly, I think having a flame on the floor would work well. The floor is the focal point of the stadium anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 absolutely ridiculous discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 The ceremonies are tailored more for TV these days anyway. How something looks on the stadium floor is a secondary concern these days, as long as it looks great on a Plasma screen, 99.9999 per cent of the world will be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts