Burning "wet" newspapers
rocket scientist
much better. Why is that?
I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
Dave C.
Adding moisture (water) and then removing moisture leaves the newsprint
in a dryer state than it was before it got wet. -Dave
Rod Speed
> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted ,
> then dried, burns much better. Why is that?
That sees the surface much rougher at a microscopic level than before you do that.
Rod Speed
> rocket scientist <georg...@toast.net> wrote
>> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted , then dried, burns
>> much better. Why is that?
>> I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
> Adding moisture (water) and then removing moisture leaves
> the newsprint in a dryer state than it was before it got wet.
Nope.
Gary Heston
I don't know about the other response regarding it being drier afterwards,
but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of the paper being
disrupted from swelling and then shrinking. That would increase the
surface area, and produce lots of small, fine slivers sticking up instead
of a smooth, dense surface.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"Where large, expensive pieces of exotic woods are converted to valueless,
hard to dispose of sawdust, chips and scraps." Charlie B.s' definition of
woodworking.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<19ydnTUnQpgyP2HXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@posted
.hiwaay2>,
ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)
wrote:
> In article <georgespamk-DA73...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> rocket scientist <georg...@toast.net> wrote:
> >I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted , then dried, burns
> >much better. Why is that?
> >I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
>
> I don't know about the other response regarding it being drier afterwards,
> but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of the paper being
> disrupted from swelling and then shrinking. That would increase the
> surface area, and produce lots of small, fine slivers sticking up instead
> of a smooth, dense surface.
>
>
> Gary
That may be true, but you'd think that
would happen in the paper making process
Rod Speed
> ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
>> rocket scientist <georg...@toast.net> wrote
>>> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted , then dried, burns
>>> much better. Why is that?
>>> I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
>> I don't know about the other response regarding it being drier afterwards,
Its just plain silly.
>> but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of
>> the paper being disrupted from swelling and then shrinking.
>> That would increase the surface area, and produce lots of
>> small, fine slivers sticking up instead of a smooth, dense surface.
> That may be true,
It is.
> but you'd think that would happen in the paper making process
Nope, that deliberately makes the surface smoother than otherwise.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<7m3tkoF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> > ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
> >> rocket scientist <georg...@toast.net> wrote
>
> >>> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted , then dried, burns
> >>> much better. Why is that?
>
> >>> I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
>
> >> I don't know about the other response regarding it being drier afterwards,
>
> Its just plain silly.
>
> >> but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of
> >> the paper being disrupted from swelling and then shrinking.
> >> That would increase the surface area, and produce lots of
> >> small, fine slivers sticking up instead of a smooth, dense surface.
>
> > That may be true,
>
> It is.
Really?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote
>>> ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
>>>> rocket scientist <georg...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted ,
>>>>> then dried, burns much better. Why is that?
>>>>> I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
>>>> I don't know about the other response regarding it being drier afterwards,
>> Its just plain silly.
>>>> but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of
>>>> the paper being disrupted from swelling and then shrinking.
>>>> That would increase the surface area, and produce lots of
>>>> small, fine slivers sticking up instead of a smooth, dense surface.
>>> That may be true,
>> It is.
> Really?
Yep, try it yourself.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<7m4dm0F...@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote
> >>> ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
> >>>> rocket scientist <georg...@toast.net> wrote
>
> >>>>> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted ,
> >>>>> then dried, burns much better. Why is that?
>
> >>>>> I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
>
> >>>> I don't know about the other response regarding it being drier
> >>>> afterwards,
>
> >> Its just plain silly.
>
> >>>> but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of
> >>>> the paper being disrupted from swelling and then shrinking.
> >>>> That would increase the surface area, and produce lots of
> >>>> small, fine slivers sticking up instead of a smooth, dense surface.
>
> >>> That may be true,
>
> >> It is.
>
> > Really?
>
> Yep, try it yourself.
Try what?
Rick Merrill
Would you believe it burns FASTER, not necessarily better?
As others have said it is because the surface becomes rougher.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote
>>>>> ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
>>>>>> rocket scientist <georg...@toast.net> wrote
>>>>>>> I've noticed that newsprint that has been wetted ,
>>>>>>> then dried, burns much better. Why is that?
>>>>>>> I've asked Cecil and haven't heard yet.
>>>>>> I don't know about the other response regarding it being drier afterwards,
>>>> Its just plain silly.
>>>>>> but I suspect part of it has to do with the structure of
>>>>>> the paper being disrupted from swelling and then shrinking.
>>>>>> That would increase the surface area, and produce lots of
>>>>>> small, fine slivers sticking up instead of a smooth, dense surface.
>>>>> That may be true,
>>>> It is.
>>> Really?
>> Yep, try it yourself.
> Try what?
Jumping in front of a moving bus, stupid.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<7m6a64F...@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
So when you get stepped on, you resort
to your worthless, puerile attempts at
boxing yourself out of a paper bag?
Rod Speed
>>>>>> Its just plain silly.
>>>>>>> That may be true,
>>>>>> It is.
>>>>> Really?
>>>> Yep, try it yourself.
>>> Try what?
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed liar fantasys...
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<7m8b9oF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Let's face it, you've lost your ability
to entertain, which in no way means you
aren't amusing
Rod Speed
You never ever had anything like that.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<7m910vF...@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Such a sad thing when a has-been has to
alter posts
Bob F
> In article
> Such a sad thing when a has-been has to
> alter posts
Has been? You mean he really ever was anything?
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<hds421$pb4$1...@news.eternal-september.org
>,
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
He was a wanna-be