Talk:Deflagration

message: Deflagration just means "burning".  I propose a merge into combustion.  Shiggity (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge into [[combustion]] 

message: " rapid burning of a gunpowder in a firearm " Is that accurate?  I thought that "propellant" rather than "gunpowder" would be more accurate.
Can a more generalist explanation also be given - the maths is probably beyond what most people have.
Is the insert about "Astrophysics" and Type 1a supernovae really relevant? I think not. We're talking about a chemical reaction, and the paragraph heading is "Applications", not "Astronomical Phenomena" 72.34.130.250 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formerly unsectionized comments 

message: This article is quite technical, and the math is beyond the understanding of most readers. There is no clear definition of the difference between an explosion and a deflagration. It would be improved by a clear statement along the following lines:
When the chemical reaction travels through the reacting substance at more than the speed of sound, it is considered to be an  explosion.  When the chemical reaction travels through the reacting substance at less than the speed of sound, it is considered to be a deflagration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmorford (talk • contribs) 
: It's worse than that. Both deflagrations and detonations can be called "explosive". For example, the combustion in an internal combustion engine should generally not be a detonation. In other words, detonation is a technical term whereas explosion is not. —Ben FrantzDale 11:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for article

message: A deflagration is not any combustion phenomenon that is not supersonic.  It is a premixed flame structure where heat and chemical components diffuse forwards in a fuel/oxidizer premixture and initiate a chemical reaction.  In particular, the log burning picture is not a deflagration - it is mostly a diffusion flame.  In fact, unlike the article claims, most flames that the general populace thinks of are diffusion limited flames.  Unless I get major objections in the next week or so, I intend to do a major rewrite of all relevant sections to reflect this.
I have raised a similar objection on the detonation page. Thermodude 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental inaccuracy

message: I would vote against merging. The combustion entry is already long and apt to get longer -- it's a big topic, after all. A link to deflagration would suffice there, and for those of us just wanting to know what deflagration is, it saves us having to tackle the big combustion article to find out. --Remotelysensed (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't merge 

message: They aren't the same. Deflagration can generate enough heat to cause combustion -- so can detonation.  A flame, I think, is characteristic of combustion but is not characteristic of the other two reaction types. -- Kernel.Package (talk) (not logged in).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.82.150 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deflagration versus Combustion 

message: image is not relavant to deflagration which is low explosive in nature not a burning fire/general combustion Stevenxlead (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove fire picture at head of article 

message: I started adding a little content to this article to reflect the fact that not only fuel/oxidizer mixtures can deflagrate.  High and low explosives can also deflagrate depending on confinement and other factors. In fact, the Department of Energy's Labs have been studying the deflagration to detonation transition phenomenon for over 35 years in an effort to better understand explosive response in abnormal environments. Assuming my edits hold, I would like to expand this article to better explain the DDT phenomenon and likelihood in high explosives.  DoktorScience (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explosives can deflagrate too