Is it possible for a human to Spontaneously Combust?

"Volatile substances" when every cell in the human body is mostly water???? Your numbers are COMPLETELY wrong - this is as much a crank post as all the rest you've made here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So in your mind, hair won't burn. And the numbers are by the people I link to with the exception of the one where I say I am not certain if it is right? And I believe I say that I don't even know if SHC will work, right?

You are soooooo jealous and it is soooo obvious. LOL --- oh, that is a joke, by the way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Electrolysis of water? You can make rocket fuel from water, you know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, I'm not jealous by any means. And only a complete fool could believe that the human body would EVER reach 5,000 degrees C without a LOT of external flammable material. Ever checked out the temp of an oven in a crematorium? Obviously not!

 

@ Read Only,

Fire needs oxygen to burn so I think any legitimate claims of this nature (probably some murder frauds) would need to be external, and also likely needing flame to ignite.

Years ago Ball lightning was in the unexplained Category, and now we know what causes it. (copper/lightning).

If SPONTANEOUS combustion were possible I think we would see more exploding Squirrels and Bunnies. There are billions of animals on our planet so we would likely see it in nature.

I think Smoking and possibly Alcohol would both be necessary as ignition and fuel (aside from fat, etc.).

 

Dammit, you're right! Why did I not think of that? These burning guys must have been plugged into the mains, causing a lethal build up of hydrogen and oxygen in their bodies, then BANG and a huge fire. Or, or, or…maybe it was induced currents caused by stray electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, and, and and…..anyway of course, now it makes perfect sense……Bermuda Triangle…..Roswell……..…..repeat and fade……..

 

Only a fool would think that I am the source for the 5000K temp. If you read the link provided you might understand what was said. Or perhaps not.

Lets assume that SHC is a fraud, is it any worse than the fraud you are trying to pass here? Don't attribute something to me that is not mine.

You are soooo jealous, yes you, I mean you, soooo jealous ---- that is a joke---- understand?

 

I've read your link. The writer is NOT saying that heat up to 5000C is generated in the human body. He is making a thermodynamic argument that if you wanted to get the energy conversion efficiency of a human muscle by means of a heat engine, i.e. instead of by direct conversion from chemical energy to work, as a muscle actually does, you would - according to him, I don't necessarily agree - need a temperature around 5000C. It is totally wrong to conclude from this analogy that human cells can generate a temperature of 5000C. They can't and it's not what he is saying.

As for hair burning, hair is dead tissue, not a living cell. Each hair is extruded from a living hair follicle cell in the skin, but hair itself is dead matter. As such, it contains little water and a lot of organic material and is in consequence quite inflammable.

 

I believe if you actually read the post you know it was degrees Kelvin.


Here is a quote from the page.

"If you're willing to think of this concentrated molecular motion as a kind of heat then you can apply the Carnot limit after all - it's just that TH is nearly the temperature of the Sun, much hotter than the temperatures you can find inside an internal combustion engine."

You should have read the whole page. The friction when I rub your head is just like the friction that occurs when a boy scout rubs one stick on the other to cause combustion. You do understand that principle, right? As hard headed as you appear to be, I could rub your head hard enough that it would set your hair on fire, right.

I did learn something from your post, hair is inflammable. Is that called the Richard Pryor effect?

You are ssssooooooo jealous. Why not just let this go. It means nothing to either you or I, unless you believe in SHC.

 

Dude, they were expressing energy as temperature, they did explain that it's not literally that hot in your body, and that no thermometer would even theoretically measure such a temperature, which means it can not be used as a source of combustion.

 

Quite frankly, I don't care. When I posted the information it was simply as a source for someone to read. Until science proves SHC exists, and it hasn't, it means nothing to me. I did go to the trouble to read the scientifically based explanations that were online and none convinced me that it is true. They may convince you however, that is your choice. If you look up the explanations as offered, they explain away every claim that anyone has made on this page. So if you are into this debate you need to explain why a build up of methane trapped under sheets and ignited by static electricity can not cause a dried out, bed ridden woman, with oily long hair, in nightclothes, to be unable to combust. And the claim is that the combustion is on the outside surface and does not include the organs or the extremities. Sounds like it was just a fire to me. But that is your problem, not mine.

 

Sign #13 you are a crank -

You post an incorrect statement like "If I remember right, the operating temperature for DNA is around 75 deg. C and isolated human cells produce temperatures as high as 5000 degrees."
When that is shown to be false you make a quick post to try to claim you are still right, like "it was really degrees Kelvin."
When that is shown false as well you go with the "I don't care; someone else said that, not me."

And when none of that works you just go for the personal attack - "You are ssssooooooo jealous."

 

I suggest you go to the site that I linked and argue with them.

 

qed.

 

What a berk.

 

Yep, Crawford is nothing but a crank with some pretty severe mental issues. I honestly cannot recall ANYTHING of value that he's ever posted. It's all been just the ramblings of a delusional individual. Sad, really.

 

Only recently have I gotten my British-to-American decoder ring.

 

My detractors have lost every debate.

 

The way the "scientist" on this site operate is by trickery and fraud. If they start to lose a debate, as they have with me, they throw up a cloud of misinformation and straw men and hide. They can't debate the issues.

 

Exactly. You are so much smarter than all the "scientists" in the real world. They all use trickery and fraud; only you are truthful, heroically opposing the misinformation and straw men of mainstream science with your righteous woo.