Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: CuriousOne on August 18, 2013, 08:19:03 AM
-
*This is my 1st post here so I hope it's in the correct section/forum. ;D
I recently watched a Discovery Channel program (via YouTube) about the controversial phenomenon: Spontaneous Human Combustion. In the program, a science writer from Cambridge University thinks SHC (spontaneous human combustion) is very possible and he bases it on the below theory...Please read everything before replying.
Dr. John Emsley has been following the recent discovery of chemical compound DIPHOSPHANE in the human gut. He says: "We know this gas is very flammable. It bursts into flames immediately, so suddenly it looked as though there was a way in which the gasses that were being produced by the microbes in the gut could in fact burst into flames as they left the body. And that would trigger off the body beginning to burn under its own powers."
The narrator of the program then speaks, saying: "Diphosphane is a product of the highly combustible element: Phosphorus. Embley has written a book: The Shocking History of Phosphorus, which details its different forms found in the body. Phosphorus is one of the main elements of the human body and its present there is phosphate, which is a phosphorous (something, couldn't make out the word) surrounded by oxygen. And as such, it's perfectly safe. It's never going to burst into flames...
"But during the decomposition of food, the bacteria can eat away at the phosphates and can create the more unstable compound: PHOSPHANE. When two molecules of Phosphane link together, Diphosphane is created. It is just possible that that would build up sufficiently to ignite the other gasses that the microbes produce, like hydrogen and methane...
"Generally, food passes through the digestive system quickly, and there's not enough time for Diphosphate to form. But in humans, if you're constipated for a long enough time, then the gas could build up. And this is just a possible explanation of people who suddenly found their trousers setting on fire. There are examples of that occurring and it just is a possible explanation."
..With all that having been claimed, DO YOU think spontaneous human combustion is physically and scientifically possible? Can it happen? And what do you think of the above theory? The more comments the better. I'd like to hear from as many people as possible about this, as it genuinely freaks me out.
EDIT: I also stumbled across the below comment randomly. Is there any truth to this?
Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA) – This agency’s alleged infrasound research showed, “infrasound at 110 – 130 dB would cause intestinal pain and severe nausea. Extreme levels of annoyance or distraction would result from minutes of exposure to levels 90 to 120 dB at low frequencies (5 to 200 Hz), strong physical trauma and damage to tissues at 140 – 150 dB, and instantaneous blastwave type trauma at above 170 dB.
At low frequencies, resonance’s in the body would cause hemorrhage and spasm/ in the mid-audio range (0.5 to 2.5 kHz), resonance’s in the air cavities of the body would cause nerve irritation, tissue trauma and heating; high audio and ultrasound frequencies (5 to 30 kHz) would cause heating up to lethal body temperatures, tissue burns, and dehydration; and at high frequencies, or with short pulses, bubbles would form from cavitation and micro-lesions in tissue would evolve.” (source; ‘Acoustic Trauma: Bioeffects of Sound,’ by Alex Davies. So it looks like that with just the right frequency, a human body could burn.
-
The diphosphan story is absolutely nonsense. It can be obtained by reaction of some metal phosphides with acids. It is a highly strong reducer and would oxidized immediately. The body don't produces this. And also the statement two phosphane linked together give diphosphane needs a change in oxidation number. Phosphorus with -2 is very unstable. And so far never in the world it happened a body ignited by itself.
-
*This is my 1st post here so I hope it's in the correct section/forum. ;D
I recently watched a Discovery Channel program (via YouTube) about the controversial phenomenon: Spontaneous Human Combustion. In the program, a science writer from Cambridge University thinks SHC (spontaneous human combustion) is very possible and he bases it on the below theory...Please read everything before replying.
Greetings, and welcome to the chemical forums. Many people like to keep an open mind, but I always worry if I open my mind too much, my brain will fall out, and I don't have enough looks and money that I can do without it. YMMV. But I did want you to know where I'm coming from.
Dr. John Emsley has been following the recent discovery of chemical compound DIPHOSPHANE in the human gut. He says:
Really flammable, blah blah, blah. OK. See, I have a problem right away. Look at this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphosphane Diphosphane has been well characterized for at least a decade, as evidenced by the journal reference in the article. Likewise, phosphine, and diphosphine have been known since Lavoisier's time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphine#History So there's a little unnecessary hyperbole on the Discovery channel's part.
The narrator of the program then speaks, saying: "Diphosphane is a product of the highly combustible element: Phosphorus. Embley has written a book: The Shocking History of Phosphorus, which details its different forms found in the body. Phosphorus is one of the main elements of the human body and its present there is phosphate, which is a phosphorous (something, couldn't make out the word) surrounded by oxygen. And as such, it's perfectly safe. It's never going to burst into flames...
Now this is nice, that's a good way to teach people some important chemistry. Yes elemental phosphorus is very reactive, and some of its compounds are also reactive, and some very common compounds aren't reactive.
"But during the decomposition of food, the bacteria can eat away at the phosphates and can create the more unstable compound: PHOSPHANE. When two molecules of Phosphane link together, Diphosphane is created. It is just possible that that would build up sufficiently to ignite the other gasses that the microbes produce, like hydrogen and methane...
Regrettably, the articles I've found don't support this possible biological reaction, so the plan seems kinda dead in the water.
"Generally, food passes through the digestive system quickly, and there's not enough time for Diphosphate to form. But in humans, if you're constipated for a long enough time, then the gas could build up. And this is just a possible explanation of people who suddenly found their trousers setting on fire. There are examples of that occurring and it just is a possible explanation."
..With all that having been claimed, DO YOU think spontaneous human combustion is physically and scientifically possible? Can it happen? And what do you think of the above theory? The more comments the better. I'd like to hear from as many people as possible about this, as it genuinely freaks me out.
Well, here's a link to a more plausible source of spontaneous human combustion: briefly, human don't spontaneously combust. Humans can burn, in a spectacularly peculiar way, under particular circumstances. But -- Occam's razor -- simpler explanations are better: http://skepdic.com/shc.html
EDIT: I also stumbled across the below comment randomly. Is there any truth to this?
Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA) – This agency’s alleged infrasound research showed, “infrasound at 110 – 130 dB would cause intestinal pain and severe nausea. Extreme levels of annoyance or distraction would result from minutes of exposure to levels 90 to 120 dB at low frequencies (5 to 200 Hz), strong physical trauma and damage to tissues at 140 – 150 dB, and instantaneous blastwave type trauma at above 170 dB.
At low frequencies, resonance’s in the body would cause hemorrhage and spasm/ in the mid-audio range (0.5 to 2.5 kHz), resonance’s in the air cavities of the body would cause nerve irritation, tissue trauma and heating; high audio and ultrasound frequencies (5 to 30 kHz) would cause heating up to lethal body temperatures, tissue burns, and dehydration; and at high frequencies, or with short pulses, bubbles would form from cavitation and micro-lesions in tissue would evolve.” (source; ‘Acoustic Trauma: Bioeffects of Sound,’ by Alex Davies. So it looks like that with just the right frequency, a human body could burn.
Umm ... that's all a little too much for an early morning for me. But anyone can look it up, online or in journal articles. Or you could make it your project. You've little else to do, while you wait for ignition.
-
The Discovery Channel has so much potential and so much lacking.
How to sort the wheat from the chafe?
-
From the commercials I've seen on other cable channels, it seems to me like there's no "wheat" on the Discovery channel. Neither Nat Geo.
-
The diphosphan story is absolutely nonsense. It can be obtained by reaction of some metal phosphides with acids. It is a highly strong reducer and would oxidized immediately. The body don't produces this. And also the statement two phosphane linked together give diphosphane needs a change in oxidation number. Phosphorus with -2 is very unstable. And so far never in the world it happened a body ignited by itself.
How do you know the body doesn't produce this, if the program claims it HAS been found in the human body? May I ask where you heard it doesn't and how you know? Also...are you an actual chemist? *referring to it saying so under your name*
Really flammable, blah blah, blah. OK. See, I have a problem right away. Look at this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphosphane Diphosphane has been well characterized for at least a decade, as evidenced by the journal reference in the article. Likewise, phosphine, and diphosphine have been known since Lavoisier's time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphine#History So there's a little unnecessary hyperbole on the Discovery channel's part.
Not sure Wikipedia is the best source to go by. Not saying mine is either, but that's why I want to discuss it. In your opinion, can the human stomach produce this highly flammable element?
Umm ... that's all a little too much for an early morning for me. But anyone can look it up, online or in journal articles. Or you could make it your project. You've little else to do, while you wait for ignition.
I don't really know how to do that or what to look up, which is why I posted it as a question here, hoping those smarter than me could offer some insight into whether it's true or false. I would appreciate anyone opinions + knowledge on the subject. Also, I've heard of the wick effect, but it's just one theory. I wanted to discuss another.
Also, how can THIS case be explained scientifically?
***THE CASE OF ROBERT FRANCIS BAILEY***
Early in the morning of 13 September 1967, some people walking to work in Lambeth, South London, noticed a bright light inside a derelict house at 49 Auckland Street. At 5:19 AM, one of them telephoned the emergency services. At 5:24, the Lambeth Fire Brigade arrived with Brigade Commander John Stacey.
The crew entered the building and discovered the bright light was the burning body of a local alcoholic, Robert Bailey, who had sought shelter in the abandoned house overnight. Strangely, though, neither the fabric of the house itself, nor its internal fittings was damaged. The only thing on fire was Bailey himself.
"When we entered the building," said Stacey, "he was lying on the bottom of the stairs half-turned onto his left side and his knees were drawn up as though he was trying to bend the pain from his stomach."
Stacey said, 'There was about a four inch slit in his stomach and the flame was emanating from that four-inch slit like a blow-torch. It was a blue flame.' Thinking the man might possibly still be alive, Stacey and his men emptied several fire extinguishers over the body, putting out the flame but with difficulty.
"The flame was actually coming from the body itself," said Stacey, "from inside the body. He was burning literally from the inside out. And it was definitely under pressure. And it was impinging on the timber flooring below the body, so much so that the heat from the flame was charred into the woodwork."
One especially bizarre feature of the case was that Bailey, while still alive and apparently convulsed in agony, had bitten deeply into the solid mahogany newel post of the stairs. His body remained with its teeth locked into the wood and had to be prised open by the firemen.
Bailey's clothing was undamaged except in the area of his abdomen. The area around him was largely undamaged except for the wooden planking immediately under his abdomen where a hole had been burnt. Combustible material only inches away was unburnt.
An inquest sat under coroner Dr Gavin Thurston, who initially wished to list the death as "asphyxia due to inhalation of fire fumes". However a second hearing found that Bailey's death was due to "unknown causes".
Subsequent investigation by fire and police disclosed no source of ignition. The main supply of gas and electricity had been cut off in the house and no matches were found.
Even if the unfortunate Bailey had fallen asleep and dropped a cigarette on himself, the kind of burning seen at first hand and extinguished by the fireman on the scene cannot be accounted for by the 'wick effect'. It was a rapid, acute burning episode, highly localised in the victim's abdomen, producing a flame 'like a blow torch' that an experienced professional fire fighter found difficult to extinguish immediately.
Importantly, too, the firemen were on the scene within 5 minutes of being called, and the body they found had no fire damage apart from the small area in the abdomen, showing that it had only recently begun to burn. The flame was a "bright" blue flame -- bright enough to attract the attention of passers-by in the street. This, too, is not characteristic of a 'wick-effect' fire.
-
Yes I am a chemist. And from Knowledge it is not possible to get this in the body and even yes how it should burn. Human body contains 60-80% water depending on age.. To burn you need a lot of fuel or something or continious heat from a big fire.
-
You say it is not possible. May I ask why you believe so? And what your explanation is for the above case (my most recent post)? Also, to address a fuel source, WATER can actually be used as fuel, believe it or not. Read this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax.
John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube. Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies.
His discovery has spawned scientific interest in using the world's most abundant substance as clean fuel, among other uses. Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, held a demonstration last week at the university's Materials Research Laboratory in State College, to confirm what he'd witnessed weeks before in an Erie lab.
"It's true, it works," Dr. Roy said. "Everyone told me, 'Rustum, don't be fooled. He put electrodes in there.' "
But there are no electrodes and no gimmicks, he said. Dr. Roy said the salt water isn't burning per se, despite appearances. The radio frequency actually weakens bonds holding together the constituents of salt water -- sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen -- and releases the hydrogen, which, once ignited, burns continuously when exposed to the RF energy field. Mr. Kanzius said an independent source measured the flame's temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting an enormous energy output.
As such, Dr. Roy, a founding member of the Materials Research Laboratory and expert in water structure, said Mr. Kanzius' discovery represents "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years."
But researching its potential will take time and money, he said. One immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen.
Dr. Roy said he's scheduled to meet tomorrow with U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense officials in Washington to discuss the discovery and seek research funding. Mr. Kanzius said he powered a Stirling, or hot air, engine with salt water. But whether the system can power a car or be used as an efficient fuel will depend on research results.
"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Dr. Roy said. "The potential is huge.
"In the life sciences, the role of water is infinite, and this guy is doing something new in using the most important and most abundant material on the face of the earth."
Mr. Kanzius' discovery was an accident. He developed the RF generator as a novel cancer treatment. His research in targeting cancer cells with metallic nanoparticles then destroying them with radio-frequency is proceeding at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and at the University of Texas' MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Manuscripts updating the cancer research are in preparation for publication in coming months, Mr. Kanzius said. While Mr. Kanzius was demonstrating how his generator heated nanoparticles, someone noted condensation inside the test tube and suggested he try using his equipment to desalinate water.
So, Mr. Kanzius said, he put sea water in a test tube, then trained his machine on it, producing an unexpected spark. In time he and laboratory owners struck a match and ignited the water, which continued burning as long as it remained in the radio-frequency field.
During several trials, heat from burning hydrogen grew hot enough to melt the test tube, he said. Dr. Roy's tests on the machine last week provided further evidence that the process is releasing and burning hydrogen from the water. Tests on different water solutions and concentrations produced various temperatures and flame colors.
"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Dr. Roy said of salt water. "Seeing it burn gives me chills."
-
You've made a big deal about wanting a discussion, we've given you the beginnings of one, from a a definitely counter-point to yours. You seem to not like it, and have gotten defensive. That is the opposite of a discussion. That's the beginnings of an argument.
You're new to this forum, so I'll let you know -- the Chemist notation is assigned based on the quality of the posts. And yes, many people on the Chemical Forums are chemists -- some are still in school, some have been working for years, some are just hobbyists with practical experience, but that doesn't change we're all, in some way, chemists. Here's a recent post on the topic: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=69854.0
Let me tell you something that doesn't make you a chemist: Blind quoting text blocks from other sources. That makes you a story teller at best, and someone fighting for attention at worst. Don't do this anymore. Its really just wasting space on these forums. No one is more likely to read it cut-n-pasted in this topic than as a link you've embedded. Personally, I'm not impressed at people with credentials -- scientists, firemen, investigators with lurid descriptions of something they can't understand. I'm more interested when they read contrary evidence, and provide counter-evidence.
-
Apologies for any misunderstanding. I am not being defensive, I'm merely wanting to talk about the things I've read from other sources. I am very curious to hear what people make of such things, if (hypothetically speaking) such sources are to be trusted. And sometimes, the only way to make new discoveries is to ask unpopular questions and delve into the possible possibilities. That (I promise) is all I'm attempting to do.
-
to address a fuel source, WATER can actually be used as fuel, believe it or not.
No, it can't. Thermodynamics doesn't allow this, no matter what people post on the internet.
Sorry to be so blunt about it, but it is a common misconception that somehow all these laws of nature can be circumvented and we can have free energy. They can't, we can't, period. TANSTAAFL.
-
Borek, if water cannot be used as a fuel source, how do you explain the new discovery that it can (which I posted above)? Not being defensive either, merely asking because (as my name suggests) I'm a curious one. :)
-
Borek, if water cannot be used as a fuel source, how do you explain the new discovery that it can (which I posted above)? Not being defensive either, merely asking because (as my name suggests) I'm a curious one. :)
Sorry, I can't explain every nonsense people post on the internet. What I know is how to apply existing knowledge to understand phenomena that surround me - this is the knowledge I got while studying chemistry and physics many years ago. This knowledge tells me some things are impossible and explains why. It was tested zillions of times during the last hundreds of years, and it was used to build all things that we use in everydays life. That makes it quite sturdy, so when I apply it I am quite sure about being correct.
Sure, it may happen some parts of this knowledge are wrong, but it takes much more than a random internet page to invalidate basic laws of thermodynamics.
-
Check out this source (a physics website) which even includes a video and a scientific explanation of how this can occur. If/after you read it, I would love to hear your thoughts. Link below:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2007/11/fire-from-salt-water-lets-focus-people.html (http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2007/11/fire-from-salt-water-lets-focus-people.html)
-
@CuriousOne
It is my understanding that ACS monitors Wikipedia chemistry articles for misinformation.
So while other topics in WIKI can be fraught with errors the chemistry community is policing entries.
Also others are monitoring changes in pages on WIKI and policing happens there also.
Of course, the policy of Neutral Point Of View causes problems, things that are straight forward tend to be accurate.
The WIKI article on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphosphane
Is likely to be accurate since the information is straight forward chemistry.
WIKI is just a starting place for information. Use the list of sources at the end of the WIKI article for a full understanding.
-
I can take two electrodes submerged in water with catalyst.
Then apply electric energy to the electrodes.
Hydrogen and Oxygen will bubble up.
I can then burn the the 2 gases.
So now I have created energy from water
The punchline is I had to put energy in to make the gasses.
In thermodynamics there is no free lunch.
-
Do you believe SHC is possible, billnotgatez? (Funny name btw) :)
-
I read the WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_Human_Combustion
it is doing the NPOV thing
but among the entries is research done by Joe Nickell.
I think I have met him and he gave a presentation on debunking stuff like SHC.
His calling card was a wooden nickle.
You are worried about 300 potential cases in 200 years where most of them probably had external causes influencing them.
I would be skeptical
I suppose that I could feed a pig ethanol to just shy of killing it and see if it burns.
Wait, cancel that, not politically correct to burn a pig.
-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I've read several debunking articles by Joe Nickell and he seems to be a logical thinker, but people like him still do assume. He can't be sure he is correct, otherwise SHC would no longer be up for debate by anyone.
To answer your question, yes I am worried about this phenomenon. I don't know what to believe as I've heard many theories from many sources. The scariest (in my personal opinion) is on rare occasions when you have claimed SURVIVORS of SHC and when you have WITNESSES of SHC.
These two freak me out, because while most cases are of the victims being alone in their homes, certain reports have witnesses and alleged survivors. I have read their stories and even seen verbal interviews with some of them. They look genuinely afraid, baffled, confused and not knowing what to make of what they/their loved ones experienced.
I don't think all witnesses or claimed survivors are liars or attention seekers either. Some of them appear quietly horrified, not really wanting to relive what they saw/felt, but not knowing how else to respond when questioned. And if people aren't lying ... wouldn't that mean their stories are true? Of course there's no way to be sure they're not lying...but it seems unlikely that ALL of them would lie about the same thing.
-
The human body contains roughly as much water as a soaked sponge. I will let you try to set a soaking sponge on fire with diphisphine or even thermite if you wish, but it will not work. Water is too great of a heat sink.
-
There is one other thing that terrifies me. I would appreciate any reponses directly addressing this, or how it could be possible under normal circumstances?
What the film makers neglected to say, however, is that the time that elapsed between the grand-daughter handing Mrs Conway the matches and the firemen arriving to discover her completely consumed remains, was at most about 20 minutes and could have been as little as 6 minutes.
This information comes from Robert Meslin, a volunteer fireman (later Fire Marshall) in Upper Darby Township at the time of the fire, and one of the first on the scene. (It was Meslin who took the famous photographs of Mrs Conway's charred remains.)
"The amazing part of the incident in my opinion", says Meslin, "is the time element." Meslin said that the grand-daughter made the fire alarm call within "three minutes" of having last spoken to her grandmother. That meant Mrs Conway was alive at 8:42 AM. The firemen arrived to find her remains at 8:48 AM.
Once again, the "wick effect" can be completely ruled out. It is absolutely inexplicable that the makers of the BBC TV QED film should have stated that the "cause of the fire is known" when they must also have known that the fire that consumed Helen Conway did so in a time interval of not more than 20 and not less than 6 minutes. The film maker's own experiment showed them conclusively that the 'wick effect' would have taken a minimum of 7 hours to consume Mrs Conway.
Source: Fire Marshall Robert Meslin
-
Check out this source (a physics website) which even includes a video and a scientific explanation of how this can occur. If/after you read it, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Have you actually read the page you linked to? If so, you would never write something like
Borek, if water cannot be used as a fuel source, how do you explain the new discovery that it can
as it directly addresses the fact that it is not a way of using water as a fuel, and explains why. Looks to me like you are juggling links without even reading content you are commenting on.
And please stop posting huge quotes without giving source to the link. For copyright reasons we will need to delete them, for the discussion to have any merit we need to know the source of the information we are discussing, as analyzing information from an unreliable source is a waste of time. Post a link and a snippet only.
-
OK, sorry. Feel free to delete the whole thread if you want. I don't mind.
-
I read online that diphosphane was found in human feces by German researchers, though when I tried to do more online research on this, I didn't find much. Does anyone know anything about this?
-
I hope you don't mind my merging this new topic with your older one, given they seem to work together. I didn't find anything on Google regarding diphosphane and human feces, but we're facing a problem -- diphosphine seems to have been used as a a synonym for diphosphane. So now we have to be very careful whenever we look up something ion this topic.
-
Are diphosphane and diphosphine different? And I kind of wanted this topic to be on its own, separate from this one. :-\
-
Diphosphane and Diphosphine are same. The last name is older.