this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
639 points (97.5% liked)
Greentext
6903 readers
859 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Combustion, sure, but not an explosion. Or the car is a special magic car or whatever.
~~I hate to do this to you, but that’s kind how explosions work (i.e. combustion).~~
Edit: I should’ve done my homework.
More specifically, that's how cars with a combustion engine work: lots of tiny explosions.
No, they're a combustion event. An actual explosion (detonation, pre ignition) is really bad news for an engine.
Firearms use a self oxidising propellant, so it would be quite easy to say that just doesn't work.
What, pray tell, do you think is in gunpowder? It's not magic dust that goes bang. It's a pre-mixed, pre-compressed mixture of fuel and oxidiser. When used in a gun, whether it's a muzzle-loader or a cartridge, the confined combustion of the mixture generates thermal energy and expanding gases that impart kinetic energy on a moving component (the piston or a projectile). The only difference is that the combustion event in an ICE is subsonic (deflagration) while the combustion in a gun is supersonic (detonation).
@Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works is correct.
I should’ve done my homework before going all “well akshullay 🤓” on them (sorry!).
The only similarities between the two is that they both are chemical reactions that produce a rapid release of energy. But past that, they are much different in how they get to that point.
So what you're saying is there's a fundamental difference between the two?
Yes, there are differences. That's why one is called deflagration and the other is called detonation. Good job, you can read. But the chemical and thermodynamic processes are identical, and that's what you seem to misunderstand.
Dude, you're being a pedant in the comments of a Harry Potter shitpost.
And you're not?
Don't be coy, you absolutely love doing this.
Nope, there's a fundamental difference between a fuel/air mixture burning and something like gunpowder, which is a self oxidising propellant. Most explosives are in the latter category.
Explosions are combustion.
And really we're just talking about oxidation. If oxidation works (which it must, because the characters are breathing) then chemically-propelled projectiles must also work.
Look, we're talking about a world where people fly around on broomsticks like we ride bicycles.
Of course you can just declare that firearms don't work.
I mean... not if your fantasy world has any internal consistency... and if it doesn't then it might as well be Cloud Cuckoo Land.