• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

I read that article and a lot of the comments thereafter are pretty hysterical.
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

I remember when one had to go to the editorial page to read editorial content. Now it is in every paragraph of every story in every section.

But of course there is no preponderant liberal bias...
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I remember when one had to go to the editorial page to read editorial content. Now it is in every paragraph of every story in every section.

But of course there is no preponderant liberal bias... </div></div>

There may not be any liberal bias in the story itself, but it implies all sorts of liberal bias.

Why didn't they report the other 200+ newsworthy stories that have been written in the past 24 hrs.?

I hate to say it, but we, as private gun owners, are facing an entire generation of indoctrinated, young journalists that are strongly anti-gun. It's almost as if they are trained to see a story that has to do with guns, and they feel compelled to report it. Even if it is something that is so lame that it leaves you asking, "Why did they waste their time with this?".
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killer Spade 13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Didn't know copper sparked. </div></div>

Shoot steel or rock at night.
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killer Spade 13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Didn't know copper sparked. </div></div>

Shoot steel or rock at night. </div></div>

I'm fairly certain copper doesn't spark when striking another object...
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

" a day after the more than 6-square-mile fire started near the Saratoga Springs landfill" Near or at? I'd think the methane from the landfill would be a more realistic cause, or a cigarette butt.
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killer Spade 13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Didn't know copper sparked. </div></div>

It does. Shooting at night will give you proof of this quickly. And we have had two fires at our range in the last 3 months because of this. You add fast moving lead a copper to either steel or rocks with some dry overgrown grass, add a lot of wind, and you would be shocked how fast shit can start to burn.

I took this pic at our second range fire. The FD guys were fighting this one for the better part of 8 hours.
2012-04-01132154.jpg


If you don't want stories like this popping up from the liberal media, get your lawn mowers and weed eaters out to your local range and put in some time getting rid of the overgrowth. Don't leave target trash lying about, and just overall use common sense (leave your tracers at home when it's dry).


ETA: this was not caused by tracers. Just two guys out sighting in thier .243 and hit the target frame. The grass was overgrown and dry. They said smoke immediately appeared right where they had been shooting, and by the time they got to it it was out of control because of the wind.
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killer Spade 13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Didn't know copper sparked. </div></div>

Shoot steel or rock at night. </div></div>

I'm fairly certain copper doesn't spark when striking another object... </div></div>

Yeah...okay amigo....you need to go back to physics class.

It's all about velocity and the expenditure of energy in concentration.

Research what's inside the nose cone on an armor defeating anti tank weapon if you wanna see copper make a REALLY big spark.

Again, it's all about velocity, and energy.......
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

I'm not a scientist but I would guess the copper turns molten rather quickly and that's the "spark" we see from copper and a hard object. Being that copper isn't ferrous I would suspect that it doesn't spark like steel and flint. That spark is caused by the rapid oxidation of the steel. I believe. End result is the same though.
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

Alright guys, here's the metallurgy to clear this up. Copper will spark but it's a cold-spark and won't ignite <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span> no matter how hard you try. Ferrous metals create a hot-spark which will ignite things. There are a few exceptions to the above but that's irrelevant for this discussion. The bullets in this story (assuming traditional bullets were used) could not have started the fire but the object/s the bullets were striking could have.
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

Adding energy to copper creates heat...over load an extention cord and it gets hot, sometimes hot enough to ignite the wire's insulation, and thus the room that contains it. Rapidly bend a piece of copper back and forth until it breaks, or hammer flat a piece of copper on an anvil, and the molecular friction created will cause the copper to get hot, sometimes hot enough to burn skin.

Copper will burn. The easiest way to see this, and in the form of "sparks", is add energy by shorting out copper wires with an electrical impulse the wires can't handle. The sparks you see are not some magical form of eletrical mystery, they are hot, burning pieces of copper flying in all directions.

Copper is a major component in welding processes, the mig wire I use at work contains copper, if you've ever mig welded then you know all about welding sparks. My plant is full of robotic spot welders. Spot welder tips are copper, need to be "dressed" every so often to clean off the oxidation, and are consumable to the point of being replaced several times during a day's production. Sparks launching from the robots on nearly every weld they make is a common scene all across the floor of the shop. The composition of these sparks certainly contains some of the steel base metal being welded, but even with simple common sense knowledge that the copper electrodes degrade rapidly, it's evident that the sparks would also contain copper.

The root of this discussion is energy; electrical energy wih the welding and the over loaded extention cord creating heat, mechanical energy creating friction heat in the rapidly bent copper, and kinetic energy creating heat in the hammered flat copper. Kinetic energy is what we have with a bullet striking something hard enough to make a "spark".

The faster the energy is created, the more concentrated the heat is, the more visable the reation is....as in "spark". A bullet impacting rock or steel is moving fast enough to create enough kinetic energy to cause something to burn, as in "spark", beit part of the bullet, part of the target, or a combination of both. True, you won't get a "spark" if you replace your flint/steel with flint/copper under normal fire starting protocol, and you can whack the side of your pickup truck with a copper pipe and it wont spark, but you seriously lack the ability to create enough energy.

As with anything though, you would need the right combination of conditions and events to get a "spark" from a bullet. Since it is actually the combustion of the bullet/target it stands to reason you would need a high enough velocity to initiate enough heat, and you would need dry enough conditions to allow the burn to take place. Obviously a low velocity hit under damp conditions likely wont produce any "sparks".
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

I've been on a 5.56 range and watched a hot round start a fire on Ft. Jackson. It happens.

Took down a couple of trees by the time all was said and done. No tracers.
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: High Binder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Copper will spark but it's a cold-spark and won't ignite <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span> no matter how hard you try.</div></div>

I don't know if it's the copper starting the fire, the lead starting the fire, the steel starting the fire, or a freaking rock starting the fire . . . . . but shooting shit starts fires. Period. It doesn't happen often, but under the right conditions, it happens. I've watched it. I've been to fires where it was clearly what happened. You can follow the trail of the burn right to the impact zone.
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: High Binder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Copper will spark but it's a cold-spark and won't ignite <span style="text-decoration: underline">anything</span> no matter how hard you try.</div></div>

I don't know if it's the copper starting the fire, the lead starting the fire, the steel starting the fire, or a freaking rock starting the fire . . . . . but shooting shit starts fires. Period. It doesn't happen often, but under the right conditions, it happens. I've watched it. I've been to fires where it was clearly what happened. You can follow the trail of the burn right to the impact zone. </div></div>

That's what I said. See below:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: High Binder</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The bullets in this story (assuming traditional bullets were used) could not have started the fire but the object/s the bullets were striking could have. </div></div>
 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

Generally, I agree with everything quoted below but I figured I'd clear up a few things.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Rapidly bend a piece of copper back and forth until it breaks, or hammer flat a piece of copper on an anvil, and the molecular friction created will cause the copper to get hot, sometimes hot enough to burn skin.</div></div>

It's true that bending a piece of metal will create heat (see: work/strain hardening) and the heat affects the energy state of the e- in Cu (in this case) but that's the only thing happening at the molecular level. The heat you would be feeling in this scenario is created by friction at the crystal level which is the difference between a single piece of sand vs. the planet Jupiter in the chemistry world.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Copper will burn. The easiest way to see this, and in the form of "sparks", is add energy by shorting out copper wires with an electrical impulse the wires can't handle. The sparks you see are not some magical form of eletrical mystery, they are hot, burning pieces of copper flying in all directions. </div></div>

Cu won't burn but it will melt and as it cools down some of the heat energy is given off in the form of light which is what you're seeing in any spark. Cu sparks loose energy too fast to be considered 'hot' this is also why Cu is such a great conductor and why Cu is used in 'sparkless' tools. It's helpful to think of Cu's cold sparks more as sworf/grindings than sparks. This is also why Cu sparks for all intents and purposes don't really exist which is also why it is accepted that Cu doesn't spark and there are a lot of other metals that don't spark.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Copper is a major component in welding processes, the mig wire I use at work contains copper, if you've ever mig welded then you know all about welding sparks. My plant is full of robotic spot welders. Spot welder tips are copper, need to be "dressed" every so often to clean off the oxidation, and are consumable to the point of being replaced several times during a day's production. Sparks launching from the robots on nearly every weld they make is a common scene all across the floor of the shop. The composition of these sparks certainly contains some of the steel base metal being welded, but even with simple common sense knowledge that the copper electrodes degrade rapidly, it's evident that the sparks would also contain copper.</div></div>

The Cu tips your talking about are being melted away and are no doubt flying off as a small portion but mixed with some other sparking metal and may not even be considered sparks in some cases. The steel sparks would be hot sparks but the Cu looses its energy too fast to be considered hot. In terms of sparks, oxides of Cu are immaterial.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The root of this discussion is energy; electrical energy wih the welding and the over loaded extention cord creating heat, mechanical energy creating friction heat in the rapidly bent copper, and kinetic energy creating heat in the hammered flat copper. Kinetic energy is what we have with a bullet striking something hard enough to make a "spark". </div></div>

Agreed, but bear in mind it's not the Cu from the bullet creating the spark that's capable of starting a fire, it's the target material.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The faster the energy is <span style="color: #FF0000">created, </span>the more concentrated the heat is, the more visable the reation is....as in "spark".</div></div>

Energy is transferred from the bullet to the target, not created.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As with anything though, you would need the right combination of conditions and events to get a "spark" from a bullet. <span style="color: #FF0000">Since it is actually the combustion of the bullet/target</span> it stands to reason you would need a high enough velocity to initiate enough heat, and you would need dry enough conditions to allow the burn to take place. Obviously a low velocity hit under damp conditions likely wont produce any "sparks". </div></div>

Cu doesn't burn so we're not talking about burning or combustion. The only combustion going on is of oxides and that's immaterial in terms of this discussion. Damp, dry, hot, or cold conditions are immaterial as no matter the circumstances, Cu cools off too fast to be a fire hazard (unless it's ~1900F at your shooting range).

 
Re: Give Me A Break. Could It Be More Obvious?

Okay, so I speak in layman's terms and cant possibly compete with someone so much more "educated" on the matter.....

Two things you can't argue away with metalurical yadayada, nor do I care if you try:

-The "sparks" resulting from the TRANSFER of energy to the spot welder tips, which is energy + copper + steel, are hot enough to start a fire many yards from the origin.....I've seen it.

-Per copper "burning". Hold a piece of copper wire in a torch flame, and you get the rapid oxidation of the copper, aka in layman's terms "burning", as evident by the green flame produced....I've seen it. I also was dumb enough one time to try and burn the insulation off a bunch of thin stranded electrical cord wire, like old lamp cord etc, in a burn barrel. When it was all said and done I was left with a much smaller pile of brittle charded remains that crumbled into basically worthless junk. The copper "burned".

My arguement is only that the nearly instantaneous TRANSFER of energy from a bullet to steel or rock could, under the absolute right conditions, create a fire situation. Albeit rare, but certainly possible.