by Oldtimer » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:04 pm
Actually Ernest, more surface area does not necessarily result in more complete combustion.
The relationship is best described as; greater surface area = higher combustion rate.
higher combustion temperatures = more complete combustion.
However, the relationship is much more complex then this statement would suggest.
You make a lot of general statements that sound good, but that are in fact not correct.
For instance: You state that "wood is a solid fuel like coal, so it is harder to burn than a liquid or gas". Sounds good, but have you ever tried to burn water?
Do you suppose that it just might burn faster and ignite easier the solid Rocket fuel? And how about CO2? It's a gas. How well does it burn?
Sure I know that CO2 is not a combustible. But do you? Grease is also a liquid, does it burn better then Wax. a combustible solid?
You also state, "I don't have time to research all my comments. Sorry." You really should you know. Maybe then you would know what you are talking about.