I know that fine-grained organic matter such as flour or pollen can be quite explosive if ignited. It also seems logical to me that the explosiveness of such an organic powder is determined by many factors such as particle size and water content, ambient temperature and humidity, as well as the chemical composition of the particles. Now I wonder: could a swarm of tiny insects under the right external conditions explode? And would those external conditions be such that the insects are actually alive and airborne due to their own ability to fly?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
$\begingroup$ I can't think of any case where that would happen. $\endgroup$– PAEPCommented Apr 7 at 15:42
-
6$\begingroup$ Insects are very "humid". $\endgroup$– Buck Thorn ♦Commented Apr 7 at 16:00
-
3$\begingroup$ And insects are not as finely granulated like, e.g., flour. Not enough surface area to volume. $\endgroup$– Jon CusterCommented Apr 7 at 16:29
-
1$\begingroup$ Such particles must able to catch fire quickly, in tiny fraction of second, what is not case of insects. $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Apr 8 at 4:19
-
1$\begingroup$ See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Atmospheric_oxygen_levels $\endgroup$– Gyro GearlooseCommented Apr 9 at 0:34
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
8
A single insect can explode -- no swarm necessary. The bombardier beetle can do this multiple times sans rapid unscheduled disassembly (RUD); it emits a controlled "explosion" to deter predators. These beetles use $\ce{H2O2}$, catalyzed by a peroxidase, to oxidize hydroquinones into quinones, with a burst of steam. Yes, this is rocket science!
Just as lycopodeum powder, the dried spores of clubmoss (AKA princess pine) is often used to demonstrate dust explosions, one might do so with finely-powdered, thoroughly dried, insects. Perhaps, if a swarm of locusts were to be caught up in a sirocco or khamsin, and pulverized in the hot, desiccated, air, they might ignite from triboelectricity (i.e., lightning)... or not. Admittedly, that is pretty far-fetched, but if you're writing a fantasy/SF story, you might
creditblame me for that (mis)conception.
answered Apr 7 at 18:00
-
$\begingroup$ I think the case 1 is very different case to what OP has in mind. // Case 2 is much closer to the flour/pollen case than to an insect swarm. // And the locust case, it is far-fetched, indeed. :-D // Otherwise, surely interesting info for those not aware if it. $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Apr 8 at 7:27
-
$\begingroup$ I am not sure I get it. but I am familiar with the bombardier beetle from R. Attenborough docs and about the chemistry behind. It is not really an explosion, just violent boiling of reaction mixture with insect staying as insect. $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Apr 8 at 14:01
-
1$\begingroup$ @Poutnik I think that's why DrMoishe Pippik took pains to clarify that this is an explosion (defined as a sudden release of chemical energy) without the thing getting destroyed, without it exhibiting, that is, a rapid unscheduled disassembly. After all, what the OP had in mind is impossible since there is no reasonable comparison to be made between a cloud of flour (particle size around 52.36 μm to 108.89 μm) and a cloud of, even very small, insects whose size is measured in mm and not μm. $\endgroup$– terdonCommented Apr 8 at 16:27
-
1$\begingroup$ @Poutnik, in the English language, any sudden expansion can be considered an explosion, e.g., a steam boiler explosion. youtube.com/watch?v=9c-wOGOr0io (and the bombardier does create that). In chemistry, one speaks of deflagration and of detonation, but there are, indeed, other types of explosion. Sorry, didn't mean to go nuclear, here. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8 at 17:13
-
1$\begingroup$ @BuckThorn My idea of an exploding insect is - there is no living insect any more. :-) // I do agree that in general, the meaning of explosion as quite common and international world has its nuances across many domains and regions. The important thing is we all agree what is happening there, regardless of name labels. $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Apr 10 at 8:25
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
8
One hypothesis for the Tunguska event in Siberia in 1908 was an explosion of insects. See the Germany Wikipedia entry https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska-Ereignis, in section Außenseiterhypothesen:
So wurden unter anderem der Einschlag eines kleinen Schwarzen Loches, der Absturz eines extraterrestrischen Raumschiffs oder eine Explosion der dort zahlreich vorkommenden Mücken, vergleichbar einer Staubexplosion, die „Mückenexplosion“, für das Ereignis verantwortlich gemacht.
Translation:
Among other things, the impact of a small black hole, the crash of an extraterrestrial spaceship or an explosion of the numerous mosquitoes, comparable to a dust explosion, the "mosquito explosion", were blamed for the event.
It is considered an "outsider theory", the general consensus is that the event was caused by meteor impact. I don't know if there was any theoretical or experimental evidence that this could really occur.
-
$\begingroup$ it makes me very happy to see that someone had the same arguably silly thought $\endgroup$– paulinaCommented Apr 8 at 13:54
-
6$\begingroup$ "Outsider theory" is putting it extremely generously. 12 megatons is an energy scale decidedly out of reach of a single chemical explosion, as ironic as the unit of measurement may be. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8 at 13:55
-
1$\begingroup$ Could you provide a translation? As it stands, you are basing you answer on text that cannot be read in the language of this site. In any case, that is an unsourced WP page so it isn't clear that anyone ever actually believed this or supports this hypothesis. It could very well be a joke. $\endgroup$– terdonCommented Apr 8 at 16:27
-
1$\begingroup$ @NicolauSakerNeto True; one of the largest locust swarms ever, covering perhaps 100 km^2, had perhaps 5 billion locusts. At 2g each, that's "only" 10^7 kg or 10,000 tons. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8 at 18:18
-
1$\begingroup$ @BuckThorn, thanks for providing the translation. With this post I'm certainly not saying I believe the explanation is plausible, it only happened that I had read it a few days before the OP asked the question. $\endgroup$ Commented May 6 at 16:28
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
The phenomenon you're referring to, where fine-grained organic matter can become explosive, is known as a dust explosion. This can occur when a combustible dust is suspended in air and ignited, causing a rapid combustion reaction and a sudden increase in pressure. The key factors that contribute to dust explosions are indeed particle size, moisture content, ambient conditions, and the chemical composition of the dust.
However, applying this concept to a swarm of tiny insects is not straightforward. While insects are organic matter, they do not share the same properties that make dust particles explosive. Here are a few reasons:
Particle Size and Dispersion: For a dust explosion to occur, the particles need to be very small (usually less than 500 micrometers in diameter) and evenly dispersed in the air. Insects, even tiny ones, are much larger and their dispersion in a swarm does not typically reach the concentration needed for an explosion.
Moisture Content: Insects have a high water content, which makes them less likely to ignite and burn rapidly. In contrast, dust particles from substances like flour or pollen are dry and can burn quickly.
Ignition Source: Insects do not have an inherent ignition source. A dust explosion requires an ignition source, such as a spark or flame, which is not present in a swarm of insects.
Combustibility: Not all organic matter is equally combustible. The chemical composition of insects is different from that of substances like flour or pollen, which are more readily combustible.
So, while it's an interesting question, a swarm of tiny, flying insects would not explode under normal circumstances. The conditions that make dust explosions possible are not typically present in a swarm of insects. Even if the insects were somehow ignited, the result would likely be more akin to a fire than an explosion.
-
3$\begingroup$ With the time and text patterns of you last 3 answers in 3 questions., I have strong suspicion you are using Generative AI outputs for answer generation. This is forbidden by the site policy. $\endgroup$– PoutnikCommented Apr 8 at 17:27
-
3$\begingroup$ I had also this suspicion. Forbidden or not, but these "patterns" can only be found because AI is not understanding, what it is talking about. I think we can't stop these attempts, all we can do is vote against these irrelevant "fun facts" . I read these 3 answers and saw exploitation of typical overlapping meaning statements, that AI often uses to increase the length of its answer. For example: "combustibility" and "moisture content" in this answer and "long range order" and "lack of range of melting temperatures" in another. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8 at 18:21
-
$\begingroup$ If this is AI it is better than some of the people generated gibberish $\endgroup$– jimchmstCommented Apr 10 at 22:23