Hacker News Reader

Comment by Osmium | Hacker News Reader

Why so obviously wrong? Seems reasonable to me that chimney smoke – defined as air with heavy particulates created from burning wood – might fall back down to the ground (and thus into surrounding buildings) once it has cooled.

I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem obviously wrong to me. Regardless, I'm sure whatever "research" there is must be based on something! A citation would have been appreciated so we could judge for ourselves...

View on HN

If 70% of chimney smoke re-entered nearby buildings, then those times when most buildings were burning, the air inside them would be nearly as smoky as what come out of the chimney. It's also very hard to believe outside of a tenement arrangement. In a village where there's lots of space between houses, and assuming all particulate matter fell back within the bounds of the village (itself a big stretch), it's hard to see how two-thirds of smoke would find its way back into buildings.

It doesn't mention over what sort of volume/area it re-enters... 70% of smoke from one chimney distributed over the whole neighborhood/town would be more subtle.

edit: "near-by" is a relative term

No, since one persons smoke could enter a dozen peoples houses.

"those times when most buildings were burning" would not have one burner per twelve recipients.

Fall back down to the ground and blow back into sealed houses, though? I think obviously wrong applies to the scenario he wants you to have in mind. Maybe the research has some specific conditions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com