Jump to content

Can fire be explained through just Physics?


gene098

Recommended Posts

It might be useful to separate out the chemistry from the physics.

That's a problem because they overlap. (physicists are known to make jokes about it).

Chemistry has a lot of definitions, but essentially is the study of the reactions between different substances.

fire is a chemical process, not a physical one.

So, for example, you can't (usually) have a fire with a single substance. Normally, one of the substances involved is oxygen from the air.

 

In that way, it is different from, for example, evaporation. Water can evaporate or freeze without there being any other substance there.

 

You can't say

"Solid>Ignition temp>Fire"

Because not all solids burn- water is an example.

You cant "ignite" ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can't say

"Solid>Ignition temp>Fire"

Because not all solids burn- water is an example.

You cant "ignite" ice.

 

Well how about Solid>Ignition temp (Of oxidizing molecule) > Fire

In that way, it is different from, for example, evaporation. Water can evaporate or freeze without there being any other substance there.

So this is like an example of water being a more physics based reaction than Chemical right?

Edited by gene098
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.