Just wondering.

A NASA scientist says yes.

Huh. I thought a plasma had be completely ionized, so that the electrons were just floating around in a soup instead of around atomic nuclei.

When a substance reaches the state of plasma, most of it's atoms become ionized, and the freed electrons move freely inside the substance. this is achieved when the substnace reaches pretty high temperatures (except for some other phenomena where plasma state is reached by applying a high voltage), much higher that those of a material burning.

 

I think fire is only light emissions from the atoms of the overheated that come as a result of combustion. That wiggly shape is only the consequence of the motion of these gases as they raise away from the material burning.

 

PS: I'm not sure if "combustion" is actually a correct word in english, but if it's not, just translate it from spanish.

The ironic thing with the nasa guy saying that flame is a plasma, is that the inductively-coupled plasma spectros he mentions are called so in contrast with flame ionised spectros.

Yes. I cannot buy the notion that all flames are plasmas. Some flames, yes. In Skye's example, my recollection is that a Flame Ionisation Spectrometer aims to wholly ionise the sample, though it is only partially ionised.

'']Huh. I thought a plasma had be completely ionized, so that the electrons were just floating around in a soup instead of around atomic nuclei.

 

I think partial population ionization counts as a plasma.

 

You get characteristic colors from the electrons recombining with the ions, which means some of the matter must be in a neutral state if you can see the colors, and yet these are still called plasmas. It's just that there is enough energy around to re-ionize those atoms.

But then is fire affected my a magnetic field?

 

The wikipedia article on plasma does not mention fire, nor any sort of cumbustion.

get a magnet( preferably a neodymmium or electromagnet) and but it close to a lit candle.