Re:Experts vs. Imitators
by mjburgess on Sunday June 16, 2024 @04:04PM
(#40699699)
fire is a fundamentally organic phenomenon. you heat dry organic material until there's a gas-like emission of particles, these are then nearly instantaneous oxidised causing more light and heat. The emission of heat and light in this gas-like state ("plasma") then causes more emission and so on.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
You can burn certain metals (magnesium, sodium, sulfur, even iron (wool)) neither of which is "organic". So fire isn't a fundamentally organic phenomenon ...
Well I meant several things with that claim, which is why, per the theme of the thread, you cannot summarise these matters in cute sentences.
Fire is only possible in an atmosphere with extraordinarily high accumulations of oxygen on planets with an atmosphere, etc. The only known process to bring this about, as far as I know, is life.
Generically, lighting is the 'original' fire on earth. But I take it the commentor was thinking more in their school days of the sustained sort of burning commonly called 'fire'.
Re:Experts vs. Imitators
by nanomonkey on Sunday June 16, 2024 @06:32PM
(#40700668)
While oxygen is the most common oxidizer, it's entirely possible to have combustion without it. Such as utilizing halogens.
Re:Experts vs. Imitators
by throwaway173738 on Sunday June 16, 2024 @09:26PM
(#40701522)
The part about emission of light from a plane is basically correct. It’s really about oxidation producing energy, and that energy pushing electrons well out of their orbitals, and then the thermalization of electrons resulting in transmission of electromagnetic radiation in the visible and infrared spectrum.