Originally posted by arrakisAn atom can't burn. Can it? As I understand it, fire is really just a process where certain elements of a material are released due to great heat. No?
And I just want to ask the question... if all the heavy elements that we are made of are created from the explosion of stars, why didn't these atoms burn up from the exploding supernova?
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scientists-Saved-the-Big-Bang-Theory-38865.shtml
So, if you take wood, expose it to heat, and combined with oxygen the wood will at a temperature of about... what?.. 200 Celsius, release certain particles. We see this as smoke. The flames are heated air.*
Though, I could be seriously off here. I don't really know where I got this from. 😕
* Turns out I was right, but not the way I thought I was. Heat apparently always emit light. And fire require heat. The heat that rise from the burning spot thus emit light, hence the flames.
Fascinating.
Originally posted by stocken"Burning" is when molecules are oxidized by the O2 from the air. It's an exothermic reaction - that is, it gives off heat.
An atom can't burn. Can it? As I understand it, fire is really just a process where certain elements of a material are released due to great heat. No?
So, if you take wood, expose it to heat, and combined with oxygen the wood will at a temperature of about... what?.. 200 Celsius, release certain particles. We see this as smoke. The flames are heated air.* ...[text shortened]... t. The heat that rise from the burning spot thus emit light, hence the flames.
Fascinating.
I remember "The First three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg as being a very good book on the start of the universe.
It must be over 20 years since I read it though, so i can't remember any detail.
it appears to have been updated for the 2nd edition.
http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Origin-Universe/dp/0465024378
Originally posted by aging blitzerIf you believe in infinite parallel universes then given a finite probability of a big bang happening, and it must be a finite probability because it happened in our case did it not(no circular logic here at all!) then we have aslo yet to discover 3,504,000 new parralel universes that have ben formed since you read your book, asuming that three minutes is all it takes to make one.
It must be over 20 years since I read it though, so i can't remember any detail.
Originally posted by kmax87That's a big assumption.
asuming that three minutes is all it takes to make one.
The book is about what happened in the first three minutes of the universe.
How long it took to get the thing that the big bang came from into the state in which it was ready to go BANG is probably an unknown unknown.
Originally posted by aging blitzerWhere's Rumsfeld when you need a quick estimate?
That's a big assumption.
The book is about what happened in the first three minutes of the universe.
How long it took to get the thing that the big bang came from into the state in which it was ready to go BANG is probably an unknown unknown.
Originally posted by stockenNo. You wrote that "atoms can't burn" but sodium atoms for example are quite flammable. You seemed to suggest that the releasing of visible particles is essential to burning, but it's not. The particles that make up smoke, in fact, are visible precisely because they are incompletely burned. If they were fully burned they'd be carbon dioxide and water vapor which are mostly invisible. You did not refer to a chemical reaction except incidentally by mentioning that you had to expose wood to oxygen.
Ye, isn't that in essence what I wrote? 😕
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHe said that "an atom can't burn" and he is more or less right, although burn is a horrible word to use in this context as we mostly associate it with a visual phenomenon.
No. You wrote that "atoms can't burn" but sodium atoms for example are quite flammable. You seemed to suggest that the releasing of visible particles is essential to burning, but it's not. The particles that make up smoke, in fact, are visible precisely because they are incompletely burned. If they were fully burned they'd be carbon dioxide and water ...[text shortened]... chemical reaction except incidentally by mentioning that you had to expose wood to oxygen.
Originally posted by darvlayI disagree. There are many atoms which are quite capable of being oxidized in a combustion reaction and which are found free; that is, not in molecular form. Sodium is one example.
He said that "an atom can't burn" and he is more or less right, although burn is a horrible word to use in this context as we mostly associate it with a visual phenomenon.
http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/dict/combust.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYep, you're right. I was thinking more along the lines of subatomics and was being a bit silly. Man, do I ever regret making that post! 🙄
I disagree. There are many atoms which are quite capable of being oxidized in a combustion reaction and which are found free; that is, not in molecular form. Sodium is one example.
http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/dict/combust.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think we're talking at crossed purposes here. ATY is right, the sodium atoms can be oxidised (and I propose that we use oxidation, rather than burn), but stocken was really pointing out that the sodium atoms survive the process! A case of muddy thinking, but I believe stocken's answer whilst technically not perfect, is probably less obfuscatory to a non-chemist than ATY's, which seems to imply (although I know that it wasn't ATY's intention) that the sodium atoms are "used up" or destroyed.
I disagree. There are many atoms which are quite capable of being oxidized in a combustion reaction and which are found free; that is, not in molecular form. Sodium is one example.
http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/dict/combust.html
[edited to replace BdN with Stocken (sorry guys)]
Originally posted by scottishinnzStocken, not Bosse.
I think we're talking at crossed purposes here. ATY is right, the sodium atoms can be oxidised (and I propose that we use oxidation, rather than burn), but BdN was really pointing out that the sodium atoms survive the process! A case of muddy thinking, but I believe BdN's answer whilst technically not perfect, is probably less obfuscatory to a non-che ...[text shortened]... I know that it wasn't ATY's intention) that the sodium atoms are "used up" or destroyed.
But yes, confusing it is. Can't we just quote refer to the first law of thermodynamics and be done with it?