2006-09-07 01:13:11 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Chemistry
in
effectively nothing
2006-09-07 01:14:26 · answer #1 · answered by admiralgill 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Gosh! I just can't believe people are considering flammable and inflammable as opposites!
Flammable implies the substance can burn.....wax, edible oil, wood, etc. are flammable.
Inflammable implies the substance is "highly flammable" and if the conditions are set so, it can burn with an explosion...stuff like gas, petrol, Petroleum gas....even a spark is enough to burn them.
The word inflammable is used as a warning to take precaution.
2006-09-07 10:10:37 · answer #2 · answered by LiNa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The word Flammable is applied to a substance that can be ignited.
The word inflammable is also used to describe a flammable substance it has also been used to refer to a substance which is non-flammable. To avoid any misunderstanding it is advisable to use Flammable and Non-Flammable.
2006-09-10 18:42:02 · answer #3 · answered by Spanner 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Inflammable was the original term - capable of being put in flames. (The origin is actually from the french). Flammable is used nowadays because just as you point out it could be misinterpreted, so for safety reasons, the term was "simplified" to flammable.
2006-09-07 09:10:30 · answer #4 · answered by Julien L 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They mean the same thing, but inflammable is the British English word. The Americans started saying flammable. This then makes our word sound like a negative, so it is being used less and less often in favour of the American word.
2006-09-07 08:29:30 · answer #5 · answered by helen g 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Inflammable is the traditional English word. It means something will burn. Flammable is an artificial word that means the same thing. It's used in safety notices because people don't understand what inflammable means. (Like some of the dud answers you're getting)
Stuff that won't burn is non-inflammable or nonflammable.
2006-09-07 08:17:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I assumed that inflammable is something that could start burning from itself under the right conditions, and flammable is something that needs to be light with a fire.
2006-09-07 08:24:07 · answer #7 · answered by Chri R 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a relative conception for the environment usual for mankind that lives on the earth, surrounded by oxygen layer. Inflammable material considered a gas, solid or frozen substance, that is able to react with oxygen evolving mostly CO accompanied with flame. Flammable material is considered a gas, solid or frozen substance, which is not reacting with oxygen, even being put into naked flame.
2006-09-07 08:35:00 · answer #8 · answered by Olga V 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They're both the same. One of the little silly things which happen in language. People's explanations for why both words exist sound reasonable: blaming on the Yankees always gets my vote!
If you're interested in other things which sound like they should be different, but actually mean the same:
Slow up = slow down
I thought I had more than that. Oh well. I'm sure there's an example where you can put the letters 'im' in front of word, which normally makes things opposite, but it this case doesn't I can't remember it though.
2006-09-07 09:14:26 · answer #9 · answered by Steve-Bob 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both will burn. Funny though for a lot of people think that inflammable is does not catch fire easily due to the prefix 'in'.
English language is sometimes puzzling. =)
2006-09-08 13:10:36 · answer #10 · answered by carbon dioxide 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A flammable substance will burn. An inflammable substance will not.
2006-09-07 08:15:25 · answer #11 · answered by P P 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋