open fire in none environment.
2006-11-25 01:12:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
Yes, fire (by definition) requires an oxidation reaction to take place. This means that fire needs oxygen. Anything flammable needs oxygen and thus fire will never take place without oxygen.
Some of the previous questions have not explained the Sun properly though. You should know that the sun is not fire. Rather it is a massive nuclear reaction called Nuclear Fusion whereby Hydrogen and Helium (in the main) give off extraordinary amounts of energy (in the form of heat).
The bottom line is that you will never have fire without some sort of presence of oxygen.
2006-11-25 01:41:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Vendatta Ace 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The easy correct answer is no, because fire is defined as a self-sustaining oxidation reaction. But that's correct only if you use a layman's definition of oxidation. By the chemical definition, fluorine is the most powerful oxidating agent and does sustain fire.
As long as you're thinking alien, why limit your thoughts to the chemical elements we know about? With our laws of physics and the particles we know about, we're confident we know about all the chemical elements that could exist. But if the strong nuclear force wasn't as strong, or electrostatic and gravitational forces weren't inverse square, or if the quantum limit / Planck length were larger or smaller, some other universe could have dramatically different chemistry. Once we understand our own physics, that'll be fun stuff to play with.
2006-11-25 04:24:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Frank N 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm not a chemist, but my understanding is that oxygen is reactive because of the holes in its outer shell, and that anything in the same column of the periodic table should be about the same. We think of oxygen as causing burning because it is a) plentiful on earth, and b) as a gas it feeds well into anything. My guess is that other elements in the same column would act the same, given the right conditions. Anyone with knowledge care to correct or confirm?
2006-11-25 01:24:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by sofarsogood 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
By defination fire is an Oxidation reaction...therefore needing oxygen.
but, i would say that sun flares come close to looking like it. A lot of ionized material is ejected in a flare. (but the sun does contain some oxygen)
2006-11-25 01:16:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by rewrite_h35 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
i'm with you in this and there are a number of unanswered question around 9/11, it drove me nuts for it gradual. yet at last I enable it bypass. The secret of 9/11 is in basic terms not completely solved.what somewhat pisses me of is, that 9/11 substitute into offered as attack, as a substitute of entire incompetence and failure of the administration, that have been given 121 warnings (expert 9/11 record) and then to trump it, as a substitute of firing all and sundry with out pension, they start wars with the known public screaming for blood. i'm able to by no ability recover from that.
2016-10-13 02:06:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
fire is defined as oxidation and therefore requires the presence of oxygen. solar flares may look like fire but, although they are very hot (exothermic), they are not a form of fire.
2006-11-25 01:29:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by michaell 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Carbon Dioxide
Magnesium burns in CO2
2006-11-25 06:55:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by shubhopriyo 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
it's not that fire cant exist without oxygen,fire cant exist without a combustible gas and a grounding point such as logs
i think
2006-11-25 02:53:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by the professor 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Try Using Florine F2 should be batter than O2
2006-11-25 02:19:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by zginder 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
^ water is made of oxygen silly
2006-11-25 01:15:19
·
answer #11
·
answered by lisa42088 3
·
0⤊
1⤋