i see we need some definitions.
What do you mean by "fire'?
I have always believed this a relatively well understood word. Fire. Enough people understand it well enough to run if it is a threat or to scoot closer if they are cold. As a firefighter, fire is a the result of a combustible+heat+oxygen and a chemical reaction. As a power generator, it is my close friend, when safely distant. Is fire someting different in the midwest?
I didnt imply that aluminum etc wotn burn. i even specifically said that aluminum burns very hot and fast. Steel wool burns nicely.
Nope, you did not imply it, you stated it plain and bold.
"You can try your mighty best to burn gold, it will absolutely not burn"
Your words on Oct 23 2009, 06:43 PM in a reply to scott.
You said "Many light metal alloys create oxygen ". Please explain what you mean if you dont mean they are converted into oxygen.
My appologies. "Many light metal alloys create oxygen when they burn, yes even the gold in the electronics is converted". Is the entire quote it does make more sense as a whole. But it could be more complete. Converted is the best I can do for the result of the burned material. They all convert to something; Ash, vapor, etc. Sometimes the same base elements remain, but the form is altered.
Create oxygen is wrong a couple ways: the oxygen is already there, so not "created". The oxygen does not come from the metal but the water (I was discussing a ship fire?) the metals burn so hot they separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Make sense now?
When you say that aluminum is not "converted' to oxygen 'same as wood is not" its not a good comparison. Wood is a compound, metals are not. It is simple to separate out the elements making up wood, you can if you wish extract pure oxygen from wood. Not from any metal.
I don't recall that statement - aluminum conversion to oxygen, that would be a good trick.
Please explain what you mean when you say "the chemical breakdown does not always leave a component". does not leave any behind, or does not make any components? What would a "component" be?
"Everything I know of has a temperature at wich it will burn. This may not leave a residue of ash every time. The chemical breakdown does not always leave any component, but it occurs."
My bad again. It does make more sense when the entire statement is there. I could have been more precise at the end. ...does not leave any physical, visible, residual
Every material (no not necessarily every element) can be converted by the presence of a hot enough fire into something it was not before the fire.
Are you suggestiong that aluminum can undergo a chemical breakdown? i cant tell for sure what you mean by chemical breakdown.
Are you saying that any element on earth will burn, ie combine with oxygen?
Shall I trade tedium for tedium? What do you mean "burn"? Combine with oxygen is not in any definition I recall. "Burn" must relate to the context I used it with. Fire will burn anything if the conditions are met for the particular material in question. The result will also vary with the material. A welder will use his torch to burn metal into the converted form he requires. Uncontrolled the same fire can burn a work of art into a lump of shiny metal.
Is it your statement that at high temperature water will break down into hydrogen and oxygen, and that the oxygen will then be freed to combine with, say, some wood that is underwater?
No, I believe I am repeating now but; the metals burn at such a great heat that they cause a chemical breakdown of materials in contact. In the example of the ship board fire, yes, the water is separated into hydrogen and oxygen and if there are combustible available (pilot's seat etc.) they will burn.
how would you define 'burn"?
I would not define it, Webster has done well enough.