CB7guy
Well-Known Member
dude why do you think when you go to your old azz G-ma's house you see a big sign that says oxygen in use, no smoking,
check this out http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950423002000165
I say it is flammable.
O2, the presence of which supports combustion. The fact that it is considered an oxidizer rather than a fuel in a chemical reaction is semantics.
A leaking O2 cylinder can turn a lit cigarette into a conflagration. Just as much as a leaking acetylene cylinder.
It is flammable in the sense it is not non-flammable, as could describe asbestos. But O2 can be described as flammable, reactive, explosive, corrosive, etc.
It's not flammable but in concentrations higher than what you find naturally it can turn stuff that would not normally burn into flammable material. An oxy-acetylene torch is one example - the jet of pure oxygen when pressing the lever causes the iron or steel to ignite.
CH4 (methane) + heat = CH4
Not so. CH4 is a compound, not an element and if sufficient heat is provided it will decompose to hydrogen and carbon.
The word "flammable" is scientifically ambiguous. It doesn't have a defined meaning with implied or explicit parameters. Even the word "oxidize" or "oxidizer" is not always taken to mean a reaction that includes oxygen. The word "exothermic" is scientifically specific in that it means any reaction that releases heat.
For the sake of precision of meaning it is necessary to agree on a definition of the word "flammable". I take it to mean a substance that can be induced to produce an exothermic reaction.
Note that the word "substance" is also ambiguous. I define it as a quantity of matter without specific properties or implied composition . It may be a single element or any possible combination of elements individually or as compounds.
Given those definitions then single elements are not flammable under any conditions but combinations of elements or compounds may be flammable.
check this out http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950423002000165
10-12-2011, 04:52 PM
I say it is flammable.
O2, the presence of which supports combustion. The fact that it is considered an oxidizer rather than a fuel in a chemical reaction is semantics.
A leaking O2 cylinder can turn a lit cigarette into a conflagration. Just as much as a leaking acetylene cylinder.
It is flammable in the sense it is not non-flammable, as could describe asbestos. But O2 can be described as flammable, reactive, explosive, corrosive, etc.
10-12-2011, 05:09 PM
It's not flammable but in concentrations higher than what you find naturally it can turn stuff that would not normally burn into flammable material. An oxy-acetylene torch is one example - the jet of pure oxygen when pressing the lever causes the iron or steel to ignite.
CH4 (methane) + heat = CH4
Not so. CH4 is a compound, not an element and if sufficient heat is provided it will decompose to hydrogen and carbon.
The word "flammable" is scientifically ambiguous. It doesn't have a defined meaning with implied or explicit parameters. Even the word "oxidize" or "oxidizer" is not always taken to mean a reaction that includes oxygen. The word "exothermic" is scientifically specific in that it means any reaction that releases heat.
For the sake of precision of meaning it is necessary to agree on a definition of the word "flammable". I take it to mean a substance that can be induced to produce an exothermic reaction.
Note that the word "substance" is also ambiguous. I define it as a quantity of matter without specific properties or implied composition . It may be a single element or any possible combination of elements individually or as compounds.
Given those definitions then single elements are not flammable under any conditions but combinations of elements or compounds may be flammable.
