Can fire be explained through just Physics?

[John Cuthber]

It might be useful to separate out the chemistry from the physics.

That's a problem because they overlap. (physicists are known to make jokes about it).

Chemistry has a lot of definitions, but essentially is the study of the reactions between different substances.

fire is a chemical process, not a physical one.

So, for example, you can't (usually) have a fire with a single substance. Normally, one of the substances involved is oxygen from the air.

 

In that way, it is different from, for example, evaporation. Water can evaporate or freeze without there being any other substance there.

 

You can't say

"Solid>Ignition temp>Fire"

Because not all solids burn- water is an example.

You cant "ignite" ice.

[Bender]

Or e.g. carbon or some other elements: in absence of oxygen, they will melt, but if oxygen is present, they will burn before they melt.

[gene098]

 

 

You can't say

"Solid>Ignition temp>Fire"

Because not all solids burn- water is an example.

You cant "ignite" ice.

 

Well how about Solid>Ignition temp (Of oxidizing molecule) > Fire

In that way, it is different from, for example, evaporation. Water can evaporate or freeze without there being any other substance there.

So this is like an example of water being a more physics based reaction than Chemical right?

Edited May 3, 2017 by gene098