Fighting FIRE with FUEL?!

[theorein]

I had this idea on how we can use charcoal (grinded into fine powder) to fight fire. The Carbon will react with Oxygen from the Atmosphere to produce Carbon dioxide which will further put down the fire.

 

Will this work?

 

theorein

[silkworm]

Sure it would work, but if you're not isolating the environment from the rest of the atmosphere you're just giving the fire more fuel. If you can isolate this fire, when the carbon dioxide created will eventually prevent further combustion and the fire will choke itself out. However, this would be true whether or not you ad the carbon, meaning if you just isolated the fire from the atmosphere the increase in carbon dioxide will eventually choke the fire out.

 

As a note, since organic (carbon based) molecules are really the only things that combust, using it to fight a fire probably isn't the best option.

 

Also, this is my 200th post and I am now officially an atom. Have a drink on me.

[theorein]

Sure it would work' date=' but if you're not isolating the environment from the rest of the atmosphere you're just giving the fire more fuel. If you can isolate this fire, when the carbon dioxide created will eventually prevent further combustion and the fire will choke itself out. However, this would be true whether or not you ad the carbon, meaning if you just isolated the fire from the atmosphere the increase in carbon dioxide will eventually choke the fire out.

 

As a note, since organic (carbon based) molecules are really the only things that combust, using it to fight a fire probably isn't the best option.

 

Also, this is my 200th post and I am now officially an atom. Have a drink on me.[/quote']

 

Hi! Let's assume we grind the charcoal so that they exist in atoms. One atom Carbon will react with a molekul of Oxygen to produce Carbon dioxide:

 

O2 + C --> CO2

 

For it to happen, we need energy. This we will get from the fire. Will this NOT quench the fire?

 

theorein

[silkworm]

Hi! Let's assume we grind the charcoal so that they exist in atoms. One atom Carbon will react with a molekul of Oxygen to produce Carbon dioxide:

 

O2 + C --> CO2

 

For it to happen' date=' we need energy. This we will get from the fire. Will this NOT quench the fire?[/quote']

 

It doesn't matter whether or not you grind the charcoal, because it already exists as atoms. Grinding the charcoal will only increase the overall surface area of the charcoal and accelerate the fire.

 

The reaction you wrote is not completely accurate, but it's accurate enough for our purposes. The reaction is what is known as spontaneous and exothermic, meaning that it gives off energy. You only need a little spark to begin the reaction, but then the reaction itself gives off heat. This is why fire is hot. Because combustion reactions are exothermic and spontaneous.

 

Because of this phenomenon, when adding carbon to a fire you are only fueling the fire, causing more reactions to take place and more energy to be released. Essentially, if you keep adding carbon to a fire, and there is enough oxygen in the atmosphere, the fire could continue forever.

 

I see that you're from Malaysia so my guess is you'd have no need for a fireplace. But, here, sometimes it gets very cold. We start a fire inside our houses (in the fireplace) at the bottom of this shaft that goes out the roof (known as the chimney). We keep ourselves warm with these fires by burning wood, in the same way you would by adding carbon. When we burn wood we are producing heat from the energy from, primarily, the combustion reaction between the carbon in the cellulose of the tree. The reaction produces, among other things, carbon dioxide. As long as the fire is not isolated and oxygen is not limited to it, the fire can go on forever in this fireplace by adding more wood (carbon).

 

I hope that helps.

[theorein]

Hi! Does anyone know how much energy it takes for this reaction to take place and how much enery it gives out when the process has started?

 

c + 02 --> co2

 

theorein

[YT2095]

ever seen a lit BBQ? they burn for hours using just charcoal, the main "Fuel" in gunpowder is charcoal, airfloat charcoal dispersed in air over flame will explode if confined.

seriously, this is a BAD idea!

 

the only instance I can think of where your idea does apply is on a small scale if fat or oil catches fire in pot or a pan, if you have no damp cloths or lid, simply turn off the heat source and add more cooking oil to the fire, it`ll lower the temp of the hot oil below flash point and the fire will go out.

[jdurg]

I don't know what the activation energy is, but each gram of CO2 that is formed releases nearly 9,000 Joules of energy.

[the tree]

Carbon-dioxide is used to put out some fires, but it comes ready packaged.

 

The only time when fuel should be used to put out a fire is with oil rigs, because there's no way in hell that it can be done with water or foam and as there's not usually anyone around who would mind: a hell of a lot of oil is spurted out, it explodes and creates a big ol' vacum where nothing will compust and the fire is gone.

 

You can recreate this using a candle and a lighter (be careful), if you hold a lighter right next to a burning candle and start the gas (don't spark it) then you should be able to put out the candle at the same time of starting your lighter.

[insane_alien]

if the fire services start using that i'm moving to mars. no oxygen no fuels no fire.

[YT2095]

the tree,

 

in that demonstartion you`re basicly performing a minature FAE (Fuel Air Explosion). if done correctly then it deprives the fire of Oxygen for a short time (split second in that demo) because of "Shock wave/vortex" and thus breaking the Fire Triangle.

[NeonBlack]

You can put out a fire with fuel. Here's a redneck game:

 

Fill a small bucket with gasoline. Light a match, and VERY QUICKLY put the lit match into the gas. If you did it fast enough, the match should go out. The gasoline vapors are flammable, but the liquid should extinguish the flame, just like water. Take turns doing this with your friends until someone fails.

[theorein]

I don't know what the activation energy is, but each gram of CO2 that is formed releases nearly 9,000 Joules of energy.

 

When we burn coal or wood, once the fire is started, it continues burning. Is there proof to where the energy comes from?

 

If we use charcoal in grinded form (assuming that now we have pure carbon atoms), isn't the energy needed to start the combustion process and the energy produced when Carbon combines with Oxygen to produce Carbon Dioxide is very small and insignificant?

 

How will it fuel the fire?

 

The fire coming from burning charcoal may be coming from other sources such as the breaking up of bonds between carbons for an example?.

[jdurg]

When we burn coal or wood' date=' once the fire is started, it continues burning. Is there proof to where the energy comes from?

 

If we use charcoal in grinded form (assuming that now we have pure carbon atoms), isn't the energy needed to start the combustion process and the energy produced when Carbon combines with Oxygen to produce Carbon Dioxide is very small and insignificant?

 

How will it fuel the fire?

 

The fire coming from burning charcoal may be coming from other sources such as the breaking up of bonds between carbons for an example?.[/quote']

 

Yes. There is a LOT of proof. Thermondynamics, bond energies, chemical kinetics, etc. etc. have all proved beyond ANY doubt that the burning of carbon to form carbon dioxide gas is exothermic. The energy released when a carbon atom combines with an oxygen molecule is GREATER than the energy required to get the reaction going. If it was NOT greater than the activation energy, then the fire would go out as soon as you remove the ignition source. The fire continues to burn because each time an oxygen molecule and carbon atom forms a molecule of CO2, the energy it releases triggers the formation of another molecule of CO2.

 

Also, the BREAKING of bonds requires energy. All bond breaking is endothermic. ALL. The formation of bonds is exothermic. When two atoms combine to form a molecule it releases energy as the bonds are formed. Energy is given off in a chemical reaction when the sum of the energy released when bonds are formed is greater than the sum of the energy required to break those bonds. The energy released when two C=O bonds are formed is MUCH greater than the energy required to break apart an O=O bond and/or a C-C bond.

 

If you throw finely divided charcoal onto a fire, what will happen? The charcoal will ignite and react with the oxygen in the air. This will release a great deal of heat which will cause more and more charcoal to ignite. This will release even more heat. If enough heat is generated, it may cause items which would normally not burn to reach a high enough temperature where ignition will take place. At this point, your fire will begin to spread.

 

Why won't the formed carbon dioxide extinguish the flame? It won't because the high temperatures created in the fire will cause the CO2 to RAPIDLY rise away from the fire allowing cooler, more oxygen rich air to take its place. This will result in further ignition/burning. As long as oxygen is able to get to the fire, it will continue to burn.

 

You are correct that the amount of energy needed to start the fire is insignificant. However, you are not correct in saying that the energy released from the formation of CO2 is insignificant. The energy released is VERY significant and is the reason why burning carbon is VERY hot.

[theorein]

Yes. There is a LOT of proof. Thermondynamics' date=' bond energies, chemical kinetics, etc. etc. have all proved beyond ANY doubt that the burning of carbon to form carbon dioxide gas is exothermic. The energy released when a carbon atom combines with an oxygen molecule is GREATER than the energy required to get the reaction going. If it was NOT greater than the activation energy, then the fire would go out as soon as you remove the ignition source. The fire continues to burn because each time an oxygen molecule and carbon atom forms a molecule of CO2, the energy it releases triggers the formation of another molecule of CO2.

 

Also, the BREAKING of bonds requires energy. All bond breaking is endothermic. ALL. The formation of bonds is exothermic. When two atoms combine to form a molecule it releases energy as the bonds are formed. Energy is given off in a chemical reaction when the sum of the energy released when bonds are formed is greater than the sum of the energy required to break those bonds. The energy released when two C=O bonds are formed is MUCH greater than the energy required to break apart an O=O bond and/or a C-C bond.

 

If you throw finely divided charcoal onto a fire, what will happen? The charcoal will ignite and react with the oxygen in the air. This will release a great deal of heat which will cause more and more charcoal to ignite. This will release even more heat. If enough heat is generated, it may cause items which would normally not burn to reach a high enough temperature where ignition will take place. At this point, your fire will begin to spread.

 

Why won't the formed carbon dioxide extinguish the flame? It won't because the high temperatures created in the fire will cause the CO2 to RAPIDLY rise away from the fire allowing cooler, more oxygen rich air to take its place. This will result in further ignition/burning. As long as oxygen is able to get to the fire, it will continue to burn.

 

You are correct that the amount of energy needed to start the fire is insignificant. However, you are not correct in saying that the energy released from the formation of CO2 is insignificant. The energy released is VERY significant and is the reason why burning carbon is VERY hot.[/quote']

 

Once again you are basing your answer on charcoal (lump). I dont' want that. Imagine a carbon atom. Now set fire to it. How much energy do you need to start the ignition? There are no chain reaction here. Puff and there you have CO2. How much energy is released?

[jdurg]

The thing is charcoal IS carbon. In fact, the name 'carbon' comes from the french word 'charbon' which is where charcoal comes from. If you grind up charcoal, you have powdered elemental carbon. Charcoal is another name for a particular allotrope of carbon. You are probably familiar with diamond and graphite. Those two allotropes (different forms of the same element) have a particular arrangement of the atoms. Another allotrope is known as 'amorphous carbon'. Amorphous carbon just means that there is no set structure of the carbon atoms. Charcoal is amorphous carbon. The charcoal we use in chemistry labs is simply pure carbon. The charcoal you buy in a grocery store is pure carbon with a bunch of lighter fluids and other hydrocarbons in there.

 

I'm really having trouble understanding what it is that you are asking. It is meaningless to talk about 'one atom' as throwing one atom into ANYTHING will not have a visible effect that we can see. In addition, it's impossible for someone to throw just 'one atom of carbon' onto a fire.

 

In the initial post, you had theorized that if you throw fuel into a burning fire that the burning fuel will create CO2 gas which will extinguish the fire. All of us here on the boards have provided copious amounts of evidence to prove that it won't work. I just don't know what else you are asking for.

[YT2095]

take a look at Delta G and Delta H, that`ll answer all your carbon energy questions regarding activation and result.

 

as Jdurg has already said, no one is doing ANYTHING to prove you wrong, all the posts so far have been fact and you`re Already wrong as has been explained in a variety of different ways.

 

it`s nothing against YOU, it`s just that the idea is fundamentaly flawed.

[uncool]

Once again you are basing your answer on charcoal (lump). I dont' want that. Imagine a carbon atom. Now set fire to it. How much energy do you need to start the ignition? There are no chain reaction here. Puff and there you have CO2. How much energy is released?

Since you are giving the fire the fuel, the only thing the fire needs is oxygen. However, what happens to the CO2? It gets moved away. This was just answered. The only way for fuel to put out the fire is if you have a limited area, for example, in a pot. You can add extra fuel and cover the pot, making the fire go out faster due to more CO2 production. However, if the pot is uncovered, the fire will actually draw in oxygen, and therefore not be extinguished.

=Uncool=

[theorein]

Dear friends,

This is how science works. We ask questions. If we accept everything as fact, we will be stuck with wrongs and incomplete solutions. Take medicine for an example. Some medicines can cure a disease but they have many side-effects. This means that the medicine is NOT the right cure as it is NOT targeting or solving the right problem.

 

Back to our discussion, I am sure that this method can work. One day I will proof that. And if I fail, someone else will one day succeed.

 

I ask again the question. I know how they calculated calories and energy emited by some reaction in the lab. First they use a certain quantity of the substance and the using calculations they find the valu for a single atom of molecule.

 

This method does NOT proof that the energy comes from the reaction between C and O2.

 

We only assume that they do. If some one in China were to do this experiment, he to will get the same result cause, he will make the same assumption. This only proofs that we are making an universal or global error.

[insane_alien]

So where does the energy come from if not the reaction of carbon and oxygen? all carbon allotropes burn in oxygen with the release of energy. it is well established fact. if you have pure carbon and pure oxygen in a container and ignite the carbon with a spark you get lots of energy out in the form of heat and light. more than can be explained by the spark. Although science shouldn't make any assumptions, we also wouldn't get anywhere by assuming everything that has already been proven to be completely false since we would have to do every experiment in the history of the universe in a lifetime.

[theorein]

So where does the energy come from if not the reaction of carbon and oxygen? all carbon allotropes burn in oxygen with the release of energy. it is well established fact. if you have pure carbon and pure oxygen in a container and ignite the carbon with a spark you get lots of energy out in the form of heat and light. more than can be explained by the spark. Although science shouldn't make any assumptions, we also wouldn't get anywhere by assuming everything that has already been proven to be completely false since we would have to do every experiment in the history of the universe in a lifetime.

 

Take photography for an example. We claim to have an understanding how our eyes' works. We use this to build many optical devices but we still watching movies in 2D. Why? Because we are satisfied with what we have so far. We have 3D technology but we need further tools to view them.

 

The problem here is, we are using lenses to take pictures when we already have a pain in our eyes.

 

What I trying to explain here is, burning carbon in a lump (grinded form) is not same as C + O2 reacting.

[silkworm]

Theorein, while I greatly encourage your curiosity I must say that you don't have a right to comment on the role or the attitude of a scientist because you told me yourself you don't know much about chemistry, which is the area of science you are talking about. Throwing out what is well established and actually pretty fundamental to what is known because someone who is asking a question has equivocated in their mind some result is VERY much not the attitude of a scientist. In short, you have to earn the right to have an opinion before you can expect your opinion to have weight, and that means you're going to have to experimentally establish that you are right for your brewing belligerence to have any meaning. Galileo replaced Aristotle for a reason.

 

I've tried to help you and jdurg especially has tried to help you understand what is going on, along with the rest of the posters of this thread. It would probably be a more solid move to thank them and then go and do a little research on it yourself, instead of condemning them.

[theorein]

Theorein' date=' while I greatly encourage your curiosity I must say that you don't have a right to comment on the role or the attitude of a scientist because you told me yourself you don't know much about chemistry, which is the area of science you are talking about. Throwing out what is well established and actually pretty fundamental to what is known because someone who is asking a question has equivocated in their mind some result is VERY much not the attitude of a scientist. In short, you have to earn the right to have an opinion before you can expect your opinion to have weight.

 

I've tried to help you and jdurg especially has tried to help you understand what is going on, along with the rest of the posters of this thread. It would probably be a more solid move to thank them and then go and do a little research on it yourself, instead of condemning them.[/quote']

 

I didn't mean it in a bad way. I am just trying to convey my thoughts. As this is a text forum and I didn't use smilies, I am not angry or accsuing anyone of anything. I am NOT a scientist. I am NOT a matematician. I am just a curious guy with a question.

 

If you are satisfied with the current notion and answers to this question, there is no further need in your part to pursue this matter. But I need some answers. And if I can't find it here, I will go somewhere else. But I am NOT convinced.

[YT2095]

ok lets go to the ridiculous then, consider Methane gas, it consists of hydrogen and carbon, it`s a very good fuel also!

 

and as well as it`s by product of combustion in air being CO2 Water is Also produced, Both of which can be used to put out fires very effectively.

so why don`t we spray methane gas on fires instead?

 

have a think about that, there`s some HUGE clues in there

[theorein]

ok lets go to the ridiculous then' date=' consider Methane gas, it consists of hydrogen and carbon, it`s a very good fuel also!

 

and as well as it`s by product of combustion in air being CO2 Water is Also produced, Both of which can be used to put out fires very effectively.

so why don`t we spray methane gas on fires instead?

 

have a think about that, there`s some HUGE clues in there [/quote']

 

You just made a very good point. Methane is highly flammable. One spark and the reaction starts and there is a chain reaction just like a nuclear or atomic reaction. You cannot stop this reaction until all methane is burned up or if there is no supply of oxygen.

 

But this is NOT the case with what C and O2. Once a C reacts with an O2, it is all over. There is no chain reaction like in the burning of charcoal. That is why I want to know how much energy this process produces.

[the tree]

O.k. 9KJ is output for every 1gram of CO₂ that is produced, this is easily enough to keep the combustion going, that's why coal and charcoal get used as fuel.

 

p.s. please don't use words like "chain reaction" when you don't get what they mean.