Could Deforistation lead to lack of ability to light fires?


by wasteofo2
Tags: ability, deforistation, fires, lack, lead, light
wasteofo2
wasteofo2 is offline
#19
Dec13-03, 07:13 PM
wasteofo2's Avatar
P: 1,522
So how much atmospheres partial pressure do you need to sustain a wood fire and an oil fire?
ShawnD
ShawnD is offline
#20
Dec14-03, 01:27 AM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 988
Why do you thik he would know that? It's not exactly common knowledge.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#21
Dec14-03, 09:22 AM
Mentor
P: 22,001
I can't answer the question directly, but try THIS site for the opposite approach. At an altitude of about 5 miles, you're above 50% of the atmosphere so the pressure is half of what it is sea level. AFAIK, climbers in the Himalayas (sp) don't have problems lighting fires.
wasteofo2
wasteofo2 is offline
#22
Dec14-03, 02:13 PM
wasteofo2's Avatar
P: 1,522
Originally posted by ShawnD
Why do you thik he would know that? It's not exactly common knowledge.
Practically nothing discussed on this board is common knowledge. I just kinda figured how much o2 pressure you'd need to light a fire on wood would be relatively common knoweldge among people who talk about the ridiculously advanced things which are discussed on this board.
Chemicalsuperfreak
Chemicalsuperfreak is offline
#23
Dec14-03, 05:00 PM
P: 324
Originally posted by wasteofo2
Practically nothing discussed on this board is common knowledge. I just kinda figured how much o2 pressure you'd need to light a fire on wood would be relatively common knoweldge among people who talk about the ridiculously advanced things which are discussed on this board.
Actually most of what is discussed here is common knowledge. It's mostly at the level of undergraduate science classes. Suplemented here and there with more expert opiniongs.

How much O2 you need to light a fire is not common knowledge. Furthermore, your original question pertained to forest fires. Most of which, I believe, are triggered by lighting strikes. And I think a bolt of lighting could probably start a fire with very little oxygen. So as far as forest fires are concerned, I think the question isn't so much about starting the fire as it is sustaining it.

It's further complicated by the fact that as oxygen is reduced, the fire doesn't just go out, it is slowed.

Frankly, I think the lower limit of oxygen needed for wood to burn is quite less then that needed for aerobic organisms to breathe. Cut the oxygen level too low and you'll have a bunch of dead trees burning slowly.
wasteofo2
wasteofo2 is offline
#24
Dec14-03, 06:46 PM
wasteofo2's Avatar
P: 1,522
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Actually most of what is discussed here is common knowledge. It's mostly at the level of undergraduate science classes. Suplemented here and there with more expert opiniongs.
Mmm, I realize that, it just seems that if you understand all this stuff which is so far beyond what the average joe can even begin to imagine, that how much o2 you need to light a fire would be fairly common knoweldge, I guess I was wrong.

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak

How much O2 you need to light a fire is not common knowledge. Furthermore, your original question pertained to forest fires. Most of which, I believe, are triggered by lighting strikes. And I think a bolt of lighting could probably start a fire with very little oxygen. So as far as forest fires are concerned, I think the question isn't so much about starting the fire as it is sustaining it.
I didn't say anything about forest fires, i referenced the rainforest as an o2 source, sorry if that somehow got misconstrued.

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak


It's further complicated by the fact that as oxygen is reduced, the fire doesn't just go out, it is slowed.

Frankly, I think the lower limit of oxygen needed for wood to burn is quite less then that needed for aerobic organisms to breathe. Cut the oxygen level too low and you'll have a bunch of dead trees burning slowly.
So bassically we'd all be dead before lighting fires became a problem?
wasteofo2
wasteofo2 is offline
#25
Dec14-03, 06:53 PM
wasteofo2's Avatar
P: 1,522
Originally posted by russ_watters
I can't answer the question directly, but try THIS site for the opposite approach. At an altitude of about 5 miles, you're above 50% of the atmosphere so the pressure is half of what it is sea level. AFAIK, climbers in the Himalayas (sp) don't have problems lighting fires.
That seems to contradict what chroot said, unless I misunderstood one or both of you, or my assumptions about mountain climbing are wrong.

As understood:
It's not disputed that tehre's approx 21% o2 in the air.

Chroot said you need 16 atmosphere's partial pressure of o2 to stay concious.

You're saying that there's 50% atmospheres partial pressure 5 miles up, which means that there's really only about 10.5% atmospheres partial pressure of o2.

I know mountain climbers take o2 tanks with them, but i didn't think they are constantly using them, and I'm pretty sure I recently saw photos of everest climbers who were supposed to be about 16,000+ feet up with no o2 masks on doing work.


So, where am I, you or chroot wrong?
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#26
Dec14-03, 08:48 PM
Mentor
P: 22,001
Originally posted by wasteofo2
So, where am I, you or chroot wrong?
Mountain climbers are in much better than average shape.
chroot
chroot is offline
#27
Dec15-03, 12:18 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
Very few people, if any, can survive at 25,000+ feet with no external oxygen supply. Some people may be able to survive on as little as 0.10 atmospheres partial pressure of O2, but probably not for long.

- Warren
wasteofo2
wasteofo2 is offline
#28
Dec15-03, 12:50 AM
wasteofo2's Avatar
P: 1,522
Originally posted by chroot
Very few people, if any, can survive at 25,000+ feet with no external oxygen supply. Some people may be able to survive on as little as 0.10 atmospheres partial pressure of O2, but probably not for long.

- Warren
There was just a thing on the history channel about some early attempt to reach the sumit of everest and they said that over 16,000 feet the body starts to deteriorate. Not sure, however, whether it's due to lack of oxygen or the low temperature or the lack of air pressure or a combination of all of them plus other variables.
chroot
chroot is offline
#29
Dec15-03, 01:04 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
Well, the lack oxygen is a HUGE part of it, certainly.

BTW, my figure of 0.16 ATA PPO2 (atmospheres absolute partial pressure O2) is what is usually used by advanced mixed-gas technical scuba divers (like me). We don't mix or use any breathing gas that will produce < 0.16 ATA PPO2 at its working depth. This means that 0.16 ATA PPO2 is enough to support virtually anyone for virtually any length of time. There are certainly people who can operate just fine at 0.14, or 0.12, or 0.10 -- 0.16 is just a conservative figure, with some "safety margin" built in.

And to answer your earlier questions, there are a couple of relevant points:

1) Define "fire." Do you mean "the chemical reaction in which fuel is oxidized?" Or do you mean "flame?" The chemical reaction can exist at almost ANY partial pressure -- it'll just run very very slowly, as has been pointed out.

2) The actual partial pressure necessary for a fire to grow given some fuel is strongly dependent upon many, many factors. You can't assign a particular PPO2 to wood, say, because big logs, little sticks of kindling, and sawdust all present greatly different surface areas to the atmosphere. An oil that has a high vapor pressure will burn more easily than another. An oil that has been atomized (sprayed into tiny droplets) will burn easier than an oil left in a vat of liquid, and so on.

Because fire is so sensitive to the geometry, composition, etc. of the fuel, it is not possible to assign a particular PPO2. The devil is in the details.

- Warren
wasteofo2
wasteofo2 is offline
#30
Dec15-03, 05:16 PM
wasteofo2's Avatar
P: 1,522
When referencing fire, i was thinking more like the types of small fires or sparks you need to do things like fire a gun or start an engine, but I've pretty much gathered that we'd all be dead before cars didn't start due to lack of oxygen.
Khartoum
Khartoum is offline
#31
Dec16-03, 12:08 AM
P: 4
yes, there are better methods for preventing forest fires then elimination oxygen in the atmosphere
wasteofo2
wasteofo2 is offline
#32
Dec16-03, 12:14 AM
wasteofo2's Avatar
P: 1,522
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I never said anything about forest fires damnit!
Pawel
Pawel is offline
#33
Jan4-04, 05:10 AM
P: 6
One thing that has not been mentioned with the altitude argument, is that if you think about breathing engines of aircraft that require oxygen to burn fly at very high altitude. so my understanding is that oxygen does not need to be plentiful at all for a decent combustion, i do also take the assumption that aircraft move very fast so they'll cover more particle space.

People who live in higher altitude are healthier as the body goes through more stress so they generate into much hardier systems. Also taking in effect the geography is more rugged and requires effort, so they don't get time to catch the bus and chill out smoking a cigarette while the wind blows it out every 20seconds.

can someone translate 25,000ft in metres quickly.. i couldn't bother searching it on the net.. however if you talk in metres from 4000m->6000m it's no problem. Even everest being almost 9000m you can still sustain yourself without problems. They carry oxygen tanks as it is easier for someone who hasn't adapted/climatized in that region already putting in a big effort climbing such a mountain.
chroot
chroot is offline
#34
Jan4-04, 11:59 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
Sorry, Pawel, but I have to take offense to just about everything you've said here.
Originally posted by Pawel
One thing that has not been mentioned with the altitude argument, is that if you think about breathing engines of aircraft that require oxygen to burn fly at very high altitude. so my understanding is that oxygen does not need to be plentiful at all for a decent combustion, i do also take the assumption that aircraft move very fast so they'll cover more particle space.
Aircraft that fly at high altitudes uses turbines to compress the intake air. See "turboprop" and "turbojet" engines.
People who live in higher altitude are healthier as the body goes through more stress so they generate into much hardier systems. Also taking in effect the geography is more rugged and requires effort, so they don't get time to catch the bus and chill out smoking a cigarette while the wind blows it out every 20seconds.
People who live at altitude are healthier? Do you have any research to support this claim, or is it just speculation?
can someone translate 25,000ft in metres quickly.. i couldn't bother searching it on the net..
Go to www.google.com and type in "25000 feet in meters."
however if you talk in metres from 4000m->6000m it's no problem. Even everest being almost 9000m you can still sustain yourself without problems.
9000 m is 27,000 feet. Almost everyone on earth will die at those kinds of pressure altitudes. Most people need oxygen to survive above 15,000 feet or so.

- Warren
Adam
Adam is offline
#35
Jan4-04, 12:15 PM
P: 454
Remember those old tin can space ships, the Apollo missions and all? They had VERY oxygen-rich air mixtures, but in very low pressure. But their oxygen intake was about normal, because at lower pressure the oxygen moledules are further apart. So at richer oxygen mixes and lower pressure, you get the same saturation of oxygen as at lesser mixes at higher pressure. The result being that the oxygen was hitting their lung tissue at roughly the same concentration as they were accustomed to.

I'll try to be more clear. The important thing is the saturation of oxygen. In lower pressure, you need more of it per volume or air. In higher pressure, you need less of it per volume of air.
Pawel
Pawel is offline
#36
Jan5-04, 02:44 AM
P: 6
Originally posted by chroot
Sorry, Pawel, but I have to take offense to just about everything you've said here.

Aircraft that fly at high altitudes uses turbines to compress the intake air. See "turboprop" and "turbojet" engines.
Don't be too offended by me taking away some oxygen from some of your idle views. I'm talking about standard jet engines, yes they do compress air by the rotary mechanics, however at the burn rate the oxygen levels are minimal in that altitude. So nonetheless it's impressive to note that air breathing engine that need oxygen do so well at such altitudes.

People who live at altitude are healthier? Do you have any research to support this claim, or is it just speculation?.
common understanding, p.e. knowledge & witness to seeing people in higher altitudes show they are more robust. Tibetans have a good record of lifespan & health in comparison. Like I mentioned before they need to do more work due to geography, air etc. continually excersizing & a cleaner exchange of air. Athletes from higher altitudes also portray much better performance while in lower altitudes as they thrive in richer oxygen as their bodies are adjusted to lower levels 'thin air'.

Go to www.google.com and type in "25000 feet in meters."


9000 m is 27,000 feet. Almost everyone on earth will die at those kinds of pressure altitudes. Most people need oxygen to survive above 15,000 feet or so.

- Warren
many people have climbed mount everest free of respiratory equipment which reaches close to the altitude u have indicated being almost impossible for a person.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Do rhinos put out fires? General Discussion 1
Cock fires crossbow at neighbor General Discussion 17
lack of air resistance VS lack of gravity General Physics 13
Bush Fires General Discussion 2
types of flammable liquids Biology 9