If Oxygen is flammable why dont we blow up while we were using a cigar lighter

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter uykusuz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oxygen
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the flammability of oxygen and its implications when using a cigar lighter. Participants explore the nature of oxygen as an oxidizer versus a fuel, the conditions under which combustion occurs, and historical examples of oxygen-related hazards.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that oxygen is flammable, while others clarify that it is an oxidizer and not a fuel, referencing the fire triangle.
  • One participant explains that combustion requires oxygen, fuel, and ignition energy, and discusses how varying oxygen concentrations affect ignition energy requirements.
  • Concerns are raised about high oxygen environments, such as in hyperbaric chambers, where less energy is needed to ignite combustion.
  • Historical context is provided with references to the Apollo 1 fire, highlighting the dangers of high-pressure oxygen atmospheres.
  • Some participants discuss the use of gas mixtures in saturation diving, debating the safety of using hydrogen with oxygen.
  • There is mention of a school experiment involving a glowing splint to test for oxygen, with varying degrees of familiarity among participants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether oxygen is flammable, with multiple competing views on its role as an oxidizer versus a fuel. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of oxygen concentration on combustion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of flammability and oxidation, and there are references to specific conditions under which oxygen becomes hazardous, such as in high-pressure environments.

  • #31
sophiecentaur said:
And WHO has all the launch vehicles these days? The Russians got up 'there' first. US got to the Moon first - it may well be someone else for the next significant step. There's no point in crowing about a success that was more than 30 years ago. We could discuss the relative merits of spending money on Space or other things.

I seem to have made a few additions and clarifications to my post since you read it. Sorry.

As I later implied, it was war, not a foot race.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Fair enough.
I think it's so sad that the poor old Soviets actually felt so totally threatened by the West and spend so much of their meagre GDP on things like space and weapons whilst their population had such poor quality of life. That Stalin has a lot to answer for. Also Churchill and a few others.
 
  • #33
I don't know what 'Soviets' are. People are people and leadership are those who almost invariably co-opt a piece of their action, in labor, blood, and whatever it takes to maintain their positions. I know this is far off the topic, but those who also demand you think and feel as they dictate are the most evil and labeled themselves communists. They are not communists, but frauds. By using the label of equality they promote themselves above equality for their own gain. The Russian people themselves have suffered under Czars, communists and now KGB turned mafia for a very, very, very long time. I wish them better.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 171 ·
6
Replies
171
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
90
Views
11K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K