Is Fire a Plasma? | Physics Debate

[MaWM]

I would also argue that you can see a flame because it is a plasma; plasma are prodigious produces of electromagnetic radiation, and the reason why 99.999% of visible universe is plasma.

Nah.. while the plasma element of a flame may produce some light, the vast majority comes froms excited neutral atoms.

 

[iantresman]

Nah.. while the plasma element of a flame may produce some light, the vast majority comes froms excited neutral atoms.

Yes, I'm wrong. That would make sense because as Chen said, "only one molecule in more than 10^11 is ionized", so the small proportion of plasma would contribute next to nothing.

 

[chefcrsh]

OK I'll add my own argument from authority here, just to make things more tidy.

I just read in Tyson's "Death By Black Hole" where he claims normal fire is a plasma.

 

[marinebiopink]

hello i am doing an indapendant research project for class on the question "is fire a gas, liquid or plasma?" but the problem is i seem to be finding sevreal diffrent answers telling me that its nither so now i just want to know what is fire? as in what state of matter? so far i know for a fact its not solid seeming how my brother would wave his fingers thru the flame its not THAT hot so what is it?

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF.

Post #2 contains a good link with an explanation. Is there a more specific question you have about it?

 

[marinebiopink]

thank you.=] yes i checked the link and i found part of my answer but my main point of this reasearch report is to findout what is the state or part or form of matter is fire. so far i am intrigued by this topic and i would like to learn more unfortuantly in science we are covering the humanly body funcions and the question poped in my head. i am yet to read the rest of this site and all its links but i wonder if the question itself has been solved or not. it seems people all over the world are still debating.

ps : sorry for the gramatial mistakes its kinda late.

 

[russ_watters]

Fire is not a state of matter. As the link says, fire is just glowing soot particles.

 

[marinebiopink]

Ok. thank you. Let me see if i get this right. Extream heat causes particles to form soot and burn into ashes. And if so then what is plasma. A science teacher just told me fire is plasma but as we can both see its not hot enough , as priviosly said before. how do i explain it to her. Does anyone have another link i can use to explain and \or learn.

 

[Drakkith]

Ok. thank you. Let me see if i get this right. Extream heat causes particles to form soot and burn into ashes. And if so then what is plasma. A science teacher just told me fire is plasma but as we can both see its not hot enough , as priviosly said before. how do i explain it to her. Does anyone have another link i can use to explain and \or learn.

A materiel which has been ionized enough that it mostly consists of ions and free electrons and will readily react to electric and magnetic fields. Look up plasma on wikipedia or on google.

 

[iantresman]

Have a look at some of the links at the beginning of this thread. In summary, fire is sometimes a plasma, and sometimes not. It all depends on your definitions, and how you define a plasma.

 

[thewhistler]

Fire is not a state of matter. As the link says, fire is just glowing soot particles.

I found this thread looking to verify what I had said to a classmate earlier today, namely that fire is indeed a plasma.

The visible light emitted by a fire is impurities being burnt within the intense heat caused by fire. That said, pure natural gas burns without emitting any visible light.

Lightning is not plasma, but the passing of electrical current through plasma-ized air. The current travels through regular air which has been ionized due to the buildup of excess voltage between the cloud and the earth. The air itself becomes a plasma for a brief moment.

Plasma is gas ionized to a quantifiable extent. I do not know the specifics of how many ionized particles per centimeter squared it takes to qualify a gas as a plasma, but "heat" has nothing to do with it as I understand things.

So I say that fire is the ionizing of the air due to chemical reactions that produce what we know as heat. The heat is due to passage of electrons and even in a situation lacking visible light emissions, those electrons are being released as photons within "plasma-ized" air.

I am totally drunk right now and probably expressing myself inadequately, but I do look forward to any response this post might instigate.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

Fire is not a plasma. If it was, a blowtorch would be the same as a plasma torch. Saying it is like saying water is a gas because of tiny bubbles of water vapour that appear in it sometimes. Fire is smoke which is hot enough to glow. Think of it as a cloud of lots of tiny embers.

 

[iantresman]

It is not as clear cut as that. Fire may be a plasma. See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=203289#10"

 

[iantresman]

Lightning is not plasma, but the passing of electrical current through plasma-ized air. The current travels through regular air which has been ionized due to the buildup of excess voltage between the cloud and the earth. The air itself becomes a plasma for a brief moment.

I think that most people would describe a lightning bolt as a plasma because of the ionised air it produces.

Plasma is gas ionized to a quantifiable extent. I do not know the specifics of how many ionized particles per centimeter squared it takes to qualify a gas as a plasma, but "heat" has nothing to do with it as I understand things.

There are several parameters that may define a plasma. Interestingly, a gas may be ionized to only a fraction of a percent, and fulful the requirements that define it as a plasma:

"Among the many types of plasma, those commonly employed for plasma processing are low temperature, low density, non-equilibrium, collision dominated-environments. By low temperature, we mean "cold" plasmas with a temperature normally ranging from 300K and 600K, by low density we mean plasmas with neutral gas number densities of approximately 10¹³ to 10¹⁶ molecules cm^-3 (pressure between ~ 0.1 to 10³ Pa) which are weakly ionized between 10^-6 to 10^-1" -- Loucas G. Christophorou, James Kenneth Olthoff, Fundamental Electron Interactions With Plasma Processing Gases, (2004) in Section 3.1 Low-temperature, Low-Density, Non-Equilibrium Plasmas, 76 pages, ISBN 0306480379 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...f+ionization&sig=3OxgmiEoJQEHBpo2jd4PLp68PIU")

 

[juanrga]

Hey everybody.

I heard a physics professor at Berkeley say that normal fire (from a lighter) is plasma. My science teacher at high school says that it isn't. So my question is, is normal fire in state of plasma or not?

Thanks.

Fire is a process originating in a combustion (a kind of chemical process). I think that you are asking about if flames are plasmas. Some flames are plasmas and others are not

http://books.google.com/books?id=LBpPMbADNCgC&pg=PA1

 

[thewhistler]

Fire is smoke which is hot enough to glow. Think of it as a cloud of lots of tiny embers.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that is correct. The visible part of a flame is impurities in the air igniting, but flame itself does not necessarily emit any visible light. Hmmm, this is a little complicated...

 

[jetwaterluffy]

I'm sorry but I don't believe that is correct. The visible part of a flame is impurities in the air igniting, but flame itself does not necessarily emit any visible light. Hmmm, this is a little complicated...

Just tell me anyway, I'll try to keep up.
@iantresman, your posts and other people's seem to suggest fire is mainly made of other stuff, with small amounts of plasma inside it. I would say that is like water, as in it might have tiny bubbles of water vapour in it, but is is not a gas in itself. In the same way, fire is not a plasma in itself.

 

[Phrak]

What defines a plasma?

 

[BadBrain]

A flame is NOT a plasma.

A plasma is a state of matter in which the electron cloud of an atom is energized to the point that it can no longer be held in orbit around the nucleus, so they all fly away as x-rays and other rays, leaving the nucleus as the sole constituent of the atom.

That's the whole point behind my standard joke that I'm an expert in quantum electron physics concerning plasmas and Bose-Einstein condensates: with plasmas, there are no electrons to worry about, and with Bose-Einstein condensates, all electrons are in their lowest possible energy states.

An ordinary fire is just energy emitted by an exothermic chemical reaction, not a change in physical state.

EDIT: CORRECTION:

OK, so, obviously, some of the carbon in a flaming piece of wood combines with oxygen to form gaseous CO2, which clearly constitutes a change in physical state for the carbon atoms involved. But those carbon atoms are NOT stripped of their electron clouds, which is what constitutes a plasma.

 

[Brotherbandit]

The definition of a plasma is a fluid of charged particles (ions). And thus any plasma can be affected by a electromagnetic field. The temperature of a plasma is irrelevant to its nature.
Please take a look at this video http://youtu.be/a7_8Gc_Llr8

 

[brianhurren]

plasmas contain free electrons so should be influenced by a magnet...so, you could get a candle and a magnet from say, a speaker, and see if the flame is affected by it...if no affect, not a plasma

 

[Abstractness]

Ok, here's the proof that fire is a plasma:

 

[OmCheeto]

Ok, here's the proof that fire is a plasma:

And here's proof that water turns air into plasma!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OuonluJPw8

One thing they didn't mention in your video is the amount of H₂O generated by the flame. I wonder how much that contributes to the conductivity surrounding the flame.

I'm not a plasma expert, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your video is not proof that fire is a plasma. It only proves that science is interesting.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Ok, here's the proof that fire is a plasma:

From the video description:

Is a flame really a plasma? Well it depends on your definition of plasma, but there are certainly ions in a flame, formed as molecules collide with each other at high speed, sometimes knocking electrons off of their atoms.

And from the video itself:

Some may argue that flame is not truly a plasma because it's not hot enough and it doesn't have high enough density of ions. One thing is for sure: it does contain ions.

 

[meBigGuy]

My impression is that a flame (say from burning gas or wood) is hot gasses emitting light caused by changing energy states. Different molecules have different characteristic colors consistent with their energy transitions as they cool. (there were many statements that the flame was burning soot, etc, which is circular).

As a non-expert I cast my vote with the statement that the common characteristics we attribute to a flame would not be different if we somehow removed all the ions. Not to say there are no ions, and obviously what ions are there can be exploited to demonstrate limited plasma like behavior.

 

[lunaloca]

I would also kindly like to add that "plasma" does not always refer to near to equillibrium plasma, but could also be non-equillibrium, more commonly weakly ionised plasmas at low pressures or a little more above atmospheric.
In that case, non-thermal plasmas are low temperatures (300-1000 K) and certainly can be related to flames.

In regard to "hot" near to equillibrium plasmas, I personally think fire is still not a plasma. I agree with Astonuc above that any kind of plasma is sustained from an electromagnetic field, while fire is sustained by hydrodynamic forces. I could imagine a a flame is a energetic plume containing ions caused from thermal dissociation and chemical reactions (any flame is a form of combustion), however the electron density or the density of the charged particles is so small that cannot sustain an electromagnetic field.
The glow is light emission by photons release during the different energetic transitions during the chemical reactions. It does not mean that it is plasma just because it glows.
The yellow emission is characteristic of incomplete combustion and perhaps related to the H Balmer series emissions. I hope that was helpful, Would be interested to read your comments. Thanks

 

[lunaloca]

And here's proof that water turns air into plasma!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OuonluJPw8

One thing they didn't mention in your video is the amount of H₂O generated by the flame. I wonder how much that contributes to the conductivity surrounding the flame.

I'm not a plasma expert, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your video is not proof that fire is a plasma. It only proves that science is interesting.

I agree. Flame is certaintly conductive, but it does not mean it is plasma. The so-called buttrflies could be formed by the surrounding "ionic wind" which is mainly formed between the two plate electrodes. The fact that they create steamer channels with the flame means again that it is conductive, as the same would happen id you would add an extra piece of metal in the middle.

 

[lunaloca]

I agree. Flame is certaintly conductive, but it does not mean it is plasma. The so-called buttrflies could be formed by the surrounding "ionic wind" which is mainly formed between the two plate electrodes. The fact that they create steamer channels with the flame means again that it is conductive, as the same would happen id you would add an extra piece of metal in the middle.

But I must admit, the video is very interesting and cool!

 

[OmCheeto]

But I must admit, the video is very interesting and cool!

Both video's are interesting and cool.

I would very much like to recreate that experiment, so I pulled the coil out of one of my spare cars, hoping that I can construct a similar system. (I'm too lazy to build a Van Der Graaf Generator.)

I want to place the two plates over a pot of boiling water and see if my steam theory is correct.

If the steam deflects, then we'll have proved that steam is also a plasma!

I'll have to video that, and send it to the plasma/flame science guy.

 

[lunaloca]

Both video's are interesting and cool.

I would very much like to recreate that experiment, so I pulled the coil out of one of my spare cars, hoping that I can construct a similar system. (I'm too lazy to build a Van Der Graaf Generator.)

I want to place the two plates over a pot of boiling water and see if my steam theory is correct.

If the steam deflects, then we'll have proved that steam is also a plasma!

I'll have to video that, and send it to the plasma/flame science guy.

Yes, the water droplet electrostatic generator is very cool!

Your experiments will be interesting as well to see how stream reacts under certain electrical field.
I believe you are going to create humidified air plasma. As air breaks down under electrical field, steam will break down as well. I am interested to see if stream will increase the breakdown energy needed to ignite the plasma. From my knowledge, there are researchers looking at the effect of humidity on different gases breakdown voltage. In some cases humidity conductivity can enhance the electrical field and decrease the breakdown voltage. There are other cases that above a critical point humidity can increase the breakdown energy needed. So you might want to bare in mind that "steam" (highly humidified air) could be difficult to breakdown, or maybe in a sorter gap only. However, I would be very interested to see how the ionic wind could affect "steam" diffusion. So I will wait for your video! :-)