409
Philosophy (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

No, I get that. Not why I asked the question.

If you have a compound like potassium super oxide chatch light in a vacuum, does it still burn because it has it's own oxidizer?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    By itself in a vacuum, no. Under gas pressure, when contacted by water it will react from the point of contact until all reactants are complete. I wouldn't consider the reaction to be 'fire' though. At least not personally. Drop some hydrocarbons in the mix and you'll get a fire as the oxygen produced gets something to react with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Speaking from experience with Potassium Superoxide, once it goes up the flames are impressive in atmosphere.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I would absolutely expect that to be true. Generate enough oxygen, and damn near everything suddenly wants to be a gas that's paired with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yes, that is how rockets get to space, for example. Earth's atmo is ~21% Oxygen. So that is giving flames a boost. Careful not conflate "burn" with the presence of flames. In a vacuum, the flame could only exist briefly because there isnt the available Oxygen from the air. The reaction will (or might?) still happen, but without the oxygen to produce a flame.

    BTW, this has been studied in microgravity aboard the ISS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent