before you answer.....inflammable does NOT mean fireproof!
200746
There is no difference in meaning and little or no difference in use. \nChemicals, gases or cloth materials that are flammable / inflammable catch fire and burn easily. Perhaps, in usage, cloth materials are usually described as inflammable. So we might say: 'The material from which these car seats are made is highly inflammable. And conversely, certain gases or chemicals may be thought of as flammable. So we might say: 'Aircraft fuel is highly flammable'. But there are no hard and fast patterns.\n\nAll this is somewhat strange, because usually when we add a prefix such as in- or un- or dis- to the beginning of adjectives, adverbs and verbs, we give them the opposite meaning.
412665
Fire is an exothermic reaction because it releases energy.\nIf the temperature increases, it's because the heat is getting out of the molecule and therefore the reaction releases energy: which means it is exothermic.
317313
Firefighters, just a job although it's obviously dangerous, like other dangerous ones. As long as they feel fine and find the meaning in what they're doing so it doesn't matter.
477426
Fire is simply a term that we use to describe a chemical reaction that results in the release of incandescent gas (usually due to the effects of the high temperature of the reaction on the reaction product (gas)).\n\nOrdinary wood fires are not hot enough to create plasma, the fourth state of matter. The sun is an incandescent ball of plasma, so it is technically not "fire" although it may appear to be so. A burning match, while hot, is not nearly hot enough to convert gas into plasma.
81820
The correct term for someone who puts out fire is a "firefighter". Hence, fight fire. :)
103063
No, but wouldn't that be interesting. Plus your butt would probably catch on fire lol!
554785
Still trying to prove that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job by the CIA and federal government, eh?\n\nThe fuel fire did not vaporize 100 tons of steel and titanium.  But by heating the metals, they softened them so much that the structural beams sagged and collapsed.  Once the upper floors of the building started to move, there was so much momentum going that it cause the lower floors to fail, too, and just kept going until it hit the ground.\n\nOn the other hand, all I have to do is provide enough heat to the metal to cause it to vaporize -- the temperature of the flame itself is not critical here -- just the total amount of heat produced.
277241
It's probably because inflammable comes from the word inflame, which is a verb with a few meanings - to become more fiery is one, it also means to aggravate and to swell up and become sore. I'm sure there's more.\nOnce this word 'inflammable' got into common use all over the English-speaking world (at that time, not much more than England), people would quickly find out that a word with several meanings can be a problem - for example, a man is stopped at his front door by his wife:\n"Don't go in! it's pretty inflammable in there." - now, does this mean your teenage daughter's in there being dumped by her boyfriend, or is the house about to burn down? In practice, you occasionally have to use another sentence to explain the one you just said when words like this exist.\n\nNow, I'm pretty sure that one of the most important meanings anyone would want to get across clearly first time, every time is 'This could BURN you.' So some right-thinking people started dropping the 'in' off the 'flammable' to make a clear word with one meaning - and it spread.\nOf course, most of this is conjecture based on the Oxford English Dictionary definitions. If it makes sense, cool ;)
31397
The tree can suffer burns without catching on fire.  This has happened to many people.  For more on lightning read this:\nhttp://www.insuremyhouse.com/lightning.html
654350
I would have to know more. Fire is a scary thing. A few years ago I had to help my cousin get her horses out where she was in California. We had to paint phone numbers on the horses in case of separation. It came one block up to her house. The smoke was unreal. \n I would hate to see anything burn.\n And yes I have heard of one serious fire that we had. I would hope we didn't sacrifice one for the other. But I need to know more to say this was a bad thing.
292316
The explanations of fire in most standard reference works, not to put too fine a point on it, suck. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, takes the following ineffectual stab: "rapid burning of combustible material with the evolution of heat and usually accompanied by flame." No wonder people have lost faith in science. Time to let a professional show how it's done. We'll start by reviewing the defects of the EB definition.\n\n(1) Rapid burning. OK, fire burns rapidly. Slow combustion, also known as oxidation, includes such nonfiery processes as rusting and digestion. However, to say that fire involves burning is to embark on a circular definition: What is fire? When something burns. What is burning? When something is on fire. We need to address the matter in more basic terms.\n\n(2) Combustible materials. Redundant. If a material is capable of rapid burning, by definition it's combustible. Also, "materials" is needlessly vague. One specific material, oxygen, is always involved.\n\n(3) Evolution of heat. I don't know what this is supposed to mean either.\n\n(4) Usually accompanied by flame. "Usually accompanied by" my arse. Flame is the quintessential pyrolytic phenomenon, not a mere by-product.\n\nNow for a proper definition, devised by myself: "Fire is the rapid combination of oxygen with fuel in the presence of heat, typically characterized by flame, a body of incandescent gas that contains and sustains the reaction and emits light and heat." Let's go through this bit by bit:\n\n(1) Rapid combination of oxygen with fuel in the presence of heat. Oxygen, fuel, and heat are the essential ingredients of fire. \n\n(2) Typically characterized by flame. The pup qualifier "typically" allows me to sidestep the issue of apparently nonflaming fires, like you get with burning charcoal. I suspect charcoal fires do create flame--you just can't see it due to the lack of impurities or incompletely burned fuel in the plume. (You can't see a fuel fire at an Indy or CART race either, because the cars run on clean-burning methanol.) But that's a matter we can leave for another day.\n\n(3) Body of incandescent gas. Flame defined. Most encyclopedia and dictionary definitions blow past this entirely, allowing persons such as yourself to imagine that fire is "pure energy" or similar nonsense. We say "body" because the gas has a characteristic structure and composition. We say "incandescent" because (a) it sounds scientific, (b) it means "luminous with intense heat," precisely what we are attempting to convey, and (c) if the Teeming Millions are going to learn one vocabulary word today, by God "incandescent" should be it.\n\n(4) Contains and sustains the reaction. Flame isn't just the result of fire; it is the fire. What's more, without the flame's heat the fire would go out.\n\n(5) Emits light and heat. Duh. However, we mustn't overlook the obvious.  \n\n>>>why do things that are put in it come out totally destroyed?\n\nOf course most things that go into fire aren’t totally destroyed. Most metals, glass, ceramic and so forth all emerge unscathed from fire. Even wood and paper aren’t totally destroyed, they leave an ash and charcoal residue as well as fine particles that we can see as soot and smoke.\n\nFire will ‘destroy’ anything organic that can be completely oxidised at the temperature that it burns at, but that is simply because the oxidation process converts the organic material to carbon dioxide,  and water. IOW the material isn’t destroyed it is just converted to gas and that gas blows away.\n\n>>>>>what fuel does it need from say, paper,\n\nThe paper IS the fuel the fire needs. The fire converts the paper into gases and ash. Or more accurately fire is the process of converting paper into gases and ash.
302863
They are synonyms both meaning easily combustible or likely to become inflamed.\n\nMain Entry: flam·ma·ble \nPronunciation: 'fla-m&-b&l\nFunction: adjective\nEtymology: Latin flammare to flame, set on fire, from flamma\n: capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly\n\nMain Entry: in·flam·ma·ble \nPronunciation: in-'fla-m&-b&l\nFunction: adjective\nEtymology: French, from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare\n1 : FLAMMABLE\n2 : easily inflamed , excited, or angered : IRASCIBLE\n\nIf you want to mean that something *doesn't* easily burn, use the word 'non-flammable'.\n\nMain Entry: non·flam·ma·ble \nPronunciation: -'fla-m&-b&l\nFunction: adjective\n: not flammable; specifically : not easily ignited and not burning rapidly if ignited\n\nFlammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible." The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.\n\nThe fact that people mistake them for opposites is apparent by the number of answers stating this, but they are not as you can see.
660285
Now shes on fire.  Thats it! your wife? you are one funny dude, and like the other guy said, im sure you can do better than that.  It was funny though.  He threw bleach in my wifes eyes. Now shes on fire....HAHA funny stuff.  Seriously though, put the fire out, she is probably in pain.
435620
Hmm...\nThis is not a question. Please review the Community Guidelines to prevent further Y! Answers disasters.
184280
A few bucks you would pay for igniters is really a lot cheaper than a doctor bill for burns messing with fast burning chemicals.  I'd stay with the store bought.  Just my opinion.  Careful
501288
yes, lack of lubrication can result in painful burns!!!
49980
I break them into pieces, or I break them and melt them on the grill or in a fire pit.  I'm sure every one has their own solution.  I'm not a pyromaniac, but I tend to lean towards torching them.