I don't understand this really...would the burn severity be the same since they are at the same temperature? Or is it one or the other because of latent heat of vaporization or specific heat?
209794
the steam will blister the skin instatly, water will scould and cause blistering after.. both pretty bad though.\n\nTry boiled wax instead. ;~0
116107
Well I could make it as complex and confusing as some but I will keep it simple.  The color of a flame is determined by the material that is burning. The color also denotes temperature of a flame. (yes there are different degrees of hot). Sodium will give a yellow flame. Have a gas stove? Notice the flame has two colors of blue, the inner flame is a different shade than the outer shade, look at a match, the flame closest to the center of flame is yellowish while the outer is reddish. The center is hotter in both flames.\nAdding a chemical to the fire will change color, copper will burn blue, both from chemical and its flame hotter than the average yellow fire.  The quantity of flame or size is why we cant tell the difference in heat from all these small flames and we say they are hot.
1376
The flame will heat the air molecules above it.These gas particles being free to move in any direction will move in the direction which has least opposition to it's motion .This is because the air above the gas has a lower density and hence is sparcer than the air below it .also the flame particles have a higher energy (due to their temperature)they tend to stay as far away from each other as possible .This creates a lower density of air around the flame .This low density sir will be pushed up by the surrounding air of higher density due to buoyant forces.Due to both these regions the flame has to move up
640410
Your confusion lies in the sentence "How can such an intense heat not spread so far that it combusts the entire room as well?"  You are presuming an intense heat for some reason.  In my mind, the fact that nothing else burns means the heat was NOT intense. \n\nThe best hypothesis for this phenomenon is that the fat in the body melts and flows into a substance that works like a wick, such as clothing or upholstery.  The fire burns rather slowly and tamely so nearby temperatures don't increase enough to flash combust anything. This is just like the fire in a candle wick not burning the parts of the wick that are just below the flame, or a candle burning down to nothing without significantly heating up whatever it was sitting on. \n\nThe fat hypothesis explains why the head and limbs and associated clothes are unburned. \n\nYou could do a simple experiment.  Take a nice slab (not slices) of bacon and a long needle and thread a nice thick piece of cotton yarn through a fatty section. Warm the bacon to body temperature (maybe in a microwave on low or a warm oil bath). Put the bacon on a pan or metal outside. Maybe stick some rags or newspaper around the bacon, but not in contact to simulate "the rest of the room" Light the yarn that is sticking out. Shield the whole set up from wind so you don't have flaming pieces of wick flaking off and setting dry grass in your neighbor's yard on fire.\n\nI bet all the fat burns away over a period of many hours, leaving behind fairly uncooked meat, and unignited rags.\n\nYou might try repeating the experiment with a strip of cloth just sitting on top of the bacon. Again, the bacon has to be warm enough for some of the fat to flow. Maybe a large enough cloth will cook the whole slab, but I bet it still takes hours and the area around it doesn't get super hot.
381511
100degC steam will burn worse. This is because steam at 100degC has 512cal/g more heat in it than water at 100degC. The 512cal/g is the latent heat of vaporization of water.\n\nYou can see latent heat of vaporization "at work" when you boil water on a stove. What you do NOT see is that the water rises in temperature to 100degC, then vanishes in a POOF of steam. What you do see is that the water sits there at 100degC, boiling rapidly or gently, while the stove puts the 512 cal into each gram to boil it.
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.
540230
Ether has a higher saturated vapor pressure than water. Thus the former boils at a lower temperature than the latter.
2450
Because, it was smoking before but the fire *combustion* was using all the smoke to sustain the fire.   When the fire was put out, the material was still producing flamable gasses but they were just going into the atmosphere insted of burning. \n\nyeah and eat that bad sentance structure grammar crazy person above me!
261667
Pure bunk. .Much like aliens ,never observed in real time . Post event finds a severly burnt corpse but fire started by smoking etc. ,then ignition of body's fat reserves causes an intense , but local fire until fat gone ,then fire dies out .The Nazis burnt their victims this way when they  built a small fire ,added corpses ,and then when fat melted it sustained the flames
401379
both of these two above ^ are wrong \n\nthere would be no reaction.\nall you're doing when you heat something is giving it energy which  causes its atoms (if it's an element) to move faster, which will change it to a higher state of matter. The gas state is the highest state of matter and H2 is the gas state of hydrogen. Since it's alreay in the highest state of matter, nothing would happen \n\n\nit would not form 2H because hydrogen is diatomic \nHydrogen only exists as a hydrogen ion (H^1+) in solution.\nand it only exists as a single atom in a compund.\nHowever, If you burned hydrogen in the right proportions of oxygen then it would be explosive, but that is not the case. \nAnd it would not be exothermic because if it was, heat would be on the product side of the equation.
514208
a) Thisis incorrect. As temperature increases, molecules have more energy to escape into the gas pahse.\n\nb) This is true (i think). An equilibrium of any kind results when the forward rate is equal to the reverse rate.\n\nc) This is correct. Look up Clayperon equation (the general relation from which most other vapor pressure equations come from) to see that vapor pressure is dependent on temperature.\n\nd)This is true. Different interactions between different molecules will cause different substances to have different boiling points.
241242
This sounds like homework, so I'll give you the ideas but not the data.\n\nThe enthalpy of the mixture at standard conditions is the sum of standard heats of formation of the components of the mix. It will be given in kJ/mol (Ar is 0 kJ/mol being an element, the other two you can look up in tables or on internet). \n\nThen you need to adjust for the sensible energy difference compared to standard conditions : you will also need to look up the specific heat of each component (usually expressed in kJ / mol ºK) and multiply the specific heat of each component by the amount and by the difference in temperature. Make sure you have everything in the same units.\n\nRemember if you are working in moles its easier because to a first approximation, one mole of any gas occupies the same volume (if you undrestand how to allow for deviations from the ideal gas laws, you wouldn't be asking this question) and I assume that the percentages are volume percent, not by weight\n\nEnjoy
247138
You are probably getting your figures from the machine's calculation which, as people said above, factors in the weight of the person doing the work.  In addition, her heartbeat, relative to her age and weight and resting heart rate, may play a role in the way that the machine calculates burn rates.
123552
Nichrome (Nickel Chrome) wire is one of the more common alloys used as a heating element wire.\n\nIn a way it is correct that the higher the resistance, the more heat that will be generated.  Looking at Ohm's law, V = I * R and P = I * V.   P being power, which in a resistor is exhibited as heat.  P = I^2  * R  or P = V^2 / R\n\nWhat this is saying is that while although more resistance will produce more heat, you will also need to increase the voltage (which will increase the current) to get that heat.  So, more resistance is not the simple answer, you need to match the resistance with your electrical supply capabilities to optimize the heat output.\n\nIt would probably would be better to figure that the more current flowing through the resistor, the more resulting heat you will get.\n\nAs far as wire goes, a smaller diameter wire will have a higher resistance, and will get hotter using less current.  A larger wire will have a lower resistance and require more current to get as hot as the smaller wire.  But, again referring back to Ohm's law, the overall heat exhibited will be the result of figuring the power output for the wire (voltage multiplied by current).  The larger wire will be capable of a higher power output before it surcumbs to the heat and melts because it can carry a higher current.\n\nFor the sake of comparison, let's say that we have a short piece of thin wire and a longer piece of thick wire.  Because of the difference in lengths, they will have the same resistance.  If they are both subjected to the same electrical power supply (same volts, same amps), they will both produce the SAME amount of heat.  The smaller wire will have a higher heat DENSITY because it needs to produce the same thermal energy over a smaller area.  It will appear hotter because of this.  But, if both were used to heat water, they would in theory do exactly the same thing.
457976
3000-3600K depending on the ratio of gases. excess of either one will reduce flame temperature.\n\noxyhydrogen flames are used in welding torches industrially.
97931
This depends on what you wanted in the colorimeter in the first place, are you looking at temperature change rates going up, or down?  Either way, if you mix the two, it will skew the results of your experiment.  Hot water, even at 100 C still may have a lot of ability to absorb latent heat of vaporization before it becomes steam.  Your temperature curve will slow significantly or even flatline for a while if you are increasing temperature.  If you are decreasing temperature, hot water has already lost most of the latent heat of vaporization, it has already become liquid, this will impact your results.
676767
Higher temp = faster diffusion. Higher temps give the atoms more heat, which is basically a faster rate of the atoms vibrating. If they move around faster, they'll obviously diffuse farther in the same amount of time. Next time, do your own homework