for flame to burn O2 is required then how can sun burn in O2 less space?
109767
no oxygen is required\nthe equation for burning is:\nCxHy + CO2 --> O2 + H2O\n\nthe product is oxygen.. meaning you don't need oxygen in the first place to burn\nand on the sun, there are already zillions of carbon and hydrogen compounds which can burn with it, and you're forgetting CO2 is different than just O2.
42096
Fire is what is called a "redox reaction."  This is where atoms exchange electrons, truning high energy bonds into low energy bonds (or orbitals).  Every redox reaction needs an oxidizer (which takes electrons) and a reducer (which gives up electrons).  In a normal fire, oxygen acts as the electron-accepter.  Carbohydrates (wood, sugar, oil, coal, etc) usually acts as the reducer (ie the electron donor).\n\nO2 takes away electrons and becomes CO2, meaning that the oxygen gets consumed in the burning process.  So really, both the oxygen and the fuel are burning, because they both release energy and end up changed by the process.
297663
I did an AICHE project on this a year ago.  We set up a model using a tower and extracted CO2 from the atmosphere using NaOH.  CO2 + NaOH yields sodium bicarbonate.  It's very expensive to do, however, because the regeneration process of NaOH required a lot of energy.  Also, we ran into problems with air circulation.  Obviously the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small in comparison to nitrogen and oxygen, so in order to sequester enough CO2 to make a difference in the atmosphere, you have to be moving air at phenomenal velocities, which requires a lot of energy.  Burning fuel to produce this energy is kind of an oxymoron because you'd be adding to the problem of CO2; therefore, we used solar energy in our model.  We then said we'd store the CO2 in empty oil storages.
880114
flare up bigger than normal..\noxygen is not flammable..but the presence of it is needed for combustion\n\nCH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O\n\nwith burning in atmosphere, the flame is smaller because of incomplete burning,*there is only about 21% of oxygen in atmosphere..
242848
no.  combustion is an exothermic reaction that relies on the oxidation of a fuel.  oxygen gas is an excellent oxidizer (so good in fact, that oxidation was named after it!) but without any fuel to oxidize, nothing will happen.
952674
This is Cu + O2 in that you are burning in the presence of oxygen.  CH4 is natural gas that fuels your bunsen burner, and I bet you are assuming that all of the CH4 is consumed by the flame.
722191
the fire needs oxyegen to burn.  There is no oxygen in the tube as the pressure of the gas forces the contents to flow out towards the flame.
363702
changes oxygen into carbon dioxide, the carbon come from the burning fuel
877176
No, you can't burn because there is no air. Burning is an oxidation reaction.\n\nHowever, liquid water in a vacuum will immediately begin to boil, which will cool it off. If there is enough water it will soon be boiling and freezing at the same time. I have seen this myself, at the Exploratorium -- a science museum in San Francisco.
866857
There is no fire on the sun.  Our star is converting hydrogen into helium (which is nuclear fusion and thus creates heat) because it is so massive that the atoms its made from are being compressed by its own gravity.\n\nEventually, it will run out of fuel and stop "burning" all together, becoming a white dwarf, then a black one.\n\nLarger stars will explode and disperse their materials (the things you and I are made of) across the universe.  The largest will become black holes and try to fix the mess created by the others.
656604
You could focus sunlight from a bundle of light fibers using a lens and really burn things up.\n\nFocused sunlight can burn holes through steel plates.\n\nAny amount of sunlight falling on something will heat it.\n\nYou only need a simple thermometer to check it out.
651599
It's really not a matter of distance from the sun, it is a matter of space being a vacuum.  The other issue is that "air" is not normally present or contained in a spacecraft.  Most spacecraft storing gasses contain hydrazine for propulsion.  If you are talking about a manned spacecraft such as the ISS then you would be talking about liquid oxygen.  If the oxygen tank ruptured pressure would go to zero, the liquid would instantly boil and the resultant gas would dissipate.
1072113
It has been stated that the sun has a great deal of hydrogen within it due to the necessity of it being converted into helium, and the energy difference generating its heat potential.  There is a problem with this concept.  Although there is energy release in the conversion of hydrogen to helium, the interior of our sun is not what has been taught in your school.\n\nWere you to determine the acceleration value of a mass 400 miles from the very center of our sun, you would find that were a mass to be released in this location, it would accelerate to a speed greater than that of light in one second.  This means there is not a continual atomic furnace generating heat by the process of hydrogen to helium as taught.  Either there is a hollow area within our sun where mass cannot exist, or there is a new form of mass unknown to mankind.  Offhand I would reject the last.\n\nThe reason helium and/or oxygen could not burn within our sun is that the pressure surrounding the gases is too great.  Notice when you burn a piece of paper how the smoke spreads outward along with the heat energy.  Within the sun the heat energy is already beyond that of what we would experience on our planet.  There is nothing to change.
941083
The sun is largely hydrogen & helium, with a bit of iron & other elements.  The fraction of the sun that's oxygen, however, is minuscule, so you just wouldn't get any appreciable chemical burning.  In order for your question to make any sense or to be possible at all, you'd need to state the chemical composition of the sun and say what percent is oxygen in your hypothetical question.
606970
Ok, what gas is required for combustion??  OXYGEN!\nHydrogen and oxygen combine and release large amounts of energy/heat while form water in small amounts (in the form of vapor).  \n\nAs for other gases, carbon is the element "burning", but there must be oxygen present in the moluecule or in the environment to burn.\n\nThis is different for hydrogen in stars, which are undergoing fusion.
70587
The Sun is not 'on fire'.  It is a giant ball of plasmsa that is undergoing a constant fusion reaction at the core.  In the Sun, there is so much preasure (because of its mass) that hydrogren atoms are fused together to make helium.  Occassionally the preasure is so intence that fusion occurs between heavier elements as well, but right now the Sun is in a point of its life-cycle where the reaction rate is stable.  However, the Sun will eventually 'run out' of easily fusable materials.  As a result, it will attempt to fuse heavier and heavier elements, which is less efficent, and the Sun will eventually stop 'burning'.  Though this will take billions, not hundres, of years.
248810
It's a matter of thermodynamics.  The end product of burning hydrogen with oxygen in an engine, or recombining it in a fuel cell, is water.  So, if you're going from water to hydrogen and oxygen, and then back to water when you burn it, the heat given off by the chemical reaction you're using to power the engine is the same as the amount of energy it took to split the hydrogen from the water in the first place.  Add to this the limitations of efficiency on engines, or any other device, and it ends up being impossible to have an engine that runs on water.  If you have some other power source, you can use this to split the hydrogen, and then burn it in your engine, but then the energy really isn't coming from the water being used as a fuel, you're just using the hydrogen to carry the energy from your power source to your engine.  \n\nNow, if you had a pure fluorine atmosphere, you could burn water in an engine, but I'm not sure what you could make an engine out of such that it wouldn't be destroyed by the fluorine!