Talk:Flame

Plasma

"Very hot flames are hot enough to have ionized gaseous components of sufficient density to be considered plasma."

The statement is misleading. So does any hot gas. However, flames are empathically NOT plasma. The majority of their components are non-ionized. This line clearly attempts to imply that it is. It is important to stress that it is not. Vree65 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

General

I just really think that there is no need for 2 photographs of candle flames. I'd also like to add that I am glad there are separate pages for fire and flame.

Commented out a section on other oxidisers this should really be in fire. I might move the flame article away a little from fire and discuss other instances of flames. This should help it become less of a sub-section of the fire article. I cleaned up the introduction it was a little misleading. Wolfmankurd 08:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is a train wreck, I'm going to spend a few minutes and try and clean it up. RobertDahlstrom 04:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok I cleaned it up. Got rid of the gallery, thumbnailed the big flame picture, did a bunch of grammatical edits of the flame color section, added a small see also section, and added a bit of wikification.

After doing these edits I think this section doesnt really have much information and I think it should be merged into Fire and have a redirect created appropriately. Theres never really a fire where there isn't a flame, or vise versa. Or at least i've never heard of any exception so if someone has any further information please let me know before I choose to merge it. Thanks RobertDahlstrom 04:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about fire that you can't see (and thus no flame).

I also know that often flames are very HARD to see...

anyway i think the merge is a good idea -- if you dont do it soon i will. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 09:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd disagree in saying theres parts of fire that you can't see, given the definition given on Fire's page: Fire is a form of combustion. Linguistically, the word fire refers to the combination of the brilliant glow and large amount of heat released during a rapid, self-sustaining burning of combustible fuel.

Brilliant i'd say implies not only visible, but clearly visible.

Anyways I think i'll carry out the merge pretty soon. RobertDahlstrom 07:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Temperature/Color?

The section on temperature and color is, to the best of my understanding, all wrong. The oranges and yellows associated with hydrocarbon flames from candles, wood, and movie explosions are the result of blackbody radiation from soot and steam, and so follow that relationship between color and temperature. However, the blue flame found in soot-free flames result from electrons jumping among energy states in either oxygen or carbon dioxide (I forget which). Also the listed flame temperatures don't correspond to the adiabadic flame temperature of hydrocarbons, which is very similar for almost all hydrocarbon fuels. —BenFrantzDale 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, and if I hadn't just copy edited but turned on my brain for just a second I'd have noticed it myself. Blue flame would translate to a temperature >10000K. Not very likely. I propose we chuck whole article, merge with fire, and do a redirect. I'll throw out the rubbish about the temperature now. --Dschwen 21:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The illumination generated by a flame is not "blackbody" radiation. Blackbody radiation assumes a state of thermal equilibrium which will not exist in the immediate context of highly exothermic reactions.Hetware 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, a lot of it IS correct. The only part that is wrong about the temperature is the last bit where the extrapolation down to blue is made; the upper part of the article correctly states that the blue is not blackbody radiation but emission from molecular species (probably C2 and CH in fact). The red-orange-yellow colour part of the statement in dispute is correct. Yogibear63 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Anyway I have now taken a shot at correcting it Yogibear63 20:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Then of course, you're all being biased to normal gravity conditions. Check out http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12may_1.htm. "On Earth, gravity-driven buoyant convection causes a candle flame to be teardrop-shaped and carries soot to the flame's tip, making it yellow. In microgravity, where convective flows are absent, the flame is spherical, soot-free, and blue." Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, what Yogibear63 is saying is in exact agreement with that NASA reference. The yellow candle flame in gravity is produced by blackbody radiation from the soot whereas the blue flame in microgravity is Emission spectrum from the gasses. --72.244.218.235 05:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be at least two sources of intense blue light arising from the combustion of hydrocarbons. Both originate, as stated above, from electronic transitions and appear differently in the flame. In atmospheric-pressure flames one takes the form of a thin cone that is generally rather localised (in the case of a candle) just above the wick. The second is a deeper blue emission that is much more extensive but not as intense and often masked by the near-black-body emission of small soot particles. The light-blue emission arises from the spontaneously-emitted photons when CH radicals, in their electronically-excited "A" state, return to their ground electronic state. CH(A) -> CH(X) + light. The corresponding wavelength of the photon emitted is 431 nm. The electronically-excited CH radicals are produced by two chemical reactions, both involving the C2H radical; (1) C2H + O2 = CH(A) + CO2 and (2) C2H + O = CH(A) + CO. Their relative importance depends on the ratio of atomic oxygen to molecular oxygen and also on the local temperature. Note that the concentration of CH(A) produced by this mechanism is greatly above its concentration that could be produced by collisional excitation alone and it is therefore not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. As such, the emission intensity cannot yield information on the flame temperature by assuming a black-body in this spectral region. The more extensive deeper-blue light is probably caused by an electronic transition of CO or CO2, but the (chemical) source of these electronically-excited molecules is still a subject of investigation.

Can someone please improve the section on Flame Colour, to help out non-chemistry/physics-maniacs? I came looking for explanation of the grass green, turquoise, teal, indigo, sky blue and violet flames appearing in the bonfire I tended today. These colours aren't explained in the text. The passing mention of "pyrotechnic colourants" does not explain why a flame might be a different colour. There is no helpful mention of unusually coloured flame, and no clear indication of a link to follow for further info. I just want some idea what was in that fire today (and I know there weren't any fireworks). Thx.Smittee (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

See Colored fire. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ben, that Colored fire link does help some. I have 2 observations - i. the Colored Fire page specifically refers to pyrotechnic techiques, not natural phenomena. It takes a smidge of scientific knowledge to interpret the pyrotechnic info for the natural field. - ii. The Flame page has been improved with inclusion of a para about "...introduction of excitable species..." to achieve specific colors (thanks), but that's not easily understood, and it seems tacked-on to a very scientific explanation of laboratory flame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smittee (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Plasma?

I think flames are plasma. But what I think doesn't matter: what matters is what's in the reference given. In the reference given is says:

"What about fire? The flame of a burning candle is ionized, as we now know, and thus a plasma".

Unfortunately the article itself claimed that "if a flame is hot enough it can become plasma" (or something similar). This looks like most flames aren't plasma, and only the hot ones are. This isn't backed by the reference given.

I changed the article to correct that. If anyone thinks it's wrong, we should use a different reference. 85.250.65.114 (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I just ask something here..? Is flame always plasma? I thought only certain types of flame from high temperature combustion is plasma such as arc welders and lightening - these are ionised gas flames, I'm not sure ordinary fire is.Dholt 16:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)davidh

I think flame is by definition not plasma. While the nomenclature "plasma flame" is probably used around things like a plasma cutter (since the plasma does look very much like a flame). But strictly speaking, I think a "flame" is a the site of a chemical reaction and I think (although I am not a chemist) that most plasmas are all free atoms and electrons; if there can be no molecules, there can be no chemical reactions (right?). —Ben FrantzDale 22:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Flame is a plasma. It is an ionised gas. Srnec 20:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a plasma, but not plasma. It is a form of plasma, but not plasma itself, not like a lightning bolt. --Anyr

It's actually only the boundary region of what is called the flame that is a form of plasma. Most of what is called flame is a gaseous mixture of fuel (and oxidant when premixing). Coucilonscienceorg 21:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not plasma at all. it is superheated carbon. in a hygrogen burner, there is no flame because there is no carbon Andrew Hampe--72.169.155.10 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A pure hydrogen flame is absolutely a flame. While it may be transparent and so not what a layperson would call "fire", it is a flame with a flame front where deflagration occurs. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fire is one of the natural forms of plasma. Zyrm 02:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My belief was a plasma was like a gas with ions and electrons flowing freely, or nearly, and so a portion of a flame was a plasma. Wolfmankurd 20:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. The definition of a plasma is particles, charged or neutral, that flows freely. That makes the beginning of this article not true, since generally a low temperature flame is NOT a plasma all through. Check out the article on Plasma (physics) --rhevin 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, but the main body of the flame, the actual coloured area, is atoms coming out of a plasma state and electrons returing to thier lower energy states with black body radiation giving the glow. The requirment for it to be a plasma is only that a portion of the atoms to be ionised, as in that article. Also, a definition of plasma can also be a conducting gas which a flame is. Wolfmankurd 20:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it misleading, though, to write "flame is a plasma", especially in the first sentence, because being made up in part of ionized gas is not the defining attribute of a flame. As noted above, the glow of a flame has nothing to do with ions. Actually all gas is (to a very small extent, of course) partially ionized.. Why not just discuss the plasma thing further down in the article?

The flame is a plasma, the glow aroung the flame isnt, but the actual body is a plasma. Only part of the gas needs to be ionised for it to be a plasma, I'm trying to re-write this but am having a hard time finding a consensus, Wolfmankurd 18:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is, while being a plasma is a characteristic of flames, it doesn't define them. I think if somebody found a combustion reaction which produced this glowing "tongue" of gas, but which happened to not be significantly ionized, we'd still call it a flame... Don't object to the word "plasma", just don't think it's so important. --213.47.116.40 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Plasma (physics) contains in its list of terrestrial plasmas "Some extremely hot flames{{cite}}". We'll need citations if anyone wants to claim all flames are plasmas. They contain free radicals but without solid citations, I really don't think it's a plasma. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The citation given in this article ("Plasmas as the fourth state of matter") claims that even a candle-flame is plasma. Given that it's the only citation we have on the subject, I think that's what should stand. Cluracan123 (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality

Have any of the most recent edits of substance been for the better? I would revert them, but this seems to be a controversial and misunderstood topic. Srnec 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The misunderstanding, form my point of view, stems from if it should be considering flame from fires and others as a sub section or flames more generally.Wolfmankurd 21:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Flame temperature

A candle is definitely NOT 1,400 Celsius. It is 1,400 Fahrenheit at most.

I agree with that statement, it definitely isn't 1,400 Celsius, if it were...well then there would be no more candles, or just really really hot candles. --Anyr 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JaneFishler.shtml I found this. But I still find it hard to believe. Wolfmankurd 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you think about the mass of gas/particles and the energy transfer it's not too hard to believe. A very small amount of "stuff" does not require a great deal of energy to become very hot and thus can't deliver a great deal of energy to anything else. Plus, the energy is quite rapidly dissipated by the surrounding gas and carried away by convection. --213.47.116.40 17:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with measuring flame temperatures is the loss of heat to the surroundings. The ADIABATIC temperature for a candle flame IS 1,400 degrees C. This means that in an ideal environment where absolutely no heat is lost, a candle would reach that temperature. However, ideal is far from reality, thus a candle can't heat objects to 1,400 C (It would melt metals like copper, gold etc.). Main source: http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

If a candle can't heat anything to 1400 °C, why does it look white? (c.f., blackbody radiation.) —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge (Flame with Fire)

Considering the presence of an enormous number of people who think that the Sun is a ball of fire, and considering that there is an enormous number of people who have not experiemented with a candle to determine what a flame is, I am in favor of keeping the flame article as an introduction and adjunct to combustion.

The concept of fire is loaded with many extraneous topics that are culturally determined and are not necessarily related to combustion with an air oxidizer.

This article is small and extremely valuable in educating people. If it is moved to fire, it will be lost and the people who would benefit from it might never see it. A simple solution would be to explain that in the article, as well as have flame redirect to fire.Hezzy 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC) keep seperate — A flame is just a component of a fire. The article "flame" should discuss things such as the chemical reactions involved and properties of flames, whereas "fire" should be an overview of all the different aspects relating to fire. Ae-a 15:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lot of basic concepts in flame that would be lost in a fire and that are important.

The fact that you dont think there is a difference between flame and fire is why they are being kept seperate. you can have a flame but no fire( e.g. the sun) and a fire but no flame( e.g. when you burn paper and there isnt a flame but it glows and it burns oyu get me...) :) --Wolfmankurd 20:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

those might be good points however the simple answer is that there are basically 2 articles about the same thing, flame is only the singular of fire If you are concerned that it will get lost in such a big article stick that up at the top as an introduction and further explain fire in the rest of the article. 02:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Although I find this article quite incomplete and rather poor in quality (for example, aside from the inaccurate description of flame color and definition as a plasma, the inclusion of nuclear fusion is a bit of a stretch), I believe there should be a distinction between a flame and fire (flame is certainly NOT "only the singular of fire"), as the former lends itself to a more detailed technical description. At present, the article adds little to that on fire, but that could and should be changed. Just a comment from a reader. --213.47.116.40 17:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep seperate I agree with Ae-a|Ae-a. They should be kept separate, because a flame is a component of fire. Aero Flame 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep seperate is my vote. Rracecarr 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep seperate I also agree with Ae-a. When you think of 'flame' different things come to mind than when you think of fire. They should be kept seperate. Neglekt 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Concensus: KEEP SEPERATE --Daysleeper47 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

separate, retards! -lysdexia 05:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.4.253 (talk)

Recent edits

I have made many changes and additions to the article and thus removed the previous warnings and cleanup notices. What do you think of the current state of the page?--Deglr6328 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks nice, thank you :)

LOL

Does anyone know where to get a chart of flame colors in regards to what $squarerootof3$ element is burning? Need it for a science project, thanks!!

There's one at Flame test. In the future, you'll probably get a better response for these kinds of questions at the Science reference desk. Dave6 09:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

General

If somone is looking up fire the more likley be looking up things like forest fires how to start fires for constructive purposes so on and so forth. If somone looks up flame they are probly more intrested in chemistry and the properties of flame

i apologies for any poor spelling i wrote this in a hurry aslo this is my frist time commiting to a wiki entery other then deleating some rubbish people put on a wiki stub —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.59.126 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

microgravity

I don't modify it myself because english is definitly not my first language. The article say "In microgravity or zero gravity, such as an outer space environment(...)". In outer space the gravity does exists. If an object have no relative speed relatively to the sun, be sure that it will fall pretty fast. Zero gravity occur mostly in a circular orbit, when the resulting acceleration is null. --Madlozoz 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Coolest flames

The article talks about the temperatures of some hot flames, but what is the coolest flame you can get? --RLent (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above questions about the coolest flame and discussing the other end of the "spectrum" (pun intended.) This is actually an important topic because when smoking tobacco, one wants to keep the tobacco alight but as cool as possible - that's where the best flavor and least carcinogenic materials come out. WinkJunior (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on cool flames, with information from NASA.--66.162.55.3 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

At a very simple level, a flame is a chemical reaction which is self-sustaining (if it is stable, although there are ways to add energy to the reaction to make an unstable (unfavorable) reaction stable (and arguably ways to subtract energy or reaction products to do the same)). Anyways. I did a physical chemistry lab in college on the various parts of a flame. I've forgotten what the two gasses were we mixed and ignited. I've also forgotten the various parts of the flame as described in the literature, but a flame DOES have "parts" (also known as "zones", which no doubt depends on what is reacting). So for the common case, a flame is the sustained exothermic chemical reaction of two gasses which is 1) confined to a particular volume of space and 2) emits visible light. It is NOT necessarily the reaction between oxygen and another reactant - for instance hydrogen peroxide is used alone in rocket engines (and its decomposition does (or can) produce a flame) or N2O4+UDMH (another rocket propellant). Almost ANY two chemicals which react and give off energy can make a flame. (Fluorine and carbon dioxide or fluorine and hydrogen can make a flame, for instance). This article lacks any of the technical content which it should, imho, have. It also mentions thermonuclear flame - as if this has ANY useful relationship to chemical flames; and I say the two are no more related than a white house is related to the Whitehouse - a confusion between form and substance. (a thermonuclear 'flame' front is something which occurs on the surface of stars and occurs in volumes of millions of cubic kilometers, has no relation to flames as we understand the common term.)72.16.99.93 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Blue and Green Flames

In trying to find out info about cooler flames in researching an article for smoking tobacco, I was unable to find any mention of the blue and green flames which come into the spectrum both based on purity of the surrounding air and fuel source. The article says:

"Generally speaking, the coolest part of a diffusion (incomplete combustion) flame will be red, transitioning to orange, yellow, and white the temperature increases as evidenced by changes..."

from which blue and green are noticeably absent but do appear. In fact, blue flame is probably the most common color the average person associates with a butane "torch" type lighter. WinkJunior (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Inverted flames

I recall a SciAm article about flames in a reducing atmosphere, where the inside of the flame was the oxidizer. Don't remember what it was called. But if it rings a bell, maybe someone might be willing to look it up and add the info to the article? --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about an article on flame research where a Chlorine jet was burning in a Hydrogen atmosphere. Most organics must decompose before final combustion which yields a complex mixture; that's why most flames require an excess of Oxidizer to go to complete combustion. Oxygen burning in Ammonia works because reactants are Water and Nitrogen, the intermediates being thermally unstable to Nitrogen and Ammonia. (Currently Ammonia is added to Diesel combustion to provide cleaner air; scavenges Nitrogen Oxides.) Another cool pic was premix burning in an inert atmosphere (no Oxygen diffusion from surrounding gas.)

Shjacks45 (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Logic Problems.

1. Flame is to Fire as Horse is to Herd. A herd is composed of Horses, however each individual horse will behave differently from another, and the behavior of a "Fire" is dependent on the individual flames. The wrong information relating to fires is an example of why these articles, Flame and Fire, should not be combined. Engineers talking about combustors in a jet engine refer to flame not fire.

2. Flame is a particular type of combustion based on free radical reaction. We talk of a "Flame Front" when discussing combustion of premix in Internal Combustion Engines or in Flame Research. Although the layman considers the ignition of premix (oxidant plus fuel; air and gasoline) to be a detonation. It is actually a flame front, traveling faster than the constraints of convection, gravity, and diffusion (and adiabatic due to its instantaneous nature). The energy released causes compression which increases the burning rate, further shock (compression due to velocity) causing more compression, etc.

3. Most solid materials don't have a flame. Wood: heat from nearby flame causes wood to decompose to flammable gases such as methanol. Charcoal, contains flammable gases that burn, the picture looks like "match light" charcoal that comes presoaked in lighter fluid (methylcyclohexane). Pure carbon, e.g. Graphite or Coke, is a solid and does not participate in free radical chain reaction with Oxygen. Surface reaction with Oxygen generates energy and Carbon Monoxide (not CO₂) which can burn in Oxygen. Burning of Iron or Zirconium does not appear to involve vaporization (~3000 degrees) of metal; however Magnesium/Air burns at 2800 degrees (flame emits ultraviolet light), which is well above its vaporization temperature. Oxygen supplied bundles of Magnesium tubing has been used to burn through bank vaults, estimated at 3200 degrees.

4. The equilibrium reaction _solidC + CO₂ = 2 CO is balanced at 1200 degrees. At internal combustion engines, 85% of energy of burning Carbon in Oxygen is from C + ½O₂ = CO reaction. The burning of Carbon Monoxide is a lower energy reaction that proceeds with difficulty at high temperatures. The equilibrium temperature for H₂O = OH + H is 2000 degrees C.

5. The result of pyrolysis (thermal decomposition) of wood would give results similar to 'dry distillation of wood' which was used industrially to make methanol, acetic acid, phenols, turpentine, et al. Carbon Monoxide/Air flames are relatively low temperature also. How do we get materials that generate a low temp flame when ideally mixed with air to create the "backdraft temp" quoted?????? That data smacks of typical unverifiable Law Enforcement Hyperbole. Also note that a white flashlight beam shined through heavy smoke also appears red! Diffusion through particulates is also why the Sun is red at the horizon. The Fire/Arson BS needs to be removed or properly verified.

6. I had to do flash point tests to provide legal testimony at a lab I worked for. At least provide a reference to flash point and flammability.

7. Flammability range: combustion zone of a "flame" is a chain reaction that proceeds at a certain velocity or rate, dependent on temperature, pressure, and concentration of reactants. Hydrogen/Oxygen burns at 4% to 97% mixtures. Therefore large outer cone (reaction zone). Octane flammability range is 8% - 10% Octane/Air. Candle wax (around C₃₀ limits around .5%, hence the narrow reaction zone. The inner cone exerts pressure from chemical decomp and thermal expansion of fuel. Thermal cracking of hydrocarbons yields carbon/soot. --Shjacks45 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

New research: flame contained all four known forms of pure carbon

• Particles from the centre of a candle flame have been analysed for the first time by scientists at the University of St Andrews, who found that around 1.5 million diamond nanoparticles are created in a flame every second... They found that the flame contained all four known forms of pure carbon. Dr Zhou said: “This was a surprise because each form is usually created under different conditions.” They found diamond nanoparticles and tiny spheres, tubes and ellipsoids made of carbon, as well as the more common graphite and amorphous carbon. Until now it was not known what happened in the centre of the flame, between the hydrocarbon molecules that were burnt at the bottom, and the carbon dioxide that was released at the top. “Unfortunately the diamond particles are burned away in the process,” said Dr Zhou. “But this will change the way we view a candle flame for ever.”

Richard Walters, The Times, 18 August 2011 --Mais oui! (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

References

The last 3 references in the article are all broken - I didn't know if I should just delete them or wait for someone (I know I ought to, but don't really know where to look) to find some new ones first :) NJHartley (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, don't just delete broken refs, apart from the Wayback Machine, some refs can be recovered by "intelligent guessing" :-), if they are worth the effort. I'll have a look. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Alan Alda's Flame Challenge

Alan Alda has worked on science documentaries, and in a recent guest editorial for Science, suggested a challenge for scientists to explain what a flame is at a level an 11 year old could understand. Seems like some of the people working on this article might want to take a shot: http://www.flamechallenge.org/ dm (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pun in the Introduction

Author, whoever you are, you're amazing and have made my night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.187.215 (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I came to the talk page solely because of this pun. Meek (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Me too. That's all I have to say about it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank the pundit. Sadly, we may never know who he or she is.

• User:Cluracan123 added the note that there is disagreement on flames becoming a plasma: [1].
• Special:Contributions/90.219.54.234 spiced up the wiki: [2].

Wikky Horse (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Holy crap! I was the anonymous editor (90.219.54.234)! So glad i came back to visit. Sad to see it got taken down, though :( I was also banned from editing wikipedia on my phone. Worth it!71.55.69.10 (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Flame without fire

I don't know if this is entirely relevant but can a flame exist without an actual fire? Like in a star where you see visible "flames" or the heat and light given off, but there is actually no chemical fire in many cases such as our sun where there is no oxygen? Also I am sorry if this is a misinterpretation of what a flame actually is. --67.5.92.48 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No. A flame is the visible, gaseous part of a fire (quoted from Flame), so without fire then can't be flame. The Sun doesn't actually have flames, it's just so hot that it glows, rather like a Incandescent light bulb, but with thermonuclear fusion providing energy instead of electricity. And as a matter of fact, there is certainly oxygen in the sun. It's the third most common element in the Sun. — Reatlas (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't a flame a region of red-hot air though? I think something could be added to the lead along the lines of "A flame is a region of air whose molecules have been excited to the point of emitting heat and light," because the basic definition of a flame is currently missing from the article. Serendi^podous 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Flame is a zone where chemically excited species emit visible light. Most of flames contain also soot particles that emit both visible light and infrared radiation. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Candle temperatures

The section on candle temperature could do with expanding to explain that it is only the glowing soot particles in the flame that are 1,000 to 1,400C, not the bulk of the flame itself. If the whole flame was that temperature you'd be able to melt copper wires in a candle, and you'd be able to make steel wire glow red hot. Neither of those are possible. Fig (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501223626/http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/RT1999/6000/6711wu.html to http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/RT1999/6000/6711wu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Types of flame

Blue Swastik som (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Can anyone help me out with types of flames??????

Bunsen Burner - what gas?

A Bunsen burner runs from mains gas. In the UK this is so called natural gas, so predominantly methane, but could be various gas mixtures. In the past, UK mains gas was so called town gas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide derived from coal. Bunsen burners have been used with both gas types.

I presume that Bunsen Burners can be run from bottled gas, which is usually propane or butane.

So the flame temperature for a Bunsen burner needs to state the gas being burnt to generate that range of temperatures. Lkingscott (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)