4 ms·

> Mono-propellant, and solid (not hybrid) rocket fuel fits the description though Decomposition doesn’t count as “burning” which means combustion. Fusion and f

> Mono-propellant, and solid (not hybrid) rocket fuel fits the description though Decomposition doesn’t count as “burning” which means combustion. Fusion and fission release energy as well, but I don’t think anyone calls fusion “burning” hydrogen.

gpm 5y ago
Generally I don't think this type of language debate is useful, we aren't debating what is happening, just what to call it, and that's pretty boring. If you want to call it not burning, ok, be my guest. Hopefully my answer is still an interesting point about the kinds of violent chemical reactions that exist and could make a substance dangerous to work with in an environment without (outside, in the case of solid rocket fuel) oxidizing agents. I'll make an exception and reply about the language in this case because I there's a broader point I want to make: English isn't a language defined based of "X happens if chemical reactions Y happens behind the scenes", because we didn't even know about chemical reaction Y when English was invented. Moreover if you tried to define it as oxidation you'd fail, rust isn't burning, meanwhile (non-oxidizing) chemical burns, sunburns, etc all exist because they were just analogous enough to the concept of fire. If people knew about some chemical that decomposes into plasma in the 1600s, they definitely called it burning even if there was no oxidation. Meanwhile people definitely refer to fusion as "burning", e.g. see this stackexchange question with lots of links to wikipedia and the like which refer to different kinds of fusion as burning [1] or ctrl-f burning in this wikipedia article [2] (which is linked from [1]). [1] https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/43907/hydrogen-burning-vs-hydrogen-fusing https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/43907/hydrogen... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It clearly is about the fact that people don’t understand what an oxidizer is at a chemical level. Someone who says the following isn’t just using language inaccurately, it actually shows a fundamental misunderstanding of combustion: > pure hydrogen doesn’t burn. It needs an oxidizer—like the oxygen in air. That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen, which is again a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry. In addition calling something “self oxidizing” doesn’t make sense. There are always mixtures of fuel and oxidizers… whether those are gas and fuel, solid and fuel, mixed in gunpowder form, mixed as gasoline and air in a carburetor, etc. So if I supply you a balloon with the proper stoichiometric ratio of gasoline and air, is that “self-oxidizing”? If so then everything is self oxidizing. And while I would agree that people do refer to fusion as “burning” I actually think this is a again a prime example of people not understanding the underlying physics. Most people don’t understand how fusion works, so calling it “burning” is a lazy way to conceptualize what the sun is doing. Scientists will sometimes use “burning hydrogen” when talking about nucleosynthesis, but they assume the audience of other scientists understand the difference between combustion and fusion. When articles like the original post are talking to the layperson in this manner however, it does nothing but lead to more scientific illiteracy. A perfect example is one of the above comments: > There are rumours that because of this fact, that the Hindenburg disaster was not from natural causes. If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely.
  - gpm 5y ago
    > I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It is when "burning" just means "fast reaction that creates something like a flame"... the vast majority of your post relies on a definition where it does not. > That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen, There are at least two ways to read this statement where that is incorrect. One is to use the merriam-webster definition (see another one of my comments in this thread where I tracked that down) of burning (which includes things like H2O2 decomposing) instead of your definition. The other is to include non-pure gasses, like a mixture of H2 and O2. Or if you somehow managed to vaporize gunpowder without it igniting. A potential third is if you managed to make a chemical with an oxidizing agent on one end, and a reducing agent on the other... which now that I think about it sounds technically possible (if very difficult). > And while I would agree that people do refer to fusion as “burning” I actually think this is a again a prime example of people not understanding the underlying physics. Fusion researches call it burning, so with respect I think you're just wrong, they just understand the word burning to mean something other than what you do. Consider also that things "burn up" upon re-entry from space (I'm sure anything oxidizable oxidizes, but mostly that means they vaporize), that you get rope burn, that ablative heatshields burn up, ... (I'm sure I could come up with more given some time) > If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely. I agree, but I think you are doing the exact opposite of what you want to to achieve this goal. Redefining words so that they have a cleaner scientific definition makes it easier to talk about things precisely within the "in-crowd" who have accepted your redefinition. It confuses, annoys, and generally makes the "out" crowd feel stupid. That confusion makes it easier to get them to accept conspiracies and pseudoscience, making them feel stupid makes them less likely to listen to you (as a whole group) when you try and show them why they are wrong. This is counter-productive. This is a common trend in "academic language", and I really think it does untold damage in peoples trust in these illiterate experts who keep insisting on facts that are simply wrong in the language called English that everyone else speaks (Peanuts are in fact nuts, Tomatoes are in fact vegetables and not fruits, and so on and so forth).
    - crazydoggers 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gpm 5y ago

Generally I don't think this type of language debate is useful, we aren't debating what is happening, just what to call it, and that's pretty boring. If you want to call it not burning, ok, be my guest. Hopefully my answer is still an interesting point about the kinds of violent chemical reactions that exist and could make a substance dangerous to work with in an environment without (outside, in the case of solid rocket fuel) oxidizing agents. I'll make an exception and reply about the language in this case because I there's a broader point I want to make: English isn't a language defined based of "X happens if chemical reactions Y happens behind the scenes", because we didn't even know about chemical reaction Y when English was invented. Moreover if you tried to define it as oxidation you'd fail, rust isn't burning, meanwhile (non-oxidizing) chemical burns, sunburns, etc all exist because they were just analogous enough to the concept of fire. If people knew about some chemical that decomposes into plasma in the 1600s, they definitely called it burning even if there was no oxidation. Meanwhile people definitely refer to fusion as "burning", e.g. see this stackexchange question with lots of links to wikipedia and the like which refer to different kinds of fusion as burning [1] or ctrl-f burning in this wikipedia article [2] (which is linked from [1]). [1] https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/43907/hydrogen-burning-vs-hydrogen-fusing https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/43907/hydrogen... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

crazydoggers 5y ago
I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It clearly is about the fact that people don’t understand what an oxidizer is at a chemical level. Someone who says the following isn’t just using language inaccurately, it actually shows a fundamental misunderstanding of combustion: > pure hydrogen doesn’t burn. It needs an oxidizer—like the oxygen in air. That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen, which is again a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry. In addition calling something “self oxidizing” doesn’t make sense. There are always mixtures of fuel and oxidizers… whether those are gas and fuel, solid and fuel, mixed in gunpowder form, mixed as gasoline and air in a carburetor, etc. So if I supply you a balloon with the proper stoichiometric ratio of gasoline and air, is that “self-oxidizing”? If so then everything is self oxidizing. And while I would agree that people do refer to fusion as “burning” I actually think this is a again a prime example of people not understanding the underlying physics. Most people don’t understand how fusion works, so calling it “burning” is a lazy way to conceptualize what the sun is doing. Scientists will sometimes use “burning hydrogen” when talking about nucleosynthesis, but they assume the audience of other scientists understand the difference between combustion and fusion. When articles like the original post are talking to the layperson in this manner however, it does nothing but lead to more scientific illiteracy. A perfect example is one of the above comments: > There are rumours that because of this fact, that the Hindenburg disaster was not from natural causes. If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely.
- gpm 5y ago
  > I don’t really take this as a language debate though. It is when "burning" just means "fast reaction that creates something like a flame"... the vast majority of your post relies on a definition where it does not. > That statement, no matter how you take it, leaves an assumption that other gases might burn like hydrogen without oxygen, There are at least two ways to read this statement where that is incorrect. One is to use the merriam-webster definition (see another one of my comments in this thread where I tracked that down) of burning (which includes things like H2O2 decomposing) instead of your definition. The other is to include non-pure gasses, like a mixture of H2 and O2. Or if you somehow managed to vaporize gunpowder without it igniting. A potential third is if you managed to make a chemical with an oxidizing agent on one end, and a reducing agent on the other... which now that I think about it sounds technically possible (if very difficult). > And while I would agree that people do refer to fusion as “burning” I actually think this is a again a prime example of people not understanding the underlying physics. Fusion researches call it burning, so with respect I think you're just wrong, they just understand the word burning to mean something other than what you do. Consider also that things "burn up" upon re-entry from space (I'm sure anything oxidizable oxidizes, but mostly that means they vaporize), that you get rope burn, that ablative heatshields burn up, ... (I'm sure I could come up with more given some time) > If we don’t communicate science effectively then we end up with conspiracies and pseudoscience. Words are tools. They should be used wisely. I agree, but I think you are doing the exact opposite of what you want to to achieve this goal. Redefining words so that they have a cleaner scientific definition makes it easier to talk about things precisely within the "in-crowd" who have accepted your redefinition. It confuses, annoys, and generally makes the "out" crowd feel stupid. That confusion makes it easier to get them to accept conspiracies and pseudoscience, making them feel stupid makes them less likely to listen to you (as a whole group) when you try and show them why they are wrong. This is counter-productive. This is a common trend in "academic language", and I really think it does untold damage in peoples trust in these illiterate experts who keep insisting on facts that are simply wrong in the language called English that everyone else speaks (Peanuts are in fact nuts, Tomatoes are in fact vegetables and not fruits, and so on and so forth).
  - crazydoggers 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]