3 ms·

> Monopropellants don’t burn, their just one of mangy exothermic reactions. Gave a fairly full reply to this over here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28

• Retric 5y ago
  No offense intended, but the fact language evolves isn’t an excuse to be imprecise. As arch discharge lighting became popular the idea of burning began to separate from the creation of plasma because nothing was being used up. We still say electrical components “burned out” because of this idea of fire as something that consumes. Anyway, as long as you understand that’s not what is meant by the term burning I don’t really think there is anything worth arguing about here. And hey in 100 years your definition might win.
  • gpm 5y ago
    I guess I got into this argument, so to be clear, I am not conceding this (nor do I particularly want to continue this part of the argument, so I won't and ask the others do not take a lack of reply as you conceding the opposite) > that’s not what is meant by the term burning Monopropellants may not agree with your use of the term burning, but I deny that they do not agree with the majority of english speakers use of the word burning, or the definition of the word burning that you will find in common dictionaries [1]. [1] For example merriam-webster defines "burning" as "being on fire", "fire" as "the phenomenon of combustion manifested in light, flame, and heat" and "combustion" as "a usually rapid chemical process (such as oxidation) that produces heat and usually light".
    • Retric 5y ago
      Fair enough, I will not try and persuade you. I am sure you can find people using the term burning in association with monopropellants. For anyone reading this I will say Wikipedia and at no point is combustion or burning used do describe them. “Monopropellants[1] are propellants consisting of chemicals that release energy through exothermic chemical decomposition” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopropellant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopropellant