Not much to say, really, because that's the initial question. I've no idea; maybe those of you feeling intelligent could help me out. Much obliged- >>niudo
Yep. Fire is either burning particles or energy, both of which are symbiotic. Energy <--> mass, or E=Mc^2.
Do the particles that are being consumed by the fire count? I understand that fire has energy and is a chemical reaction. but why does it have mass?
Fire is a plasma, which consists of atoms which have had their electrons removed (due to the high temperature). Atoms have mass, so fire does too. Also, think about it - matter can't be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction (such as burning), so when you burn a pile of wood, where do you think the wood goes? The volume of ash left over at the end is nowhere near as big as the original pile.
Fire does not have mass. What we call "fire" is simply the visual light given off by a rapid oxidation reaction. Obviously the substance you are burning has mass. Obviously the leftovers of the fire have mass (the ash, the smoke, the energy released in the breaking of bonds). The fire itself has no mass.
Depends if your talking about the light emitted by the fire (what you see) or the fire itself. The light you see emitted by the fire does not have mass, of course, but the fire itself does, as it is just made up of oxygen, nitrogen, and other materials being forced to absorb energy in the form of heat, releasing photons (light) in the process.
As in so many cases before, I am with James R. BTW I thought everybody gets this very querstion answered in physics / science at highschool.
I'm sure they do; however, I have a highly disfunctional high school. Look at me! I can't even spell disfunctional right! I didn't even get the DATE points on my SAT because I got it wrong. Actually, that aside, thanks. Although your contradictions didn't really help answer my question, I did get to look into a lot of viewpoints. Much thanks.
I believe that lightning bolts, wielding arcs and the sun would be considered forms of plasma, therefore electromagnetically reactive. However, ordinary fire is not plasma but merely hot gas. Of course, gas has mass and is affected by gravity.
I was under the impression that fire is a plasma, but I checked Here and it says that it's incandescent gas. I'm not sure which it is, but either way it definitely has mass.
Thanks Niudo Well, if they answer it in high school, they don't answer it in Jr. High. My science teacher wouldn't really answer my questions. So, the fire itself has mass, but what we see doesn't? Or is it that the mass of a fire is what's burning, not the fire itself? -niv
The light you see in the flames is emitted by excited atoms in the air. If you ask whether the light itself has mass, the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you ask whether the atoms which emit the light have mass, the answer is a definite yes. Does that help?
Mixture It would seem that one must view "Fire" as a total process. That is you can't seperate the components of fire and claim it does or does not have mass. As stated the light given off in the process (most likely) has no mass (by current definition) but carries off energy (which may be converted to a mass equivelent and produces momentum) but the other constituents of fire are the molecules which are being ionized and energized (particle velocity - temperature) have mass. So overall I think one has to conclude components of a fire have mass but the process called fire does not.
