An intriguing question, MR, for which many of the early answers in this thread are a study unto themselves in how not to answer the question, and endemic of desires in forums for oneupmanship (of which this post alone is clearly an example Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) To whit: You state that you know water is the result and is nonflammable, so Billvon explains that water is the product (aka result) and is not very reactive (i.e. nonflammable). He restates that it is nonreactive as if this is an answer as to why it is nonflammable. And then asks a question that effectively restates your own question. "Q: Why is it not X?" "A: Why do you think it should be X?" Questioning the question without providing the answer sought. Yes, very Socratic, but ultimately pointless if the original question is based on a lack of basic knowledge in the matter. Origin - genuinely seems to be an actual answer of merit (although I can't speak to the veracity of it... but it looks good!), so thank you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So Russ restates what you have already stated in the OP: "why... does the nonflammable compound of water result?" Very informative. Other than equating "result" with "ASH" - this suffers the same issues as Russ' answer. So let me add my own meaningless responses: Is Oxygen flammable: yes, in situations when it is allowed to burn. Why isn't water flammable: because it's wet.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And didn't some people in the US find their tap water to be flammable due to fracking? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Before you respond that this is not the water producing flames but the gas coming along the same pipes... I'm being facetious). Myself, I've only done a tiny but of chemistry, and it's a question I found interesting. I was just disappointed with the quality of some of the answers here. Hence this post. C'est la vie. C'est l'internet.