How does water put out fire?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- IMPORTANT: This is a repost from my other channel NileRed. I am reorganizing some video and I thought it was better suited on this channel. The video on NileRed has been unlisted.
In this video, we will be trying to answer a seemingly pretty simple question. How does water put out fire?
My main channel NileRed: / nilered
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merch - nilered.tv/store
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
■ NileBlue is now available alongside NileRed on Nebula! go.nebula.tv/n...
(when signing up with this link, a portion of your membership directly supports the channel)
Join the community:
Patreon - / nilered
Discord - / discord
NileRed Newsletter - nile.red/home#...
You can also find me here:
Facebook - / nilered2
Instagram - / nile.red
Twitter - / nilered2
Nile talks about lab safety: • Chemistry is dangerous.
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
It's cause fire can't swim, duh
yes
It can
We just never see it
technicaly there could be fire under water
@CodingCrusader1095 nice
Mad respect for your chemistry acumen. I really enjoy the demonstrations. I think you have missed some very key elements in putting out fires. We always use a fire tetrahedron, the same as the triangle with an uninhibited chemical reaction added. Take out any leg and the fire goes out. The main item I think you missed is the process of pyrolysis of the fuel. Fundamentally solids and liquids do not burn. They are heated to the point they give off flammable gasses which are what “burns”. Material can be heated to the point to where they flash fire but the flames are not sustained. We call this the flash point of a material. A little higher temp and we get to auto ignition where the material will combust and produces enough energy to sustain he process. Water on a fire can cool by flashing to steam will carry off the combustible gases further reducing the fire risk. Water flashing to steam expands in volume about 1700 times.
As a side note some of our structural fire gear has been made of materials that will char and give off hot gases that do not react or combust ( produce an open flame) in oxygen, but they will combust in the presence of chlorine. Cool experiment, we demo it every so often at fire chemistry and hazardous material classes.
Back to the original discussion. We once used liquid nitrogen, flashed to gas, percolating through 700 tons of coal in a tower to extinguish a fire. While it did cool a little the main thing was to exclude the oxygen to inhibit the smoldering combustion and carry off unburned gases while at the same time not making a huge mess from the massive amounts of water that would need to be put on that much coal. The water would also waste a lot of very expensive product and make a environmental mess! The trick was to use enough nitrogen long enough to allow the remaining coal to cool below the temperature that it will pyrolysis. In that respect the laws of thermodynamics are on our side. Provided we ensured there was not more heat added and no more ignition sources.
ok
Neat!
Leeward, now we know how cool you are
I would really like to see a video where you explain this in more detail and explain the activation energy of diffent fules like heartwood and gasoline.
What in water puts out fire?
A fire boat!
First time watching, and I'm just gonna make a guess that the answer will boil down to "Water halts a *WHOLE BUNCH* of chemical processes, not just fire. It also *STARTS* a lot of chemical processes, depending on the catalysts."
Yeah, I was thinking there had to be some sort of a smothering effect (blocking oxygen) but really, that could only be true in really high amounts, like a match being plunged into water. Obviously, this is blocking oxygen access, the same as if you plunged a burning piece of wood into sand. But this doesn’t explain why wet wood can’t catch fire.
In cooking, it’s well known that the water is the limiting heat factor. By being turned into steam, it ensures that a cooking item cannot get hotter than 100 °C-that is until the water is gone, at which point the Maillard reaction and/or burning can actually occur. Which is why you want to pat your meat dry before cooking it if you want that nice crust on it, and why breads develop a crust on the outside, where they have the most water loss, and thus dry out the fastest.
Water being such an effective heatsink obviously makes it so much more effective beyond its ability to even smother a fire. And smothering fires tends to be really poor at putting out fires anyways. As mentioned all the heat is usually still there, so like… take away the smother, and FOOM it’s back! e.g. trick candes.
Part of why I find bicarbonate so fascinating as a fire suppressant is that works as a smother similar to any other granular substance-like sand; but it also decomposes in an endothermic reaction and releases CO₂, which a) takes away heat from the reaction itself, and b) also smothers the fire further. And in the case of an oil fire, it also saponifies the oil at those high temps, taking away even the fuel… neat!
Because of water is transparent and fire is translucent
What would happen if you tried to put out a common fire with hydrogen peroxide. On the one hand, you still have the cooling effect that you get from water but on the other hand you have the possibility of the H2O2 decomposing into oxygen (and water) with the oxygen accelerating the combustion reaction.
The recommended gods has strike again
Do you have any citations to show that it’s accepted that oxygen being blocked isn’t part of the answer? I would say both the oxygen and heat answers feel compelling to me but I think the answer is probably more oxygen loss. In an oil fire the water stilll absorbs just as much heat but the reason it doesn’t put the fire out is oil and water don’t mix, so the water can’t get a stable enough position to block the oxygen. The water gets pushed away and the oil is back in contact with the air. Also, I think in the case of your argument about water needing to block out 90% of the air, we have to ask 90% of which air? I would imagine not 90% of the total air near the fire. Probably just 90% of the air within a millimeter or two of the fire, which is a much smaller percent of the total air.
What if you pressurized the water to increase it's boiling point to above 150 C? would it no longer put out the fire?
I know because my Squirtle's Water Gun is super effective against Fire types.
If you out a lit match in sand. Is the sand taking away the heat too?
I feel like a really good example would be heating a non-flammable liquid above 150 and trying to light it
Why does sand or blankets kill fire?
Dude try Dry Ice vs. Fire.
"From a young age, everyone is taught that water is the enemy of fire."
...But everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked.
Reference? Sounds interesting :)
@@ShadoCroc The last airbender
@@ShadoCroc Do not watch the live action version.
@@NorHeadHunter I second this motion.
@@lylayung811 no need to answer it, u dumb. Of course he know that reference
"Common fires" implies the existence of a fire rarity hierarchy, and that excites me greatly. I can't wait to find out what epic fires are.
oh yeah there's four classes of flammable objects metallic is probably the worst.
Just try to put ou an oil fire with water, you'll understand why it's not classed as "common" 😅
There are near invisible fires that hurt just as much if not more but are less visible than what you can naturally see due to sunlight.
Chlorine Triflouride reactions would qualify as epic level fires. Nothing puts them out.
Chlorine trifluoride can set concrete or ice on fire.
because water is blue and fire is red
caseagrant.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/images/Red%20Tide%20QandA.jpg
us.123rf.com/450wm/visualizestudio/visualizestudio1704/visualizestudio170400139/76760240-typical-blue-flame-when-burning-sulfur.jpg
What were you saying?
@@HenriFaust obviously lies fabricated by the ILLVMINATI
@@HenriFaust liES
@@HenriFaust ever heard of jokes?
@@morriskoolwijk1385 Jokes are unfalsifiable, therefore humor does not exist.
"yes, i am blowtorching water"
I learned that in a book about winning odd bets in the 2nd grade. Fill a paper cup with water and put a torch under it and it won't light. I don't think it was formally taught to me until I took thermodynamics in college.
@ Under the water!
@ under the cup full of water.
karkat
@@blackrasputin3356 under the water full of cup
Some firefighting methods (like sand and probably at least some types of foam) do not absorb as much heat as water (in particular, sand does not boil at flame temperature, and in many cases won't even melt), so these will depend more upon excluding oxygen.
Would be good to have a follow-up video about the fires that water CAN'T put out.
there are also dry powder fire extinguishers that suppress fires by interrupting the chain reaction rather than snuffing out the oxygen, cooling the heat or starving off the fuel
@@zekt98arius That's part of what Halons do as well. (Halons are now being phased out due to ozone depletion potential.) Note that while this is good for ordinary files, it WON'T work for burning metal (which will actually see the Halons as perfectly good oxidizers.)
if the fire is from liquid, you can't put it out with liquid (water)
@@Nadiaputriangginita It depends. If the burning liquid was water-soluble (like alcohol), then mixing it with a LOT of water would dilute it enough so that it wouldn't burn any more. Of course, that's going to spread it around first, so this is not necessarily a good idea.
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio That's true. Halons are ruled out nowadays, but I was shocked when I found out they are still in use especially in aviation. Halon is used in Squibs (small extinguishers inside jet engines).
Ships were also using Halon as extinguishing medium, especially in fixed installations (inside Engine Control Rooms, Machinery etc.) but now it's mostly replaced by CO2 fixed installations.
Everyone laughs until the water catches fire.
@@thotslayer9914 What's a girl?
@@thotslayer9914 why are you interested?
@@thotslayer9914 aww...
laughs at the joke- ;)
reads the comments- o_o ?
@@thotslayer9914 man you are desperate
I was about to go to sleep, but now I need to know the answer to a question I didn't even know I had
_Shane_Anigans_ ..... Hard insomnia Facts right thur 👌🏻
😂
@Josh D I actually watched the whole thing, I love this channel lmao
"I don't need sleep I need answers"
I'm super sleepy rn but i'm too eager to know the answer
It is also worthwhile to note that water has a large "specific heat capacity" as well. That means just GETTING it to 100C takes quite a bit of energy as well. The boiling is certainly the more significant portion but this does add to it. Also anything with enough water on it (or submerged) is not getting oxygen, so it does work at least somewhat on that part of the fire triangle, but yes, its main function is the removal of heat (mostly due to vaporization energy).
More detailed explanation of what he said in the video pretty much
Also water is sticky accept to itself so it covers all materials so fire has to use more energy to "eat" it
Submerging in water will remove all heat from the fire BEFORE it suffocates it from oxygen. So it STILL doesn't work in stifling the fire due to oxygen removal.
@@aa1bb2cc3dd4 Except in cases where water cannot be used to exringuish certain kinds of fire.
yeah the core idea here is that the energy required to /heat/ water by one degree is going to be enough to /cool/ the same amount of fuel by several degrees
This was just an excuse to set things on fire, wasn't it?
He's a Chemist, he doesn't need a _reason_ to set things on fire, it just happens.
The boys
Pretty much lol
He’s trying to market arso porn as “science”
@@pacificrim2013 I had no idea what it was but just hearing it in use tells me everything I need to know
Such is the beauty of language
"Liquid water won't exist in temperatures above 100c"
Pressure chamber: hold my vapor
CB best comment ever
CB pressure chambers will also then change temperature the fire is burning at it correct?
Arrad well depends, fire at a higher pressure will burn depending on what gas is used to increase the pressure. air, which is 21% oxygen and the rest nitrogen plus a couple trace gasses, has mostly some interesting effects in combustion’s at high pressures. Look here if you are interested. www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=4051
@@FirstLast-kv1iq Well for a combustion reaction the main factor is the partial pressure of Oxygen (ie V(O2)/V(Total)*P) of course this does assume all other gasses are essentially inert. This of course is why things like Halon-1301 or similar really messes things up it has a very strong affinity for reacting with the reactive oxygen species produced by combustion. Of course it has a similarly strong affinity for another reactive oxygen species namely O3 which makes it not such a great thing to be using on Earth.
*hold my beer vapour
I’m a fire protection system specialist, and this is a great explanation and demonstrations. I’d love to see a follow up covering removing the heat chemically, but I don’t think you’d be able to get a demonstration going, definitely not on a doable budget, but I’d still love to hear you talk about it because you always explain things very nicely.
he said nonsense, since fire needs both and heat and oxygen and water can take them both together or one at a time, so he could even prove that water removes fuel by changing it
@saulsavelis575 1. I think it removes at least partically the oxygen and, of course, the energy consumption of the steam production is also important, probably more. But I think if you have a forest fire, you're grateful for every little fire-extinguishing effect you can get. 2. I think you would only call wood as fuel because it is the reducing species.
@@Richi2236 the spontaneous combustion does not require any additional heat and 300K temperature is enough for the start of fire...such elements/reactants by itself are very reactive and needs no activation
@@saulsavelis575 When water evaporates it cools its surroundings.
Its clearly removing the heat most.
You can burn wet paper or wood, but it needs outside heat because the water keeps it from sustaining its self.
@@Hashishin13 heat is atoms-molecules motion, plasma-flame is ions-electrons motion
I was actually taught this very early in my life: so at first I was confused by your intro. Then I realised I wasn’t taught this in school, and the reason I know it is probably because my dad was (is) a fireman.
I was actually taught in school. I live in Brazil however so there is no way to know about the education in the rest of the world
@@augustobolzanrodrigues2429 I lived as a refugee kid moving from one country to another, even a man living in a cave raised by sheep born in the dessert knows everything this video said...
However, I can't say the same about the flat earth community.
I learned this in school, but then again my school years were more than 4 decades ago a lot of the things we learned then are not taught now in favor of more modern skills (looking at you common core math lol).
@@impoppy9145 I was raised by human and lived in a place called house but this is my first time to hear things said in this video. And round earth is a well known fact in my community. So, yes, education is different around the world.
im actually pretty surprised they didnt taught this at chemistry, like isn't it the most basic thing ever
I Would like to see a video about chemical fires like a magnesium fire and why it can't be extinguish with water or CO2. Maybe an explanation why ClF3 can freaking burn concreate without any ignition source. I think it can be a really interesting topic
Ill keep that in mind!
I love t ClF3
Isaac's bending And next, of course, the ClF3 sinthesys😂. However i love your videos and i hope that you will continue to post new interesting stuff👍🏻
@@NileBlue are you still planning on doing an episode on that?
Water just spreads the fuel but it's still fuel
This reaction is totally non productive and doesn't happen
- me in my next exam
Me in life...
Statistically speaking, the reaction does happen, just not very often. You should get points marked off for that answer.
The fact that the reaction is not productive does not decrease it's reaction speed. He was wrong about that.
In enclosed spaces like buildings and especially ships, with a fire that really has gotten going, the temperatures are so high that water flashes to steam if sprayed in a high volume mist.
In this situation the steam plume displaces almost all of the oxygen locally, instantly choking the flames oxygen source.
Water expands about 1600 times in volume going from liquid to gas. This is however short lived as powerful convection mixes the air again within a couple of seconds . This results in having to hunt the flames around the the room to quickly smother the flames. During all this, the air temperature is dropping due to the combined effects of oxygen depletion from the flame and the thermal capacity of water preventing re-ignition. That's why firefighters keep cooling everything.
I have to add, that Nile is not wrong at all.
But if a room fire is hot and intense enough, the displacement of oxygen in the room becomes a very, very useful tool.
I am trained in firefighting on board ships BTW.
That's pretty neat
Plume. Not ploom
Thanks for the education!
Oh, that’s fascinating! Thank you for the additional info! Also, mad respect for the career choice.
@@KooblyK Well.. I don't sail anymore, but thanks.
I don't remember when I first watched this, but it stuck with me, and now I'm going through safety training for my new job, got to the part about fire, remembered this video and rewatched it to take notes on some of the very good info you have here. Thanks for making the video and making it publicly available to people. I know you're generally very big on safety and proper procedures- and I kinda wonder what other topics you could explain the science of why they happen the same way you've done here.
Now that the "How does water put out fire?" question has been answered, we need to get to the next one - "How does Nile's hand survive at 9:15?"
it doesn't, he goes on to contract a 3rd degree burn.
@@red2theelectricboogaloo961 LOL
He is a god
Grain
He must be heatproof, at 7:57 he is legit holding fire
That was a better, more concise explanation of activation energy than I ever received in a chemistry class.
Honestly
you must've had one shit chemistry class
I really wish I had RUclips channels like this when I was learning chemistry. Like I understood the equations and how to solve them, but real life examples make it click better for me.
Its absolutely astounding to me how few experts can explain stuff to ppl with only basic knowledge... i kinda get it, some things are complicated, but still
@@leaffinite2001 As a teacher I can tell you a few things. 1: I agree. 2: the problem with teaching a whole class is that there is simply no time to go in on people's questions, neither can you edit your words in post or can the students rewind to hear the exact meanings again.
We have to deal with youngsters growing up, and tbf even the best teachers put most of their effort "entertaining".
On top of that, you clicked on this video, because you wanted to know. No "activation energy" was required!😂
You'd be surprised how passionate a lot of teachers are!
On top of that, this is explained by someone figuring it out just like you while most teachers have a MASSIVE skill gap, due to teaching kids while knowing 1000x more already. This means that many teachers start skipping over concepts that are every-day-knowledge, while for SOME students, it might take hours to understand.
As a starting teacher I try to work around these things and implement videos into my lessons.
However, this takes AN INSANE amount of effort...
I learned this back when I was a firefighter. We have various methods of putting out fire by removing one of the sides of the fire triangle. When we use water, we're removing the heat. On oil fires or liquid fuel fires, water does technically still remove the heat but we don't use it because what is on fire will end up floating on top of the water, which will almost certainly cause it to spread far and wide to other flammable things in the area. Firefighting foam like the kind use in cases of aircraft fires and the powder that is released in commercial kitchens in case of a fire does remove oxygen from the fire to put it out but, since this is hard to do, those fires do tend to be more dangerous. But, if you are trying to fry something in your kitchen and the oil catches on fire, just put the lid on the pan and it will go out. If you add water, you will almost certainly set much of your kitchen on fire.
When we get a really big fire in the wild, we actually put it out largely by removing the fuel. This is a huge pain in the ass and it's why wildfires can get out of control so fast and burn for so long. We basically do yard work on a massive scale and cut away everything flammable around the edges of the fire until we are finally able to encircle the fire. Then, when the flames can't reach anything new to burn, they finish burning what's already on fire and the fire eventually goes out. Depending on the height of the vegetation and the strength of the winds, there is a certain width of vegetation that you have to remove from all the way around the entire fire to get it to go out. Sometimes embers fly or winds get worse etc., which makes wildfire probably the most difficult type of fire to extinguish. If you've ever wondered why you see the fire department at a location for a while after the fire is out, it's to make sure it actually is all the way out since fire can sometimes burn along roots underground and pop up later. That's usually when we use water for those fires to put out hot spots, but we also smother hot spots with dirt, depending on which crew you are on.
A bit of nitpicking: it should be "oxidizer", not "oxygen" in the "Fire triangle". Fluorine for example works much better than oxygen. Cotton + fluorine = fire even at room temperature.
Anton Popov *nearly anything+fluorine=fire at room temperature
Yes and my chemistry teacher got it wrong even when i tried to correct him
I suppose this is an unfortunate result of simplifying the answer down so that people understand it more easily. Oxygen _is_ , after all, probably the most common oxidizer we are in contact with every day.
@@OrangeC7 but they shouldnt simplify so much cus they teach you things that you have to work hard for to unlearn. Its Better to teach it right the first time.
*The concrete... is burning*
And this also explains why it's very hard to put something wet on fire. The water has to evaporate before it can catch.
That's well known since the dawn of time... Trying to start a fire with not dead dry sticks is not practical.
Okay. Just so you know water cannot light on fire. What happens when you light a lighter in a room full of nothing but hydrogen? If you were to light it the room would fucking explode? What if you do it with oxygen? The room fucking explodes into flames as well. BUT if you were to combine these atoms into a molecule (2 Hydrogen atoms 1 oxygen atoms) A.K.A water. If you try to light a fire in a room full of water? Nothing happens. No chemical activation OR reaction can occur.. Why? Water is the exhausted fuel of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. When Combined into molecules they have no energy to give off anymore.
@@averageman4873seriously not much right about your comment
1. "What happens when you light a lighter in a room full of nothing but hydrogen?" Absolutely nothing at all, hydrogen requires an oxydiser to burn. Think about it, burning hydrogen (H2) forms water (H2O) where does the O in the reaction come from if there is no oxygen in the hydrogen filled room? Neither hydrogen nor the lighter fuel would burn without oxygen, no flame and definitely no "room would fucking explode".
2. "What if you do it with oxygen?" Not a lot, oxygen doesn't burn its not flammable. You cant burn oxygen you can only burn something (fuel) in an oxygen filled room and even then it wouldn't explode it would just burn the fuel faster and hotter. The lighter providing a slow and steady stream of fuel would just produce a welding torch type of flame but a really small one due to the small flow of fuel. Absolutely zero chance of "room fucking exploding into flames".
Well there is a way to get fucking room explode, release all the lighter fuel into the room and then ignite it, that would maybe get an instant flash burn which could be considered an explosion if the room size and amount of lighter fuel released was of the right ratio, but just a lighter being lit as per normal use would just burn faster and hotter.
Theres a well known example of such a fire. Early NASA launches filled the flight capsule with a very oxygen rich environment, a fire broke out and it didn't explode it just burnt extremely fast and unfortunately killed the astronauts involved. NASA never used oxygen rich again due to its risk of making fire spread so fast, no word of explode in that event.
3. "Combined into molecules they have no energy to give off anymore." Isn't exactly true either there's still plenty of energy within the atoms of the molecule, it just isn't easily accessed with combustion alone. Being non flammable doesn't mean it doesn't have energy within it jst that it cant be released by combustion.
If you really want to explode a room you should fill it with a hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture, for a clean burn you should have twice as much hydrogen as oxygen as H2O is two hydrogens (2xh2) and one oxygen (o2) but to get a stronger explosion you really want a more hydrogen rich ratio as it makes the flashfront more energetic (bigger boom) around 3x more hydrogen than oxygen gets a real big boom but you will have a lot of wasted hydrogen.
@@stevenchaloner162 Sorry, this was from months ago and I was pretty knew to the whole idea. Knew most of the stuff you're discussing but thanks for the new info.
@@stevenchaloner162 Technically rapid combustion is often considered "explosive." Particularly when gunpowder is involved. This doesn't entirely invalidate the NASA example, since it is likely "burned extremely fast" means what we think it does instead of "combusted so fast it provided force in a manner similar to an explosive"
"we were taught since day one that oxygen is beneficial...but why?"
so we can watch the world burn
OMG I know this one
I'm gonna poke a hole in the atmosphere, let all the oxygen out, and finally prove to humanity that we don't need to be restricted by the requirement of breathing. I'll be a hero.
OXygEn CausEs cAnCER
Be smart
Don’t breathe.
O2 is used to produce ATP on cells ribosomes
I saw the video on my recommended list, and thought. "Yeah sure i know how water puts out fire." then i though about for a couple of seconds and was like. "Wait, do I?" And then i clicked.
"Activation energy is the reason most things dont burst into flames when they come into contact with air"
I'm struggling to believe that one casual comment has blown my mind so much. I just keep envisioning a world where activation energy (somehow) isnt required for reactions but like it had been but suddenly that changed and everything just explodes, burns, falls apart, etc. Not that we would be alive for any time at all to witness it.
While that alternate reality gave me a good laugh, I think he's referring to super dangerous chemicals that spontaneously combust, explodes, both or more when in contact with air. Look up the sci show video worlds 5 deadliest chemicals for some really fun examples. I know this is a year later but this line also struck me so 😅
Fun fact: when the scientists were activate the nuclear explosions for a first time, their primary concern is that the activation energy is sufficient enough to burn the atmosphere and majority of the planet.
@@dennisz1252 And then they did it anyway, because they just HAD to huh.
@@PermianExtinction No. Because Science did a video on it, they recalculated their numbers and found out there wasn't enough material in all nuclear bombs on Earth to create an explosion that could do that.
That would essentially be a star
Hydrogen and oxygen = flammable
Hydrogen with oxygen = puts out fire
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Hydrogen and oxygen are flammable (and release tons of energy when they burn)
Hydrogen with oxygen (or, 'water') has basically already been burned (and requires tons of energy to dissociate and become flammable again)
same goes for carbon and/with oxygen
hydrogen and oxygen: burns and creats water which puts out fire
"Imagine it this way, hydrogen and oxygen are burned together and the ashes left behind is water and ashes don't ignite"- nursery science teacher
"From a young age, everyone is taught that water is the enemy of fire."
*laughs in kitchen oil fire*
Omae wa mou burnt housedeiru
@@Rahnonymous lmao
@@Rahnonymous Lmao
@@Rahnonymous you're already burnt house
@@haruhisuzumiya6650 I understand that reference.
Fire:*bullying O2*
H2O:what are you doing son
Hell nah
I don’t know why I’m so late to see this video, but I’d like to point out that blocking oxygen does play a pretty important role in water stopping fire. I think you’ve probably covered this in another video by now, but just in case, fuel that is packed with an oxidizer isn’t going to be stopped by water, but water can prevent the surroundings from being burned.
Interesting
Depends on insulation of the oxidizer though. If the water takes away enough heat it will also extinguish- like a flare
0:33 I ask several of my friends if they know and 9/10 didn't know
The last one : *my goal are beyond your understanding*
very funny
plot twist: he actually asked 5 friends, and the last one barely got half of the answer right
1:31 which of these requirements are we taking away?
I: heat obviously.
NileBlue: most people are gonna say…
I: wait heat is wrong?
NileBlue: …Oxygen.
I: ????
I actually did ask this question myself once while camping. It wasn't really a question more of an epiphany after realizing that water is a surprisingly suitable substance to combat fire. That it was infact the enemy if fire. And the enemy of making a small campfire in wet conditions.
When wood burns there is actually not one simple process of combustion taking place but actually five different reactions taking place. This is how they make those super efficient wood burning stoves, by attending to each process in the design of the stove.
Before anything happens the very first thing that must occur is for the section of a piece of wood that is about to burn to completely dehydrate. This is because all wood holds onto moisture even when dead. That was actually an essential function when it was alive. And as you mentioned water changes phase at 100c which is below the temperature necessary for combustion. Also water is dense and it flows, convects, and seeps and wicks so it's is a very good heat sink or heat thief.
After the water has been booted by the heat of the fire or fire starter then pyrolisis happens, or decomposition. That's when the wood turns black and gives off smoke. The smoke is the fuel that is burning. Efficient fires don't smoke. Smoke is unburnt hydrocarbons.
Another combustion reaction happens with carbon monoxide and oxygen to form carbon dioxide. The carbon monoxide is flammable and I believe it burns hotter. Much hotter which is why it's flame is purple.
The carbon monoxide comes from another phase of the fire which is the smouldering of charcoal. The carbon in the charcoal combines with oxygen to form the carbon carbon monoxide.
So:
1. Dehydration (with heat)
2. Pyrolisis (decomposition into charcoal and gaseous flammable hydrocarbons)
3. Combustion of hydrocarbons
4. Smouldering of charcoal (C + O2 = CO + O)
5. Combustion of CO (CO + O2 = CO2 + O)
Forgive if I effed that up somewhere I wasn't good in chemistry in highschool.
But all of these things are separate reactions that take place in every wood fire. Everytime you light a match you are looking at five distinct things happening more or less at once.
This is what led me to wonder about water being the enemy of fire which your video explained perfectly. I wonder if you'd do one about what goes on in a piece of burning wood since it is the experience of presumably every living person watching this channel but if they're anything like me then I imagine few people would think there was anything much at all going on in a burning matchstick.
Great video. The water paper cup trick is awesome visual. Made me think of a California wildfire where a homeowner, before evacuating with theirs neighbors first put a sprinkler on their roof and turned on the water. Their house was saved and all the look there burned to the ground.
Very nice, should be featured ibn chemistry classes.
Also, would be great to see other cases where water doesn't work and why...and then present the ones that work, and why.
Espeially interesting will be hot oil+water go boom
"Water gets rid of heat."
Me: **uses hot water** "you were saying?"
Still less heat relative to the fire and way lower than whatever temperature it requires to keep most fires going. Much of the energy from the fire would still be dispersed as it would have to boil the water off which takes energy away from the fire, so... yeah, hot water would still get rid of heat, from a fire at least.
@@WomanSlayer69420 not necessarily, there are some reactions that occur at close to room temperature, and water can stay liquid at higher temperatures when under higher pressures. I dont know of specific examples tho or what the results would be if you attempted it.
Hooray for evaporation! (Water evaporation heat capacity is super bullshit tier, compared to most liquid)
The vast majority of water’s heat capacity is between 99 and 101 degrees celsius, so as long as it’s not steam it will work fairly well.
By which I mean that the heat capacity of water is mostly from what is required to boil it, not the regular heat capacity.
that’s a crispy audio quality you got there
I mean this video was made a long ass time ago
Because its about to burst into flame, duh.
1:36 I believe most people think that water takes away the heat
'Yes, I am blow torching water.'
Grabs phone: Mental health, please.
In the Navy we talked about the "fire tetrahedron" where there was a fourth component, the chemical reaction. This was apparently the part of the fire tetrahedron that Halon would take away to stop the fire.
Not sure if it really needs to be mentioned, since the chemical reaction is exactly what fire is, but thought I would share. :)
Doesn't Halon bond to oxygen, so the oxygen in the aid can't oxidize as part of the fire? (And everyone in the room needs to GTFO ASAP because they can't breath?)
I learned the triangle but with "chemical chain reaction" where he has "heat." Which, he eluded to as what water actually stops. Without the excess energy from the chemical chain reaction, it can't continue.
mundane questions answered like this is literally my favorite content from you. Thank you for answering such question!
Easy, water is a Chad
1: drinkable
2: taste A M A Z I N G at 3 am
3: **insert every other reason here**
Why wouldn't it put out fires
The Virgin Fire vs The Chad Water
This was the video no one asked for but we still got it 😂 amazing vid
"We usually start by giving it a kickstart of activation energy." Lol I think u said the same concept three times in one sentence.
It doesn't take 10 minutes to say Revenge
Maybe it's just Americans but in England I learnt this when I was about 8-10 years old. THE TRIANGLE OF FIRE 😂 its very easy to remember.... you take away one corner of the triangle and it stops... this applies to all kinds of Fire!
"From a young age, everyone is taught that water is the enemy of fire."
Hello burning chip pan, meet water!
As an AP chem student I'm so glad I was able to kinda understand the chart
My life is complete now I literally don't know-
The fire tetrahedron:
Heat
Fuel
Oxygen
A continuous chain reaction
does not make sense.
1.5 million people came hear for a 9 minute video, that should have taken 25 seconds about something they learned in 6th grade 😒… water removes a fuel source from fire by suffocation.
Thank you so much! I have always been so dissatisfied at the explanation that water takes heat out of that simple diagram. Understanding it in terms of the water absorbing the energy output and preventing further activation, that makes my day!
Because Pokemon said so!!
NEXT?!
Oxygen, fuel and Energy, , technically heats just the product of the energy put into the reaction or produced from it. .. But of course, it's most often observed as (heat energy).
Oil & chemical fires can be taken out by water, just use the whole ocean...
I'm sure any flame will be out.
no. Oil will float on ocean
Cool video. In modern firefighting, pump operators will now add AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam). Using a venturi, AFFF is added to water at about a 0.5% - 1% concentration for Class A fires. The goal is to lower the surface tension of the water so the water can reach more of the fuel. The AFFF left behind then "blankets" the fuel and helps to prevent re-ignition. There's other foams for other Classes of fires too used in different levels of concentration in the water.
"Put the wet stuff on the red stuff"
Cool comment.
And then DON'T DISRUPT the foam.
I've seen video of firefighters fighting an oil fire with AFFF, and the guy with the nozzle made the mistake of jiggling the nozzle a little too low for a moment, which disrupted the layer of foam and caused the oil on the water around both firefighters to flash into fire again.
The good news? Mine/not major burns and they both got out alive.
Also notable:
BLEVE risks from foam on top of large containers of flammable material.
"Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion."
It's like putting a lit of an overfull pot of water while boiling it, because the fuel will boil over.
But in the case of a BLEVE, the oil or other flammable liquid is boiling into vapor and building up pressure as superheated liquid that should have boiled off as vapors, but can't due to the "lid" of foam on top of it.
Once the pressure under the foam layer builds up enough, the liquid flashes into vapor, mixing with surrounding oxygen, and creating a chain reaction where the heat from the initial overpressure causes it to expand more and mix more vapor with fuel.
This is the same principle as a fuel air bomb, like the "Mother Of All Bombs", AKA: MOAB.
...
And yes, I DO find BLEVE explosions both fascinating and terrifying, why do you ask?
I always thought that water kills fire because it cools it down.. I haven‘t watched the vid yet, but I‘m probably wrong..
edit: yay, I was right :)
Ms Fancy you deffo watched the video first
I thoughtit was because it restricts oxygenflow
Question: How does water put out fire scientifically?
Answer: *bEcAuSe iT's wEt*
Gas is wet, too.
@@seg162 you mean fart gas?
You can actually use any non flammable liquid of low chemical reactivity to put out fire but water is the most common liquid of these qualities so it's almost always used to put out fires.
Indeed, astronauts fight space fires with Tang. ;)
And water has a very high specific heat too
I teach Science in years five and six and this is always one of my exam questions at the end of the unit.
Just opened the video. Years later for some reason? I always thought it was because the water could completely surround the fire, blocking all gaseous oxygen. Will edit if I was wrong.
I am disappointed. The fast and quick way.
When the video started, my guess was that it took away the heat because water has a spectacularly high specific heat. =\
That's basically it! Water has such a high specific heat capacity because it's extremely stable. It takes huge amounts of energy to break liquid water's bonds. The heat produced by oxidation is what causes the chain reaction of fire to self sustain. Energy in the form of heat is released, exciting the molecules nearby until they "shake loose" from their bonds. However, when you throw water on a fire, the water absorbs that energy instead of the fuel-- so there isn't enough energy to excite more of the fuel molecules to combustion. But if a fire is truly roaring and there isn't enough water to absorb this energy, it can just evaporate instead.
This is related to why water can't put out a grease or chemical fire. Oil and some combustible chemicals release so much heat energy when their bonds are broken, that it can break the bonds of a water molecule and cause it to simply evaporate.
@@e.s.r5809: I think it's not as much the high specific heat capacity but the high latent heat of the phase change.
The specific heat capacity of water makes all other chemicals envious... sure a lot of things have a higher melting and boiling point but most of those things are easy to heat up compared to water.
@@seneca983 Thanks for the correction :)
Nobody:
This youtuber: "When asked this question most people are gonna say that water blocks oxygen...."
bruh
so if you blast wood or so whit steam that is hotter then 150c it will ignite it?
What kind stean of water hotter than 150c? How do you even heat a steam so that it reaches 150c?
@@charlesthehandsomeandbrave2956 the same way you heat any other gases. there's nothing special about steam that would prevent that.
ActionLab performed that experiment and yes, it will ignite, at least the paper will ignite in the stream of superheated steam. P.S. Charles, steam hotter than 100 and even than 150c is common thing. It's used in power plants to "dry" the steam and increase the efficiency.
@@charlesthehandsomeandbrave2956 the common working temperature of steam turbines in powerplants is way above 100°C - the (theoretical) maximum efficiently lies arount 550°C - if you want to know more about it, look up the "clausius rankine cycle".
It does have to be hotter then 150c to start a fire the balanced temperatures between the steam and wood has to equal at least 150c, and at lower then 200c most steams carry water droplets with them that are much cooler.
Uhh.. Here is where I wpuld put sources but...
Just search how to build a modern steam engine. Thats how I learned this when I was in high school. 😅
Ok so I have not done my research yet. And I’m super late on this video. But I feel like it could be a combination of the heat and oxygen. Also wish I had enough space to explain more. But would love to see more into this with other materials such as oil and chemicals.
The reaction of H2O with O2 could, in theory, happen and result in the formation of H2O2. 2 H2O + O2 -> 2 HOOH.
The reason that this does not happen is because the products of that reaction would have a higher total bond energy than the sum of the total bond energy of the substrates. Which is why concentrated HOOH solutions tend to have the HOOH decompose into H2O and O2.
So this makes me wonder. Would cold water be more effective then using hot boiling water? Because it would change how much energy is needed.
The specific heat capacity of water is 1 BTU/lb*F, meaning you need +1 BTU per lb of water to rise its temperature of 1 F (or -1 BTU per lb to lower its temperature of 1 F). The latent heat of vaporization of water is 890 BTU/lb, meaning you need +890 BTU per lb of water to vaporize it (temperature with remain constant, 212 F or 100 C at normal atmospheric pressure = boiling point of water. Or -890 BTU per lb of water vapor to condense it).
So the answer to your question is : it's kind of negligible (in most cases), since the amount of energy needed to vaporize water is huge compared to its specific heat capacity.
@@pafou Never thought a person would go into the math a year later. Thankies!
@@MoonFlux And one of the reason why that is (the latent heat of vaporization of water being huge compared to the specific heat capacity of water, or boiling point of water being so high compared to its molecular mass) is because a water molecule is polar.
The two non-binding pairs of electrons on the oxygen (the remaining electrons that aren't used for the covalent bonds with the hydrogen atoms) creates a partial negative charge there (these electrons do occupy space). The two hydrogen atoms are repulsive to each other (being of positive charge) and that is why the angle between the two bonds is 104.5 degree instead of 90 degree (360 / 4 because of the two O-H bonds and the two non-binding pair of electrons). So the hydrogen part of the molecule has a partial positive charge and the molecule has a bent shape.
The main consequence of that polarity is that water molecules make hydrogen bonds with other water molecules around them. Even though such a bond is weak compared to a ionic or covalent bond, it still adds to the stability of water as a liquid. Enough heat must be provided to break all these hydrogen bonds first and then enough heat to increase their kinetic energy and make them vaporize.
The polarity of the water molecules and these hydrogen bonds between is also the reason why the density of ice is less than water (which is unusual, water being denser at 4 C). These hydrogen bonds gives the ice crystals a specific shape that make it less dense than water. That is why ice float on water (usually any matter in its solid form is denser than its liquid form).
For some reason I thought you would find this interesting.
@@pafou hey if it's real/true then why not learn something? No harm in knowing more.
When I asked my teacher "Why water put out fire?", instead of answering something like "You will learn about it in higher level", she said "Because it is. Do not question it".
Nile, I don't think this question is a video topic but I still find it intriguiging.
I was wondering why is there such a long time period for rust to form on metal for the first time, but when it does form it spreads really fast.
I've read that rust can be used in gunpowder as a subtitude for sulphut since it has a same roll as a catalyst.
I think that rust has catalytical properties which fast forward oxydation of the metal.
I'm not certain about it so I would need some sort of a confirmation if correct or explaination if wrong
I'm sorry if my grammar is bad, English is not my native language
Yeah, not sure about the sulfur/rust thing, but rust does act catalytically in destroying iron. If you do a hyperlaspe (a very fast timelapse), you'll see that it'll take ages to start rusting, but after that it'll quickly disintegrate. Even introducing some rust powder and salty water to some iron will quickly start the process.
Magnesium: Hold my beer.
Chlorine Trifluoride: Heh heh.
Outstanding video. Your points were salient and engaging and your visuals helped the understanding. Plus your narration was superb. Why not tackle the gravity is not a force, thus it is the earth that is rising...... it's the correct way to think about gravity according to relativity, but it is very counterintuitive. Thanks
I have questioned why water doesn't light on fire ever since I learned that it was made of hydrogen and oxygen. This cleared so much up
Edit: Also CodysLab discovered that you need a 4th item for the fire triangle turning it into a fire square. Pressure
Explain why I need pressure for fire? I can start a fire without any pressure whatsoever. Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.
@@brightgarinson3099 You're thinking about applied pressure. It's atmospheric pressure that is needed, if you try lighting thermite in a vacuum chamber (you know a self oxidizing flame that goes until it burns itself out) it won't light because it doesn't have the atmospheric pressure surrounding it. So if all that was needed was heat, fuel and oxygen thermite should be able to burn in a vacuum no problem right? It's self oxidizing, self fueling and it doesn't take much energy to set it off but without atmospheric pressure it is going to just sit there as a pile of dust
@@brightgarinson3099 ruclips.net/video/8Cx9mNnky2U/видео.html
Here is the video from CodysLab
@@effen_aey_man Thanks for the detailed explanation, but does a vacuum chamber have oxygen?
@@brightgarinson3099 THERMITE IS A SELF OXIDIZING FLAME IT DOESN'T NEED OXYGEN TO BURN
Nile Blue was better name :)
I liked it too, honestly. I just think that it is smarter to keep everything NileRed related.
+NileRed2 i don't care aslong as you post smth. good :)
mattibboss haha i appreciate the support. Also, I am hoping to start posting some good stuff here soon!
+NileRed2 YAY!
What about nilegreen
I actually wondered this, so happy to have an answer! I already thought myself that it has to be that it takes away heat, this explanation expands on that understanding so much more!
Water starters > fire starters
UNTIL THEY GET THAT FIGHTING TYPE THO
I always chose water starters in the first generations but dang, I can't miss that fighting type
What amazes me, is that during plant growth, it bounds co2 with water using energy from the sun. Meanwhile while burning, you break this bound releasing energy, that was captured. So it means, flames produced by burning stuff is in fact packed sun energy that is releasing :o Every flame is a tiny part of sun :o
Well, all life on earth is dependent on the sun's energy to exist.
All energy production except geothermal and nuclear is also indirectly harvesting the energy of the sun.
Ok but then try explaining to someone the water is made up of hydrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen is flammable, and oxygen is needed for fire, so why is water not flammable.
This video somehow secretly explains that simply by saying fire MAKES water, in other word when hydrogen burns, all that’s happening is hydrogen and oxygen are combining to make water, and once that is done there is no more energy to be had, and thus the fire goes out, water is the lowest energy state.
2016:No
2017:No
2018:No
2019: *lEtS pUt It iN eVeRyOnEs ReCoMeNdAtIoNs!*
I was just dumbfounded trying to think of why I don't already know this.
Naive guess: Fire requires heat to keep burning fuel but water can absorb heat better than air? Also it's harder to consume oxygen with all the water in the way.
Chemistry is weird...Hydrogen and Oxygen are both highly flammable gasses...but together, they make a rather un-flammable liquid...
It all depends on the configuration of the free electrons in the last or orbit of the atom, that defines how easily they react. When atoms combine and no electrons are free properties change. When you think about it all matter is made of the same and is just defined by it's configuration like in a computer program.
*Me at 3AM:*
So, this means that if you have a fire and you only have access to boiling water, it might not be enough to put out the fire, right? It all depends on the size of the fire, what is burning and the amount of water, I would guess.
I guessed it was heat initially, but only because water can absorb a lot of heat ordinarily, and when it does the water begins to phase transition to a gas. And as I understand it that works really well for pulling away heat. And it can absorb heat generally and be drawn through closed systems that use a high surface area on the part of the system designed to cool the water after it gets in from the section of the loop cooling water ever thing is producing heat.
I feel like I've been lied to.
They say you never learn this stuff in school, but I already knew all about enthalpy and activation energy and specific heat and what not from high school chemistry. Paying attention is half the battle, guys!
same. I actually understood this stuff, and I just finished my sophomore year with chemistry. it's quite refreshing to see your knowledge gained from school coming in handy
"Oh look, there's a bright fire burning! Let's put it out with water!"
Proceeds to dump water on a burning Magnesium strip
"Water is the enemy of fire."
Electrical fires: It's free real estate.
Cool, know i can role-play as a smart scholar pretending i know something just because i know an information those don't know!
He literrally explained at the beginning that he didn't know and that he was glad that he was in the same category as his friends. Chill lady.
@@zacharytracy3797 Yes, i'm joking, chill man...