A candle burning exhibits all four states of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.
Implications: fire is a plasma. Most people will say no, I have recently come across some documentation that agrees with me, but it makes sense intuitively. So, if this means perhaps that we need to change our definition of exactly what plasma is, then so be it. I think it should be done.
The reason is this: when plasma was discovered and began being investigated (missing citation), the properties that were recorded were then used as a definition for the substance. I think it would be more meaningful to have a broader definition of "plasma," which would fit both that discovered substance, and other observed states of matter that do not exactly fit, 'solid, liquid, gas," because of their raised state of energy.
Honestly, fire should be a plasma, because it is not simply a gas. It is a gas undergoing a change. Of course it can be explained in the traditional way, "fire is not actually a plasma because . . . " But I'm just saying, maybe we change the definition of plasma to describe this.
I got all worked up because I heard David Wenbert say, "all fire is a plasma," in his PES interview. And I went, "look! look! Someone agrees with me!"
That's all, thanks for reading. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment