quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am sorry cockgargler, thats as simple as I can make it, even for a toiletlicking retard such as you realzeroretard.

If you aint got the language down, only the cockslobbering, you are gonna be busy licking at the KFC toilets the rest of your life.

Yeah yeah yeah gramps, eeeeeeeveryone who disagrees with you is a faggot

You've told us a million times

Must have been considered quite the zinger back in the fifties, the way you rely on it as your crutch

Yeah yeah yeah corpulent pedophile compound gimp and felchgobbler we know you are a hysterically homophobic pants shitter flouncing around like a perimenopausal drag queen in high dudgeon, you have felchgobbled and cockgargled that old line of yours from your mothers basement since the 60s till today and we have heard it several trillion times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am not going to list all the senses of the words just the germane senses, we dont want to overload imbeciles.

nat·u·ral·ly
adverb
1. without special help or intervention; in a natural manner.
synonyms: by nature, by character, inherently, innately, congenitally

as·pi·rate
verb (used with object), aspirated, aspirating.

3.to draw or remove by suction.

flame
noun
1. a hot glowing body of ignited gas that is generated by something on fire.


an open air fire? yeah, looks like it. is in or out of a building a necessary and sufficient condition? no.........so placement isnt going to matter.

http://discoverykids.com/articles/how-does-fire-work/

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: klmpong

Are these the same "scientists" that have promoted the blatant lie of evolution?

Just the same old political bullshit.

I love just how fun and different educational culture is in the USA to the civilised world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I will put you in a room with fire, and you see how long you can breath in it. It certainly draws, sucks, inhales, aspirates, imbibes, consumes................oh hell you get the idea......................Oxygen from the air.

Fire is a chemical reaction in which an object reacts with oxygen at a certain temperatures. <<<<<<<<<<<<< your blurb. now, do we have to get down to cases on 'reacts'?

as such it is aspirated, and its natural. When there is no oxygen, there is no fire.

Fire extinguishing methods exclude air (oxygen) from reacting that is...............atomically combining a fuel and an oxidizing agent (oxygen) and picking up free radicals.

Natural aspiration has little or nothing to do with zero gravity or any gravity we exist in.

Your non-sequitur is 'inoperable'

sucking may not be vacuum here. Please see any naturally aspirated forest fire of any size for atomspheric changes.

I cannot buy your assumptions, therefore I cannot buy your deal. (and explain the exploding windows in a house fire left unattended). see, we have this thing where hot air rises, and there becomes a difference in pressures between hot and cold, even a reactionary would not say that hot air descends would they?

But to sharpen the point, the observers of this round ball of flame, did they naturally aspirate while performing the experiment or would that also be unnatural?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: InfoMan
ORIGINAL: thompsonx


what is 'naturally aspirated flame'?

I realize it is a very big word...try to sound it out.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Actually it isn't a very big word, it is 3 words. I know time and again you have difficulty with English, but c'mon... even a 5 year old would realize that.
Further more - that doesn't answer the question:

What is 'Naturally aspirated flame'... because there is no such thing as a 'naturally aspirated' flame... because fire doesn't work that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


Incorrect, The thermal energy produced by the reaction is absorbed by the surrounding air, causing it to circulate via thermodynamics and gravity
(hot air rises, cold air descends) which is what causes more air is pushed into the combusting materials.

You can call it pushing but that is not what it is doing. The falling cold air is at the same temp and pressure as the surrounding air so it is not pushing.
The reduced pressure within the flame sucks more air into the combustion process.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

For Aspiration to occur naturally - AS PER YOUR DEFINITION - it would have to suck air into the flame with out any other external forces
being applied to it. And if we put it in exactly those conditions, like in zero gravity, the flame does NOT produce a vacuum effect drawing in extra
air, and instead produces a ball of burning material which eventually sputters out once all the fuel in it's area of effect is consumed.

Wrong again, the ball of burning material is fuel and oxygen. when the oxygen is consumed the flame goes out.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I will put you in a room with fire, and you see how long you can breath in it. It certainly draws, sucks, inhales, aspirates, imbibes, consumes................oh hell you get the idea......................Oxygen from the air.

Fire is a chemical reaction in which an object reacts with oxygen at a certain temperatures. <<<<<<<<<<<<< your blurb. now, do we have to get down to cases on 'reacts'?

as such it is aspirated, and its natural. When there is no oxygen, there is no fire.

Fire extinguishing methods exclude air (oxygen) from reacting that is...............atomically combining a fuel and an oxidizing agent (oxygen) and picking up free radicals.

Natural aspiration has little or nothing to do with zero gravity or any gravity we exist in.

Your non-sequitur is 'inoperable'

sucking may not be vacuum here. Please see any naturally aspirated forest fire of any size for atomspheric changes.

I cannot buy your assumptions, therefore I cannot buy your deal. (and explain the exploding windows in a house fire left unattended). see, we have this thing where hot air rises, and there becomes a difference in pressures between hot and cold, even a reactionary would not say that hot air descends would they?

But to sharpen the point, the observers of this round ball of flame, did they naturally aspirate while performing the experiment or would that also be unnatural?

Incorrect, The thermal energy produced by the reaction is absorbed by the surrounding air, causing it to circulate via thermodynamics and gravity (hot air rises, cold air descends) which is what causes more air is pushed into the combusting materials.

For Aspiration to occur naturally - AS PER YOUR DEFINITION - it would have to suck air into the flame with out any other external forces being applied to it. And if we put it in exactly those conditions, like in zero gravity, the flame does NOT produce a vacuum effect drawing in extra air, and instead produces a ball of burning material which eventually sputters out once all the fuel in it's area of effect is consumed.

You are contradicting your Own definition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

none of which really has anything to do with the question at hand.

on a side note---"rust" requires iron and water---neither of which are constituents of fire.

maybe you are getting confused over the word "oxidation" in reference to fire?

the only thing you can do now to make it even worse for yourself is to throw some "felchgobbles" in the mix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

oh, sorry, you again must stand in a fire in a room with no circulation. You will not be burned. Tell me all about your breathing skills.

quote:

we do not live in zero gravity and fire burns and people breath in it. Further your experiment, add more gasoline in the confined space, and watch it burn in a ball.

We live in a real world.

quote:

A fire will burn as long as there is fuel and oxygen (its really rusting is what it is doing). assume all the fuel in the world if you must. and exactly 2 sq ft of 02 in the world and it is available to the burning organic matter.

It will last forever, go!!!! let us see the equation again, a wildfire burns, and there is no lack of organic material and zero oxygen. What is the burn time? is the burn time equal to the flame or fire? if not, why not?