some questions on phlogiston

I apologize, these are likely to be many one line posts, but I know jroa likes short, concise questions, and he's the main proponent, it is what it is. So: first question:

Is phlogiston responsible for all combustion?

(and apologies if i'm mis-spelling as well)

I can't say for certain that it is responsible for all combustion.  I am still unsure about fission and fusion.  They may play a role in some of the combustion that we experience as well. 

I can't say for certain that it is responsible for all combustion.  I am still unsure about fission and fusion.  They may play a role in some of the combustion that we experience as well.

Ok, fair enough. Can we agree at least on "normal combustion", in other words, things you and I can start, without any extordinary materials? So nothing radioactive needed, no fusion or fission, just stuff burning?

I would say that your statement is likely mostly correct.  As I said, I can not say what other energy sources may be out there, but Phlogiston seems like the most likely source for at least most of the combustion that is observed. 

I would say that your statement is likely mostly correct.  As I said, I can not say what other energy sources may be out there, but Phlogiston seems like the most likely source for at least most of the combustion that is observed.

Ok, fair enough. Is it also responsible for things melting? I.E. if I heat a gold ingot, is phlogiston being released without burning?

If the heat is obtained from releasing Phlogiston from coal or some other source, then yes, the Phlogiston is responsible for the gold melting.  If there is any Phlogiston left in the gold at the time, then you might even have some burn in the gold itself.  But, no, the melting of gold has nothing to do with Phlogiston, other that it may be the source of the heat. 

If the heat is obtained from releasing Phlogiston from coal or some other source, then yes, the Phlogiston is responsible for the gold melting.  If there is any Phlogiston left in the gold at the time, then you might even have some burn in the gold itself.  But, no, the melting of gold has nothing to do with Phlogiston, other that it may be the source of the heat.

Ok.

So this one substance is responsible for all* combustion, Can you then explain the chart here or table 1 here.

In other words: if one substance is doing the burning, why are the temps required to get something to ignite so different, and why do the flames burn at such different intensities?

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2014, 06:30:23 AM

If the heat is obtained from releasing Phlogiston from coal or some other source, then yes, the Phlogiston is responsible for the gold melting.  If there is any Phlogiston left in the gold at the time, then you might even have some burn in the gold itself.  But, no, the melting of gold has nothing to do with Phlogiston, other that it may be the source of the heat.

Ok.

So this one substance is responsible for all* combustion, Can you then explain the chart here or table 1 here.

In other words: if one substance is doing the burning, why are the temps required to get something to ignite so different, and why do the flames burn at such different intensities?

You do realize that there are inconsistent amounts of Phlogiston in matter, right?  Some things burn better than others.   You seem like you think everything has to be the same everywhere. 

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 06:51:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 09, 2014, 06:30:23 AM

If the heat is obtained from releasing Phlogiston from coal or some other source, then yes, the Phlogiston is responsible for the gold melting.  If there is any Phlogiston left in the gold at the time, then you might even have some burn in the gold itself.  But, no, the melting of gold has nothing to do with Phlogiston, other that it may be the source of the heat.

Ok.

So this one substance is responsible for all* combustion, Can you then explain the chart here or table 1 here.

In other words: if one substance is doing the burning, why are the temps required to get something to ignite so different, and why do the flames burn at such different intensities?

You do realize that there are inconsistent amounts of Phlogiston in matter, right?  Some things burn better than others.   You seem like you think everything has to be the same everywhere.

That is unfounded based on observable conditions. It doesn't matter if i have a 10 kg block of wood, or a 1 kb block of the same type of wood, it's going to ignite at the same temperature, where as if i have a 10 kg of a different type of wood, it may ignite at a different temperature.

According to you, everything should ignite at the same point.

Actually, the substance that the material is made of determines the amount of Phlogiston that is still in the substance.  Do you understand, or are you still butt hurt and looking for anything to disprove me? 

Actually, the substance that the material is made of determines the amount of Phlogiston that is still in the substance.  Do you understand, or are you still butt hurt and looking for anything to disprove me?

Really, jroa? Is implying that i take it in the ass really appropriate? Have I been anything but concise and polite in this thread (or, really anywhere) to this point?

Yes I'm trying to show you why phlogiston isn't real. Yes, I understand if you grasp that it isn't real it's going to make a lot of your precious little flat world unravel.
So, try again. Why does 1 kg of pure phlogiston ignite at temp X, but a 2 kg chunk of material z with 50% phlogiston, ignite at temp Y. If you can't answer that, its ok, I've got more questions i can ask.

More to the point, why are things heavier after they're burnt, and why does that same mass of oxygen go mysteriously missing from the air the thing was burnt in?

That is unfounded based on observable conditions. It doesn't matter if i have a 10 kg block of wood, or a 1 kb block of the same type of wood, it's going to ignite at the same temperature, where as if i have a 10 kg of a different type of wood, it may ignite at a different temperature.

According to you, everything should ignite at the same point.

You are not quite getting the real problem with phlogiston: you cannot prove the non-existence of phlogiston just as you cannot prove the non-existence of invisible dragon fairies that make all combustion happen. But you can make innumerable predictions about combustion using simple chemistry knowledge.

You can do some cheap philosophical arguments about phlogiston, and in a sense they are arguably true. But you cannot make a single prediction starting from your phlogiston idea. On the other hand, the total amount of heat you can get from a piece of wood (given enough availability of oxygen) can be predicted very well by finding out the amount of carbon in that piece of wood.

This is the eternal "Science versus Truth" cheap philosophy that is used everywhere in this forum.

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 09, 2014, 07:31:31 AM

That is unfounded based on observable conditions. It doesn't matter if i have a 10 kg block of wood, or a 1 kb block of the same type of wood, it's going to ignite at the same temperature, where as if i have a 10 kg of a different type of wood, it may ignite at a different temperature.

According to you, everything should ignite at the same point.

You are not quite getting the real problem with phlogiston: you cannot prove the non-existence of phlogiston just as you cannot prove the non-existence of invisible dragon fairies that make all combustion happen. But you can make innumerable predictions about combustion using simple chemistry knowledge.

You can do some cheap philosophical arguments about phlogiston, and in a sense they are arguably true. But you cannot make a single prediction starting from your phlogiston idea. On the other hand, the total amount of heat you can get from a piece of wood (given enough availability of oxygen) can be predicted very well by finding out the amount of carbon in that piece of wood.

This is the eternal "Science versus Truth" cheap philosophy that is used everywhere in this forum.

That's true, but jroa will simply dismiss everything else published as falsified information for the conspiracy, so I'm trying to show him why his phlogiston can't be responsible for all the combustion. I say it at least once a week around here that i can't prove a negative.

I appreciate the help, guys.  I cannot state for certain that Phlogiston theory is absolute truth.  However, it does make sense from the observations we normally apply to oxidation.  I could be completely wrong about the whole thing.  And, if so, I am willing to open my mind.  However, the theory does seem to sit well with both Aether theory and Flat Earth theory. 

Let me do some more research, and perhaps I could come up with some experiments that I could try.  I can't promise anything as of yet, though. 

It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

Please label it as such.

Why?  I can't theorize about it?  I have to hypothesize about the substance?  Have you looked up the meaning of those words lately? 

You have an idea, you make up an hypothesis accordingly. Then you set up and run a series of experiments to check if your hypothesis is correct and you build a theory based on the observations, complete of a mathematical model. No experiment shows phlogiston exists, so it's a hypothesis. That's why the FE is a hypothesis too, not a theory.

I am not sure where you are going with this, but I will take the bait. 

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

I am not sure where you are going with this, but I will take the bait. 

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Ah, your good old dictionary. I assumed we were talking about scientific theories, were we not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

We are talking about theories.  You can take the asinine definition, if it makes you feel better.  Personally, I will stick to the common usage definition.   

We are talking about theories.  You can take the asinine definition, if it makes you feel better.  Personally, I will stick to the common usage definition.   

The "asinine" definition, commonly called the scientific one... I guess I'm expecting too much for phlogiston to have anything to do with science.

It is all science.  We can't both be right, but we could both be wrong.  I am researching experiments as we speak. 

What's wrong with the commonly accepted idea that burning is simply rapid oxidation with the release of heat? Did I miss something?

I remember learning about phlogiston in high school. I thought it was a pretty funny idea from the perspective of already knowing about oxygen and oxidation. Although now I see it as a pretty reasonable idea for its time, in proposing a substance to explain the phenomena of burning and rusting. It's just that it didn't hold up to scrutiny, one objection being that it would have to have negative mass to account for certain observations such as metals burning in oxygen. I think it's a triumph of science that these ideas can be proposed and discussed reasonably, and then discarded when the data don't fit the theory.

What is the attraction of the phlogiston theory for you jroa? Do you think that oxygen doesn't actually combine with other elements and release heat, or that oxygen doesn't exist, or what?

I was asked a question and gave an answer.  I told you that I cannot say for sure that my theory is correct.  All I can do is give the best answers that I can. 

I was asked a question and gave an answer.  I told you that I cannot say for sure that my theory is correct.  All I can do is give the best answers that I can.

What I'm confused about is why you speak as if the concept of phlogiston was in any way still viable after the discovery of oxygen and oxidation.

Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us? 

Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?

I can't remember if I did this one in high school or not; maybe you'd like to try it yourself since you're in doubt?

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/change-mass-when-magnesium-burns

Since these types of experiments invariably yield the result that the mass increases, then the phlogiston explanation has to include negative mass, a very strange concept indeed! That's the main objection.

However, since the discovery of oxygen and oxidation, we already have a complete explanation without the need for phlogiston, so I don't see why I'd need to prove that phlogiston is impossible. Rather, the burden appears to be on you to explain why it is necessary.

I appreciate the help, guys.  I cannot state for certain that Phlogiston theory is absolute truth.  However, it does make sense from the observations we normally apply to oxidation.  I could be completely wrong about the whole thing.  And, if so, I am willing to open my mind.  However, the theory does seem to sit well with both Aether theory and Flat Earth theory. 

Let me do some more research, and perhaps I could come up with some experiments that I could try.  I can't promise anything as of yet, though.

Let's keep it civil everyone.

Jroa, as you do your research, I would ask of one thing. Take a look at the EM spectrum of various gasses, and what they look like here on earth, and then take a look at the EM spectrum of various stars around the galaxy, yet none of them will show some common, unknown signature that would be indicative of phlogiston.

Do you have proof that Phlogiston Theory is not possible?  Perhaps you have performed some experiments that you would like to share with us?

Well I react sulfur with oxygen on any given day to get SO₂ gas. I then analyze the gas flow to see how much SO₂ was made. I can then tell how much sulfur was in the sample. Other versions of the instrument will do carbon at the same time. This goes 100% against Phlogiston theory.