Live data from Hacker News

Why Combustion Is Exothermic

pubs.acs.org

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#21
post #12

> This explains why fire is hot regardless of fuel composition. This cracks me up. Despite a chemistry degree, I have never really thought to consider whether or not endothermic combustion exists, even though endothermic reactions exist. Nitrogen "combustion" with oxygen is endothermic. But really, the definition of combustion implies a high temperature, relatively rapid and self-sustaining reaction, e.g. rust and gl…

Right.

If a reaction were to be endothermic would we have called it combustion in the first place ?

Implied in the name there is this notion that the reagents are looking for an excuse to combust, a release of bottled potential, this in turn implies this has to be an energy producing reaction rather than one where the reagents need to be coerced into reacting by providing external energy

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#22

Considering space resources people have a hard time recognizing that hydrocarbons are a structural material but not an energy source w/o molecular O2. (e.g. it's thought that many asteroids are like Saudi Arabia but with the relative proportions of sand and hydrocarbons reversed)

I don't understand your point, if you are claiming that O2 is not abundant in space, I think the idea is that we also find an ice asteroid. Where there is water, there is oxygen. Edit: I assume people are missing my reasoning. Yes, water requires energy to split, but assuming you are doing some other process that ends up with a resulting split anyway, you could use the hydrocarbons as a fuel source at that stage. Thi…

Recycling what?

Let's say you have oxygen from somewhere. You use the oxygen to burn hydrocarbons, to make energy and water and CO2.

To turn that into a closed cycle, you need to regenerate the water and CO2 into oxygen, to burn more hydrocarbons. The only way to do that is to add energy - on earth, we use solar energy via photosynthesis, but in space, you could use solar or nuclear energy via some chemical process.

But if you have the energy to regenerate the oxygen, why not just use it? Why make oxygen and then burn the hydrocarbons?

And why bother burning more hydrocarbons when a by-product of the regeneration process is carbon, a perfect fuel!

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#23
Weak bond to strong bond, release energy. Strong bond to weak bond, store energy. Enthalpy is the outside environment, like pressure and temperature, needed per internal state requirements, coarsely being internal voltage and emissivity. As the bonds of internal state strengthen, the environment requires less to maintain that internal state and loosens it's grip on it. Heat then flows from internal state to the environment.

In fusion, hydrogen is converted to helium. One proton and one electron of each hydrogen atom are free to move as they see fit. As temperatures increase, protons and electrons become free of their hydrogen atom internal state bonds. They whip around until two protons together mesh with two electrons. The freedom of movement in the plasma, and the freedom of movement from two separate hydrogen atoms grips into helium as heavier fusion requires a higher temperature. Atoms have an incredibly fine resolution, as fine as something can go. The large amount of them release substantial heat. Add neutrons, the principles of nuclear decay, nature moving heat with mass while leaving internal state properties alone, increases the ability for energy to release.

Instead of thinking of little grains of matter, the internal state is very ephemeral. Before something can be brighter, it needs to be hotter. There's a capacity to hold heat and a latency to transfer heat. This capacity is natures ability to speed up and slow down it's own internal ticking clock to move with least effort. At the smallest scales possible, instead of a little building block, likely its nature's ability to "correct the record". Nothing says nature gets to change the entire environment faster than you can observe it if it's an easier path to move.

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point, if you are claiming that O2 is not abundant in space, I think the idea is that we also find an ice asteroid. Where there is water, there is oxygen. Edit: I assume people are missing my reasoning. Yes, water requires energy to split, but assuming you are doing some other process that ends up with a resulting split anyway, you could use the hydrocarbons as a fuel source at that stage. Thi…

Yeah but you have to expend energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. So burning hydrocarbons using water doesn't make much sense.

Imagine you're making a rocket engine, and both fuel and combustion products have high molecular weight. A rough example is burning CO (carbon monoxide) in O2, with reasoning being "both of them can be obtained from martian athmosphere". So the fuel isn't great, and specific impulse - Isp - is low, but if you add a relatively low-molecular weight component to fuel - like water - you can hope to have greater positive effect from lowering average molecular mass of combustion products than negative effect from adding an inert component.

That's partially illustrated by nuclear hydrogen engines - there is no chemistry, and the gas coming from the nozzle is actually colder than what conventional chemical rocket engine produces. Hydrogen doesn't participates in any transformations, it's purely a working fluid, yet Isp is about twice as good as with LOX-LH2 engines.

So at least adding water to burning process might sometimes improve the result.

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#25

Considering space resources people have a hard time recognizing that hydrocarbons are a structural material but not an energy source w/o molecular O2. (e.g. it's thought that many asteroids are like Saudi Arabia but with the relative proportions of sand and hydrocarbons reversed)

Where do the hydrocarbons on the asteroids come from in that view? I’m curious because on earth the hydrocarbons come from life.

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#26
post #18
post #12

> This explains why fire is hot regardless of fuel composition. This cracks me up. Despite a chemistry degree, I have never really thought to consider whether or not endothermic combustion exists, even though endothermic reactions exist. Nitrogen "combustion" with oxygen is endothermic. But really, the definition of combustion implies a high temperature, relatively rapid and self-sustaining reaction, e.g. rust and gl…

There were reports of using small iron pellets as a fuel, so does it mean rust creation can be considered combustion as well?

Is it hot, relatively fast, and self sustaining?

If you make your pellets small enough, it is. The combustion of steel brushes is quite interesting to watch.

If you make your pellets too small, then is stops being an ordinary combustion and becomes an explosion.

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#27
post #20
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> recent photosynthesis AFAIK our oxygen was not made recently. It accumulated over billions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event This here tries to project oxygen levels: > It is found that anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion is the largest contributor to the current O2 deficit, which consumed 2.0 Gt/a in 1900 and has increased to 38.2 Gt/a by 2015. Under the Representative Concentration Pa…

> AFAIK our oxygen was not made recently. It accumulated over billions of years. According to wikipedia [1], the atmosphere has 34e18 mol of oxygen, and photosynthesis produces 8800e12 mol/yr of oxygen, meaning the atmosphere turns over in a little under four thousand years. There's a separate estimate of atmospheric oxygen's "residence time" in the text, of 4500 years. So although oxygen levels have been high for bi…

That calculation is simplistic as it is based on the current steady-state. The oxygen catastrophe was a massive change away from the previous equilibrium state which first had to deplete all the buffers. That's how we got iron ore veins, by oxidizing most of the iron out of the oceans. And there are other sinks besides iron.

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#29
post #10

Wow! So the bulk of the energy we consume comes not from the hydrocarbons we're digging up, but the oxygen bonds we're breaking when we burn them. That's completely spun around my understanding of fuels. Fascinating. That also means that the energy we use to fuel our lives mostly comes directly from recent photosynthesis, and not actually from historical sunlight embodied in the fossil fuels we're burning.

If this is true, why do we speak of energy density of our fuels?

Re: Why Combustion Is Exothermic

#30
post #29
post #10

Wow! So the bulk of the energy we consume comes not from the hydrocarbons we're digging up, but the oxygen bonds we're breaking when we burn them. That's completely spun around my understanding of fuels. Fascinating. That also means that the energy we use to fuel our lives mostly comes directly from recent photosynthesis, and not actually from historical sunlight embodied in the fossil fuels we're burning.

If this is true, why do we speak of energy density of our fuels?

For air-breathing vehicles like cars, you assume the oxygen comes for free. For rocket fuel, you have to include the oxygen tanks in the energy density calculation.
Post reply on HN