Is a lighter effective because it’s on fire? Or just because it’s hot?
If you made a lighter that was just as hot as another lighter, would it work just as well even if it had no fire?
Is a lighter effective because it’s on fire? Or just because it’s hot?
If you made a lighter that was just as hot as another lighter, would it work just as well even if it had no fire?
Lots of people are mentioning old electric car lighters, but not why things burn. The answer is the fire triangle, which just means you need 3 factors: fuel, oxidizer, and heat. Oxygen is obviously the most common oxidizer (hence the name) and basically everywhere in the atmosphere. And any substance that undergoes a sufficiently exothermic reaction will produce enough heat to propagate that oxidation as a chain reaction (i.e. fire) once enough heat is present to start it.
Not all fuels are equal. Ones that burn slowly will smoulder, while the ones that burn extremely fast explode. Too many unintended and destructive fires occur because people don’t realize when fuel sources are susceptible to heat (even a tiny spark), such as dust in a grain silo, a pile of oily rags, or even a compost heap (which builds up heat due to bacteria breaking down the contents).
But yes, back to the point, lighters just need to create heat because presumably you already have fuel and oxygen available.
Farenheit 451 is a reference to the autoignition temperature of paper. It’s a flameless ignition. Fire isn’t necessary, just really good at concentrating very high temperature gases into the thing you want to burn. Another good visualization of the fire triangle is burning wood in a campfire vs in a kiln to make coal. By keeping away most fresh air in a kiln, the wood burns differently - higher temps, less material consumption, and the flames only appear at the openings. That’s useful for metal melting