From the Telegraph:

"EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.

The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
responsibility.

But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
leaking from an emergency gas mask. "

I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
the report.

--
Davey.

On 27/04/2022 in message <t4av9d$395$1@dont-email.me> Davey wrote:

>But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>
>I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
>flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
>science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
>the report.

You're right, odd finding. wonder if anybody will point out the problem?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists
or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.

On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
> From the Telegraph:
>
> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>
> The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
> down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
> responsibility.
>
> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "

Serious fire accidents resulting from an oxygen rich atmosphere are rare
but can be incredibly serious. A zone of pure oxygen will turn a
smouldering cigarette into a raging inferno and potentially ignite
anything else inflammable nearby like bits of cockpit plastic and
pilots. This was the mode of failure of the infamous Apollo 1 test.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/55-years-ago-the-apollo-1-fire-and-its-aftermath

Hospital patients sneaking a quick drag on a cigarette in an oxygen tent
sometimes end up on fire too. Things are even worse if they have one of
the fat based skin creams being used at the same time.
>
> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
> the report.
Pure oxygen can make things remarkably volatile. I suspect the report
may have lost something in translation.

More likely that it was the cigarette flame that ignited the leaking
oxygen mask creating a very quickly accelerating conflagration.

LOX & cotton wool or LOX and rich tea biscuits are a staple of
spectacular pyrotechnical RSC chemistry lectures. eg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k46SBv8EiS8

There is a video of the guy who used to do this trick with a red hot
iron bar to detonate the LOX & cotton wool demo with a plaster on his
forehead later in the sequence (he scaled it up slightly for filming).

I think that variant has now been banned as too dangerous for modern
health and safety. I have seen him bring ceiling tiles down with it and
small fragments of sensitised gun cotton land on the floor afterwards.

Gas suppliers refused to sell him LOX after he retired so he built his
own portable LOX still powered by LN2 (which any decent lab has).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
> From the Telegraph:
>
> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>
> The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
> down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
> responsibility.
>
> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>
> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
> the report.
>
I think it is you who does not know their science - forget the
journalist - an oxygen full cockpit makes everything inflammable.

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:35:57 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:

>From the Telegraph:
>
>"EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
>when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
>the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
>Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>
>The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
>down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
>responsibility.
>
>But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>
>I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
>flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
>science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
>the report.

That's the Telegraph journalist speaking, not the official report. The
article also says that the official report has yet to be publicly
released.

Nick

On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
> From the Telegraph:
>
> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>
> The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
> down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
> responsibility.
>
> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>
> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
> the report.
>

You are quoting from a newspaper report. It is never safe to assume that
a newspaper report is a factually accurate account of what is being
reported. The term oxygen fire is widely used to describe any fire that
is due to the presence of enhanced levels of oxygen. The reporter may
not have understood that, or there may have been a mistranslation from
the original report.

--
Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher brought next idea :
> I think it is you who does not know their science - forget the journalist -
> an oxygen full cockpit makes everything inflammable.

Even steel can burn, given enough of an oxygen supply. Wire wool pan
scrub pads can be made to combust, in air.

On 27/04/2022 in message <t4b13t$h2d$2@dont-email.me> The Natural
Philosopher wrote:

>On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
>>From the Telegraph:
>>
>>"EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
>>when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
>>the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
>>Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>>
>>The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
>>down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
>>responsibility.
>>
>>But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>>cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>>leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>>
>>I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
>>flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
>>science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
>>the report.
>>
>I think it is you who does not know their science - forget the journalist
>- an oxygen full cockpit makes everything inflammable.

Indeed, that's what the OP implied and I said. Oxygen on its own is not
flammable.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it.

On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
> From the Telegraph:
>
> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>
> The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
> down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
> responsibility.
>
> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>
> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
> the report.

Oxygen will burn in, for example, a methane atmosphere. I seem to
recall that being demonstrated at school on a bell jar, probably with
town gas.

It's the interface between the constituents where they react vigorously
which is where the flame is.

[Of course, in your example, the journo probably just made a mistake.]

--
Cheers
Clive

On 27/04/2022 09:05, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
>> From the Telegraph:

>> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
>> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
>> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
>> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.

>> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "

> Serious fire accidents resulting from an oxygen rich atmosphere are rare
> but can be incredibly serious. A zone of pure oxygen will turn a
> smouldering cigarette into a raging inferno and potentially ignite
> anything else inflammable nearby like bits of cockpit plastic and
> pilots. This was the mode of failure of the infamous Apollo 1 test.

> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/55-years-ago-the-apollo-1-fire-and-its-aftermath

> LOX & cotton wool or LOX and rich tea biscuits are a staple of
> spectacular pyrotechnical RSC chemistry lectures. eg.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k46SBv8EiS8

Before the Apollo fire, a Ukrainian-born trainee cosmonaut, Valentin
Vasiliyevich Bondarenko, was killed in a fire in a 50% oxygen-rich
low-pressure training exercise on Moscow:

"23 March 1961 was the tenth day of a 15-day endurance experiment in a
low pressure altitude chamber at the Institute of Biomedical Problems in
Moscow.[4] The chamber's atmosphere was at least 50% oxygen. Bondarenko,
having completed work for the day, removed monitoring biosensors from
his body and washed his skin with an alcohol-soaked cotton ball, which
he then discarded. The cotton ball landed on an electric hot plate which
he was using to brew a cup of tea. The cotton ignited and Bondarenko
tried to smother the flames with the sleeve of his woolen coveralls,
which caught fire in the chamber's oxygen-rich atmosphere.

Because of the pressure difference, it took a watching doctor nearly
half an hour to open the chamber door. Bondarenko's clothing burned
until almost all the oxygen in the chamber was used up and he had
suffered third-degree burns over most of his body. The attending
physician at Botkin Hospital, surgeon and traumatologist Vladimir
Golyakhovsky, recalled in 1984 that while attempting to start an
intravenous drip, the only blood vessels he could find for inserting a
needle were on the soles of Bondarenko's feet, where his flight boots
had warded off the flames. According to Golyakhovsky, cosmonaut Yuri
Gagarin spent several hours at the hospital as "deathwatch officer".
Bondarenko died of shock 16 hours after the accident, less than three
weeks before Gagarin's first spaceflight aboard Vostok 1.[5] Manned
orbital flight program director Nikolai Kamanin blamed Bondarenko's
death on the Institute's poor organisation and control of the experiment.[4]

Bondarenko was buried in Lipovaya Roshcha in Kharkiv,[6] where his
parents were then living. On 17 June 1961 the Presidium of the Supreme
Soviet posthumously awarded Bondarenko the Order of the Red Star."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Bondarenko>

--
Spike

Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
> > From the Telegraph:
> >
> > "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
> > when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
> > the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
> > Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
> >
> > The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
> > down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
> > responsibility.
> >
> > But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
> > cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
> > leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
> >
> > I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
> > flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
> > science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
> > the report.
>
> Oxygen will burn in, for example, a methane atmosphere. I seem to
> recall that being demonstrated at school on a bell jar, probably with
> town gas.
>
> It's the interface between the constituents where they react vigorously
> which is where the flame is.
>
> [Of course, in your example, the journo probably just made a mistake.]
>
Surely the idea of X burning in Y is no different from Y burning in X.

Burning is just a hot chemical reaction producing a flame. The idea
that "oxygen can't burn" doesn't really make sense. You could say
exactly the same about almost anything. "Hydrogen can't burn" if
there's no Oxygen present. Whether "Hydrogen burns in Oxygen" or
"Oxygen burns in Hydrogen" is impossible to define really. It's just
that, generally, in the world we are familiar with we have an oxygen
rich atmosphere in which other things burn. If our atmosphere was
(say) methane rich then things might burn in methane (including oxygen).

--
Chris Green
·

On 27/04/2022 in message <4monji-18nb.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu> Chris Green
wrote:

>Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
>>> From the Telegraph:
>>>
>>>"EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
>>>when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
>>>the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
>>>Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>>>
>>>The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
>>>down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
>>>responsibility.
>>>
>>>But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>>>cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>>>leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>>>
>>>I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
>>>flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
>>>science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
>>>the report.
>>
>>Oxygen will burn in, for example, a methane atmosphere. I seem to
>>recall that being demonstrated at school on a bell jar, probably with
>>town gas.
>>
>>It's the interface between the constituents where they react vigorously
>>which is where the flame is.
>>
>>[Of course, in your example, the journo probably just made a mistake.]
>>
>Surely the idea of X burning in Y is no different from Y burning in X.
>
>Burning is just a hot chemical reaction producing a flame. The idea
>that "oxygen can't burn" doesn't really make sense. You could say
>exactly the same about almost anything. "Hydrogen can't burn" if
>there's no Oxygen present. Whether "Hydrogen burns in Oxygen" or
>"Oxygen burns in Hydrogen" is impossible to define really. It's just
>that, generally, in the world we are familiar with we have an oxygen
>rich atmosphere in which other things burn. If our atmosphere was
>(say) methane rich then things might burn in methane (including oxygen).

The position relating to oxygen and burning has been known for many years.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I've been through the desert on a horse with no name.
It was a right bugger to get him back when he ran off.

On 27/04/2022 10:07, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
>>  From the Telegraph:
>>
>> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
>> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
>> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
>> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>>
>> The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
>> down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
>> responsibility.
>>
>> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>>
>> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
>> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
>> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
>> the report.
>>
> I think it is you who does not know their science - forget the
> journalist - an oxygen full cockpit makes everything inflammable.
>

A local concentration of 24% or more oxygen is enough to make most
things combust readily.

--
Colin Bignell

On 27/04/2022 13:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 in message <4monji-18nb.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu> Chris Green
> wrote:
>
>> Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
>>>>  From the Telegraph:
>>>>
>>>> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
>>>> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
>>>> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
>>>> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>>>>
>>>> The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
>>>> down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
>>>> responsibility.
>>>>
>>>> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>>>> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>>>> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>>>>
>>>> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
>>>> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
>>>> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
>>>> the report.
>>>
>>> Oxygen will burn in, for example, a methane atmosphere.  I seem to
>>> recall that being demonstrated at school on a bell jar, probably with
>>> town gas.
>>>
>>> It's the interface between the constituents where they react vigorously
>>> which is where the flame is.
>>>
>>> [Of course, in your example, the journo probably just made a mistake.]
>>>
>> Surely the idea of X burning in Y is no different from Y burning in X.

It can be somewhat different since there is an excess of the major
component that the other being injected into as "fuel".

>> Burning is just a hot chemical reaction producing a flame.  The idea
>> that "oxygen can't burn" doesn't really make sense.  You could say
>> exactly the same about almost anything.  "Hydrogen can't burn" if
>> there's no Oxygen present.  Whether "Hydrogen burns in Oxygen" or
>> "Oxygen burns in Hydrogen" is impossible to define really.  It's just
>> that, generally, in the world we are familiar with we have an oxygen
>> rich atmosphere in which other things burn.  If our atmosphere was
>> (say) methane rich then things might burn in methane (including oxygen).
>
> The position relating to oxygen and burning has been known for many years.

But it is only really by convention because we happen to live in an
oxygen rich atmosphere. On Saturn's moon Titan it would be exactly the
other way around - oxygen would burn in it's methane rich atmosphere.

There are subtleties too in zero g. The flame quickly becomes diffusion
limited with no gravity to move the hot combustion gasses away.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/zero-g-fire-pulses-jellyfish-space-station-180952454/

Playing with flames in zero g has opened up new areas of research into
how flame reactions behave under more easily controlled conditions.

Also they are aiming to figure out how to extinguish an unwanted fire
safely in a space station without also seeing off the astronauts.

There oxidisers even more potent than oxygen most notably ClF3 or as the
Germans called it N-stoff. Elemental fluorine is tame by comparison.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/07/chlorine-trifluoride-aka-chemical-can-set-fire-glass/

Rather nice picture of a wine glass on fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride#Hazards

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 27/04/2022 13:14, Chris Green wrote:
> Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
>>> From the Telegraph:
>>>
>>> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
>>> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
>>> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
>>> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>>>
>>> The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
>>> down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>>> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>>> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>>>
>>> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
>>> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
>>> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
>>> the report.
>>
>> Oxygen will burn in, for example, a methane atmosphere. I seem to
>> recall that being demonstrated at school on a bell jar, probably with
>> town gas.
>>
>> It's the interface between the constituents where they react vigorously
>> which is where the flame is.
>>
>> [Of course, in your example, the journo probably just made a mistake.]
>>
> Surely the idea of X burning in Y is no different from Y burning in X.
>
> Burning is just a hot chemical reaction producing a flame. The idea
> that "oxygen can't burn" doesn't really make sense. You could say
> exactly the same about almost anything. "Hydrogen can't burn" if
> there's no Oxygen present. Whether "Hydrogen burns in Oxygen" or
> "Oxygen burns in Hydrogen" is impossible to define really. It's just
> that, generally, in the world we are familiar with we have an oxygen
> rich atmosphere in which other things burn. If our atmosphere was
> (say) methane rich then things might burn in methane (including oxygen).

Normally, burning is defined as a process of oxidation, so hydrogen can
burn in oxygen, but even when the other way around, it is the hydrogen
that is being oxidised at the interface between them.

However, using the term oxygen fire is quite normal for cases where
items that do not readily burn in air, do so vigorously in oxygen rich
atmospheres.

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>
> Because of the pressure difference, it took a watching doctor nearly
> half an hour to open the chamber door.

If this was a low pressure test this doesn’t make sense. There’s very
little risk from increasing the ambient pressure quickly (unlike dropping
from a higher pressure). I suspect the delay was cause by panic and
confusion about the risks.

If it was a hyperbaric chamber then one might worry about the effects of
decompression but I reckon the consumption of oxygen by the fire would have
dropped the pressure rapidly anyway!

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 27/04/2022 17:35, Tim+ wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>> Because of the pressure difference, it took a watching doctor nearly
>> half an hour to open the chamber door.

> If this was a low pressure test this doesn’t make sense. There’s very
> little risk from increasing the ambient pressure quickly (unlike dropping
> from a higher pressure). I suspect the delay was cause by panic and
> confusion about the risks.

> If it was a hyperbaric chamber then one might worry about the effects of
> decompression but I reckon the consumption of oxygen by the fire would have
> dropped the pressure rapidly anyway!

It was to have been a 15-day isolation test for Bondarenko, using a
reduced-pressure atmosphere enriched to 50% to make it breathable.

I guess the pressure rose with the addition of the combustion gasses
more than making up for the decrease in oxygen content. The picture I've
seen of the chamber - which was quite small, say 6' x 10' - had an
outer-opening external door to a tiny vestibule leading to the test
chamber itself, just big enough for a chair and tiny work surface, say
5' square. The inner door appears to open inwards and it may be this one
that they couldn't open straight away perhaps due to the pressure of the
combustion gasses.

--
Spike

On 27/04/2022 18:35, Tim+ wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Because of the pressure difference, it took a watching doctor nearly
>> half an hour to open the chamber door.
>
> If this was a low pressure test this doesn’t make sense. There’s very
> little risk from increasing the ambient pressure quickly (unlike dropping
> from a higher pressure). I suspect the delay was cause by panic and
> confusion about the risks.
>
> If it was a hyperbaric chamber then one might worry about the effects of
> decompression but I reckon the consumption of oxygen by the fire would have
> dropped the pressure rapidly anyway!

The heat generated by combustion generally makes the pressure in a
sealed pressure vessel rise very rapidly indeed. Unless there was active
pumping to maintain the low pressure the chamber would be over pressure.

If it was burning pure carbon completely then

2 C + 2 O2 => 2 CO2 + heat = no change in number of molecules

When the oxygen starts to run out then

2 C + O2 => 2 CO = number of molecules doubles

Actual results will be in between with an additional small contribution
from any hydrogen from olefin plastics as steam. The increase in
temperature from the fire makes all the difference.

The technique is called bomb calorimetry. You put a measured amount of
fuel in with pure oxygen, seal it up tightly and ignite. The heat of
combustion can be measured and used to determine calorie content.

They have used this method on many building materials after Grenfell -
but sadly it answers the wrong question and fails just about everything
as "Flammable" that isn't already an inert refractory oxide material.

It doesn't distinguish between something sufficiently fire retardant to
merely smoulder at 1cm/minute and the napalm loaded plates that that
they strapped onto Grenfell with a burn rate of 2m/minute.

Burning in pure 100% oxygen at constant volume they both burn in a
matter of a seconds or less as the internal pressure rises very quickly.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 13:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >> Surely the idea of X burning in Y is no different from Y burning in X.
>
> It can be somewhat different since there is an excess of the major
> component that the other being injected into as "fuel".

Also different states/media. It makes sense to talk about burning wood in
(gaseous) oxygen, but not much sense to about burning oxygen in wood (how
would you get it inside? How would you ignite it?).

Chemically it's the same, but physically it's different - surface area,
mixing, etc.

After all, everyone knows that petrol burns in air. Exactly *how* to burn
petrol in air has taken a century of development.

Theo

In message <t4av9d$395$1@dont-email.me>, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
writes
>From the Telegraph:
>
>"EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
>when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
>the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
>Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>
>The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
>down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
>responsibility.
>
>But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
>cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
>leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>
>I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
>flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
>science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
>the report.
>

Sounds like obblocks . Everyone knows combustion is caused by
phlogiston.

B
--
Brian Howie

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:49:43 +0100
brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <t4av9d$395$1@dont-email.me>, Davey
> <davey@example.invalid> writes
> >From the Telegraph:
> >
> >"EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May
> >2016 when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone
> >on board the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a
> >Briton, 30 Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
> >
> >The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was
> >brought down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
> >responsibility.
> >
> >But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
> >cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited
> >oxygen leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
> >
> >I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
> >flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
> >science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who
> >produced the report.
> >
>
>
> Sounds like obblocks . Everyone knows combustion is caused by
> phlogiston.
>
> B

....thereby letting the smoke out.

It all sounds so plausible:
"In general, substances that burned in air were said to be rich in
phlogiston; the fact that combustion soon ceased in an enclosed space
was taken as clear-cut evidence that air had the capacity to absorb
only a finite amount of phlogiston. When air had become completely
phlogisticated it would no longer serve to support combustion of any
material, nor would a metal heated in it yield a calx; nor could
phlogisticated air support life. Breathing was thought to take
phlogiston out of the body."
--
Davey.

On 28/04/2022 12:44, Theo wrote:
> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/04/2022 13:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>> Surely the idea of X burning in Y is no different from Y burning in X.
>>
>> It can be somewhat different since there is an excess of the major
>> component that the other being injected into as "fuel".
>
> Also different states/media. It makes sense to talk about burning wood in
> (gaseous) oxygen, but not much sense to about burning oxygen in wood (how
> would you get it inside? How would you ignite it?).

Pouring LOX onto it would do. And very carefully from a long distance.

Various YouTube videos of people throwing LOX onto lit BBQs exist and
the odd one of some muppet putting LOX and then lighting it. Some of the
latter survived the resulting explosion give or take the odd limb.
>
> Chemically it's the same, but physically it's different - surface area,
> mixing, etc.

Charcoal mixes surprisingly well with LOX.

> After all, everyone knows that petrol burns in air. Exactly *how* to burn
> petrol in air has taken a century of development.
>
> Theo

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 27 Apr 2022 at 09:35:57 BST, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
> the report.

Oxygen doesn't "assist" combustion, it actively participates in it and is
consumed in the process. Others have pointed out about oxygen tents and fires,
you should read up about the Apollo 1 capsule disaster - pure oxygen at
atmospheric pressure. That just required a spark.

Don't ever breathe pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure either; you will damage
your lungs.

If you want something worse than pure oxygen, try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride and read the section on
hazards, and the section above about rocket propellants.

--
When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Reuters 31st May 2013.

On 27/04/2022 09:35, Davey wrote:
> From the Telegraph:
>
> "EgyptAir flight MS804 was travelling from France to Egypt in May 2016
> when it crashed into the sea south of Crete, killing everyone on board
> the Airbus A320. Among them were 12 French tourists, a Briton, 30
> Egyptians, two Iraqis and a Canadian.
>
> The Egyptian authorities claimed at the time that the plane was brought
> down by a terrorist attack – despite no group ever claiming
> responsibility.
>
> But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a
> cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen
> leaking from an emergency gas mask. "
>
> I thought that oxygen assisted combustion, but was not itself
> flammable. It sounds like another case of somebody not knowing their
> science, but that somebody is "The Official Investigator", who produced
> the report.

I recall an experiment and air burning in gas. But I can't find many
hits, this is the best I can find:
https://www.alamy.com/chemical-lecture-experiments-at-the-platinum-jet-insidethe-chimney-the-escaping-gas-may-be-lighted-at-the-topof-the-chimney-and-there-simultaneously-appears-a-flame-ofgas-burning-in-air-and-a-flame-of-air-burning-in-gas-itmay-be-necessary-to-choke-the-piece-of-combustion-tubingby-means-of-a-small-cork-with-a-slit-cut-in-one-side-to-pre-vent-too-large-a-volume-of-air-from-entering-the-chimneythrough-the-tube-by-properly-regulating-the-supply-ofcoal-gas-and-the-admission-of-air-a-flame-2-or-3-cm-highis-easily-obtained-while-the-two-flames-do-not-appear-markedly-different-itwill-be-foun-image343352743.html

Or even:
https://tinyurl.com/yk9n5r93

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 16:06:39 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

>
>I recall an experiment and air burning in gas. But I can't find many
>hits, this is the best I can find:
>
>https://www.alamy.com/chemical-lecture-experiments-at-the-platinum-jet-insidethe-chimney-the-escaping-gas-may-be-lighted-at-the-topof-the-chimney-and-there-simultaneously-appears-a-flame-ofgas-burning-in-air-and-a-flame-of-air-burning-in-gas-itmay-be-necessary-to-choke-the-piece-of-combustion-tubingby-means-of-a-small-cork-with-a-slit-cut-in-one-side-to-pre-vent-too-large-a-volume-of-air-from-entering-the-chimneythrough-the-tube-by-properly-regulating-the-supply-ofcoal-gas-and-the-admission-of-air-a-flame-2-or-3-cm-highis-easily-obtained-while-the-two-flames-do-not-appear-markedly-different-itwill-be-foun-image343352743.html
>
>Or even:
> https://tinyurl.com/yk9n5r93
>
My old school chemistry book (Partington's text book of Inorganic
Chemistry, 4th edition, 1933, and yes, I still have it, and very
useful it is still, for the basics) has three diagrams along those
lines. The first shows a flame of oxygen burning in an atmosphere of
hydrogen; the second shows air burning in an atmosphere of coal gas,
and the third of oxygen burning inside an annular coal gas flame.

--
Chris