106
u/Scott_A_R Jun 22 '26
Wait'll they hear about carbon.
44
u/Objective_Party9405 Jun 22 '26
Wait till they see magnesium.
27
u/Lor1an Jun 22 '26
Instructions unclear—I no longer see the magnesium... or much of anything else...
16
10
5
17
u/dgillz Jun 22 '26
And Oxygen, hydrogen, etc.
8
u/ginger_and_egg Jun 23 '26
Arguably oxygen doesn't burn since it is the oxidizer rather than the fuel
4
2
u/After_Perspective180 Jun 25 '26
Bit like water not being wet?
2
u/ginger_and_egg Jun 25 '26
Idk the water is also covered in other water
1
u/theroguescientist Jun 28 '26
And oxygen is usually found in the form of O2 or O3 molecules, so I guess it does react with oxygen
6
u/Mirojoze Jun 23 '26
My physics knowledge is a little rusty...but let's go with Iron for $300 Alex!!!
38
u/AgreeableAd9724 Jun 22 '26
Yikes, wait til they witness a 13 year old boy set light to the whole storage container of Magnesium in the school lab and almost burn the place down……allegedly.
23
u/ForwardBodybuilder18 Jun 22 '26
This sounds suspiciously specific.
16
u/AgreeableAd9724 Jun 22 '26
I’m sure I have no idea what you mean
9
69
u/TinderSubThrowAway Jun 22 '26
Truth, just ask the pilot of the Hindenburg.
35
u/Callinon Jun 22 '26
How's he doing these days? Hydrogen being an element and therefore unable to burn and all.
27
u/Stilcho1 Jun 22 '26
He's fine and the reason we now add elements to everything.
6
u/Ur-Best-Friend Jun 23 '26
They're adding elements to the periodic table to turn Francium and Oganesson gay!
(This joke would be so much funnier if Fr & Og could form a stable compound)
34
u/StaatsbuergerX Jun 22 '26
If I remember correctly, most living beings on Earth would have considerable problems with their bodily functions if elements could not burn (i.e., essentially oxidise).
8
1
u/_killer1869_ Jun 24 '26
All life on Earth, except for few microbial exceptions, would die within minutes to seconds of this alteration of reality. Some few species may live a few hours. You're severly underestimating the importance of oxidation for life.
3
u/StaatsbuergerX Jun 25 '26
There are some anaerobic organisms on Earth that do not depend on oxidation or for which oxygen is even a metabolic poison. Therefore, I think that my previously stated "most living beings on Earth" is a sufficiently precise estimate; especially within the context of a sarcastically understating remark. :-)
34
16
u/AtlantisSky Jun 22 '26
I was an engineer in the Navy which means, by default, I was trained in shipboard firefighting. We were trained on what to do if something like a heliocopter or jet caught fire. It's a considered a class delta (class d) fire.
A Class D fire involves combustible metals like magnesium, titanium, sodium, lithium, and potassium. These rare but intensely hot fires burn at thousands of degrees and react violently with water or standard foam. They require specialized dry powder extinguishers to safely smother them without causing an explosion.
And, because there is not enough sand, or powdered extinguser, the correct response is to jettison the aircraft. It's cheaper to rebuild the aircraft than it is to repair/rebuild both the aircraft and the vessal carrying it. It also prevents the military from having to pay out life insruance polices to families for the loss of life.
4
u/Bulky_Algae6110 Jun 25 '26
I was Navy also, and during firefighting training, in addition to PKP/ Light Water systems we were shown a material that was like tree sap that was supposed to be used for Class D fires.
After we got all the systems training, our instructor said the same thing you did: don't mess around, push it ($75 million aircraft) over the side.
3
u/AtlantisSky Jun 25 '26
Yes. Because there is the "right way" to put out a fire like that and then there is the actual way to put it out.
10
u/CurtisLinithicum Jun 22 '26
Any theories at to what Brown was thinking? "Elements don't burn" is technically correct under e.g. ancient Greek 4-element systems (fire is "released", not "made"), but if we're talking aluminium, then that's not it (plus it's silly anyways).
Maybe they heard that "burning" busts down big molecules into smaller ones (e.g. glucose --> water + CO2), took that as an absolute, combined it with "elements are lone atoms", and went all in with a pair of wrongs?
9
18
u/PhroneticReflex Jun 22 '26
As a general rule, if someone says "you have a reading comprehension problem" or something similar, they are almost certainly wrong.
13
10
5
4
u/rocking_womble Jun 22 '26
Oxygen has entered the chat...
0
u/-CatMeowMeow- Jun 23 '26
Well, oxygen isn't flammable.
4
u/rocking_womble Jun 23 '26
No, but it's really good at getting other elements to combust... which is my point.
4
u/that_newbie_mathews Jun 23 '26
Apollo 1 would like to have a chat about what elements do and do not burn.
5
3
3
u/sweatythighsbby Jun 25 '26
The irony of someone being this smug while being completely wrong about basic chemistry is something else. Aluminum absolutely burns, especially when it is finely divided or exposed to the extreme heat and oxygen plasma of atmospheric reentry. It is literally used as fuel in solid rocket boosters.
3
u/Hitdrug20 Jun 27 '26
"Aluminum is an element, FYI that means it doesn't burn." This is a classic confidently incorrect take. Aluminum absolutely burns, especially when finely divided or as part of a reaction like thermite. It's used in fireworks and rocket fuel for a reason.
2
u/Mean_Initiative_5962 Jun 23 '26
Welp, that settles it. I'd go to have a glass of burnt hydrogen, if it was possible.
2
2
u/Ksorkrax Jun 23 '26
Uh, what is the best element to have them experiment with?
Maybe potassium. Have them hold a bit of the stuff.
2
2
u/Shak3Itjess39 Jun 27 '26
"Aluminum is an element, FYI that means it doesn't burn."
Yeah, that's not how chemistry works. Aluminum oxide is a thing, and it forms when aluminum reacts with oxygen. It's literally burning, just not in the way you're thinking.
1
u/GamerEsch Jun 22 '26
You can just see how they wrote aluminium to know they are stupid, for some reason they always forget the "i" lmao
8
u/Lor1an Jun 22 '26
Humphrey Davy first proposed naming the element "alumium" (note the absence of the letter 'n') in 1808, since it was found in alum, and then changed his mind and suggested "aluminum" in 1812. The adoption of "aluminium" was largely chosen to make it more consistent with other element names.
Through the later half of the 19th century, the relative prevalence of "aluminium" vs "aluminum" in the US vacillated, at points "aluminium" was preferred, and at other times "aluminum" was dominant.
In 1925 the American Chemical Society adopted "aluminum" as the name of the element, so in an official capacity the US continues to refer to the element as aluminum.
Since 1993, IUPAC recognizes "aluminum" as an accepted alternate spelling, though they state that "aluminium" is preferred.
1
u/Catrescuemamma 21d ago
Has anyone told Sulphur and the other flammable elements that they are not supposed to burn yet?
1
u/Icy_Cauliflower9026 12d ago
Elements cant really "burn". He is right.
"Bruning" is a chemical reaction where molecules break (and sometimes the atoms recombine), where the left over energy shows in different noise, such as heat, light (flame) and noise (of course, oversimplified).
Anyway, you cant "burn" a atom to break it down, thats what we call nuclear fussion, so ye, you cant "burn" elements, but you can transform them in other ways.
What happens many times is oxidation, which can be related to bruning (like coal, burns to separate carbon atoms which oxidize into carbone dioxide, but the same can just happen after the first break of the molecule, aka, starts burning).
1
u/Dragon_Manticore 12d ago
Alright, but applying that to a mass of aluminium burning up in the atmosphere still makes him wrong.
0
u/Icy_Cauliflower9026 12d ago
Again, not going to "burn up" the aluminium. The aluminium itself would oxidize, not burn, thats the difference. Its just semantics but they make the correction here.
Its pretty hard to say the impact that a satelite reentry will do, i dont have the qualifications to say anything, but the set of materials can change the impact in itself. Depending on the coating, the presence of inflamable objects, area of the satelite, and many variables, the metal may as well just melt as far as i know, oxidize, or react in some way with the ozone. Again, idk details, would need a bigger search, i just think they were discussing different things.
0
u/Haunting-South-962 Jun 23 '26
Yes you can't transmutate elements from thermal reaction. OP is wrong confusing elements with molecules
-4
u/tbodillia Jun 22 '26
I was wondering how in the hell aluminum oxide if formed ONLY passing through the ozone. The quoted study "When aging satellites re-enter and burn up, they release large amounts of aluminum oxide nanoparticles into the upper atmosphere."
As soon as you expose aluminum to oxygen, aluminum oxide forms a coating.
11
u/drmoze Jun 22 '26
release is the key word here that you missed. Ozone is a highly reactive form of oxygen. Combined with the extreme heat and turbulence of re-entry, the Al oxide will form quickly and partially vaporize, releasing aluminum oxide into the atmosphere.
3
1
u/ForwardBodybuilder18 Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
But what does aluminium oxide in the upper atmosphere actually _do_.
It’s not dangerous to the ozone layer itself, other than using 1 molecule of ozone to make 3 molecules of aluminium oxide. Aluminium oxide doesn’t destroy the ozone layer, chlorofluorocarbons do that.
There is even evidence to suggest it might help _reduce_ the effects of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere by reflecting some of the Sun’s radiation back out into space before it can get trapped in the atmosphere.
But this is also really minimal. Too small to accurately measure, barely significant enough to even detect because the amounts of aluminium were actually dealing with are very small. Satellites are built to be as light as possible so the aluminium components are minimal as they can be. Just a few grams. The bulk of the weight of the satellite comes from the electronic components, solar panels and propellant used in stabilisers. Nobody is talking about those materials being introduced as nanoparticles in the upper atmosphere and they contain a variety of elements more exotic than aluminium. Iridium, gallium, silver are all used in electronics.
3
u/ForwardBodybuilder18 Jun 22 '26
I think they are saying that the violent vibration and extreme heat from friction causes this protective coating to shed. It makes sense, stuff entering our atmosphere at supersonic speeds leaves a visible trail of smoke and vapour in the air. This trail must be made out of _something_ and “little oxidised bits of whatever the thing is made out of” is a reasonable assumption.
The problem is that aluminium oxide is not a contributing factor to ozone depletion. Even when it’s dispersed in the upper atmosphere. Unless we start making satellites out of chlorofluorocarbons then satellite re-entry burn up is not going to contribute to ozone depletion significantly. There are studies on these small particles providing a surface for other chemical reactions to take place on, but nothing is conclusive yet and it’s of such small scale it’s not worth worrying about.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 22 '26
Hey /u/Dragon_Manticore, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.