/sci/ - Science & Math

it's >50% water, so I assume yes

>>8554443
Any substance that can effectively deprive fire of oxygen can extinguish it.

Think of it in terms of physics, a fluid such as water or blood basically function as a three dimensional blanket that chokes the fire out and prevents the reaction from continuing.

>>8554589
blankets are three dimensional already :^)

>>8554600
Yeah I know I'm just trying to help OP visualize how water extinguishes fire

>>8554589
not exactly.
Water cools down fires very effectively (high heat capacity and evaporation enthalpy) to the point where the spontanious reaction of the "fuel" with oxygen is no longer possible.

For oil water is a very poor estinguishing agent, since it will just dropp through the oil to the bottom or even disperse the oil through fast evaporative expansion.

>>8554612
yeah sorry pal i was just being a narrow minded ass

>>8554614
Right, that's the mechanism of how it deprives oxygen from the reaction, which is still very much a physical phenomenon.

Yes it wouldn't work for oil because of its hydrophobic properties, that's a good point.

>>8554617
heh no worries I actually expected your exact reply after writing that phrase.

>>8554589
>Any substance that can effectively deprive fire of oxygen can extinguish it.
is true, but not how water works on fire

>>8554614
gets it right

Yes

>>8554589
but blood carries oxygen

>>8554620
You don't actually need oxygen for fire. You just need oxidizing agents, the oxygen part is less important then the energy transfer part.

>>8554951
Don't forget that blood is thicker than water and so helps with extinguishing it

>>8554443
No blood is highly flammable, don't let blood anywhere near a fire. That's why humans explode when blood gets too hot.

>>8554589
fuck physics this is a chemistry question

go play with your balls and wheels

>>8554589
but you can't extinguish burning oil on frying pan with water. Try that on a your stove, it's magic.
your house might burn tho

>>8555322
>oxyhemoglobin
FTFY

>>8556846
Actually, yes. It just depends on how much Water you use. If you got enough to cover the whole pan and it's enough to not just start boiling and expanding everywhere, it would actually get the job done without all the flying fire bullshit i guess.

>>8554443
>someone has a falsifiable or a verifiable claim
>the scientist way: let's test it
>the philosopher way: YOU CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN
Dude this is a science board not philosophy(although there have been alot of philosophy shitposting here), just go out and cut yourself and see if your blood can actually extinguish fire if you really want to know

>>8556869
>>8556869
> If you got enough to cover the whole pan
Cooking oil floats, genius.

>>8556907
As long as it is cooled down enough to not catch fire again at the surface it'll work anyways.

bump

>>8558670
Srsly.

>>8555756
This, my dad was in our hot tub and we heard what we thought was a gunshot, when we came in to see what happened...oh man the mess...I still have nightmares, but that's what happens when you aren't careful with your tub temperature.

>>8554589
You can just tell this nigga got an A in general physics 1 and now thinks he's newton or someshit.

>>8554443
If you have enough of it than probably since it's mostly water.

However certain chemical fires can't be put out with water, chlorine triflouride comes to mind, so blood would only serve to make those fires a whole lot worse.

Ultimately whether or not you can put out a fire entirely depends on the class of fire and the amount of blood at your disposal.