Olothontor! To War!

[IVhorseman]

ah, i didn't get the zombie-flamethrower connection, and i was thinking a flamethrower vs. spacesuit type thing. zombies are TOTALLY made out of hydrocarbons (but you'd STILL need a source of oxygen, and a LOT of it).

if you could get a light gauss-rifle for space-zombie combat (if for some reason they manage to get into a tolerable heat zone), that'd be perfect for getting accurate headshots.

[Rody]

not to forget they also are made from amino acids, AND WTF there are other stuff that can "burn" other than hydrocarbons.
hydrogen for example.

[Stormzen]

And another thread derailed to Zombie discussion.
And another one gone,
And another one gone,
Another one bites the dust,
Hey, I'm gonna get you too,
Another one bites the dust.

But in all seriousness, why not just SHOOT the damn moon zombies! It's not like they're still immune to bullets.

Or are they?

[Rody]

I wouldn't know, I mean it is not excactly as if I've been able to examine them up close. or disect them. and perform tests

[IVhorseman]

not to forget they also are made from amino acids, AND WTF there are other stuff that can "burn" other than hydrocarbons.
hydrogen for example.

amino acids ARE hydrocarbons. hydrocarbons = anything made up of carbon and hydrogen, which can include other elements.

hydrogen in itself does not combust. it can violently react with other elements to create an explosion, but you still need carbon in some form to actually get combustion.

ALSO: space zombies are not immune to bullets. but guns require- heyo! a combustion reaction to fire. gunpowder = a hydrocarbon. space =/= oxygen-rich.

which is why i suggested a gauss rifle, since it's magnetically accelerated.

[Blitzen]

I think we need some crossbows.

[Rody]

so why is combustion defined as the exothermic reaction between a hydrocarbon and oxygen,
I thought it was an exothermic reaction where something reacts with oxygen, usually with flames.
even then hydrocarbons are the most common yes.

Combustibility is generally defined as the quality of substances to chemically react exothermically with oxygen. This definition can be generalized to the reaction with other oxidizing agents.

I think we have a slight conflict in our definitions of cumbustion.

[Boomer]

not to forget they also are made from amino acids, AND WTF there are other stuff that can "burn" other than hydrocarbons.
hydrogen for example.

amino acids ARE hydrocarbons. hydrocarbons = anything made up of carbon and hydrogen, which can include other elements.

hydrogen in itself does not combust. it can violently react with other elements to create an explosion, but you still need carbon in some form to actually get combustion.

ALSO: space zombies are not immune to bullets. but guns require- heyo! a combustion reaction to fire. gunpowder = a hydrocarbon. space =/= oxygen-rich.

which is why i suggested a gauss rifle, since it's magnetically accelerated.

Guns and most other explosives will work just fine in a vacuum. Seriously.

[IVhorseman]

a standard handgun, no. you have a spark which strikes a gunpowder chunk of... powder, and blasts a lead chunk out the other end. the explosion comes from a combustion reaction which requires oxygen.

and as for combustion, i'm going off of what i learned in chemistry. specifically, AP chemistry, taught by a guy with a PhD in biochemistry.

2H + C + 2O -> H2O + CO2

[Mitsue Sako]

OK, so I read the first few posts of this thread and noticed it mentions about fire in space...I then skip to the last page and see there is still discussion about it.

Short version: Oxygen is not the only thing that can make thigns combust or burn; any gas will do that.
Think of the argon filled tanks in which we can still light a torch without oxygen.

Now for the mroe direct topic at hand...from muskets to modern weapons...due to the need for 'a' gas for the internal combustion to take place, in order to release the projectile towards a target, it can not be done from outside an spacecraft.

Outer space is like a vacuum, lacking any necessary gases to cause combustion.

There is, however, one '1' exception. When firing said weapons, are you standing within a space gas cloud? In such, depending upon available gas types, it may be possible to fire a traditional firearm.

Aside from that, retrofit an oxygen tank to fire the weapon, sort of like the external CO2 tanks for paintball.

[IVhorseman]

Short version: Oxygen is not the only thing that can make thigns combust or burn; any gas will do that.
Think of the argon filled tanks in which we can still light a torch without oxygen.

uh. evidence nao please. argon is a completely inert gas (except at extreme temperatures and pressures blah blah whatever), and would not react with anything. i don't see how you could light a torch in an argon environment by any means.

[Rody]

2H + C + 2O -> H2O + CO2

those are two seperate reactions namely
2H2 + O2 -> H2O and C + O2 -> CO2

there is no gas that is simply H it is H2 in normal conditions
same goes for oxygen it O2 instead of O in normal conditions

you probably wanted something like this for your reaction:
2H2n+2Cn + 3n+1O2 -> 2nCO2 + 2n+2H2O

wich would be the general formula for the most simple hydrocarbons.

gunpowder however is special, because it already contains the oxygen needed for its combustion. there is no reason why guns should need oxygen other than what it already has..

[Bleep]

Gunpowder however is special because it already contains the oxygen needed for its combustion. There is no reason why a gun should need oxygen other than what it already has.

This much can be said to be true. As can be seen with any internet google search, gunpowder will burn underwater, in space, and in other non-standard environs. With this in mind, it is a simple matter to note that any standard gunpowder-based weapon would work perfectly fine in space.

Flamethrowers would not work in space, however, due to the fact that oxygen gas (O2) is necessary for a flame to work. Combustion is by definition a chemical reaction between a fuel and an oxidant. An oxidant is a chemical compound that readily transfers oxygen atoms. Thus, flames require oxygen.

Space is a vacuum, meaning that their are no gases in space. Thus, it is impossible for a vacuum to support a flamethrower.

However, should we delve into the realm of science fiction, you could conceivably blast oxygen in a pressurized stream in space, followed by a flamethrower resulting in a long sheet of flame. However, to do so would require extreme engineering which is not available in the current day and age.

[Rody]

it is possible, the rocket engine works that way, but as a weapon.. it is not entirely practical in space.

[Stormzen]

I tried to think of something smart to say, but I have no grasp of space gas chemistry or flamethrower mechanics, so instead I give you this:

These really exist.