0
The phlogiston theory was discarded by chemists a long time ago. The idea was that things burn because they contain some mysterious substance called phlogiston, and when the plogiston is used up, what is left is an ash of some sort which can no longer burn. We now know that combustion involves many different chemical reactions that different flammable chemicals have, rather than being the result of one single flammable substance that is present in everything that burns. Combustion does always involve oxygen, but oxygen can react with a great many different chemicals.
What else can I help you with?
What evidence is there to prove phlogiston theory of burning was correct?
The phlogiston theory has been debunked by the discovery of oxygen. When materials burn, they combine with oxygen, not phlogiston as believed in the theory. The understanding of combustion and oxidation provided by oxygen led to the rejection of the phlogiston theory.
When iron rusts is it a phlogiston theory or a oxygen theory?
It is a process that involves oxygen. The phlogiston theory has been disprooven for a long time.
Was the phlogiston theory of burning correct?
No, it was not. The phenomena explained by the theory are now known to be a result of oxidation, and phlogiston does not exist.
Who propose the phlogiston theory?
The phlogiston theory was first proposed by Johann Joachim Becher in 1667. This theory is now considered obsolete and was replaced by the oxygen theory.
Who rejected phlogiston theory?
Antoine Lavoisier is credited with rejecting the phlogiston theory. Through his experiments and observations, he was able to show that combustion involved a process of oxidation rather than the release of phlogiston. This led to the development of modern chemistry.
What is the principle of the phlogistan theory?
The phlogiston theory was a scientific hypothesis that proposed that all combustible materials contain a substance called "phlogiston," which is released during combustion. According to the theory, when a substance burns, it loses phlogiston. This theory has been disproven by modern chemistry.
Did chemists believe in the phlogiston theory?
Yes, chemists believed in the phlogiston theory in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was thought that when substances burned, they released a substance called phlogiston. However, the theory was eventually disproven with the development of modern chemistry.
What are the good points of the phlogiston theory?
a combustible material is made up of 2 parts: the calx and phlogiston when a substance burnt the phlogiston into air and calx(ash) left behind so there are no good points of this theory
How did Antoine lavoisier disprove the phlogiston theory?
Antoine Lavoisier disproved the phlogiston theory by experimenting with combustion reactions and showing that burning substances gained weight instead of losing it. He demonstrated that oxygen is an essential component of combustion, not phlogiston as proposed by the theory. Lavoisier's precise measurements and meticulous approach to experimental evidence played a crucial role in discrediting the phlogiston theory and establishing the foundation for modern chemistry.
What do people believe about the phlogiston theory?
The phlogiston theory, which suggested that all combustible materials contained a substance called phlogiston that was released during combustion, was once widely accepted. However, it has since been discredited with the advancement of modern chemistry and the discovery of oxygen's role in combustion. Today, the phlogiston theory is considered a historical scientific misconception.
Why did the phlogiston theory change peoples ideas about burning?
because it changed their mind to belive that phlogiston is in flammable things.
What are the bad points of the Phlogiston theory?
The Phlogiston theory was unable to explain certain chemical reactions, such as the combination of metals with oxygen. It also lacked experimental support and was eventually replaced by the more accurate oxygen theory of combustion. Additionally, the concept of phlogiston was found to be vague and arbitrary.
