Miscellaneous desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 21

Fire-breathing dragons in terms of science

Good afternoon, are there any scientific sources that consider the theoretical possibility for dragons to spew flame? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question presupposes that fire-breathing dragons exist outside the realm of folklore, which they do not. There is a human performance act known as fire breathing, but that doesn’t seem to be what you are asking. Hmm1994 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are no dragons. But there are Bombardier beetles, which do eject superheated noxious fluids when bothered. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No scientific sources are likely forthcoming, most likely from the lack of empirical evidence. However, the universe is large and flammable gas is quite common, in fact, 90 cows in Germany recently damaged their enclosure. Thus, if our hypothetical large beast (of which there are many) belched at thy dragon-slaying knights that happened to be holding torches to light their way in darkness, then boom, conflagrations. At least, theoretically speaking. Modocc (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the German case, one of the cows was reportedly injured and had to be treated for burns. An exobiologist designing a scientifically plausible fire-breathing dragon for use in a science-fiction movie needs to ensure no fictitious animals will be hurt by their flame-throwing capability. Since human fire breathers can perform their act without getting injured, that need not be a show stopper. Fermentation may lead to spontaneous combustion igniting haystacks, so igniting biologically produced methane appears theoretically possible. The dragon should be able then to tolerate the internal heat, though. Ignition by sparks produced by clicking its quartz teeth (silicon-based life forms, anyone?) might do the trick. --Lambiam 08:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, there should be no need for internal fire-proofness (as demonstrated by human fire-breathers), so perhaps two different exhalations could come together as a hypergolic fuel? -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Various science fiction and fantasy writers have described possible biological mechanisms for draconic firebreathing, with varying degrees of detail, plausibility, and tongue-cheek insertion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This resource goes into a lot of detail without getting drowned in scientific details. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more plausible that an exceptional ability of an animal to expand and constrict their body to accumulate and purge their gaseous contents that are already produced from the fermentation of a well-nourished diet, perhaps in stages, out of their mouth would increase the expelled volume sufficiently, and an electric flame igniter with an electric organ (fish) with a sufficient voltage spike secured within a prominent pointed horn (it might be tooth-like and crescent-shaped to help maintain the gas concentration near it) would be safer to the animal and more useful than an internal ignition. I would also expect the serpents to exhale air after they belched to further remove the flames from themselves. Modocc (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the notion of fire-breathing dragons grew from encounters with reptiles having halitosis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Often, old descriptions of magical things are eerily familiar to modern readers. Old descriptions of dragons in England referred to long, lizard-like creatures with no legs that could hide under rocks and bite your ankles, sometimes causing painful death. We now see that as a description of a poisonous snake. But, other descriptions refer to large creatures made of metal. Some lumbered across the land. Some flew through the sky. They let out a constant loud rumble. With a roar of thunder, they could release flames and entire buildings, fields away, would be destroyed. In modern times, those are just vehicles and airplanes, some of which have large guns. Even the old descriptions of magic wands are weird to us now. They were long metal tubes, usually wooden on one end. The magician could point it at someone far away and with a crack of thunder, the person at a distance would be injured. That's just a rifle. I am trying to find the book that I read which went through old texts throughout modern Europe and translated the old writings as directly as possible into modern English. The point was not that they were describing modern things. It was that fictional descriptions of things often, much later, seem to come true. It ended with a chapter on how many times The Simpsons predicted the future. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]