Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Combustibility has almost noting to do with flammability". Following @poutnik logical reasoning, something flammable is combustible (by definition), but not necessarily the other way around. And (if combustible) something more volatile is bound to be more flammable. $\endgroup$
    – Buck Thorn
    Commented Sep 3, 2019 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ @BuckThorn Well spotted. What I meant was "combustibility has nothing to do with volatility". Now corrected. $\endgroup$
    – matt_black
    Commented Sep 3, 2019 at 15:41