One of my question that I asked a week ago is not yet answered. I just wanted to ask if there was something wrong in that question. Here’s the link Can flames be Frozen?
Yes, I see three problems with this question.
First, as worded, it's a yes-or-no question. We prefer to have questions that invite in-depth answers which provide context and explanation. (You may see the term "conceptual" thrown around in some places, and that's part of what we mean by it.)
Second, it's a rather vague question. What you appear to be asking is
What if the flames are cooled during the burning state?
But what do you mean by "what if"?
- Are you just asking, in general, what happens if the flames are cooled? In this case, we would expect you to have made a good effort to look it up yourself before asking here, or at least look up some relevant information.
- Do you have some idea of what would happen if the flames are cooled, and you want to know whether it's correct? If so, what is that idea, how did you arrive at it, and what reason do you have to think it might not be correct?
- You mentioned plasma in the question; do you specifically want to know if the flames stop being plasma?
Also, how exactly are these flames being frozen? Depending on what exactly you want to ask, the answer might depend on what physical process takes place.
Finally, I'm not sure it's even on topic. Questions that ask if something is technologically possible tend not to be on topic here. That would be easy enough to get around by rephrasing the question to be more like "what happens to a flame as its temperature decreases?" which is better but still has some of the same vagueness.