Re: burning the candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...
- From: "Phil Scott" <philscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:40:20 -0800
"Zero" <ShakubukuTime@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133090776.644098.49890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> burning the candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...
>
>
> this is a zero gravity visual imagery experiment.
>
>
> imagine you're far up in space, in a spaceship, k?
>
> and all the lights are off in the capsule.
>
> and you've got a candle with a wick on each end.
>
>
> you light both ends (and then let go of the candle).
>
>
> you're floating in an otherwise dark spacecraft...
> burning a candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...
>
> so...
>
> what exactly would that candle look like?
>
> have they ever filmed such a thing?
>
>
> like... how would the flame flicker?
>
>
> oops, correction.
>
>
> how would the _flames_ flicker? (plural)
>
> because you'd have TWO flames (one on each end).
>
>
> on earth, the flame from a candle sorta points upward.
>
> it comes to a point, more or less,
> (roundly bulging at the bottom --
> kinda like a falling water droplet)
> and it points away from the ground.
>
>
> but, in zero gravity, would the two flames point
> in opposite directions? or none at all?
>
>
> in zero gravity, would the flames flicker at all?
>
> maybe. if you were in the same room, making waves.
>
> but what if you left the floating candle in its own room,
> and you looked at it thru a sealed window?
>
>
> would the two flames still be shaped like tears?
>
> or like balls? or what? squares maybe?
>
> heh. that's just silly.
>
>
> in zero gravity, what shape would the flame(s) be?
A person could say
"Zero gravity will have no effect what so ever on the normal
shape of the flame ... since it is heating air (becoming less
dense) that rises. So you will have the round ball of flame
at the wick, and a point rising as the moving air around the
flame (being dragged up by the hottest air in the center, much
less dense than the colder air) sweeps each side of the flame
to a point.
The candle though would not hang in the air in zero gravity.
There is always an equal and oposite reaction. The flames
causing convection of warm air upwards will propel the candle
itself inthe oposite direction."
But that would be incorrect, because it is gravity itself that
provides for less dense air to 'rise', as it is displaced by
the heavier more dense colder air from below.
So what would happen with hot air in a sealed space capsule?
You would get spherical convection from the flame. A mildly
turbulent ball of flame.. as the warm air around the flame
would be displaced by the colder surrounding air from all
directions at once.
this convection however not being driven by gravity would be
slight, accordingly the flame would be deprived of the
necessary amount of air to burn brightly.. it may well not
burn at all.... for lack of convection with a gravity boost.
The sun is not a burning phenomena, no oxygen involved in that
reaction. It is a composit of nuclear reactions, fusion at
the interface with space, and fission reactions at the core no
doubt.
These nuclear reactions produce energy from matter, and that
energy radiates in all directions it is not reliant on
chemical reactions such as the burning candle for an oxygen
supply and gravity to drive the oxygen to the flame.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
>
>
> and would the flames distort if the candle was, say,
> spinning?
>
> they'd have to distort, wouldn't they? (from the oxygen
> -- because you can't burn a candle in a vacuum, can you?)
>
> but if the candle were spinning -- like the way you've seen
> those astronauts spinning pencils just for fun -- how would
> the two flames distort?
>
> in what kind of shapes? in what kind of patterns? *
>
> because you can't burn a candle in a vacuum, can you?
>
>
> nope.
>
> you can't burn a candle in a vacuum.
>
>
>
> which naturally brings us to...
>
>
>
> the sun.
>
> whoa.
>
>
>
> didn't see that coming, did 'ya?
>
>
> light is such an interesting thinger.
>
>
>
> -$Zero... Meanwhile... TheSun...
>
> AndAllThoseStars... InSpace...
>
> FaithfullyTwinkling...
>
> DayIn... DayOut...
>
> AndThereYouAre... InDarkness...
>
> EyesClosed... (OrOpen)...
>
> FutilelyFightingTheLight...
>
> (WhatASillySight)...
>
>
>
> * shaped like comets maybe?
>
>
>
> "words!...
> words!...
> between the lines of age..."
> -- Neil Young
> [song: "Words"; from
> the album: "Harvest"]
>
>
> "As I walk through...
> This wicked world...
> Searchin' for light
> in the darkness
> of insanity...
> I ask myself...
> Is all hope lost?...
> Is there only pain
> and hatred,
> and misery?...
> And... each-time-I-feel-like-this-inside..
> There's one thing I wanna *know*...
> What's so funny 'bout
> Peace, Love, & Understanding?
> oooOooohhh
> What's so funny 'bout
> Peace, Love, & Understanding?"
> -- Elvis Costello
> [song: "What's so Funny 'bout
> Peace, Love & Understanding?"]
>
>
> "and i think to myself...
> what a wonderful world..."
> -- Louis Armstrong
>
>
> "whhhatttt
> thhhe
> WorrrRLD...
> Needs now...
> is Love...
> Sweeet love.........
> it's-the-on-ly-thinggg...
> that there's Just...
> too-little-of..."
> -- Artist Previously Forgotten
> [singer: Jackie Deshannon; from the song:
> "What The World Needs Now Is Love"]
>
>
> MINISTER: That's it, is it?
>
> APPLICANT: Yes, that's it, yes.
>
> MINISTER: It's not particularly silly, is it?
> I mean, the right leg isn't silly at all and the
> left leg merely does a forward aerial half turn
> every alternate step.
>
> APPLICANT: Well, with a large grant, I think
> I could make it much sillier.
>
> -- MINISTER: John Cleese; APPLICANT: Michael Palin;
> [Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch]
>
>
>
> Place your bets in the "Woodward's Source" Pool
> http://tinyurl.com/dlman
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/browse_frm/thread/a2705e7e942a5b8a/c3c9f955a53dc0a1#c3c9f955a53dc0a1
>
>
> How to Undermine, Demoralise, and Defeat War-Loving Fascists
> http://tinyurl.com/czoon
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/43b79c122ea0bc11
>
>
> --------------------- How flawed is your
> "logic"? ---------------------
>
>
> IF 3 + 3 = 5
> AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
> AND 3 > 2
> THEN 2 + 2 = 5 is:
>
> a] True
> b] False
> c] Unable to Determine
> d] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
>
> ------------------------------ FREE
> CLUE ------------------------------
>
>
> Don't bother making the false assumption
> that the given assumptions are false.
>
>
> ---------------------------- S P O I L E
> R ----------------------------
>
>
> The correct answer is: [a] True -- probably
> (but only if you can explain it logically)
>
> Because even a monkey has a 25% chance of picking the right
> answer.
>
>
> -------------- Introducing Unicornian
> Mathematics/Logic: --------------
>
> 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
> 0 2 4 6 8 0
> 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
> 1 3 5 7 9
> 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
> 1 3 5 7 9 1
> 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0
> 2 4 6 8 0
>
> -------------------------------
> 0zk0-00 -------------------------------
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: burning the candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...
- From: Shaun aRe
- Re: burning the candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...
- From: Zero
- Re: burning the candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: The Brilliance of Moving US Manufacturing Jobs to China
- Next by Date: Re: The Brilliance of Moving US Manufacturing Jobs to China
- Previous by thread: Re: burning the candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...
- Next by thread: Re: burning the candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
