Re: burning the candle at both ends (in zero gravity)...

Phil Scott wrote:

> "Zero" <ShakubukuTime@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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 in the oposite direction."

yeah, maybe, but don't forget there'd be a flame on both ends
of the candle, pretty much canceling out eachother's "thrusts",
no?

kinda like most Usenet Flames.


> 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.

yep. so _that's_ why flames look the way they do, huh? cool.

candle power technology. fascinating.

whenever i look at a candle burning, which is extremely rare,
i always half wonder how they actually work. like, why the
wick burns for so long. and what's the role of the wax. and
how the wax liquifies but doesn't manage to extinguish the flame.
even when it puddles up in those kinds of candles that have the
wick inside a hole.

and i never really think about the fact that flames are mostly
burning oxygen, even though i kinda know that fact in the back
of my mind.


> 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..

what imagery, huh? i'd love to see a video clip of that.

or better yet, actually go out into space and do the experiment.

[cue groundball "space cadet" mockery from the peanut gallery]

though, i don't imagine that NASA packs candles in rockets
as a back-up light source in case of electrical failures.

it's a pretty funny thought, though.

one wonders whether the 60's astronauts ever smoked in space.

or on the Moon. chain-smoking Camels and Luckies was still
pretty popular back then. did Neil and Buzz light up a couple
Cuban cigars when the Eagle had landed? and what would THAT
smoking look like? heh.

the shape and flight of the exhaled smoke.

although, there's not really zero gravity on the Moon.

about a sixth or so of the Earth's, right?

so, let's imagine them lighting up in orbit.


> 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.

whoa. thermal dynamics in zero gravity.

the thermal dynamics of candle power in zero gravity.

imagine a floating birthday cake.


"now blow out the candles, Buzz!"


> 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.

hmm... good point. a pretty convincing one, anyway.

but perhaps the oxygen would somehow makes its way to the
the source of the flame anyway. doesn't burning the oxygen
change it into some other configuration? CO2 or something?
(assumedly getting the carbon from either the wick or the wax
-- or perhaps both?) which might in turn create a sort of
virtual oxygen vacuum or "current" of some sort or another?


> The sun is not a burning phenomena,

heh.

try telling that to the people living close to the equator.


> no oxygen involved in that reaction.

nor in my brainless reply to the first part of that sentence.


> It is a composit of nuclear reactions, fusion at the
> interface with space,

are you saying that space has an active role?

other than providing the empty space for it to occur?


> and fission reactions at the core no doubt.

mind boggling stuff. all those stars and whatnot.

and so amazingly far apart. what a wonderous universe.

even more astounding about our universe is the ratio of empty
space to matter. kinda makes for a good analogy for Bush's
intellect. and his integrity. but it's far too much of a
compliment because most matter can actually have some sort
of good and positive benefitial use.


> 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

well, it requires matter, right? that's a kind of "chemical"
reaction, isn't it?


> and gravity to drive the oxygen to the flame.

yikes. i never realized how busy gravity actually was.

you don't usually give it too much thought (unless you're
hurrying down a staircase (or up one)... or maybe skydiving...
or walking... or when it's snowing... or raining... or you
have a flat tire... or when you're carrying your drunk friend
out to the car during a hailstorm... or your tired 7-year-old
off to their room... or pouring a glass of Pepsi... or playing
frisbee... or dragging your ass out of bed after throwing your
alarm clock across the room... or your taking a curve too fast
on your scooter... or when you're sprinkling black pepper on
your sandwich... or when you wake up on the beach with a tideful
of water up your choking nose... or you're watching a beautiful
flock of birds fly gracefully overhead and are suddenly reminded
that they don't use toilets... or your putting on a fresh coat
of paint before you threw an old bed *** over your expensive
new furniture...


yikes...

gravity seems to have a monopoly on much of the dynamics that
we experience and/or observe.

like... even the shape of candle flames, FFS.

next up: gravity's effect on your thinking processes.

especially after eating a large meal -- one that requires
you to undo your belt buckle after a massive turkey dinner.

(not to mention the effects of zero gravity on brain blood flow
or neural synapses firing off)

> Phil Scott

yo Phil. what you been up to, man?


> > and would the flames distort if the candle was, say,
> > spinning?

would certainly help keeping them fed with fresh oxygen, no?


> > they'd have to distort, wouldn't they? (from the oxygen
> > -- because you can't burn a candle in a vacuum, can you?)

makes you wonder how the melting wax would behave in zero g.

compare the wax flow of a stationary zero-gravity floating
candle with that of a zero-gravity spinning candle.

zero gravity wax art.

who wants to score the background music?


> > 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.

so too, is the idea of the seeming lack of squares in nature.

there's plenty of examples of curves, and circles, and spheres,
but i can't think of a naturally occurring square or cube
(or even a straight line -- except perhaps for the imaginery
straight lines that run between, say, a leaf and the silohette
of it's shadow).

but show me some naturally occurring squares, or cubes, and
i'll have myself an interesting couple days contemplating
THAT baby.

even triangles seem to be a bit of a stretch for mother
nature without man getting himself all involved somehow.

i suppose that some tree branches might qualify as possible
naturally occuring triangles, well... 2/3rds of a triangle,
anyway.


> > -$Zero... Meanwhile... TheSun... AndAllThoseStars...
> > InSpace... FaithfullyTwinkling... DayIn... DayOut...
> > AndThereYouAre... InDarkness... EyesClosed... (OrOpen)...
> > FutilelyFightingTheLight... (WhatASillySight)...
> >
> > * shaped like comets maybe?


"That which is most needed is a loving heart."
-- Buddha

> >
> > "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


"people disagreeing everywhere you look...
makes you wanna stop... and, read a book..."
-- Bob Dylan
[song: "Watching the River Flow"]
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/riverflow.html

> >
> > "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"]


"good Karma cannot be bought.
but it _can_ be sought."
-- $Zero... 0zk0-01
http://tinyurl.com/d5u2j

> >
> > 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

golly gee.

i wonder if Dr. Zen will ever get around to answering this sublimely
humorous thought-provoking Unicornian Logic post:


Re: Unicornian Mathematics + Unicornian Logic = Logical...

0zju-12 http://tinyurl.com/cokev

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/36b5851746db866b


where you'll find Zen is apparently manifesting as the Bob Woodward
of Mathematics and Logic (in not disclosing his super duper secret
source for the "third-party judge" that he's been lying about --
while at the same time having the gall to accuse moi of lying
instead) -- as well as avoiding some rather interesting Base Three
Mathematical conundrums (Zen's hopelessly illogical contradictions).

here's a bit more on that Zen-running-home-to-mommy thinger:


lying thru ones' fat (or skinny) teeth

0zjy-00 http://tinyurl.com/dq2ws

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e1325eee8136124f


at least he's perceptive and effectively expressive on other topics:


"...and our disaster plans run a little deeper than
scratching our arses and wondering whether there's
something we can bomb to make things better"
-- Dr. Zen
http://tinyurl.com/8wn43


if not math and logic. oh well. nobody's perfect, right?

thank God. cha' ching!

(time to order a nice healthy slice of peach pie)

i'll bet he's been burning the candle at both ends looking for
some kind of new goalpost to move on THAT Base Three baby, aye?

poor fella.

but no amount of BPS research is gonna get his arse out of THAT sling.

inexorable, indeed.


> > ---------------------------- 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> >
> > ----------------------------- 0zk0-00 -----------------------------

0zk0-02

.

Loading