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


"Zero" <ShakubukuTime@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133189062.342220.195440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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?


no thrust at all since there is no hot/ cold air
stratification or single vector convection in a zero gravity
environment.

If you had read further you would seen what i wrote about no
flame at all due to inadequate convection of oxygen to the
combusion.

Phil Scott

>
> 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