Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site olivee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!olivee!gnome
From: gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis)
Newsgroups: net.sci,net.space
Subject: Re: Would a candle burn ...
Message-ID: <432@olivee.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 16:57:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: olivee.432
Posted: Wed Jul 24 16:57:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 07:20:36 EDT
References: <53@ssc-vax.UUCP> <1273@utcsri.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 24
Xref: watmath net.sci:385 net.space:4324

> > ... in space?
> > 
> > This question came up the other day in discussion.  We seemed to think
> > that there would be problems because in the absence of a gravity field
> > the heated air would not rise.  Thus CO2 would not be pulled away from
> > the area of burning and O2 would not be pulled in.  Therefore
> > combustion would not be continuous.
> 
> Actually, I would suspect that this would depend on the diffusion rate of
> CO2 in the ambient atmosphere. If CO2 would diffuse at a high enough rate
> then (assume the presence of O2) the candle should continue to burn at an
> ever decreasing rate. 
>

I think that the first statement is correct -  but the candle would still
burn through "flicker oscillation".  As the globular flame expands it would
choke it's own combustion.  Then, on partial flame-out, denser, colder air
would rush in around the wick.

Unless some strange around-the-wax-base convection currents can be
set up when it starts, it would probably oscillate.

Gary
(hplabs,allegra,ihnp4)oliveb!olivee!gnome