Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6882973" data-attributes="member: 5100">For things like gasoline (and assuming whatever they used was in the same basic ballpark), it's actually the fumes that burn, not the liquid. That means the flame is actually slightly above the ice, not directly on it. Yes, there will be radiant heat that hits the ice and some melting will occur, but most of the heat will rise. Eventually, the ice would all go away (assuming sufficient fuel), but it's not quite the same thing as a fireball.There are also a number of substances that burn relatively cool, many alchohols and acetatates, IIRC. It's been years and years since I was a chemical engineering undergrad (I'm now a computer programmer), but I do remember there being a lab where an idiot TA dipped his hand into something and lit it up, letting it burn until the fuel was gone. I don't think the flame was bright enough for a stage show, but it proves the theory.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 6882973, member: 5100"] For things like gasoline (and assuming whatever they used was in the same basic ballpark), it's actually the fumes that burn, not the liquid. That means the flame is actually [U]slightly[/U] above the ice, not directly on it. Yes, there will be radiant heat that hits the ice and some melting will occur, but most of the heat will rise. Eventually, the ice would all go away (assuming sufficient fuel), but it's not quite the same thing as a [I]fireball[/I]. There are also a number of substances that burn relatively cool, many alchohols and acetatates, IIRC. It's been years and years since I was a chemical engineering undergrad (I'm now a computer programmer), but I do remember there being a lab where an idiot TA dipped his hand into something and lit it up, letting it burn until the fuel was gone. I don't think the flame was bright enough for a stage show, but it proves the theory. [/QUOTE]

Verification