Well?

Well?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TMPaNzCEeN8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

vorticity will still effect the flame

it would gutter out form co2 accumulation eventually

...

don't play with fire

>CO2 is heavier than air???????????????

> vorticity will still effect the flame
translation: the sky is blue.

tell us something not obvious you fucking dunce.

It literally is , but its hot co2 so what the other poster said is wrong.

also inertia. hot gas will be lighter, so by accelerating forward, the flame will bend forward, not backward

The flame will literally bend backward. You are accelerating the candle forward, not the gas flying out of it.

Kind of already been done.

Then ask something specific rather than posting a paint drawing you retarded abomination

gas will move with the candle if its in a lantern like setup. the denser gas experiences more force per volume. https//youtu.be/FjuMvUbT8gA?t=60 actually pretty counterintuitive

...

If you're not completely braindead you'll realize that if you're moving at a constant rate (that means not accelerating) it will go straight up if you eliminate the wind.
Like just think about it for a second, dumb fuck. You're on a planet flying through space and if you light it and hold it there, the fire isn't punching through the wall.

The sky being blue is far from obvious, dingleberry.

...

>if you eliminate the wind
there is nothing to make the assumption of eliminating the wind from you mongoloid retard

nice but wrong.

>offers no alternative or explaination

Obviously OP's stupid pic is supposed to imply that wind is negated in the second case.

I think it's additional air resistance not wind.

Obviously it didn't work or we'd still be using it.

youtube.com/watch?v=TMPaNzCEeN8

Its inefficient and consumes too much expensive fuel.
It is still used today, just not where highly efficient electric or cheap wax candles burn.

Have you just never seen a kerosene lamp before?

no