Which physically-possible flame most closely resembles my IR-C flame?

[Green Xenon]

Hi:

 

My favorite flame is sound-free [i.e. completely silent], char-free, soot-free, smoke-free, odor-free, ember-free, waste-free, tar-free, toxin-free, non-caustic, and ash-free. No CO2 or H20-vapor either.

 

This flame does not emit any sonic or mechanical energy to any extent at any frequency. It is also not affected by wind or air at all.

 

The flame does not emit any form of energy/matter other than infrared-c radiation.

 

This flame emits IR light not out of incandescence but due to specific quantum jumps. UV and visible light can be emitted by non-incandescent sources – so can IR.

 

The temperature of this flame is not much different from its surroundings so incandescence wouldn't occur anyway. This flame feels warm due to the EM radiation it emits, despite the fact that it's temperature isn't any higher than the surroundings.

 

The flame emits coherent light [as a result of specific quantum jumps] at all wavelengths of the middle-zone* of infrared-c radiation with equal intensities [intensity = photons-per-second-per-square-meter] with steady attenuation outside of the middle-zone, finally reaching zero at the ends of the IRC spectrum

 

*Let's say the infrared-c spectrum (3,000-100,000 nm) is divided in to 3 equally-wide zones. The first zone has the longer-wavelengths of IR-C [100,000 nm being the longest], the third zone contains the shorter-wavelengths of IRC [3,000 nm being the shortest]. My IR flame emits mostly in the second [i.e. middle] zone of the IRC.

 

If the spectral emission of this hypothetical IR fire were graphed, the emission would peak as a flat-top in the middle-zone. However, from the short-wave end of the mid-zone to 3,000 nm there is a linear slant of attenuation from the max at the short-wave end of the mid-zone to 3,000 nm [where the intensity is 1-photon-per-second-per-square-meter]. There would also be the exact same attenuation of light-intensity from the long-wave end of the mid-zone to 100,000 nm. At 100,000 nm the intensity is 1-photon-per-second-per-square-meter, as you go in the right direction, the line [indication intensity] goes up until it reach the mid-zone. The 1st and 3rd zones of emission of the flame would look like equally big right-angle triangles while the 2nd would look like a square [or rectangle depending on perspective] connecting the two triangles.

 

The EM radiation is coherent in the sense that any one photon will be in phase with another photon of the same wavelength.

 

The IR flame is completely safe. The maximum intensity of EM radiation it emits is low-enough not to cause any injury, discomfort [physical or psychological], or damage to any part of any living organism.

 

The shape and movement of this flame closely-resembles that of bituminous-coal flame in an environment with:

 

1. An atmospheric pressure similar to that of Earth.

 

2. Gravity as strong as the sun.

 

3. Just enough oxygen for the bituminous-coal to emit a non-flickering flame.

 

4. No wind at all.

 

5. Just enough combustion for the flame to be self-sustaining [opposite of the gushing flame one gets from a Bunsen burner**]

 

6. Nitrogen being replaced by a hypothetical gas this is similar to nitrogen except it is completely non-reactive and inert.

 

**From a Bunsen burner, the flame is like a "jet flame" and hence, has enough pressure to produce that round cone-shaped flame when the gas is ignited and running. By contrast, a bituminous coal [like most solid fuels] emits low pressure flammables when ignited [hence there is no cone or "mushrooming" at all]. The shapes and movements of my infrared flame are similar to that which would occur if the bituminous coal was releasing its flammables at the minimum pressure required for there to be a non-flickering flame.

 

I am stating the IRC flame has shapes similar to what a bituminous coal flame would have if the bituminous coal flame were under the above 6 conditions. I am not saying the IRC flame is actually in those above conditions.

 

Obviously, since this flame emits IR-only [invisible to unaided human eyes], a device that converts IR to visible light will be necessary in order to see this flame.

 

Given all of the above, what physically-possible flame most closely resembles my hypothetical IRC flame?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Green Xenon

Edited January 20, 2011 by Green Xenon

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

My favorite flame is sound-free [i.e. completely silent], char-free, soot-free, smoke-free, odor-free, ember-free, waste-free, tar-free, toxin-free, non-caustic, and ash-free. No CO2 or H20-vapor either.

You can't get combustion without waste, CO2, or H2O.

 

Your best chance would be hydrogen, but it produces water vapor.

 

Otherwise, it won't be combustion, it'll be some other reaction type.

[Green Xenon]

You can't get combustion without waste, CO2, or H2O.

 

Your best chance would be hydrogen, but it produces water vapor.

 

Otherwise, it won't be combustion, it'll be some other reaction type.

 

 

Let's say there is a flame that uses a stoichiometric amount of oxygen and hydrogen -- i.e. there is a sufficient amount of oxygen to completely oxidize each and every molecule of hydrogen but no more than that amount.

 

Would this flame emit a significant amount of IR-C radiation? Enough to be used in radiant-heating applications?

[swansont]

Let's say there is a flame that uses a stoichiometric amount of oxygen and hydrogen -- i.e. there is a sufficient amount of oxygen to completely oxidize each and every molecule of hydrogen but no more than that amount.

 

You realize this produces water, and only water.

 

 

As to the rest there are simply too many restrictions. To require that it not be incandescent is basically impossible for a combustion reaction — how would you possibly prevent it? Not affected by wind — how? It won't be coherent if it's spontaneously emitted light.

[John Cuthber]

G X,

No real flame gets remotely close.

Which requirements are you prepared to drop?

 

 

Swansont,

a hydrogen/oxygen flame is not incandescent in the sense G X means.

There's nothing solid to emit "black body" radiation.

It would emit a fair bit of IR ( I'm not sure exactly which bands). Hydrogen flames are notorious for being difficult to see because they don't emit much visible light. They do emit UV.

[swansont]

Swansont,

a hydrogen/oxygen flame is not incandescent in the sense G X means.

There's nothing solid to emit "black body" radiation.

It would emit a fair bit of IR ( I'm not sure exactly which bands). Hydrogen flames are notorious for being difficult to see because they don't emit much visible light. They do emit UV.

 

And that's another problem, because you have the spectral lines in the UV and he wants them in the IR. An exothermic reaction that nevertheless doesn't actually heat anything up, and yet emits radiation and so it feels warm.

[Schrödinger's hat]

I suppose you could do something with CO2 and some kind of pumping.

 

Find a way to attract CO2 into a small chamber which has a glass window to another gas which emits photons at one of the IR transition energies of CO2 (N2 or O2 might work, too. I don't remember their spectra off hand). You'd need some kind of selective filter to pull it out from the air.

It would essentially be a CO2 laser with the lid off.

You'd also need to examine how long the state existed for, it may not be possible to get CO2 out of anything before it decays back to ground state. (maybe something phosphorescent involving spin pumping would work better, but then you'd be emitting exotic molecules).

For the flame shape to form at all you'd need the gas to be fairly hot (and thus would cause expansion of the surrounding air), but with sufficient damping in the machine below, it could be fairly quiet.

[John Cuthber]

You seem to be using an unorthodox definition of the word "flame".

On the other hand, G X uses an unorthodox version of reality so...

[Schrödinger's hat]

You seem to be using an unorthodox definition of the word "flame".

 

Well requiring there to be no reactants kinda puts a damper on any form of chemical reaction.

Also studying physics I tend to look at every problem as needing some sort of electromagnetic field or quantum transition.

When all you have is a particle accelerator everything starts to look like it needs something smashed into it at 0.9999c