Fire without heat

[Guest lalremlien]

Is there any technology where one can produce FIRE that does not produce HEAT, nor BURN matters.

[alext87]

Fire means that the enthalpy of combustion must be taking place. This means that the system (react) is exothermic because all enthalpy's of combustion give out heat. There FIRE cannot happen with out heat given out so no. FIRE is HEAT.

 

There are some enthalpy of combustions which do not give out as much energy per mole burnt as others but they all do!!

 

Combustion by definition needs oxygen, fuel and heat. Therefore a fire which does not burn anything! Energy cannot be created! So must burn something.

[5614]

Is there any technology where one can produce FIRE that does not produce HEAT, nor BURN matters.

 

no because as alex rightly says fire is exactly what you have described... if you take away "heat" and "burn matter" from the definition of fire it is no longer fire.

 

additionally fire always gives out light. it can give out different quantites and different frequencies (different colours) depending on what is being burn and other conditions such as air composition.

[Guest lalremlien]

I was wondering about this HEAVENLY FIRE. Whether this can be really possible??

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

HEAVENLY FIRE

 

 

By Lalremlien Neitham (New Delhi, Feb. 03, 2005)

 

 

According to a late report, the campers at the SALTANG SANSUOKNA CRUSADE 2005 (FREE CAPTIVE CRUSADE 2005) held from January 10-15 at the Prayer Mountain, Muolvaiphei, Churachandpur district, Manipur (India), witnessed miraculous fires showered from Heaven during this crusade.

 

 

 

This prayer mountain known as 'Nehemiah Prayer Mountain' is a place where people from all communities and denominations go and camp to commune with God for spiritual strength and repentance. Official sources said that campers from all walks of life and places regularly visit the mountain and occupy most of the prayer cabins at any given time.

 

 

 

On the night of this miraculous event, it is claimed that a number of fireballs rained down from the sky at different places on the Prayer Mountain. Eyewitnesses said that people had already witnessed this strange fire six times during this crusade. They called it “Heavenly Fires”. They were not ordinary fire. The fire did not “burn” the things it set on aflame; neither did it produce heat. Another name they gave is "Divine Flame" because they never witnessed such flames before.

 

 

 

According to sources, the man responsible for calling down the fires from heaven was Pastor Zosanglien Zote. Since long, Pastor Zosanglien has been known for his healing and prophetic powers. When interviewed, the pastor said that he prayed to God to send fires from heaven to prove His divine presence and powers to the World, as a warning to the nearness of the arrival of the Great Tribulation mentioned in the Book of Revelations. He also said that this divine occurrence was a sign given to humanity so that they repent of their sins before it is too late.

 

 

 

He also said that if the people did not accept their sins and failed to repent and ask God's forgiveness, more strange and destructive happenings other than this “heavenly fire” would happen.

 

 

 

The video clips of these “Heavenly Fire” can be downloaded from the website links below:

 

 

 

1) http://www.hmar.net/Heavenly_Fire/CLIP1.MPG

 

2) http://www.hmar.net/Heavenly_Fire/CLIP2.MPG

 

3) http://www.hmar.net/Heavenly_Fire/CLIP3.MPG

 

4) http://www.hmar.net/Heavenly_Fire/CLIP4.MPG

[YT2095]

possibly an electrical phenomenon?

 

fire by definition is gasses that are so "Hot" that they Glow, the "Hot" part can be replaced by Ionisation levels taken Higher.

 

Bio-luminescence Also creates light without heat, but it`s not fire, however it might be perceived as such

[5614]

okay, firstly it is, in my opinion, a bad idea to mix science and religion

 

however:

 

a) what makes you believe those fires are heavenly opposed to man made?

im afraid to convince me you're gonna need solid proof!

 

b) the first video clearly shows the tree/bush being burnt (near the end)

 

c) proof that it doesnt produce heat?

 

explanation for 'raining fireball':

 

1) comet or sumin

2) someone's throwing it out of a plane/helicopter!

3) not true

4) God -- but i think that's one of those things where you need to be there to believe it, any video can easily be forged.

[Sayonara]

Calling something miraculous does not make it miraculous.

[boxhead]

Is there any technology where one can produce FIRE that does not produce HEAT, nor BURN matters.

 

certain kind of moths emit light without producing any heat at all. now if that is possible naturally it can be possible also artificially

[swansont]

certain kind of moths emit light without producing any heat at all. now if that is possible naturally it can be possible also artificially

 

Really that should be "excess heat" - it's not a thermal/incandescent source. If it emits light, there will be heat transfer.

[Guest lalremlien]

okay, firstly it is, in my opinion, a bad idea to mix science and religion...

 

Those fires are not man made. If it is man made. Then probably there will be heat. And it will burn the things on which it catches fire. I was also wondering if there can be any such technology which can produce such a fire! And so the posting over here. It sure makes an interesting mixture of science and religion. It should also be noted that even if there is such techonology to produce this kind of fire, the people over there would not even afford to use it.

 

Althought, the video shows the trees/ bush being burnt. It is actually not so. The proof are the people who actually are there when it occurs and who touches the fire. In the video there is also a voice of a woman who told the others that "she touches the fire and it doesn't generate or produce any heat". She also tell others to go and test themselves.

 

All those who touched and are witness to this fire are not believers.

 

 

explanation for 'raining fireball':

 

1) comet or sumin < --- sort of

2) someone's throwing it out of a plane/helicopter! < --- I am doubtful

3) not true <-- true

4) God -- but i think that's one of those things where you need to be there to believe it, any video can easily be forged. <-- the video is not forged.

[YT2095]

"Marsh gas"!

 

that stuff can and does glow in the dark, it`s perfectly natural, there`s no heat, and it can range in color.

and it certainly looks like fire

 

also I mentioned electrical phenomenon. take a look here: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/stelmo.htm

 

I`m sure this will provide other ideas for search engine links

[Guest lalremlien]

aha! Now that is informative. Thank you! I am going to send this information to my contacts over there too.

[drz]

I watched one video, number 4 I think it was. I have a few questions.

 

If the fire is not actually burning things, why does it appear to be a normal fire?

 

If the fire does not produce any heat, why does the guy putting his hand in the fire remove it fairly quickly? I've done that same feat for much longer with a normal camp fire. Nothing special. Wet your hand before hand and you can go even quicker.

 

But honestly in the video I watched, things were on fire, looked kinda like logs, and small coals along the ground.

 

As to what kind of technology can produce this fire? Movie editing software can do amazing things.

[Edward]

Those fires are not man made. You dont make it clear why you thijnk they are not man made If it is man made. Then probably there will be heat. What Makes you assoiate "man made" with "there must be heat"? And it will burn the things on which it catches fire. I was also wondering if there can be any such technology which can produce such a fire! And so the posting over here. It sure makes an interesting mixture of science and religion. It should also be noted that even if there is such techonology to produce this kind of fire, the people over there would not even afford to use it.What makes you think people couldent afford to use it?

 

Althought, the video shows the trees/ bush being burnt. It is actually not so.You provide no proof either way. The proof are the people who actually are there when it occurs and who touches the fire. In the video there is also a voice of a woman who told the others that "she touches the fire and it doesn't generate or produce any heat". She also tell others to go and test themselves.

 

All those who touched and are witness to this fire are not believers. Why do you say they are " not believers"?

 

 

explanation for 'raining fireball':

 

1) comet or sumin < --- sort of

2) someone's throwing it out of a plane/helicopter! < --- I am doubtful

3) not true <-- true Yet again you provid no proof or explanation for your statement!

4) God -- but i think that's one of those things where you need to be there to believe it, any video can easily be forged. <-- the video is not forged. How do you know that?

 

Assuming the video is not forged and that the people who are in the video are not acting or participating in a hoax then I offer the following speculations.

 

1. Maby all the peoples hands are wet from rain or a ritual involving water, and they don't realise this is why the don't feel any heat. (I doubt this is trew but I'm offering the possibility anyway)

 

2. There are substances that when burnt produce allot of light with very little heat. Maby some liquid that has these properties was involved.

 

3. Maby some sort of a projection. (I dunno it's possible).

 

4. Maby some sort of electrical phonomanon.

 

5. Some other natural process we don't understand. (It doesen't have to be combustion).

[YT2095]

If the fire does not produce any heat' date=' why does the guy putting his hand in the fire remove it fairly quickly? I've done that same feat for much longer with a normal camp fire. Nothing special. Wet your hand before hand and you can go even quicker.

[/quote']

 

1`st of all, Dramatic effect, make it LOOK LIKE it`s hot or hurts, most folks will beleive it!

 

2`ndly on a more pedantic note, Wetting your hand is the WORST THING you can do in that type of stunt!

moisture conducts heat alot faster than dry matter and will result in a more severe scald type burn too!

[blike]

Those videos weren't as impressive as I had hoped they would be.

 

A) The fire was probably real. It looked pretty windy, which seemed like it could have prevented the surrounding air from feeling warm (by having a constant fresh supply of unheated air). The fire does appear to be burning things though, if you look closely.

 

B) No one does anything ultra-impressive. Some people glide their hands over it a few times. People walk on hot coals all the time without hurting themselves. I wanted to see someone hold their hand in the center of the flame for a twenty or so seconds.

 

C) People can do crazy things during religious experiences that most of us wouldn't dream of doing. Take the tribes that pierce themselves through the mouth and through the arms with spikes and claim to feel no pain. Think of the men that allow themselves to be whipped and nailed to a cross.

[blike]

2`ndly on a more pedantic note, Wetting your hand is the WORST THING you can do in that type of stunt!

moisture conducts heat alot faster than dry matter and will result in a more severe scald type burn too!

Well, you may be right in that water may (I'd have to look it up) conduct heat faster, but it also resists changes in temperature better. In other words, although water may conduct heat better, the change in temperature per unit heat absorbed is smaller. This is due to the hydrogen bonding of water. That's why the ocean is never as warm as the surrounding air. So for short term purposes, coating your hand in water would allow a longer contact period with the flame before you reach the temperature that causes pain.

[YT2095]

nope, we`ve done it.

 

we used paste (mostly water) for a fire scene.

it was TOTALY the wrong thing to use! fortunately for us, is do all the special effects stunts on a small scale to myself before I let any of the lads do it for real.

 

quick charing fireproof gell is the best, the dry carbon layer provides the insulation, it`s not perfect and still has an exposure limit, but water will take you out faster than dry cold skin!

[blike]

The question, then, is not whether or not water takes longer to heat.

 

The specific heat of water is 4.186 kJ / kg K

The specific heat of human tissue is 3.558 kJ / kg K

 

In other words, if I have one kg of water, it would take 4.186 kJ to raise the temperature of the water 1'K. With human tissue, it would only take 3.558 kJ.

 

I would guess that the thin layer of water is indeed extending the time you can hold your hand over the flame, but that extension is to small to notice. The thermal conductivity may play a role with such small quantities, so you may be right in that you will burn faster with your hand coated in water. Water also hold heat quite well, and so once the water on your hand has reached the boiling point, it won't cool down as fast as your dry hand would.

 

I will be back in 10 minutes with some rough calculations. I want to see how long coating your hand in water actually extends (or if it does at all)

[YT2095]

yer on the ball with the idea that it takes just as long to remove the heat.

 

sure water will stop you catching on FIRE beter than nothing, but it`ll do little towards the pain side of it

 

carbonising and heat expanding gells are far better, and raw skin is much better than water soaked skin.

 

dry will burn and char sure, water will scald!

 

 

an experiment for the BRAVE/STUPID....

 

 

get 2 identical candles and light them.

soak one hand in water, and the CO2 the other (so it`s bone dry but cold).

place both over the flame.

keep them there untill the pain is unbearable.

them check the bvlister size in 2 days time.

 

the CO2 cold will win over the water anyday of the week! without fail )

 

and NO, DO NOT DO THIS at home! have a Quallified team around you at ALL TIMES!

[jdurg]

Another thing you need to take note of is that perhaps the religious 'campers' were under the influence of a chemical? I know that many religions use psychadellic substances before these 'rituals' and this can cause a great distortion on reality. These people may have been hurting themselves but were not aware of it due to either a drug they may have been on, or a deep hypnotic trance they were in. This is why ANYTHING reported at a religious or spiritual gathering has to be taken with a grain of salt. People can become so entranced in their religious beliefs that they refuse to accept any explanation for what went on other than 'divine intervention'.

[Newtonian]

Whats everyone going on about.

The video's showed nothing extraordinary.The audio i clearly heard the crackles,you could see small burnt splints being caught be the breeze.(which could have been tips of grass)

After watching several times i remembered something we did as children playing truant.

The flame looked suspiciously like that of lighter fluid squirted on damp grass.You could clearly notice the video jumping frames after several seconds(edited to hide the fact someone was squirting more lighter fluid)

Im surprised nobody here has tried it.We all used to buy a tin each on a saturday night,soak a hand ,set it alight and run around the field like a stunt man.Extinguishing the flame several seconds later when you felt the heat,repeating this till we stopped laughing with no burns at all.

Anyone who has filled a zippo lighter which has leaked on their hand and ignited it by accident would know this.

[yummifruitbat]

I'm with Newtonian - I suspect those fires are some sort of flammable liquid burning on something else. In the first clip you can see the grass being singed and little 'sparks' rising into the air - these are probably little flakes of hot ash from the grass or whatever the undergrowth is.

It is quite possible for a coating of a substance to burn without consuming what is underneath - I remember once while on a school trip to Italy, one of the guys staying in our room burst through our door screaming "Help, s***, I'm on fire!" etc. We turned to see flames about a foot high flaring from his crotch and up over his stomach.

The initial impression was pretty scary but then we realised he was holding a can of deodorant between his legs, spraying it upwards onto his trousers and sweatshirt. He'd lit it and the flames were burning on top of his clothes. Afterwards, no scorch marks whatsoever and he said it didn't even really feel particularly hot. To prove it, he sprayed some on his bare arm and lit that. I think some of his hairs got a bit singed but otherwise he was untouched.

I'm not suggesting the substance in the videos is anything as volatile as what's in deodorant, but the principle is there.

 

Perhaps a better example would be 'Greenheat' - the environmentally friendly firelighter gel you can buy in UK outdoor shops. It's some sort of plant derivative, which burns quite slowly and doesn't burn what's underneath it.

 

Of course, I'm not suggesting anyone try burning deodorant on themselves. Really, really don't try this at home.

The guy in question was the same one who set off a firework in his bathroom and melted hundreds of little specks in the floor, then hoped the cleaning staff wouldn't notice if he covered them over with toothpaste