The chemical history of a candle
"Michael Faraday's celebrated series of lectures, The Chemical History of a Candle, turned into one of the most successful science books ever published and was a classic work of Victorian popular science. They also reflect how Faraday, the bookbinder's apprentice turned scientist, was a remarkable communicator of science. First published in 1861 they have remained continuously in print ever since. Covering a wide range of basic scientific knowledge, much of which still has relevance today, The Chemical History of a Candle draws out the science behind the candle flame; a familiar yet complex example of combustion, and a source of fascination as much today as it was then. Timed to mark the 150th anniversary of the first publication, Frank James presents a new edition of the lectures, which, for the first time, includes a facsimile of Faraday's original handwritten lecture notes, never before published. Including an introduction from Frank James this new edition provides the historical context and background to his lectures, and to Faraday himself."--Pub. desc.
Stats for nerds
8recommend
10mentions
8people
2013–2026years
100% recommend
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- > Has anyone here found ways to actively cultivate this kind relentless curiosity within themselves?
Yes; As a great fan of detective fiction specifically Poe(Dupin/Legrand) and Doyle(Holmes), I call it the "Sherlock Holmes - Dr. Watson method of interactive problem-solving" ;-)
Watson only sees the obvious, does not understand their meaning/causes/effects and starts asking questions. Holmes uses that to establish indisputable facts/evidence, reason analytically from effects to causes (i.e. the usual detective trope) or synthetically from the present to the future (i.e. prediction). Both authors in their stories often elaborate on methods of reasoning, which provide insights that can be adapted to problem-solving in general.
This is the scientific method in action viz. Observe, Measure, Hypothesize (and Model), Test, Draw Conclusions and finally, Iterate over all of the above to refine the hypothesis and minimize error.
Finally, the classic The Chemical History of a Candle by Michael Faraday is an excellent source to teach oneself/others/students/children on how to think scientifically in depth about anything - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Cand...
Modern version of the book(free) and accompanying video lectures on Youtube - https://engineerguy.com/faraday/ and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0INsTTU1k2UCpOfRuMDR...
- engineerguy’s reproduction of Michael Faraday’s 1848 Chemical History of a Candle [0]:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0INsTTU1k2UCpOfRuMDR-wlv...
This was a set of lectures given by Faraday for the Royal Institution’s “Christmas lectures for young people”.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Cand...
- His "Chemical History of a Candle" Christmas lecture is a masterpiece in science education. Narrated here by Bill Hammack - the engineerguy:
- Or Michael Faraday's masterpiece "the chemical history of a candle", which deep-dives not only into what every part of the fire is, but also how we know what it is.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14474/pg14474.txt
The whole book is a delight to read, but I really like this part:
> And now I want you to follow me in this explanation. You would hardly think that all those substances which fly about London, in the form of soots and blacks, are the very beauty and life of the flame, and which are burned in it as those iron filings were burned here...
> I want you now to follow me in this point,--that whenever a substance burns, as the iron filings burnt in the flame of gunpowder, without assuming the vaporous state (whether it becomes liquid or remains solid), it becomes exceedingly luminous. I have here taken three or four examples apart from the candle, on purpose to illustrate this point to you; because what I have to say is applicable to all substances, whether they burn or whether they do not burn,--that they are exceedingly bright if they retain their solid state, and that it is to this presence of solid particles in the candle-flame that it owes its brilliancy.
>... This flame has carbon in it; but I will take one that has no carbon in it. There is a material, a kind of fuel--a vapour, or gas, whichever you like to call it--in that vessel, and it has no solid particles in it; so I take that because it is an example of flame itself burning without any solid matter whatever; and if I now put this solid substance in it, you see what an intense heat it has, and how brightly it causes the solid body to glow. This is the pipe through which we convey this particular gas, which we call hydrogen, and which you shall know all about next time we meet. And here is a substance called oxygen, by means of which this hydrogen can burn; and although we produce, by their mixture, far greater heat[8] than you can obtain from the candle, yet there is very little light. If, however, I take a solid substance, and put that into it, we produce an intense light If I take a piece of lime, a substance which will not burn, and which will not vaporise by the heat (and because it does not vaporise, remains solid, and remains heated), you will soon observe what happens as to its glowing. I have here a most intense heat, produced by the burning of hydrogen in contact with the oxygen; but there is as yet very little light--not for want of heat, but for want of particles which can retain their solid state; but when I hold this piece of lime in the flame of the hydrogen as it burns in the oxygen, see how it glows! This is the glorious lime-light, which rivals the voltaic-light, and which is almost equal to sunlight. I have here a piece of carbon or charcoal, which will burn and give us light exactly in the same manner as if it were burnt as part of a candle. The heat that is in the flame of a candle decomposes the vapour of the wax, and sets free the carbon particles--they rise up heated and glowing as this now glows, and then enter into the air. But the particles when burnt never pass off from a candle in the form of carbon. They go off into the air as a perfectly invisible substance, about which we shall know hereafter.
> Is it not beautiful to think that such a process is going on, and that such a dirty thing as charcoal can become so incandescent? You see it comes to this--that all bright flames contain these solid particles; all things that burn and produce solid particles, either during the time they are burning, as in the candle, or immediately after being burnt, as in the case of the gunpowder and iron-filings,--all these things give us this glorious and beautiful light.
>... That, however, is not the only thing I wish to mention. If I take a flame sufficiently large, it does not keep that homogeneous, that uniform condition of shape, but it breaks out with a power of life which is quite wonderful. I am about to use another kind of fuel, but one which is truly and fairly a representative of the wax or tallow of a candle. I have here a large ball of cotton, which will serve as a wick. And, now that I have immersed it in spirit and applied a light to it, in what way does it differ from an ordinary candle? Why, it differs very much in one respect, that we have a vivacity and power about it, a beauty and a life entirely different from the light presented by a candle. You see those fine tongues of flame rising up. You have the same general disposition of the mass of the flame from below upwards; but, in addition to that, you have this remarkable breaking out into tongues which you do not perceive in the case of a candle. Now, why is this? I must explain it to you...
- How would you demonstrate that observationally?
Science isn't just asking "what if...?" It's following up with "... and how could I demonstrate that?" The third step is then "how do I communicate that to others?"
In the domain of chemistry, there's a wonderful example of that in Michael Faraday's "The Chemical History of a Candle". YouTube's EngineerGuy (Bill Hammack) has a wonderful recreation of Faraday's public demonstration of these properties. It seems obvious and pedestrian now, but that's because Faraday introduced us to these concepts and convinced us, collectively, of their fundamental truth. He gives us the hypothesis, he gives us the observable consequence, and he then demonstrates that consequence. Six-part series starting here:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RrHnLXMTOWM
I've already answered your question, as it happens:
Looking out in space is looking back in time. Numerous phenomena support very strong consistency of physical constants to all observable levels. lizknope mentioned on HN recently naturally-occurring fission reactions on Earth about a billion years old or so. Those provide direct physical validation of physical constants as well.
That is, we have zoomed out time, using telescopes, looking back in the Universe 13.772 billion years (9.2 billion older than the Earth's own age). And there's no observable change in any of the fundamental physical constants that we can detect over this range.
But since you've repeated the question twice: why do you ask?
- There's a hell of a lot more.
Michael Faraday's "Chemical History of a Candle" is a very readable masterpiece on the subject, despite its age.
The Engineering Guy has done much to revive Faraday's work: http://www.engineerguy.com/faraday/
Related
Nature of the chemical bond
2 recommend · 4
2016–2026
The Science of musical sound
3 recommend · 3
General chemistry
13 recommend · 15
A short history of chemistry
1 recommend · 2
Chemistry
1 recommend · 2
Electricity and magnetism
14 recommend · 22
Faraday
2 recommend · 7