• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fire In Zero Gravity

Rubycon

Rubycon

Madame President
Anyone read or give this consideration?
We all know that oxygen is needed to support combustion.
Since there is obviously a deficiency of that in space combustion isn't happening...

In an environment where oxygen (sometimes a lot more than 20%!) such as spacecraft, fire is of concern. However without gravity flames do behave differently. It could be suggested that a match or candle would self extinguish since there is no gravity to assist with convective circulation necessary to keep oxygen close to the fuel source.

http://imgur.com/gallery/SgITs

Here's some further reading:

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/msl1/themes/combustion_over.htm

Further SOFBALL experiments were conducted aboard Columbia during STS-107 (the last one) as well:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/31jan_kelley/

I guess that Briggs and Stratton isn't going to run without modifications in a zero gravity environment. 😉
 
First:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4lQvuH8ATc
Second:
I think the Briggs & Stratton would still work. I don't think the flame depends on convective currents.
Third:
I just though about this. It seems really weird that we're capable of using supercomputers to determine what would happen during a nuclear explosion, and can use that modeling capability to improve the yield of our nuclear weapons. But, we have to spend half a billion dollars to figure out how a candle would perform in a microgravity environment. 😛
 
These custom titles are confusing me.

I just saw Rubycon's 'Madame President'.

Is she a mod or something? 😕
 
Zeze said:
These custom titles are confusing me.

I just saw Rubycon's 'Madame President'.

Is she a mod or something? 😕
Click to expand...

There was a large vote in OT for president of OT. She won. We (the mods) obliged with the custom title. There is no office term. She's president for life if she wishes. 🙂
 
DrPizza said:
First:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4lQvuH8ATc
Second:
I think the Briggs & Stratton would still work. I don't think the flame depends on convective currents.
Third:
I just though about this. It seems really weird that we're capable of using supercomputers to determine what would happen during a nuclear explosion, and can use that modeling capability to improve the yield of our nuclear weapons. But, we have to spend half a billion dollars to figure out how a candle would perform in a microgravity environment. 😛
Click to expand...

Whether the combustion process is affected or not one thing's for sure: the carburetor would be useless. Propane would be a good alternative. 😉

These experiments were started in the 70s. With recent advances in modelling sure it's possible to take what was learned in the rudimentary early processes and go further.

Of course microgravity and zero gravity are different as well.
 
Rubycon said:
Whether the combustion process is affected or not one thing's for sure: the carburetor would be useless. Propane would be a good alternative. 😉

These experiments were started in the 70s. With recent advances in modelling sure it's possible to take what was learned in the rudimentary early processes and go further.

Of course microgravity and zero gravity are different as well.
Click to expand...

Fuel injection should be fine.
 
Pft, that experiment was such a SOFBALL. Anyway, those of us who saw Red Planet know all about fires in zero G. Put on a space suit, hold on tight and purge all oxygen.
 
Last edited:
Guess there's no buoyancy without gravity and hot air wouldn't rise. I could see that hindering the flow of fresh O2 to the flame.
 
Rubycon said:
Whether the combustion process is affected or not one thing's for sure: the carburetor would be useless. Propane would be a good alternative. 😉

These experiments were started in the 70s. With recent advances in modelling sure it's possible to take what was learned in the rudimentary early processes and go further.

Of course microgravity and zero gravity are different as well.
Click to expand...
Duh, I didn't even think about the carburetor, since the thread was about flame.

Yep, microgravity = the best we're going to get for a long long time. For every "zero gravity" experiment that humans have done, micro gravity is the zero gravity with a few more digits of precision.
 
This can't be, I saw a bunch of cool explosions on Star Trek and Star Wars so the science must be off or wrong.
 
Ok, I'll bite ... why wouldn't a carburetor still function?

And, what does combustion in free space have to do with an internal combustion engine?

The first relies on convection; the second is a mechanical air pump.
 
Interesting indeed. We all know the science fiction movie about flames being almost alive in space without gravity, actually following you around...
It is interesting to find out if that is really the case, if the writers of (i think it was) "The Event Horizon" were right.

This sure is interesting :

Crick and Watson are examples. Ronney says he has no idea what would make a flame ball fly around in a spiral. "Flame balls move for two reasons," he explains. "First, when they exhaust the fuel in their vicinity, they drift toward regions with more. They follow the fuel like a little organism. Second, they can drift due to slight accelerations of the shuttle." Neither of these effects would produce a corkscrew flight path.
Click to expand...
 
Honestly, what I really want to know is how fast one can propel themselves in zero gravity by farting.
 
SunnyD said:
Honestly, what I really want to know is how fast one can propel themselves in zero gravity by farting.
Click to expand...

think the trick is to line it up properly so that you don't induce a spin too. The mass ratio is probably too small for the gas to move you very fast.
 
Is this where NASA spends 50 billion developing a match that works in outer space and the russians just use a lighter?
 
PsiStar said:
Ok, I'll bite ... why wouldn't a carburetor still function?
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, fuel is fed to the carburetor by gravity. I'm not positive, but I believe a B&S carb has a float valve. A float valve isn't going to work too well if everything "floats."

Or, a simple way to put it, turn your briggs and stratton engine completely upside down. Is it going to remain operating?


Hmmm... I've taken my carburetor apart on my tractor so many times that I could tear it down, clean it, and rebuild it blindfolded (damn ethanol in gas, and 50 year old equipment not designed for ethanol.) I found a parts diagram for a tecumseh carburetor. No float valve; a diaphragm instead. You may be right, if the fuel was provided in some sort of an elastic tank (like our planes in WWII), then the carburetor shouldn't be a problem. I'm very familiar with old old carburetors, but really haven't worked on any small motor carburetors.
 
DrPizza said:
Well, first of all, fuel is fed to the carburetor by gravity. I'm not positive, but I believe a B&S carb has a float valve. A float valve isn't going to work too well if everything "floats."

Or, a simple way to put it, turn your briggs and stratton engine completely upside down. Is it going to remain operating?


Hmmm... I've taken my carburetor apart on my tractor so many times that I could tear it down, clean it, and rebuild it blindfolded (damn ethanol in gas, and 50 year old equipment not designed for ethanol.) I found a parts diagram for a tecumseh carburetor. No float valve; a diaphragm instead. You may be right, if the fuel was provided in some sort of an elastic tank (like our planes in WWII), then the carburetor shouldn't be a problem. I'm very familiar with old old carburetors, but really haven't worked on any small motor carburetors.
Click to expand...

Turning it upside down isn't quite the same as there still will be gravity. (the wrong way haha)

Even if it does work don't expect it to work for long - these engines depend on oil at the bottom of the crankcase that gets splashed up from the bottom of the connecting rods.

Of course if we change the title of the thread "Does this work in zero-G?" all this stuff would apply to the original topic. 😉

Surprised some of you have not asked what happens when you ejaculate in space! 😀

Oh I'm sure the flatulence question has already been answered. Hint: the lungs are much stronger than the sphincter muscles. 😉
 
DrPizza said:
Well, first of all, fuel is fed to the carburetor by gravity. I'm not positive, but I believe a B&S carb has a float valve. A float valve isn't going to work too well if everything "floats."

Or, a simple way to put it, turn your briggs and stratton engine completely upside down. Is it going to remain operating?


Hmmm... I've taken my carburetor apart on my tractor so many times that I could tear it down, clean it, and rebuild it blindfolded (damn ethanol in gas, and 50 year old equipment not designed for ethanol.) I found a parts diagram for a tecumseh carburetor. No float valve; a diaphragm instead. You may be right, if the fuel was provided in some sort of an elastic tank (like our planes in WWII), then the carburetor shouldn't be a problem. I'm very familiar with old old carburetors, but really haven't worked on any small motor carburetors.
Click to expand...

In the early days of WWII, the LW fighters (109s) were fuel injected and fighting against Hurricanes and Spitfires of the RAF, both of which were carbureted. When a RAF fighter got behind the 109, the 109 pilot would go straight into a dive, just pointing his nose down. If the RAF pilot did the same, his engine would give out, due to the negative Gs. The RAF pilot would have to roll over first, then dive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling's_orifice
 
DrPizza said:
Well, first of all, fuel is fed to the carburetor by gravity. I'm not positive, but I believe a B&S carb has a float valve. A float valve isn't going to work too well if everything "floats."

Or, a simple way to put it, turn your briggs and stratton engine completely upside down. Is it going to remain operating?


Hmmm... I've taken my carburetor apart on my tractor so many times that I could tear it down, clean it, and rebuild it blindfolded (damn ethanol in gas, and 50 year old equipment not designed for ethanol.) I found a parts diagram for a tecumseh carburetor. No float valve; a diaphragm instead. You may be right, if the fuel was provided in some sort of an elastic tank (like our planes in WWII), then the carburetor shouldn't be a problem. I'm very familiar with old old carburetors, but really haven't worked on any small motor carburetors.
Click to expand...
Pressure carburetors were developed by the aircraft industry for this very issue. Aircraft that flew inverted or pulled negative Gs would suffer fuel starvation or flooding with traditional float carburetors.

This was a big issue for Spitfire and Hurricane fighters during the Battle of Britain. It took a few years before the RAF adopted pressure carburetors for fuel delivery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitfire#Carburettor_versus_fuel_injection
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top