Ear candling

[Benguin]

I know you guys have probably discussed this one to death before, but I couldn't find anything when I searched the forum so forgive me!

A friend of mine was going on about ear-candling the other day ... he was (naturally) most offended at my skepticism. As far as I know they take a waxy piece of paper, curl it unto a funnel and insert one end in the earhole, then light the other end.

After a few seconds they blow out the flame, unfurl the paper and observe with wonderment and awe the brown sludge contained therein.

I told him the brown sludge was the wax from the paper, nicely burned.

Of course he was adamant, but I did feel I shortchanged him as I wasn't sure how to simulate the effect.

Anyone any experience with it? I don't even know where to get an ear candle from.

[geni]

Search the comentries for ideas on how to simulate the effect.

[Quasi]

Also here: http://skepdic.com/coning.html

I knew someone who did coning, she said it was a safe alternative to antibiotics for children. Its just a scam where people can pick up a few bucks.

[Psiload]

I prefer butt candling:

http://buttcandle.com/index.cgi?op=Home

:j2: :dio:

Warning: Do not attempt butt candling after ingestion of Mexican food...

Yeeeouch!

[Lothian]

You could suggest to your friend that there are some real and some fake candles out there. The way to tell if you have a real one is to wax your ear twice. Naturally if it works the second candle should be clean.

[Benguin]

Thanks Lothian, I like that. I can see him spending a fortune on candles ... but then maybe he'll learn his lesson, yes, I like it more.

I don't feel I really want to see what Psiload's link is showing. Oh dear, I succumbed to temptation.

[WildCat]

Or just burn the candle w/o sticking it in the ear. You'll see the same result.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Lothian
You could suggest to your friend that there are some real and some fake candles out there. The way to tell if you have a real one is to wax your ear twice. Naturally if it works the second candle should be clean. The other thing I've heard is that if you just "candle" a clean glass, you get exactly the same sludge.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Eeek, great minds think alike!

Rolfe.

[Virgil]

Why the H#LL does crap like this continue. in the US we have Q-tips. they can clean out both ears in 10 seconds. no chance of catching your hair on fire and cost $.001 apiece.


Virgil

[Benguin]

Yes, well he told me he'd tried just burning one on its own and seen no sludge ... I wondered if you have limit the airflow at the unlit end (with a thimble or something) to simulate an eardrum.

As I don't have access to any to try it on I wanted to check here. I don't supposed they'd be hard to make, though.

[Lisa Simpson]

I wonder about the first person who decided to stick a candle in his/her ear. What kind of drugs was that person on to think about doing that?!?

[Benguin]

Eeek, great minds think alike!

Two cats ... one flightless bird ... I think I'll go for a swim.

Why the H#LL does crap like this continue. in the US we have Q-tips

Is that what we call a "cotton-bud"? plastic stick with a some cotton wool on each end? Apparently they can cause infections. Sticking your head on one side under the shower is even cheaper though.

I seem to recall (and I'm sure it's in the commentaries) that the ear candling crowd come out with all sorts of woo-woo claims that what they are doing isn't just flushing excess wax out. Even though they aren't even achieving that!

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Benguin




Is that what we call a "cotton-bud"? plastic stick with a some cotton wool on each end? Apparently they can cause infections. Sticking your head on one side under the shower is even cheaper though.

I seem to recall (and I'm sure it's in the commentaries) that the ear candling crowd come out with all sorts of woo-woo claims that what they are doing isn't just flushing excess wax out. Even though they aren't even achieving that!

yes I believe a cotton bud is a Q-tip. I've used them for 20 years (not the same one of course) and I've never had an ear infection.

yes all the impurities, and only the impurities none of the good stuff... and don't forget the international conspiracy of cotton bud makers.

I''ve only embraced skeptism for ca. 1 year and I'm already tired, cranky, and worn out with the same drivel on and on from these people.

This "alternative" anything is just a cult, they believe and nothing is going to change their little minds.

If I were a psychologist I would just like to study these people and compare them with Jim Jones, David Koresh type cultists.



Virgil

[richardm]

Originally posted by Benguin
Yes, well he told me he'd tried just burning one on its own and seen no sludge ... I wondered if you have limit the airflow at the unlit end (with a thimble or something) to simulate an eardrum.


Yes, that's what you need to do. Otherwise it just burns away and you're left feeling foolish. You could stick your thumb over the end, or bung the end in a glass of water, to show how much nasty wax there is in there.

(the non-burning end, obviously ;) )

[Peter Jenkins]

Cotton buds (Q-tips) are fine, but how do you get the cardboard axle thingy to stay alight once the cotton wool has burned away?? :confused:
P

[Suezoled]

One JREF poster, Kittynh, used a stuffed animal to demonstrate the candling was fake. She followed the directions, just as you would on a person, and I guess the plushie had a lot of accumulated wax and crud in his ear, as there was quite the pile at the end of the cleaning.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
Cotton buds (Q-tips) are fine, but how do you get the cardboard axle thingy to stay alight once the cotton wool has burned away?? :confused:
P




No I was suggesting to use a Q-tip instead of candleing. because I have accedotal evidence that Q tips work I am willing to submit myself to testing on this matter.

Virgil

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Virgil





No I was suggesting to use a Q-tip instead of candleing. because I have accedotal evidence that Q tips work I am willing to submit myself to testing on this matter.

Virgil

I'm always a little wary about sticking Q-tips in my ear. I'm deathly afraid I'm accidentally going to dig out my brain and lose it and have to search around on the ground until I find it.

[Bikewer]

The NPR "radio doctor" Dr. Zorba, got a call a few months ago regarding this practice. He'd never heard of it, and thought that the idea was hilarious.
Kind of reminds me of the old Bob Newhart bit about Sir Walter Raliegh.
"Wait, you take this burning cylinder of tobacco....Let me guess, You stick it in your ear?"

[Tanja]

Talking about cotton buds (Q tips): The reason why I don't like using them is that they make me cough. Provokes some sort of reflex, I suppose. I always found it uncomfortable.

[olaf]

Originally posted by Suezoled


I'm always a little wary about sticking Q-tips in my ear. I'm deathly afraid I'm accidentally going to dig out my brain and lose it and have to search around on the ground until I find it. oh my god that is so funny.......errr no.

can anyone prove that q-tips work. i want to see evidence. i want to see credible studies.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by olaf
can anyone prove that q-tips work. i want to see evidence. i want to see credible studies.

Because 100 000 doctors say it works!!!!

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by olaf
oh my god that is so funny.......errr no.

can anyone prove that q-tips work. i want to see evidence. i want to see credible studies.

Give me your home address, and I'll send you an evelope full of Q-tips crusted with wax.

Actually, Q-tips don't work, at least, it doesn't work to safely get out built up earwax. I use cotton swabs every day to prevent build-up of ear wax, otherwise, I'd have plugged up ears right now.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Give me your home address, and I'll send you an evelope full of Q-tips crusted with wax.



you beat me to it.

I will also send you a number of them from myself and my cat.


Virgil

[Psiload]

Originally posted by olaf
oh my god that is so funny.......errr no.

can anyone prove that q-tips work. i want to see evidence. i want to see credible studies. Actully, you don't even need to use the Q-tips for them to work. All you have to do is walk into a grocery store, pick up a box of Q-tips, and rap it smartly ten times against a rigid, yet pliable surface. Your ear wax will remember the "essence" of the Q-tips through quantum entanglement, and it will remove itself.

Evidence? My Aunt Fannie had a terrible ear wax problem,. Then she used this method, and her problem instantly went away. The case study was published in the Journal of Psychoenergetic Ludicrousity in the fall of 1972.

OPEN UP YOUR MIND YOU SKEPTICAL IDIOT!!

[Benguin]

Well the manufacturers print on the side of the boxes here that you shouldn't go sticking them in your ears, though I can't imagine how they'd sell any if people actually read that on the label.

This link here (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=484&AreaID=3087&LinkID=2491) suggests probing around with paperclips, cotton buds etc only aggrevates the production of wax. This is what the manufacturer's say here (http://www.parentcenter.com/refcap/health/ills&inj/atoz/822.html#3). Only they are talking about kids, so who knows.

I notice some simpleton has posted on their messageboard (http://www.parentcenter.com/tips/822.html) in connection with that, that parents should go buy ear candles. They obviously don't moderate it!

I still say the shower (or a bit of water) does me. If I pour a bit of distilled something or other in their every morning instead, can I claim a homeopathic potion works nicely?

Give me your home address, and I'll send you an evelope full of Q-tips crusted with wax.

Are keeping them for some reason, specious?

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Psiload
Actully, you don't even need to use the Q-tips for them to work. All you have to do is walk into a grocery store, pick up a box of Q-tips, and rap it smartly ten times against a rigid, yet pliable surface. Your ear wax will remember the "essence" of the Q-tips through quantum entanglement, and it will remove itself.

Evidence? My Aunt Fannie had a terrible ear wax problem,. Then she used this method, and her problem instantly went away. The case study was published in the Journal of Psychoenergetic Ludicrousity in the fall of 1972.

OPEN UP YOUR MIND YOU SKEPTICAL IDIOT!!

That's exactly what I did!!! I bought the Q-tips, rapped the box smartly (well maybe not smartly, they rattled around in the back of my car) and now my ears are totally free of ear wax! I never even have to get them out of the bathroom cabinet.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Benguin


Are keeping them for some reason, specious?

Nice play on the nickname...

Well, let's just say that the upstair bathroom garbage doesn't get emptied until it's full. Although, with my house on the market, I probably shouldn't be revealing my housekeeping tendencies. :)

On a more serious note:

We know that you don't need to put the candle into your ear to get the candle to produce the "evidence" that it "works," but that test doesn't actually address the specific claims of the ear candle makers/advocates.

IIRC, the claims are:
- The warm air generated by the candle softens the ear wax.
- The softened wax gets drawn out of the ear, like a candle wick

This claimed mechanism can be tested, outside of an ear. One way I could think of would be to put small amounts of earwax into several glass containers and "candle" them.

I'm thinking 3 tests.
- put an unlit candle in contact with the earwax
- put a lit candle in contact with the earwax
- put a lit candle near, but not in contact with the earwax. I was thinking that a small amount put in the center of the smaller hole, so that the it is not touching, but can be softened by the heat of the candle.

Although, I think this is probably more effort than most people are willing to put forward.

Plus, you'd probably need to have a garbage can full of used cotton swabs to get enough earwax to run tests....

[garys_2k]

A guy here at work just had ear surgery from a candling session. Hot wax dripped into his ear and onto his eardrum, burning it. He's more that finished dabbling with that particular bit of wooism and his family was amazed that it hurt him. Idiots, he may have a permanent hearing loss.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Guys OK attack away. I have used this, my wife has and my son has ( he has ear problems -congenital). The principle is sound, you place a funnel shape cone of parchment saturated with beeswax in to the ear light it and the heat ( not too much elevated from body temp on a 1' cone) softens the wax . The partial pressure displacement of the fire consuming the paper draws the wax out of the ear.( not unlike a very partial vacuum). The wax collects on the leading edge of the funnel.

The construction of the material used is paramount to it's function.

I'm not a proponent of this treatment, but I have seen it work and it was disgusting. My old man used to use a little bulb with warm water to flush out his ears, I used H2O2 until the EENT Phys. told me never put peroxide in your ear that I realized it wasn't a good idea.

So if some people make these ear products out of candle wax and paper towels , it doesn't necessarily make the principle unsound, it's not majik. Hell I live on the west coast of Florida and if someone wants to invoke the Randi challenge on this I will gladly travel 200 Mi to demonstrate.

edit to add:
I have burned the cones vertically with both a blocked opening ( as one would see in a human ear and an open orifice, there was no wax production. Also the remains of wax at the bottom of a cone used in a human ear was red-dark brown not color neutral ( altho some might consider the addition of ash or another compound to be the culprit. I have also used an otoscope and found that wax deposits had either diminished or disappeared. I had this tool because my daughter had otitus and I monitored her condition because the infection can spread to the jaw ( which it already had).

Which do you think a medical doctor would reccomend? An office visit @ $75 US for a suction cleaning or a slightly more dangerous $.75 per sheet folk remedy?

[Benguin]

Which do you think a medical doctor would reccomend? An office visit @ $75 US for a suction cleaning or a slightly more dangerous $.75 per sheet folk remedy?

I know these conspiracy theories work in the US where you pay for it all, here in the UK GPs pay for their referrals from a budget they are responsible for (generally).

No Ear candling here, why waste the £0.75?

[TillEulenspiegel]

It's not a conspiracy theory, I don't believe in them by nature. It is an observation that a trained physician would recommend an office visit with the machine that goes "PING" rather the a burning cone of paper stuck in your ear, regardless of it's efficacy

[CurtC]

TillEulenspiegel wrote:
The principle is sound... The partial pressure displacement of the fire consuming the paper draws the wax out of the ear.( not unlike a very partial vacuum).What is the sound principle here? Where would a partial vacuum be exactly, and why would that draw out ear wax? I mean, if you tried to do this with ear wax in a hollow tube that was open on both ends, you'd need to blow air through that at a hundred meters per second or so to dislodge it. You're saying that it's sucked out by an imperceiptible (and I think fictitious) airflow? Face it, TE, this is kooky stuff.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
. The partial pressure displacement of the fire consuming the paper draws the wax out of the ear.( not unlike a very partial vacuum). The wax collects on the leading edge of the funnel.





No it doesn't, the wax is so viscous that to suck it out you would need a high vacuum system so powerful it would pull your ear drum apart. In my line of work I use vacuum systems nearly every day.

also, the gentle warming by the transferred heat is not enough to soften the ear wax until it flows. that would require temperatures ca. 75- 100 C, which would damage your head.

my grandmother goes in to have the wax cleaned out and at the rate medicare reimburses the MD probably breaks even.


Virgil

[Benguin]

In any case, if you softened it enough with temperature you'd need a massive pressure differential to move it against gravity and avoid scalded ear drums ... simply dipping a burning candle (or straw if you prefer) in a glass of water tells us the pressure doesn't move the liquid up the tube.

Of course you could try tipping your head so the flame is lower than the end of the candle when it's burning ....

[Soapy Sam]

Didn't Dave Barry write a column on this some years back?

[TillEulenspiegel]

OK well you guys are forcing me to defend a process that I have relatively little grasp of .........be that as it may, I will attempt to give a scientific basis to explain the action, altho I'm not a proponent of this device or a specialist of the disciplines that would define it's operation , I will attempt a reasonable explanation. Fair?

The mechanism that seems to be the dominant factor seems to be the same science that governs jet engines and ventures in everything from grain hoppers to automobile carburetors and rocket engines. In all of these applications you employ a pressure differential between two zones . A venturi that accepts a volume of space forces it to compression and accelerates it, relative to the supply side by use of a shaped exit venturi. ( Ever use a can of paint or some other substance and it gets cold? ) I'm fairly sure that the updraft is produced by the temperature differential and the conical shape of the "candle"..

I have used the device under many circumstances and you can see literally how smoke at the bottom of the funnel is sucked up by the candel..............hell what do You think makes fireplaces ( Hearths ? ) work?

This is one area that all have the ability to prove "********" or bravo, one caveat don't buy .a mop and stick it into yer ear.
Disprove it by theory or by experiment.

[Lisa Simpson]

I've seen TV news reports. They put one candle in someone's ear, light it, and another candle into a glass and light it. They both have the exact same gunk in them. I'm sure if you looked it up, you could find debunking articles somewhere on the net.

[Virgil]

the vacuum produced by your candle is not powerful enough because the ear wax has too low of a vapor pressure.

any vacuum you could produce is simply not strong enough to pull the wax out. it is just not powerful enough.


Virgil

[Lisa Simpson]

Here is a good report:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/candling.html

[Suezoled]

We need Kittynh with her Alf doll. He had a lot of ear wax too, but Kitty just cleaned it right out thanks to that candle. You could even see the icky residue.

And unlike Q-tips, I'm sure Alf didn't have to go searching for his brain after accidentally digging it out. *sighs*

[pupdog]

It's very important that the waxed paper contains BEESWAX because beeswax is natural--ordinary paraffin is not; it was invented by Noah during his Hangover. There was a column about this in The Straight Dope a year or so ago. I think they reported on an analysis of the gunk.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by pupdog
It's very important that the waxed paper contains BEESWAX because beeswax is natural--ordinary paraffin is not; it was invented by Noah during his Hangover. There was a column about this in The Straight Dope a year or so ago. I think they reported on an analysis of the gunk.

Yes indeedy do, I love Uncle Cecil.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_098.html

[Chareen]

I know nothing about the science behind this, but I do know a girl at work suggested I do this to relieve myself of a constant pressure I feel in my ears. She even forced newspapers on me so I could try it. Needless to say the newspapers got tossed in the trash without being burned. It just sounded silly and unreasonable. Glad to hear I was right in my snap judgement.

[exarch]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
edit to add:
I have burned the cones vertically with both a blocked opening ( as one would see in a human ear and an open orifice, there was no wax production. Also the remains of wax at the bottom of a cone used in a human ear was red-dark brown not color neutral ( altho some might consider the addition of ash or another compound to be the culprit. I have also used an otoscope and found that wax deposits had either diminished or disappeared. I had this tool because my daughter had otitus and I monitored her condition because the infection can spread to the jaw ( which it already had).The goop you get inside the candle is probably just the smoke from the burning paper swirling around in your ear and depositing soot on the end of the funnel.

A little experiment just for fun: roll up a square piece of paper into a narrow tube about an inch or two long and less than a quarter of an inch thick, hold it slanted and light the highest tip. You will see thick, white smoke pooring out the lower end. You can even catch this smoke by holding your little burning funnel over a small cup.

Now observe this interesting phenomenon and tell me you're still convinced ear candles are more than make belief quackery (like that electrolysis foot bath) that appear to work because people are led to believe "toxins" are drawn out of the body in the process.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Yes indeedy do, I love Uncle Cecil.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_098.htmlFrom Lisa's straightdope link (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_098.html)
After about ten minutes she removed the candle and snuffed out the flame. Immediately my hearing in that ear was back to normal.I get that every time I remove anything from my ear. Apparently, sticking something in your ear will diminish your hearing :eek:

[Vitnir]

Ear wax has a function to protect the ear I think and sticking things into the ear can well cause an irritation that leads to an increased production of wax. The suitable treatment to get rid of wax if it is a problem in the way that the wax will diminish your hearing is to rinse with lukewarm water. You can get a small bladder and fill it with water to do this. If water wont do the trick there are solutions that can help dissolve the wax.

[Zep]

Since much of the earwax becomes deposited at the opening to the ear, sticking ANYTHING in the ear, alight or not, will usually force a bigger opening in the wax so that it looks "cleaned out".

Anyway, this subject is just so ICKY!

[MRC_Hans]

:eek: I just can't believe this topic. I carefully read the title several times and thought: Wtf?? Having read the entire thread (several wtfs later), I can only say: Surely this is something they do in the US, right? Can't wait to use it on Shemp, the next time he raves about how depraved Danes are: "And this comes from the land of ear candling :roll: ?"

Hans

[Lisa Simpson]

America: Land of the Free and the Home of the Ear Candles. :D

[TillEulenspiegel]

I had no idea that this subject had so much bull poop associated with it until I read Lisa's link. The only thing I said was that seemed to work as far as pulling wax out of the ear canal. The rest of this crap is obviously....well crap.

[Suezoled]

Eh, but you're still pretty cool.

[Benguin]

OK well you guys are forcing me to defend a process that I have relatively little grasp of .........

May I respectfully suggest it would be easier to do some web searching and find a scientific explanation from a qualified source?

The mechanism that seems to be the dominant factor seems to be the same science that governs jet engines and ventures in everything from grain hoppers to automobile carburetors and rocket engines.


The physics is quite different between these things, carburettors make use of the bernouilli effect to 'atomise' a liquid into a stream of fast moving gas. Wax is not liquified, if it was you'd scald your ear badly.

Rocket engines are not relevant, I think you mean turbines (search for 'whittle' on google). There is an analogy here ... the suction created by the candle at the base is due to the air being drawn through to supply oxygen to the flame. It's a massive oversimplification, but scale that up and we see jet turbines. Trouble is, the air velocity needed to dislodge and actually lift some wax would be very high, even in a confined aperture. Please don't make me dig out my fluid mechanics texts from my uni days! I'd rather soak them in wax and burn them!

Grain hoppers I've seen use an archimedes screw to move the grain about. I'm not suggesting you are wrong, as it is very possible you've seen different ones.


In all of these applications you employ a pressure differential between two zones .


Create and utilise one, yes.


A venturi that accepts a volume of space forces it to compression and accelerates it, relative to the supply side by use of a shaped exit venturi. ( Ever use a can of paint or some other substance and it gets cold? ) I'm fairly sure that the updraft is produced by the temperature differential and the conical shape of the "candle"..


This is mixing two different concepts, convection and venturi. The burning is pulling the air through, if you obstruct a part of that air flow you create a low pressure area. In the demonstrations of the venturi effect one sticks a pitot tube in their supplying a liquid, the low pressure draws the liquid from the tube and entrains into a fluid flow. What you are looking for is turbulence created in the ear hole sufficient to remove particles (of wax) from the sides and have them entrained in the fluid flow and lifted into this tube of the hollow candle.

If I may just use a dreadful analogy! ... imagine a tunnel not much bigger than your car, with the inside coated by wax, you are planning to drive through it fast enough to create enough drag behind your vehicle to tear this wax from the wall and retain it in the turbulence behind the car.

I have used the device under many circumstances and you can see literally how smoke at the bottom of the funnel is sucked up by the candel..............hell what do You think makes fireplaces ( Hearths ? ) work?


I confess I should get some and play with them, and I am deficient in not having done so before critiquing your response. I dunno where to buy them!

Again, hearths work because the fire is drawing air in for combustion, the pressure differential generated by a candle would not lift a fly's wing, let alone pull a lump of sticky wax from a flesh.


This is one area that all have the ability to prove "bulls**t" or bravo, one caveat don't buy .a mop and stick it into yer ear.
Disprove it by theory or by experiment.

You are entirely correct about that. Thank you for a polite description of your understanding.

I see you mentioned your daughter suffers from a TMJ problem, I do to .. though from the sound of it not as serious. She has my sympathy, I don't know what your experiences have been, but I've found there is very little can be done to help with current medical knowledge. That's a hard pill to swallow, don't be tempted to let woo-woos tell you they know more than physicians.

Edited to correct confusing grammar!

[JSFolk]

Benguin, I was going to post something about grain elevators in the Calgary area using high-speed air to move grain around, and about the chemical industry doing the same thing, but after reading your analogy about a car-sized tunnel coated with a thick layer of ear wax, I think I'll take a shower instead.




(As a side note, they use something called a "cyclone separator" to remove the entrained product from the air stream. It looks like this..

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/013026170X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Cover work modelled and rendered by yours truly. :D

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by JSFolk
Cover work modelled and rendered by yours truly. :D You know, I thought you'd look a bit more... human. Although after being rendered I suppose you might look a bit more cylindrical...

;) :D

[TillEulenspiegel]

May I respectfully suggest it would be easier to do some web searching and find a scientific explanation from a qualified source?

You may. but impartial viewpoints are hard to find in this area. All the experts in fluid dynamics and aeronautical engineering were busy yesterday. Goggle a look up and you get pagan, new age crap.

The physics is quite different between these things, carburettors make use of the Bernoulli effect to 'atomize' a liquid into a stream of fast moving gas. Wax is not liquefied, if it was you'd scald your ear badly.

No, the physics in all of the cases I sighted are based on the model of a venturi , which governs rocket motors, carbs , aerosol cans, Et.Al. and the principle is separate from it's effect on the medium. A venturi tube is simply a tube which is narrower in the middle than it is at the ends. When the fluid. passing through the tube reaches the narrow part, it speeds up. According to Bernoulli's principle, it then should exert less pressure.

Rocket engines are not relevant


You couldn't be more wrong. This is the engineering that has supplied the scientific basis for every rocket from Goddard to Shuttle. Check here : http://theduchy.ualr.edu/nasa/cymthesis.pdf


I think you mean turbines (search for 'whittle' on google). There is an analogy here ...Trouble is, the air velocity needed to dislodge and actually lift some wax would be very high, even in a confined aperture.;

No I say what I mean.

Please don't make me dig out my fluid mechanics texts from my uni days! I'd rather soak them in wax and burn them!

Dig them out because You evidently have lost track of the principles or you are ignorant ( which I proclaimed in my post ) of the science behind the reality.

Grain hoppers I've seen use an archimedes screw to move the grain about. I'm not suggesting you are wrong, as it is very possible you've seen different ones.

Uhh No ..Gravity fed hopper loaders use the same design .


This is mixing two different concepts, convection and venturi. The burning is pulling the air through, if you obstruct a part of that air flow you create a low pressure area. In the demonstrations of the venturi effect one sticks a pitot tube in their supplying a liquid, the low pressure draws the liquid from the tube and entrains into a fluid flow. What you are looking for is turbulence created in the ear hole sufficient to remove particles (of wax) from the sides and have them entrained in the fluid flow and lifted into this tube of the hollow candle.

As I stated I do not know the exact mechanism of operation , but the few people I have had who experienced this "extraction" state that they experience a warm feeling in the ear canal.This was followed by an examination of the "candle" and I saw a deposit that I could not experimentally recreate without the same constraints.

I confess I should get some and play with them, and I am deficient in not having done so before critiquing your response. I dunno where to buy them!

Well by golly a critique without background , evidence or demonstrable falsehoods of the study in question.......... Ya That skeptical

Again, hearths work because the fire is drawing air in for combustion, the pressure differential generated by a candle would not lift a fly's wing, let alone pull a lump of sticky wax from a flesh.

No hearths work because warm air rises above colder air., you can float a piece of paper or even a charcoal speck. Notice their 2000BC design ( bread ovens, blacksmiths forges) ? Wide at the bottom narrow at the top rising to an exhaust.. the updraft sucks up combustion byproducts.

You are entirely correct about that. Thank you for a polite description of your understanding.

I see you mentioned your daughter suffers from a TMJ problem, I do to .. though from the sound of it not as serious. She has my sympathy, I don't know what your experiences have been, but I've found there is very little can be done to help with current medical knowledge. That's a hard pill to swallow, don't be tempted to let woo-woos tell you they know more than physicians.

Thank You for Your concern but that was a few years ago ( and not TMJ ) and she is a normal irritating , ungracious teenager.I don't let physicians tell me anything without explanation let alone woo-woos. I find more and more I must educate the physician.

Your not by chance Artic penguin's sock puppet are you?

[CurtC]

Dude, are you actually maintaining your conviction that these things work as advertised?

[jimerson]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

As I stated I do not know the exact mechanism of operation , but the few people I have had who experienced this "extraction" state that they experience a warm feeling in the ear canal.This was followed by an examination of the "candle" and I saw a deposit that I could not experimentally recreate without the same constraints.



How did you determine the deposit was human ear wax?

[CurtC]

Well, I just Googled "ear candle experiment" and came up with the following:


A Small Study of the Properties of Ear Candles (http://altmed.creighton.edu/ear/experiment.htm)
1. The ear candle, when burned, produced a brown waxy substance that looks like ear wax. However, since the wax appears whether or not the candle is placed in a human ear, we conclude that the source of the wax is the candle and not the ear.
2. It is possible that the candle produced wax but also extracted solid material from the ear the was mixed with the candle wax. However, since the candle remnant of the control candle and the one inserted into a human volunteer weighed exactly the same, we conclude that this did not happen.
3. The human subject reported no feeling of a vacuum which is purported to occur during the burning of the candle. The control candle produced smoke that poured from the bottom of the tapered end, suggesting that positive, not negative pressure was being produced.
4. The subject reported no subjective feelings invoked by the treatment, suggesting that the ear candle was innefective in a controlled environment.

Ear Candling (http://www.abundanthealth.com/art-ec.html):I opened that candle as well and found the same amount of wax and powder (supposedly candida) in both candles.

Ear Candling (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/candling.html):They demonstrated that all residue originated from the candle and that no ear wax was removed from the ear.

Ear Candles Not Effective (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0ISW/2002_May/85131531/p1/article.jhtml):So we did a very simple experiment, we lit a candle and held it against a smooth notebook surface instead of an ear. Lo and behold, when we blew out the candle and cut it open it was filled with yellowish "ear wax."

Ear Implants, Ear Candles, and Reptilians (http://educate-yourself.org/mc/earimplantsandreptilians28mar04.shtml):On this day I saw a very strange object in the piece of candle which was left. It was probably a little over 1/4" long. It was greyish in colour and kind of opaque looking, kind of like a semi-clear plastic. It was oval in shape. It gave me the creeps...

On discussing this with a friend of mine, she reminded me that she had earlier suggested that maybe aliens were putting implants into the ear.

These links were all from the first page of Google results. So who are you with, TE, those on the side of science, or those cowering in a corner hiding from Reptilians?

[Benguin]

Dig them out because You evidently have lost track of the principles or you are ignorant ( which I proclaimed in my post ) of the science behind the reality.

How so? You still haven't explained how fluid mechanics will permit this wax to be moved? I see what you mean about rocket engines now, I assumed you were referring to the fluid mechanics of how they provide propulsion. Of course I should have re-read your paragraph a few times.

It doesn't change the fact you haven't given a description of physics that will lead to wax being removed from the ear wall or lifted. You are right about warm air (convection) lifting light objects, the burning of one of those candles is bound to generate a small air velocity at the base of the tube, and thus a feeling of air moving around.

I think we've been refering to venturi at two different places ... are you trying to describe the mechanism that would allow the material to be deposited inside the candle during the operation of this thing? I wouldn't argue that this could happen in that way, it isn't contentious. What is disputed is whether and how wax can be lifted from the wall of ear by this device, that is where I was saying venturi doesn't really apply unless you can explain how it does. If it (the wax) were particulate or liquid (subject to fluid behaviour) and entrained in a stream of air then getting it out of that air using a ventura would be perfectly plausible.

My textbooks (if I could even find them) would explain to me how to calculate the sufficent air velocities required for carrying/depositing material in tubes of the diameter we are talking about. As fluid mechanics equations are murderously complex and incomprehensible to most people it probably wouldn't prove much. I think analogies work better as we can all visualise them.

But as (I think) you were describing how the wax might get on the inside of the candle and I was questioning how the principle would allow the wax to get into the air flow in the first place I think we have crossed wires.

Well by golly a critique without background , evidence or demonstrable falsehoods of the study in question.......... Ya That skeptical

OK, mea culpa, you've talked me into buying some to prove they don't work. I still don't know where to get them from, but I reckon they're cheap. Can you explain which ones you think work? do I need to get ones with beeswax or paraffin anything? I'd hate to prove my point only to be told I had not gone to the right woo-woo stockist. Is this something that will not work if I use it in a skeptical frame of mind? I normally avoid things that I know cannot work, but I'm curious.

[Benguin]

And those grain hoppers look interesting, JS . Are you involved in the design of them? As I said, the farms I've seen only had archimedes screws.

Oh, and I'm not related to Arctic Penguin ... I think his was an Adelie or a Gentoo avatar, mine's a Macaroni.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Curtc good reads. I must confess that I couldn't prove the residue was ear wax.. maybe I should take a more critical look at the by product./ It LOOKED like earwax and had the consistency, but I guess that would follow, if it was candle residue it IS wax hehe. I did the out of ear tests and couldn't get the same result ..I didn't burn the whole thing , perhaps that was an error. Maybe the heat from the candle mearly melts the larger clumps and just redistributes the wax in the ear. I will test them further the wife brings any more home. In the mean time I guess I'll just have to abide by the consensus, besides as someone else said this is really yucky.

[Folly]

TE,

You've complained that Benguin hasn't tried to test this themselves... I say, how accurately did you test this yourself? You did say you tried burning one yourself, but how closely did you reproduce "ear-like" conditions? Other people's tests do seem to produce results that are identical to using them in an ear. It's like a psychic testing: you've done a test and found something. Perhaps it's your experimental design.

In fact it's been tested often enough that they are illegal to sell in Canada. There are no known benefits (aside from the dubious pleasure of sticking a flaming object in your head) and there are definite risks involved. They're not even allowed to be sold as a non-health product.

[Benguin]

I was going to try and design a test (other than sticking it in my ear). How does this sound?

1. Take a small quantity of butter (because it is hard fat, similar too wax and melts at a lower temperature. At room temperature it should be softer than ear wax.

2. Coat the inside of a thimble with it thickly, leaving a hole similar in diameter to an ear hole. (Might be easier to fill it and drill it!)

3. Weigh the thimble with an accurate scales, and photograph it with a macro lens.

4. Clamp it in position to simulate an ear on a tilted head.

5. "Ear candle" the thing.

Assuming the candling is a success (eg, we see a brown sludge in it, and the thimble stops complaining of hearing loss) We have three tests now;

6. Weigh the thimble to see if their is any change in mass

7. Take another photograph and compare the two.

8. Warm the remains of the candle to 50 degrees C and see if the residue runs away (butter melts at about 32 degrees, beeswax at 64 degrees).

What does anyone reckon?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Folly it's not like Psychic testing at all, we have a methodology to check whether it works not some .." well it didn't work because you don't believe" BS. I thought I made it clear that I was standing down and that what I observed was close to my understanding of the advertisement, I saw what was stated and the claim I heard was relatively benign. As I have stated before I had no idea of all the clap trap that was associated with this "device" had I , I would have held it up to greater scrutiny.

edit: Well did a lot more googling and it appearers that the whole thing is hokum, evidently the device used is , "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" That the "residue" is probably attributable to the candle itself..I guess the evidence is all anecdotal and the effect if any is feeling on the part of the subject is attributable to action and the warmth of the candle and nothing more.

[Folly]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Folly it's not like Psychic testing at all, we have a methodology to check whether it works not some .." well it didn't work because you don't believe" BS. I thought I made it clear that I was standing down and that what I observed was close to my understanding of the advertisement, I saw what was stated and the claim I heard was relatively benign. As I have stated before I had no idea of all the clap trap that was associated with this "device" had I , I would have held it up to greater scrutiny.

My aplogies. I didn't read your last message carefully enough and saw I-know-what-I-saw-but-I'll-let-it-go-for-now, instead of what you actually wrote. My bad.

[Benguin]

Yes I could see where TE was coming from .... the claim that it can help clear the wax out of your ear is reasonable one, and all I was really talking about.

I'd actually forgotten about all that other woo-woo rubbish about lymph systems and demons and what have you.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Benguin
I was going to try and design a test (other than sticking it in my ear). How does this sound?

1. Take a small quantity of butter (because it is hard fat, similar too wax and melts at a lower temperature. At room temperature it should be softer than ear wax.


To be more accurate, I suggest you spend some time collecting ear wax (your own, or others' if you aren't squeamish). That way, no one can claim the results were due to the difference between butter and ear wax. :D

[Benguin]

I guess it was too much to hope no-one would come up with that.

It isn't as if I can present any other defence of substituting butter than 'ick'!

[Eos of the Eons]

This is a definite case of risk (doing candling) outweighing any imagined benefit.

To clean your ears, just swab the entrance of the ear of any wax. Earwax is what cleans the area. If you start sticking things right in, then you wreck the work the wax is doing and open yourself up to infections.

My allergies to cats causes the inside of my ears to itch, all the way to the freaking ear drum. So I have stuck a cotton swab in pretty far. Unless you pierce your eardrum and really ram the thing up, then your hearing and your brain will be okay in spite of your digging.m:D :D

Candling is worse than doing nothing.

From the Cecil article on the straight dope link: As an otolaryngologist with 15 years' experience, I have had more than one occasion on which a victim of ear candling has presented to my office with excruciating symptoms caused by melted wax adhering to the eardrum. This often necessitates minor surgery and puts the patient's hearing at risk. In addition to debunking the efficacy of ear candling, you should mention the inherent danger to hearing. --C. Christopher Smith, MD, FACS, Dover, New Hampshire

You can burn yourself externally (hair, etc.). You can burn the inside of the ear, well the passageway to the internal ear, and you can even lose your hearing. You may even cause an infection to your ear.

The ear is no place to clean out lymph nodes or whatever, and no toxin is going to be drawn out past your eardrum or your inner ear, etc. Heck, what toxins are they referring to anyway? Should one stick a candle in their belly button in order to draw toxins the liver was working on?

Sheesh.

Ridiculous.

[Benguin]

Go back through the thread and read the butt-candling bit!

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Benguin
Go back through the thread and read the butt-candling bit!
Don't even get me started! :D

Come on people.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, one of the large Danich daily newpapers (Politiken) runs a story on ear candling to-day, on the backside, which is traditionally the place for humor. Apparantly the stuff can be bought in Denmark, too :rolleyes:.

Either this is a strange coincidence, or some of the people at Politiken read this BB..... Hellooo, Gorm??

Hans

[scribble]

I tried this once. It started a fire in my brain that still hasn't been put out, like those coal fires in china. No, really.

[exarch]

Originally posted by scribble
I tried this once. It started a fire in my brain that still hasn't been put out, like those coal fires in china. No, really.In that case, look out for brain farts. That could really mess up your day :)

[JSFolk]

Benguin, the specific separator on the cover of that book was not one used in an agricultural setting, but one used to move powdered chemical products around in a chemical plant. I'm not involved at all in the design of them, but worked in the office with the designer and the engineer for it. When I was looking for a neat project for 3D modelling, that's what turned up for me to model. :)