Some Interesting Experimental REsults

[Beth]

A few months ago, I promised to post any interesting experiment results I had. Earlier this week, I was able to purchase a relatively inexpensvie temperature sensor and have started trying to set up experiments with it.

These results are not conclusive as I do not yet have a rigorous protocol worked out with this new sensor. I'm still just fooling around to see what I can do with it and this procedure does not eliminate other possible explanations. I did not have an observer for this test.

I can reject the null hypothesis that nothing was different between the control and the test period. They are definitely not the same. The p-value of an ANOVA test on this data is 0.0000. But I cannot state that I was the cause of that difference. Other explanations are possible, including the possibility that I'm simply seeing a trend over time that has nothing to do with me. As I continue to experiment, I will revise and refine the procedure to eliminate other possible explanations.

Beth


Time Effort Temp
8:11 None 83
8:19 None 90
8:20 None 101
8:21 None 92
8:22 None 89
8:23 None 93
8:24 None 91
8:25 None 94
8:26 None 108
8:27 None 107
8:28 None 132
8:29 None 108
8:30 None 117
8:31 None 112
8:32 None 111
8:33 None 108
8:35 None 102
8:37 None 108
8:39 None 102
8:40 None 102
8:41 None 120
8:50 Aim for sensor 140
8:51 Aim for sensor 141
8:52 Aim for sensor 152
8:53 Aim for sensor 129
8:54 Aim for sensor 139
8:55 Aim for sensor 133
8:56 Aim for sensor 129
8:57 Aim for sensor 146
8:58 Aim for sensor 160
8:59 Aim for sensor 171
9:00 Aim for sensor 185
9:01 Aim for sensor 169

[chillzero]

Can you give a bit more information about the experiments? You have given no details about what you are doing, and what you are trying to achieve. I don't understand these numbers without any other information.

Thanks.

[Beth]

I am attempting to direct a candle flame towards a target. In this experiment, the sensor was the target. What other details do you want to know?

Beth Clarkson

Edited to add:

You may find it helpful to read over my original claim thread in the challenge applications section.

[Genesius]

Seems to me the above effect could be created by having the candle between you and the sensor and lightly blowing on the candle flame, thereby directing heated air towards the sensor.

Can you give more details about the physical setup of your test equipment? The more details you can provide the better we can critique your design and discover if there truly is a paranormal effect here.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Genesius
Seems to me the above effect could be created by having the candle between you and the sensor and lightly blowing on the candle flame, thereby directing heated air towards the sensor.

Can you give more details about the physical setup of your test equipment? The more details you can provide the better we can critique your design and discover if there truly is a paranormal effect here.

I place the candle in a glass to prevent my inadvertantly affecting it with my breath. The tip of the sensor was placed inside the glass about 2 inches below the rim. I did not alter it's position during the course of the experiment.

If you want more details on the set-up, please check the original thread on my claim. THe only change I made from that original setup for this experiment was using the temperature sensor rather than wax rings to measure the effect.

Thank you for your offer to critique my design, but until I have a set-up that corrects for the problems I am already aware of, I don't think posting details that will be changing is of much value. I posted these results in order to fulfill my promise to post interesting results if I had some. I consider these results to be interesting and feel that I have honored that promise.

Beth

[Genesius]

Other explanations are possible, including the possibility that I'm simply seeing a trend over time that has nothing to do with me.

Should be fairly simple to rule out: light the candle and let it burn for 30 minutes or so, which should be enough time for the temperature in the jar to stabilize. Alternate trying to and not trying to influence the flame. See if the temperature changes in step with your attempts. Given enough trials if you are influencing the flame the effect should show up, even given the ranges in observed temperatures on your earlier trial.

[Ashles]

Hmmm, there does seem to be a rather obvious glaring problem with this set up.

Putting a flame by a sensor might possibly heat the sensor over time.

It would be far better to either do the aiming either at the start, or better still at random periods, alternating with the control non-aiming types.

This is really a terrible way to do the experiment Beth.

It is how someone would set up the experiment to give themselves a much greater chance that the temperature would be higher during their aiming period.

Try doing the aiming first, then the non-aiming second and let us know the results of that.

Also the nine minute gap between non-aiming and aiming makes the temperature increase appear far greater a jump compared to the other readings than it really is.

And if the aiming was done at 8:50 then the biggest increase in temperature actually happened before any aiming was attempted.

Here is a graph of temperature increase against time. (I have added a linear trend line).

[Beth]

Originally posted by Genesius
Should be fairly simple to rule out: light the candle and let it burn for 30 minutes or so, which should be enough time for the temperature in the jar to stabilize. Alternate trying to and not trying to influence the flame. See if the temperature changes in step with your attempts. Given enough trials if you are influencing the flame the effect should show up, even given the ranges in observed temperatures on your earlier trial.

Those are good suggestions. I plan to try a number of things along those lines in the future. Thank you.

Beth

[Beth]

Originally posted by Ashles
Hmmm, there does seem to be a rather obvious glaring problem with this set up.

Yes, I am aware that there are a number of problems with this set up. That is why I said the results were not conclusive. I will be correcting the problems to the best of my ability in the future. This was not meant to be a rigorous trial, but rather one in which I am familarizing myself with the new sensor. Still, I found the results interesting and posted them as I had said I would. Thank you for your input.

[Ashles]

Beth - one quick question:

You said you would post any interesting results you had.

Does this mean you won't post any results you get that show nothing interesting?

Will you even tell us about any trials that show no effect?

If not then surely you can't realistically run any statistical analysis on your results as you would only be cherry picking already significant trials to run analyses on.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Ashles
Beth - one quick question:

You said you would post any interesting results you had.

Does this mean you won't post any results you get that show nothing interesting?

Will you even tell us about any trials that show no effect?

If not then surely you can't realistically run any statistical analysis on your results as you would only be cherry picking already significant trials to run analyses on.

Actually, I regret making the original promise to post interesting results. I have found this forum a bit too hostile for my taste. From the Angela Patel thread, it's clear that those who share my views regarding the general tone of this forum are in a minority. Most people here enjoy the heated exchanges and seem to be of the opinion that if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. That's fair, but since I don't like the heat here I'm planning on going to a more temperate kitchen to discuss my results, both positive and negative.

However, I had promised to post interesting results here and I do try to keep my word. I now feel that I have fulfilled that promise.

Beth

[roger]

Thank you for taking the time to make and post that chart, Ashles. It makes things much clearer.

[Reno]

Go to that TVshows place where they all coo and ahhh and fawn over each other. You'll be safe from harm over there...and they will believe anything you say without you having to go to the trouble of actually providing any proof at all.

GL and GB

[Unnamed]

Originally posted by Ashles
Also the nine minute gap between non-aiming and aiming makes the temperature increase appear far greater a jump compared to the other readings than it really is.

And if the aiming was done at 8:50 then the biggest increase in temperature actually happened before any aiming was attempted.

Here is a graph of temperature increase against time. (I have added a linear trend line).

Ashles, you make a good point about the 9 min. gap, but your graph does not reflect it properly. I made another graph that shows it more clearly.

Also, since we are trying to distinguish between before and after trying to induce a change, I've put separate linear trends. The increase in the second region is not completely predicted by extrapolating from the first one. But I guess that the ANOVA result would be much higher (i.e. higher probability for the null hypothesis) after correcting for this trend.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Beth
Actually, I regret making the original promise to post interesting results. I have found this forum a bit too hostile for my taste. From the Angela Patel thread, it's clear that those who share my views regarding the general tone of this forum are in a minority. Most people here enjoy the heated exchanges and seem to be of the opinion that if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. That's fair, but since I don't like the heat here I'm planning on going to a more temperate kitchen to discuss my results, both positive and negative.

However, I had promised to post interesting results here and I do try to keep my word. I now feel that I have fulfilled that promise.

Beth
Beth we honestly would appreciate your posting all the data you have. Positive and negative. But this is a sceptical website so it would really be unrealistic of you to expect people not to comment on problems with your experimental set up.

And surely your results should stand by themselves.

But if you are merely looking for agreement with your claims, and no serious analysis of your results then this forum certainly isn't the right place for you.

It would be genuinely sad for several reasons if you felt you could only show your results to like-minded people.

You are an intelligent poster and as several people have said before we value your input, presence and comments, even if we don't agree with you.

If you are really serious about finding out whether you have this ability or not then posting your results here is absolutely the best thing to do.
If they can survive our criticisms and suggestions, then they are obviously robust and significant results.

I ask because I want to know if you are genuine about finding the truth about these abilities, or whether you merely want to hear that you have them, regardless of whether you really do or not.
Because there are plenty of other forums that will tell you that you do.
Is that what you want?

[roger]

Unnamed, do you feel that it is valid to compute 2 different linear regressions like that, given that these are not independent trials. So far as I can tell, Beth's use of the term "control" is a canard, as it is anything but.

A proper control would establish the thermo properties of the apparatus.

I feel that Ashes chart shows that what we are seeing may very well be nothing more than the thermal behavior of the apparatus. Your's gives a strong pschological bias to thinking that there is an effect other than normal thermo behavior.

Of course this will not be decided by drawing graphs of her presented data, but by running true controls. In any case, both of your graphs are interesting and thought provoking.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Unnamed
Ashles, you make a good point about the 9 min. gap.

The 9 minute gap is the period during which I was trying to influence the flame. I was working by myself and cannot work with the flame and record data at the same time. However, the time effect is confounded with the attempt and the change in temp may simply be due the candle burning hotter over time. I plan on switching to an oil lamp and taking control data to assess normal behavior.

Beth

[Ashles]

I know this is really obvious, but I'd feel bad if I didn't at least say it.

Beth please do be careful with all these naked flames.

[Beth]

Ashley,

I appreciate what you are saying and I do value critical input. I am not looking for like-minded people in my discussions, but kindness. This is a very personal thing and I find it difficult to talk about certain aspects of it. What I cannot tolerate are unkind comments. Nor can I expect people here to refrain from making such comments.

I have a small group of people, including some skeptics that I have met here, that I feel I can be honest with who have agreed to advise me on my experiments and results. They are all people whose opinions I value and they have all promised to be kind as well as honest.

I simply don't think this forum is the place, sensitive as I am on this subject, for me to post all details about my experiments and their results.

Thank you for your interest and your comments.

Beth

[mummymonkey]

Hey that's not fair! I did a graph too, but I'm so slow and useless everybody got their's done first. Well I'm posting it anyway 'cos it took me ages so there!

http://www.ibrox.freeserve.co.uk/images/graph.jpg

[Beth]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
Hey that's not fair! I did a graph too, but I'm so slow and useless everybody got their's done first. Well I'm posting it anyway 'cos it took me ages so there!

Thats okay. Yours was worth waiting for. :)

Beth

P.S. I hadn't realized the graphs would be so popular or I'd have posted mine.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Ashles
I know this is really obvious, but I'd feel bad if I didn't at least say it.

Beth please do be careful with all these naked flames.

I have the feeling this topic will consists of more flames than any other. Or at least talking about them... :D

[Unnamed]

Originally posted by roger
Unnamed, do you feel that it is valid to compute 2 different linear regressions like that, given that these are not independent trials.
Not really, but it seemed fair to make it that way. By the way, ignore the second linear trend, it's meaningless and I regret putting it there.
I feel that Ashes chart shows that what we are seeing may very well be nothing more than the thermal behavior of the apparatus. Your's gives a strong pschological bias to thinking that there is an effect other than normal thermo behavior.
Personally, I'd make it just like Ashles did, but that would not add anything to the discussion, would it?
A proper control would establish the thermo properties of the apparatus.
I like Genesius' suggestion of alternating trials and controls, because it cancels out this influence.
In any case, both of your graphs are interesting and thought provoking.
And that's the point of making graphs :)

(edited whitespace only)

[Unnamed]

Originally posted by Beth
The 9 minute gap is the period during which I was trying to influence the flame. I was working by myself and cannot work with the flame and record data at the same time.
Neither me or Ashles were blaming you for anything. Please don't take it that way. We are saying that the gap in data makes the jump look more impressive than it really is. That's why we made graphs to counterbalance that effect. Every experimental setup has limitations and I agree that the gap was unavoidable.

[Gayle]

Beth,

Several times in these forums I have said that Challenge applicants had better toughen up and get used to harsh comments. I mean that. Get strong, stand up, don't snivel.

You have shown both strength and restraint. I strongly support your call for kindness because it's the M.O. I prefer myself. I admire your assertiveness in asking for kindness in a forum where sarcasm and ridicule are more of the norm.

Kramer asked how you were coming with your personal testing and here you are with an answer. That's a pretty good example of getting strong, standing up, and not sniveling. Well done!

Maybe your experiments will succeed and maybe they won't. Regardless of the outcome, you have already succeeded in winning my respect. Good luck and keep posting, please.

Gayle

[Startz]

For those who haven't seen Beth's posts from some time back, note that she is studying statistics seriously as well as doing experiments on the paranormal.

With this as an excuse, here's a regression test which controls for a time trend.

Dependent Variable: TEMP
Method: Least Squares
Date: 07/15/05 Time: 21:39
Sample: 1 33
Included observations: 33

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C -494.9301 179.2796 -2.760660 0.0097
EFFORT="None"-13.35921 10.14169 -1.317256 0.1977
TIME 1732.921 482.0030 3.595250 0.0011

R-squared 0.802314

As others have suggested, once you control for a time trend the evidence for effort mattering is relatively weak. You'd expect to see evidence this strong about one time out of five.

Beth, if you're interested in this sort of thing, run a regression correcting for serial correlation. You'll find the evidence for the effect completely disappears.
-Dick Startz

[Beth]

Originally posted by Gayle
Beth,

Maybe your experiments will succeed and maybe they won't. Regardless of the outcome, you have already succeeded in winning my respect. Good luck and keep posting, please.

Gayle

Thank you for your encouraging words. I'll keep posting here because I hear enough interesting ideas to make it worth my while. but I'll continue to avoid posting about myself personally due to what I feel is a harsh environment here and my own sensitivities.

I enjoy a good spirited discussion and it's crucial to get a good evaluation of one's ideas; it's when the discussion slips into the personal that I have problems with it. When I'm talking about my own experiments, it's hard to delineate between what is personal and what is not. Hence, I won't be discussing them here anymore.

Beth

[Beth]

Originally posted by Startz

Beth, if you're interested in this sort of thing, run a regression correcting for serial correlation. You'll find the evidence for the effect completely disappears.
-Dick Startz

Thanks for posting your results. Due to the confounding, I don't think it's appropriate for this data. Of course, it's arguable that the ANOVA I did run isn't appropriate either. At any rate, as I said earlier, this data is not conclusive. However, if you assume that something is occurring, the data support that assumption. To me, that makes it an interesting result. When I have refined my experiment, the confounding should be eliminated and a trend analysis unnecessary.

Beth

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Beth
The 9 minute gap is the period during which I was trying to influence the flame. I was working by myself and cannot work with the flame and record data at the same time. So between 8:50 and 9:01, while you were recording the data, you were unable to influence the flame. How do you account for the apparent upwards trend in the temperature during this interval?

ETA: Surely, if the rise in temperature is caused by you directing the flame towards the sensor, and you were only doing this during the 9 minute gap in the data, the sensor should have been heated during those 9 minutes, but started to cool again once you were no longer able to direct the flame towards it.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Mojo
So between 8:50 and 9:01, while you were recording the data, you were unable to influence the flame. How do you account for the apparent upwards trend in the temperature during this interval?

Natural behavior of the flame. I haven't yet estalished a control for comparison because I haven't yet gotten all the equipment I want to work with. When I do, that is something that will have to be done. As Roger point out, you have to know the natural behavior before you can make a comparison.

ETA: Surely, if the rise in temperature is caused by you directing the flame towards the sensor, and you were only doing this during the 9 minute gap in the data, the sensor should have been heated during those 9 minutes, but started to cool again once you were no longer able to direct the flame towards it.

Not necessarily, I was attempting to create a sustained effect because I couldn't check the temp while I was working with it. In addition, a small sustained effect seems to be easier for me to manage than turning the effect on and off, but maybe that just due to confounding.

If I was successful with that attempt, then the results I could expect would be what I got. That's why I find them interesting. However, if the temp had stayed more or less constant throughout the experiment, that would have been an indication of having had no effect.

Beth

[Startz]

When I have refined my experiment, the confounding should be eliminated and a trend analysis unnecessary.

Beth:

I agree that refining the experimental design beats using ex post statistics to untangle the results.

I collect interesting data sets for teaching, and maybe for a book I'm writing. Would it be okay if I used the data you posted earlier in the thread? I would identify the author as "Beth," with no last name.
-Dick

[deathphoenix]

Beth,

How many sensors do you have? Either situation, I have a suggestion for how you can make your test a little more scientific.

If you have two, set them both up in exactly the same way, and only concentrate on one of the flames (after forty minutes, as you originally tested, if you wish)

If you only have one, set it up in a temperature-stable environment, and have it running for a certain period of time without concentrating on it at all. The next day, set it up in the same environment with the same temperature settings, and concentrate on it (after forty minutes, as you originally tested, if you wish).

Hope this helps.

[Beth]

I ran an experiment earlier tonight. The oil lamp I used turned out to be very smokey. When I was cleaning up, I checked the sensor and sure enough, it was covered with soot. What effect , if any, would this have on the sensor readings? Would it tend to make it higher? or lower? Or would it not make a difference at all?

I'd appreciate any ideas on this and if it might have an effect, do you have any suggestions about how to deal with it. Currently, I'm taping the sensor inside the glass vase, but perhaps I could tape it to the outside? Would that cause any other foreseeable problems?

Thanks for your help and insight.

Beth

[deathphoenix]

Originally posted by Beth
I ran an experiment earlier tonight. The oil lamp I used turned out to be very smokey. When I was cleaning up, I checked the sensor and sure enough, it was covered with soot. What effect , if any, would this have on the sensor readings? Would it tend to make it higher? or lower? Or would it not make a difference at all?

I'd appreciate any ideas on this and if it might have an effect, do you have any suggestions about how to deal with it. Currently, I'm taping the sensor inside the glass vase, but perhaps I could tape it to the outside? Would that cause any other foreseeable problems?

Thanks for your help and insight.

Beth

That depends on the type of sensor that you're using (thermocouple, infrared, etc.), but the most common effect of soot covering the sensor is a lower temperature reading than reality because of the insulating effects of the soot buildup. However, since these are pre-preliminary types of testing, I suggest you try both tests (with or without concentrating) and seeing if you have any different readings. Also, you shouldn't be too close to te flame because your presence may also move the flame slightly.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Beth
Currently, I'm taping the sensor inside the glass vase, but perhaps I could tape it to the outside?I would try to go in the opposite direction, actually.

Based on the numbers in the first post, I think the sensor is, to a large extent, reading the temperature of the glass, which rises slowly as the small flame gradually heats up the large vase. Can you support the sensor somehow, inside the vase but not touching it? That way, it will read the air temperature, which should change much more rapidly than the glass temperature in response to the changing position of the nearby flame. I'm guessing it's the position of the flame that you hope to affect?

[Dave_46]

I think that the soot would make the emissivity of the sensor close to 1, so it would probably increase radiant heat transfer. What it would do to convective transfer I don't know.

Dave

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Beth
Natural behavior of the flame. I haven't yet estalished a control for comparison because I haven't yet gotten all the equipment I want to work with. When I do, that is something that will have to be done. As Roger point out, you have to know the natural behavior before you can make a comparison. If you've got the equipment necessary to take any kind of reading, you can easily carry out a control experiment. Simply set up the candle and sensor, exactly as you've done here, and take temperature readings over the expected duration of your actual experiment while making no attempt to influence the flame. Not necessarily, I was attempting to create a sustained effect because I couldn't check the temp while I was working with it. In addition, a small sustained effect seems to be easier for me to manage than turning the effect on and off, but maybe that just due to confounding. Or possibly, the fact that your observed "effect" continues after you've stopped trying to influence the flame indicates that it was in fact just the "natural behavior of the flame."

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

A simple protocol would suffice, and account for the variables involved.

1 trial
10 periods control
10 periods aim for sensor
10 periods aim away from sensor
10 periods control

2 trial
10 periods control
10 periods aim away from sensor
10 periods control
10 periods aim for sensor

Repeat ten times, changing the order to test all possibilites

Run some statistics

Present them here.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Beth
I ran an experiment earlier tonight. The oil lamp I used turned out to be very smokey. When I was cleaning up, I checked the sensor and sure enough, it was covered with soot. What effect , if any, would this have on the sensor readings? Would it tend to make it higher? or lower? Or would it not make a difference at all?

I'd appreciate any ideas on this and if it might have an effect, do you have any suggestions about how to deal with it. Currently, I'm taping the sensor inside the glass vase, but perhaps I could tape it to the outside? Would that cause any other foreseeable problems?

Thanks for your help and insight.

Beth Taping it to the outside would make it sensitive to outside influence, like your breath, and indeed your presense.

Ideally, you should have two sensors, on on each side of the flame, and once you have balanced them, you should measure the difference between them. I can design the circuitry needed. This would eliminate most of the heat-up problems and other problems of varying intensity of the flame.

Soot problems can be eliminated by using an alcohol flame.

Finally you should use a randomized scheme, and a blinded read-out would be preferable (would require either a datalogger or a helper).

Hans

[roger]

Beth,

As you may recall, I suggest the thermocouple apparatus to you some time ago, after trying it out in my own kitchen (I have one readily available to me). My set up was quite simple, a candle put inside a coffee cup, and the thermocouple held by hand, suspended in the air inside the cup.

I noticed very significant fluctuations in the temperature over time. Significant meaning fluctuations of +/- 10-20 degrees F over a few seconds. So it might read, in 2 second intervals: 130 134 142 130 128 120 145 165. (I just made that up).

There are a few reasons for that, I hypothesize. One, the thermocouple I have is very sensitive, as is normal for these devices. Second, hand holding adds variations. But most important, I suspect air currents play a large role. Burning a candle generates complex, perhaps even chaotic air patterns, because as the candle burns it burns oxygen, causing new air to be drawn in. And of course the high heat sets up convection currents.

The upshot is that I am not particularly surprised by your data, and don't trust it without knowing more. You gave readings once per minute. With my thermocouple set up, if I chose to, I could easily pick readings that showed an upward trend, a downward trend, or no change, just by varying when I took the reading by a few seconds. I'm not accusing you of cooking the results, but I'm sure you can see how unconscious bias might lead to the same result.

As others have suggested, you can already do a control trial. Do a burn for 20 minutes, and record the data. Shut down the system, and allow all temperatures to stabilize back to room temp. Do this several times, and you should start to see some patterns. If the data is consistant, then you are ready to try your test. If it isn't, then you need to find out why. Air currents? Differing candle height? Candle/wick variations? Soot buildup? Etc.

Once you have a reproducable control procedure which is very sensitive to changes in temperature, then you can proceed. Until then, I think you will end up chasing phantom effects when trying to control the candle with your mind. While what I wrote above may sound time consuming, it'll take a lot less time then running tests that aren't giving meaningful data, that may in fact give you misleading data (example: you may think you are moving the candle towards the flame, but you are really moving it away, but this is obscured by the error in the apparatus).

I'm sure you thought of a lot of this already, but I hope there was something in there that was helpful.

[Beth]

Originally posted by deathphoenix
That depends on the type of sensor that you're using (thermocouple, infrared, etc.), but the most common effect of soot covering the sensor is a lower temperature reading than reality because of the insulating effects of the soot buildup. However, since these are pre-preliminary types of testing, I suggest you try both tests (with or without concentrating) and seeing if you have any different readings. Also, you shouldn't be too close to te flame because your presence may also move the flame slightly.

Thermocouple. I suspected as much about the soot. But rather than trying to quantify it's effect, I think I will attempt to eliminate it. Thanks for your thoughts.

Beth

[Beth]

Originally posted by roger
Beth,

As you may recall, I suggest the thermocouple apparatus to you some time ago, after trying it out in my own kitchen (I have one readily available to me).
Yes, I recall. In fact, your suggestion was what led to my moving to this equipment.
I'm sure you thought of a lot of this already, but I hope there was something in there that was helpful.

Yes, thanks.

Beth

[IXP]

Beth,

Thank you for posting your data.

Earlier, when you originally joined the forum, I tried some experiments with a candle in a glass with a ring covering part of the top of the glass (the ring was made from wood, since this is my hobby, and I had no wax rings handy).

I was surprised to find that the flame behaved chaotically with this setup whereas the same candle, unprotected, burned with a very stable flame as long as I stayed far enough away from it.

Here is what I think is happening. In order for the candle to burn, given your setup, gasses must flow in two directions through a single small round hole (about 1 1/2 in diameter, in my case). Air must enter to provide the oxygen for combustion, and combustion gasses must exit. This is not going to flow smoothly and leads to the chaotic flame behaviour.

I think your flame would be much more stable if you protected it with a chimney of glass (like from an old hurricane lamp) that is open at the bottom and top. This allows the gasses to flow in one direction only.

A stable flame should make it much easier for you to sort out any influence you are having on it.

IXP

[Beth]

Originally posted by IXP
Beth,
Here is what I think is happening. In order for the candle to burn, given your setup, gasses must flow in two directions through a single small round hole (about 1 1/2 in diameter, in my case). Air must enter to provide the oxygen for combustion, and combustion gasses must exit. This is not going to flow smoothly and leads to the chaotic flame behaviour.

I think your flame would be much more stable if you protected it with a chimney of glass (like from an old hurricane lamp) that is open at the bottom and top. This allows the gasses to flow in one direction only.

A stable flame should make it much easier for you to sort out any influence you are having on it.

IXP

Thanks for your input. I hadn't thought of the upper and lower openings as making a difference in the way you describe, but now that you've pointed it out, it seems quite obvious. The vase I've using now is 3.5" diameter and I'm not placing anything over the top of it. So the opening is larger and an oil lamp (or alcohol as has been suggested) will burn more steadily than a candle.

The concern I have is in regard to inadvertantly influencing the flame physically. I work fairly close to it and I use hand movements. Neither of these is something I can forego, which is why I place the flame inside a glass container. Do you think having an opening at the bottom as well as the top would make it more or less likely for me to inadvertantly influence it?

Beth

[IXP]

Beth,

I don't know whether it would provide better or worse isolation, I did not try it since I did not have such a thing handy. I do think it would be worth trying.

I did not recall that you used hand movements. Why is this necessary if you are influencing the flame with your mind?

IXP

[Zep]

Originally posted by Beth
The concern I have is in regard to inadvertantly influencing the flame physically. I work fairly close to it and I use hand movements. Neither of these is something I can forego...I would respectfully suggest that a very unstable system like a candle or oil-burner flame, which depends on many factors for its shape, including it's own consumption of available oxygen, uneven fuel flows, chaotic convection air currents from its own heat, variable transferred heat from the container, and any turbulence created by constricted air-flow situations in a cup or vase, would be easily influenced by the simple movement of nearby air from hand-waving, or even just the heat of your presence.

Another test I would suggest would be to record results for your flame-influencing movements but with no flame lit. That way you may get a measure of how much your setup is suceptible to quite mundane effects not to do with the test subject (i.e. the candle).

I would suggest that if you want to get reliable results, you need to work at eliminating or at least controlling and enumerating all these known factors, before considering other unknown explanations. As you have already noted, it's not as easy as it appears!

I would also suggest you analyse what is actually happening here. A flame is a highly unstable phenomenon anyway, even steady flames have notable variations. Perhaps you might like to consider trying to "influence" some other more stable (and less dangerous?) equivalent - I'm sure the physicists can provide you some practical examples. I thought of cigarette smoke rising in a wide, long tube. Or really fine dust drifting down the same tube.

cheers

[IXP]

Beth,

I have been thinking about this some more, and, like Zep, I suspect that with the unstable system you have set up, very small hand motions could physically affect the airflow and therefore the position of the flame.

I would suggest that you isolate yourself from the flame in a different manner. Use a large sheet of plexiglass between you and the flame and leave the flame in the open (no vase or chimney). The plexiglass sheet should be large enough to make keep the motion of your hands from creating air currents that affect the flame. I would think the barrier should be a minimum of 3 ft square to adequately do this. You can check this by setting up the candle noting it stablity, then waving your hands behind the sheet (without and intent to influence the flame). If the candle is not visibly affected, this is a good starting point.

IXP

[MRC_Hans]

Elaborating on Zep's comments on the unstable chaotic system, still respectfully: This is the typical structure of all the systems we see and are skeptical about. They contain some kind of chaos (or noise) generator that enable them to generate an essentially random output that can be easily influenced or even interpreted.

In the case of Beth's experiment, the flame is an intrinsically chaotic system, and putting it into a vase or other container makes it more chaotic, since we now not only have hot air convecting up from the flame, but cold, fresh air being sucked down around it, creating a chaotic, turbulent boundary layer. The heat sensor is both measuring the heat conducted to it from the turbulent air-stream containing warm and cold air, but also by radiation directly from the flame.

It is entirely probable that this system is so sensitive that the mere presense of a person beside it will make a difference.

Thus, it is very important to reduce the chaos in the system. First of all, the container must allow air to enter at the bottom, so there is a reasonably laminar airstream going through the glass. And, as I mentioned, you should employ differential measuring, so that changes in the total temperature in the system become uncritical. Time must be made uncritical by a randomized sequence, and observer bias must be eliminated by blinding.

Hans