How/why does this work?

[Wolfman]

Okay...a guy sticks two magnetized nails in two candles...then when the candles are lit, they produce electricity. Its a cool demonstration, but could someone explain to me exactly how/why this works?

You can view the video here (http://www.crazyworldzone.com/more/402/candle_power_-_who_needs___), its a rather neat demonstration (and useful to remember if I'm ever in a McGyver situation)

[NobbyNobbs]

I have no idea. My first thought is that there's some trickery involved. I see no reason for electrons to flow from one lit candle with a magnetized nail to an identical lit candle with a magnetized nail. The only reason electrons flow in the first place is because you have an excess of them in one place and a dearth of them in another, with a conductor connecting the two places.


That was actually my second thought. My first thought was that there's no way he magnetized those nails by rubbing them for less than 5 seconds. I remember trying to demonstrate magnets for my students, and I rubbed a paper clip for a full 2 minutes with fairly flimsy results.

I'm wondering if they didn't cut away and add something to the backside of the candles.

[wollery]

Look at where his spare hand is every time he lights or blows out the candles. And why not use a bigger table so that we can see all of the table around the candles? There are blind spots that could easily conceal wires. He's very careful not to move the candles. And he cuts away between putting the nails into the candles and lighting up the bulb. Why?

Try it yourself. I'll lay odds it doesn't work.

[Wavicle]

I'm going to agree with wollery here. If you carefully watch the light his left arm flinches just as it lights up.

I want to think "oh he did something really cool like a big inductor under the table." I'm not sure just yet, but if you look at the candle and the light/motor you'll notice there is no power ramp as the candle is lit. In fact, it looks kind of like the light comes on just before the wick catches.

[ail]

It's a neat trick !

Notice we do not ever see the bottom surface of the candle.

Also listen for the metallic tap as the candles a placed on the wooden table. Could there be something imbedded in the candles ?

Look at the change in colour on the surface of the table and the line of wood grain

Yes he always has one hand under the table when the power switches on or off.

I take my hat off to this conjuror.

[wollery]

I take my hat off to this conjuror.I don't, it's bleeding obvious what he's doing, and thus not a good trick.

[MRC_Hans]

For some reason I can't see the video (I just get the frontpage of that site, which is barely safe for work). How is the current detected? With a meter? Or a lamp?

Hans

[wollery]

He lights up a small torch bulb first, then runs a 3 volt motor.

He doesn't need an inductor under the table. The cutaway allows him to put different candles on the table. Personally I guess he's cut out enough of the back of the candles to connect the ends of the nails directly to an ordinary battery.

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, I see from another post that it's a bulb. Then it is a trick. There is some ionization going on in a candle flame (in any flame, actually), so it might be possible to make a configuration where you could get a reading on a meter.

Lightning up a bulb, however, requires power in an entirely different league, so there is no doubt it's a trick.

Hans

[ail]

I don't, it's bleeding obvious what he's doing, and thus not a good trick.


You haven't given a detailed explaination on how he may be doing it.

Remember you need a closed circuit loop to get current flow. Assuming he is not doing it by induction.

[wollery]

You haven't given a detailed explaination on how he may be doing it.

Remember you need a closed circuit loop to get current flow. Assuming he is not doing it by induction.Yes, I have;

The cutaway allows him to put different candles on the table. Personally I guess he's cut out enough of the back of the candles to connect the ends of the nails directly to an ordinary battery.

[Wolfman]

My first reaction is that it was likely some kind of trick, also...but seems to me that the best way to test it would be for someone else to replicate the set-up, and see if it actually works (I also have problems seeing how/why this would actually work, if it was real).

Regarding the question of magnetizing the nails, I'd assume that he would do that in advance, and only gave a quick demo in the video in order to save time (it would be rather time-wasting and tedious to watch him do it all).

And even if it is a trick (which conclusion I definitely lean towards), I'll bet that McGyver coulda' made it work.

[rjh01]

It is a trick and I can show it. Thought it was rather obvious. Just in case you do not want to know how it was done my solution is in spoilers.

Take a look at when the bulb comes on carefully. It is before he has lit the candle.

[monoman]

I like the caption for the video - See what the battery and power companies don't want you to find out....Yes, who needs a battery for your iPod when you can lump 2 fricking suitcases of candles, 2 nails, 2 wires and a magnet around with you :D

Why he didn't have a foot switch i don't know, it's so obvious when his hand goes out of view to flick the switch.

The only good thing those 2 nails are for is fixing that crappy table he's got!

[Wolfman]

Why he didn't have a foot switch i don't know, it's so obvious when his hand goes out of view to flick the switch.
Yeah, upon watching it again, that's pretty obvious...his hands never go down between his legs except when the current is going on or off. Am a little embarrassed that I fell for it first time through :blush:

However, in the interest of having absolute proof, I have a friend who is going to attempt this themselves, and report on the results.

[Earthborn]

There is some ionization going on in a candle flame (in any flame, actually)When I read the OP I was thinking about that too. I also remember an experiment in a physics experiments book where some pieces of metal where placed in a flame to produce electricity, although I don't recall what was powered.

The set up here is however completely different. The nails are not placed in the flame, but in the side of the candles and the + and - are connected to different candles with no apparent connection. I'm guessing that it is a trick as well, as I can see no reason why it should work.

Just for you, a screenshot of the set up:

[thaiboxerken]

Current carrying conductor.. yes.
Magnet. yes.
Motion... no.

=> no current is induced.

[BillC]

A flame contains ionised material, and placing it in a strong electric field will cause the flame to spread out. I could see a case whereby a flame could carry a small charge away from it, but there is no power in that effect at all. In any case, his two candles, matches and flames are identical -- if this worked, which is supposed to become the positive terminal, and which the negative?

A trick.

[geni]

I don't, it's bleeding obvious what he's doing, and thus not a good trick.

Could be improved on. The idea and setup is pretty neat.

[marting]

The magnet is pure misdirection.

As was noted, the underside of the candles is not shown. It would be easy to do by hollowing out the bottoms, stuffing with tin foil (so the nails could make contact), and having a relatively flat surface underneath, say a 1 inch metal disk. One then makes a very tiny hole in the table and stuffs a copper wire so it just comes past the surface. It would be invisible to the camera. Under the table a battery and switch complete the trick.

What would make it more interesting is if he used a variable voltage which could be adjusted as the candle flames brightened or weakened as he blew on them. It would still be a trick but less obvious as one would be sucked in by the apparent association of candle "power" with electrical energy.

[BenK]

Check out the creator's other videos. :) http://www.metacafe.com/user/4075517/mysterious1/

[EternalSceptic]

When I read the OP I was thinking about that too. I also remember an experiment in a physics experiments book where some pieces of metal where placed in a flame to produce electricity, although I don't recall what was powered.

The set up here is however completely different. The nails are not placed in the flame, but in the side of the candles and the + and - are connected to different candles with no apparent connection. I'm guessing that it is a trick as well, as I can see no reason why it should work.

Just for you, a screenshot of the set up:

Look at the two wires - both are hanging over the edge of the table. And during setup, when he connects the wires, he pushes part of them over the edge of the table. And of course, his hand going down, when he lights the candles.

I suggest the cables are touching some power source at the edge or below the edge of the table.

[wollery]

No, I thought of that at first, but later on he carefully pushes both wires fully back onto the table.

[Wolfman]

Well, as I mentioned above, a friend of mine did indeed try this out. His results (in his own words) were as follows:
I tried 3 different pairs of candles both nails and pins and checked it vs a regular battery (which did work) and nada for candle power. The flashlight bulb which took me an hour to find (I'm pretty much only LEDs now) didn't light, the LEDs didn't light, the solar motor didn't motor and my volt meter didn't show anything.
I was pretty much convinced it was a hoax anyway, but always nice to have a bit of empirical verification :D

[rjh01]

Looks like we have between us answered all questions.

Any good recipes or are we going to repeat ourselves?

[Soapy Sam]

Oh, I see from another post that it's a bulb. Then it is a trick. There is some ionization going on in a candle flame (in any flame, actually), so it might be possible to make a configuration where you could get a reading on a meter.

Lightning up a bulb, however, requires power in an entirely different league, so there is no doubt it's a trick.

Hans

Hans-
i've often thought you are one of the most solid engineer / scientists on the board. Have you written , or have you considered writing, some basic EM baloney test kits , either for kids or for us older kids?

[ail]

OK let's not beat about the bush.

No one has put up a suitable explaination on how this trick was done to my satisfaction.

Here is how the trick was done IMHO. Refer to my excellent detailed schematic diagram.

The two candles are hollow with metal cores (lead works best so that when the nails are pushed in the make good contact) that are exposed on the bottom surface. He never shows us the candle bottoms.

The wooden table is specially prepared and has fine wires embeded along the wood grain. They wrap around the outside edges and follow under the table leading to a simple battery and switch arrangement (hidden out of view).

If you look carefully you can just make out wires that travel along the wood grain. To mask the wires from view it looks like he has varnished or coated that section of the table. The wires are exposed to make contact with the bottom of candles when they are place just at the right position

When he lights the secod candle his free hand can reach for the switch under the table at the correct moment. When he blows them out one hand is under the table to open the switch.

I challange anyone who has a better hypothesis

[gfunkusarelius]

ha, i don't think this needs any more debunking, but the first time i watched this, the stream choked and i saw this frame clearly.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b16/gfunkusarelius/candeHa.jpg

so not only does he have candles that generate electricity, but he has a lightbulb that draws power from the future!

[scotth]

OK let's not beat about the bush.

No one has put up a suitable explaination on how this trick was done to my satisfaction.

Here is how the trick was done IMHO. Refer to my excellent detailed schematic diagram.

The two candles are hollow with metal cores (lead works best so that when the nails are pushed in the make good contact) that are exposed on the bottom surface. He never shows us the candle bottoms.

The wooden table is specially prepared and has fine wires embeded along the wood grain. They wrap around the outside edges and follow under the table leading to a simple battery and switch arrangement (hidden out of view).

If you look carefully you can just make out wires that travel along the wood grain. To mask the wires from view it looks like he has varnished or coated that section of the table. The wires are exposed to make contact with the bottom of candles when they are place just at the right position

When he lights the secod candle his free hand can reach for the switch under the table at the correct moment. When he blows them out one hand is under the table to open the switch.

I challange anyone who has a better hypothesis

This looks pretty good except the wire coming up over the sides.

It would be easier to drive nails up through the bottom of the table. The tips just barely breaking the surface. It would be near invisible. Then just drop the candles on the nail tips sticking through the surface.

[Just thinking]

Even with the assumption that it is somehow working -- why would one candle have a different electrical potential than the other? Everything done to candle A is done exactly the same as to candle B. Simply from that perspective alone one should cry foul.

BTW ... one should NEVER insert nails into a candle as shown here. If one of those candles were to break apart in the process, he'd be on his way to the hospital with a nail in his palm.

[Taffer]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/315845c89d880ad28.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4016)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/315845c89e407759a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4018)

The candles are different. Observe the position of the nail to the wick and leads.

ETA: This is just before and just after the cut.

[wahrheit]

ha, i don't think this needs any more debunking, but the first time i watched this, the stream choked and i saw this frame clearly.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b16/gfunkusarelius/candeHa.jpg

so not only does he have candles that generate electricity, but he has a lightbulb that draws power from the future!
Argh ;) I just made exactly the same screenshot, and then saw your post.

Nothing but a trick, of course. Even if there was _any_ kind of electricity in those wires/candle wax/magnetized nail thing, it would certainly not be enough to power a torchlight bulb, not in this world.

[Just thinking]

The candles are different. Observe the position of the nail to the wick and leads.

You have got to be kidding.

Please read the subtitles ... it mentions doing EXACTLY the same thing to each candle. It also makes no point as to how far the nails are to be pushed into the candles -- except as not to come out the other end.

[Taffer]

You have got to be kidding.

Please read the subtitles ... it mentions doing EXACTLY the same thing to each candle.

What?

The candles are different before and after the cut. I.e. the candles change between the cut.

[Just thinking]

What?

The candles are different before and after the cut. I.e. the candles change between the cut.

Come on ... who cares? That's not the point.

Yes, the candles are likely not the same ones -- or if they are, they've been altered. We all know it's a trick -- but the video claims you can do this too. How? By doing the EXACT same thing to both candles. Hence, if both are identical, how can one expect a difference in potential?

It's no different than telling someone they can make a ball roll down a ramp, and then telling them how to do it by placing both ends of the ramp at the EXACT same height.

[Schneibster]

so not only does he have candles that generate electricity, but he has a lightbulb that draws power from the future!Good catch.

[blutoski]

Come on ... who cares? That's not the point.

Yes, the candles are likely not the same ones -- or if they are, they've been altered. We all know it's a trick -- but the video claims you can do this too. How? By doing the EXACT same thing to both candles. Hence, if both are identical, how can one expect a difference in potential?

It's no different than telling someone they can make a ball roll down a ramp, and then telling them how to do it by placing both ends of the ramp at the EXACT same height.

What he's saying is that the right candle in frame 1 is not the same as the right candle in frame 2 - not that the right candle is different than the left candle. The image shows that the candle pair was swapped with a different set between scenes.

[rjh01]

It is a trick and I can show it. Thought it was rather obvious. Just in case you do not want to know how it was done my solution is in spoilers.

[ spoiler]Take a look at when the bulb comes on carefully. It is before he has lit the candle. [ /spoiler]

<snip>
Just for you, a screenshot of the set up:

Am I on ignore? I made a similar post early on.

[Taffer]

Come on ... who cares? That's not the point.

Yes, the candles are likely not the same ones -- or if they are, they've been altered. We all know it's a trick -- but the video claims you can do this too. How? By doing the EXACT same thing to both candles. Hence, if both are identical, how can one expect a difference in potential?

It's no different than telling someone they can make a ball roll down a ramp, and then telling them how to do it by placing both ends of the ramp at the EXACT same height.

You can't.

[Susheel]

I don't know....but I seem to remember form an old school text book something about temperature differences and current. I am not sure exactly, but something about maintaining each pole at a hig temperature and a low temperature could result in...oh I cant't remember.

I'll spend some time with google and see if I can track that down. Thouhg i don't expect that's what's happening here.

[rjh01]

From my school days.
1. Take two different metals joined together at one end.
2. Heat the place where the metal are joined together.
3. There will be a potential difference (voltage) at the other end.

[Susheel]

Thanks rjh01...but I don't think that's it. I remember it as two plates...one heated to a hich temperature and thae other colled to a very low temperature (I am not sure if super heated and super cooled were valid concepts during my school days ;)).

[Taffer]

It would, IIRC Susheel. But, of course, the two candles are supposed to be the same. No differential there. :)

[MortFurd]

Thanks rjh01...but I don't think that's it. I remember it as two plates...one heated to a hich temperature and thae other colled to a very low temperature (I am not sure if super heated and super cooled were valid concepts during my school days ;)).

I think you've got the Seebeck effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltier-Seebeck_effect) in mind. Which is pretty much what rjh01 was talking about, just in simplified form.

[Wolfman]

See what the battery and power companies don't want you to find out....
Actually, I've figured out just what the secret is that this guy's figured out.

Check out the video...at this moment, he's already made more than $860 from this video. If the power companies could find a way to make that kinda' money out of two candles and some nails, they'd be ecstatic!

[Susheel]

Thanks for the link, and now it all comes back to me. A very shaky recollection of the Thomson Effect. I knew there was a reason I keep coming to the forum. Thanks rjh01 and Mortfurd.

[Just thinking]

It would, IIRC Susheel. But, of course, the two candles are supposed to be the same. No differential there. :)

Ahhhh ... that's what I've been arguing all along --- and I think I was the first to point this out.

;)

[Just thinking]

BTW ... if this nonsense actually works as shown, the Ancient Egyptians would have landed on the moon.

[Susheel]

BTW ... if this nonsense actually works as shown, the Ancient Egyptians would have landed on the moon.

What?!!? Are you implying they didn't? Haven't you red Von Dainiken? :D

[Earthborn]

Am I on ignore?No.
I made a similar post early on.No, you didn't. You made a similar post to that of gfunkusarelius.

[Taffer]

Ahhhh ... that's what I've been arguing all along --- and I think I was the first to point this out.

;)

I know you were, mate. I wasn't arguing with you at all. :)