Malt-o-meal

It would take more energy to melt the cold wax, so it would melt slower, thus exposing less of the wick

By negative I meant perhaps mucking up the candle entirely--if the wax melts too slowly the wick can't burn and the candle goes out. But the candle might warm up before that's a factor.

I feel like we did the candle burning experiment with inconclusive results, but it was a while ago. I can tell you that there is significant drippage on the ol' menorah even when all the candles have been in the freezer.

Tell you what, I will stick a Shabbos candle in the freezer right now, and light along side a non-frozen candle from the same box this Friday, see if there's any difference.

Weird Military Innovations: 10 Crazy Weapons of War

I knew about the bats, but not the dogs.

The brutality of war can be reflected by the means with which it’s fought. Anti tank dogs were a soviet creation, and said to have taken down over 300 German tanks during World War II. Dogs were taught to find food under tanks, and then starved before a battle. They would have bombs strapped to their backs, with levers that would trigger as soon as it hit the underside of a tank. When the lever snapped back, the dogs would explode, destroying the tank. The Germans eventually fought this tactic with flamethrowers, and a couple cases of dogs running amok away from battlefields was enough to cut back the program.

...

It’s surprising a prototype of a bat bomb was ever even made, but it was. The idea was simple: place incendiary explosive devices on Mexican Free-Tailed Bats, lower their temperature inside a bomb so they hibernate in transit, and then release them over an enemy city to roost in the infrastructure below. At a specific time, all the bats would explode in a thousand fiery blazes, igniting fires across the city.

I don't think the bat bombs were ever deployed.

Hey, -t, can you send tommy some candles? They should be your husband's candles for accuracy.

I've just got the one left in the freezer, is the problem with that.

By negative I meant perhaps mucking up the candle entirely--if the wax melts too slowly the wick can't burn and the candle goes out. But the candle might warm up before that's a factor.

I think the flame would produce enough heat to still melt enough wax so it would burn.

Now I'm curious if a candle that's been immersed in liquid helium to near absolute zero would still burn. Anyone have any liquid helium in a thermos?

I think you would have trouble igniting the wick near absolute zero. Below a certain temperature (and I used to know what it was, but have, of course forgotten) there's no chemistry, and therefore no oxidation of whatever wicks are made of.

I think you would have trouble igniting the wick near absolute zero. Below a certain temperature (and I used to know what it was, but have, of course forgotten) there's no chemistry, and therefore no oxidation of whatever wicks are made of.

I disagree. The wick extends out from the candle and has a very high surface are to mass ratio (compared to the candle). It would heat up pretty quickly to a temperature where the wax impregnating it would burn. My question is, would the resulting flame be able to melt enough of the cold wax in the body of the candle to stay lit once the source of the initial flame (e.g. a match) was removed.

eta: This is once the candle is removed from the liquid helium.

But I think you'd be right if you tried to light the candle while it was immersed in liquid oxygen.

SUV has Naveen Andrews guesting tonight. Nummy.

Ahhh, candle has been in liquid helium but is not presently? Then it's just a question of whether the flame can heat up the very cold wax enough to melt before it runs out of burning wick, I guess. Yeah, this is going to require empirical tests.

Edited to add:

But I think you'd be right if you tried to light the candle while it was immersed in liquid oxygen.

Ha, you won't get me to do that!

The BNO updates about Haiti are simply heartbreaking.