I am pretty sure Robert would be in violation of California's strict regulations on hazardous substances if he did that. Darn those tree hugging liberals!
We could try a thought experiment... would a flame, completely isolated from the outside world, actually be a flame?
Certainly, such a hypothetical system- deprived of contact with the outside would never be able to come to thermal equilibrium.
No matter how much heat energy is produced by the flame, the larger system would be unchanged, the heat transferred by the flame would be zero. This is clearly non-physical. In all processes the total entropy must increase, but the change in entropy is proportional to the change in heat energy divided by the temperature of the flame. If there is no transfer of heat, then the change in entropy is zero. The second law of thermodynamics would be violated.
You are - in effect- proposing to turn the the flame board into a hypothetical black hole, one where immense amount of energy could be dumped only to disappear, and you expect this will lower the disorder, the entropy, of the total system. This is, as I am sure you can now see, a physical impossibility...But such thought experiments are valuable, Vitruvius... it was by pondering precisely this question that Hawking was led to the discovery of 'Hawking radiation' of black holes.
If you succeed in turning flame into a black hole, you will find little flames popping into existence outside of the black hole, unpredictably and at random...
Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules of thermodynamics....
Flame » in reply to Flamer suppression?
I think he was looking for a flame barrier... Asbestos perhaps?
