Scientific titles/descriptions of non-solid forces

"I do not have enough science background to more further on this research."

That is about the only thing you said that was correct.

Do some reading on elementary physics first, at your library. Otherwise nothing offered here would make any sense to you, since you have absolutely no concept of what a force is, how a laser works or anything else you touched on.

Virtually all science is based on physics. Therefore, I'd suggest, as Greg has, to start with a good high school Physics text. With that background, then delve deeper into the areas of physics that are of interest, or branch out into other sciences.

Although too many engineers seem to have skipped over physics in their schooling, (on this site, you will find engineers who proudly claim that common, readily observed phenomena "violate the laws of physics!") physics is at the core of understanding all things. You cannot understand atoms until you understand physics. If you can't understand atoms, you cannot understand chemistry. If you cannot understand chemistry, you cannot understand biology. If you cannot understand biology, you cannot, by definition, understand life. Therefore, a good background in physics is necessary to an understanding of life, including your own. Unfortunately, I have not progressed very far into even the first step in this process -- I can honestly say I do not understand gravity - I can only calculate its most obvious effects.

Also, brush up on math before you begin your quest. All sciences represent things in mathematical terms, because some of our most basic questions are mathematical: If the apple drops from the tree, how long will it take to fall? How much will it hurt, when it hits my head?

You might also visit this site, in which is described a means for visualizing the scope of our solar system. You should do the walk as described, and see if it stimulates a sense of wonder in you. You might ask, how is the solar system similar to an atom -- and I believe the site gives some answers there, too. If you find that the walk does not stimulate this sense of wonder, then perhaps less scientific pursuits would suit you better.

As far as putting out a candle flame from a distance, you might observe a birthday party, or watch a house fire being put out by the fire company. Also Google for the requirements for combustion. Going beyond that -- for example, creating a fire extinguishing "gun" that could put out a flame from a kilometer away, if properly aimed, will require, in my opinion, a good deal of study of the type outlined above. As you know, you could blast the candle to smithereens with a laser, causing the flame to go out more quickly and more dramatically than it might otherwise. Doing the reverse -- making the flame and wick very cold from a distance -- would require a great deal of research. A noble, albeit arduous, quest.

There are four fundamental forces that drive the universe, the electromagnetic force, gravity, the weak nucleic force and the strong nucleic force. It might sound a bit strange but these four forces are at the core of everything. Read the article in the link above then follow the links on that page to get further information.

A candle flame depends on convection. Convection depends on gravitational force. Therefore, it would seem that a candle wouldn't burn in low gravity (for example, in orbit.) I think NASA did some flame studies that make some interesting reading with good pictures.

While this doesn't fit your criteria of an applied force, it might get you thinking in the right direction.

Don't worry about how much science you know--everyone starts from somewhere! The important thing is to keep questioning and learning!

My first thought was Dumbledore in Harry Potter: The Sorcerer's Stone... He had a "light sucker" which looked remarkably like a cigarette lighter, but... there ain't no magic... and this is the real world. I do enjoy Harry Potter tho...

Before addressing the subject of combustion, please note that neither combustion nor non-combustion is complicated in the least. The only complication is "safety" How to safely produce combustion, safely maintain combustion, and safely extinguish combustion is the challenge. Explosions have unfortunately extinguished many manhours prematurely primarily of professional combustion personnel that did not properly understand nor appreciate the understanding of professional predecessors. L

Please understand that all matter is combustionable. There are three states that matter - Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Solid, Liquid, and Gas. A wooden 2x4 will explode in liquid oxygen. Air atomized liquid is explosive as gas at ambient temp.

How to dim or exit flame? Identify those properties required to initiate and support the flame. Dim or exit either.

Fire or flame requires time, turbulence and temperature Fire or flame requires fuel, oxygen or air, temperature.

Temperature is fuel dependent ie is dependent on the type fuel. The fuel/air mixture is fuel dependent but primarily based on BTU value of the fuel. Turbulence is required to mix F/A at temperature.

Example: Remove the fuel, air (oxygen), or heat of heat of combustion and the fire is out. A cold mass larger than the flame and close enough to remove the heat of combustion will "put the fire (Flame) out".

Interrupt the "wicking" to cut off fuel supply to a candle. With a laser cut the string and the candle will go out.

Flood the wick with excess candle liquid to cut off the oxygen supply and the flame will go out.

Cut the candle in half. Allow the top half to topple. If tall enough, the cold wind velocity during the fall will "put the flame out". If not tall enough the burning candle will "set aflame" to the landing spot.

Certain fuels are extremely hazardous while some fuels are relatively safe. 70,000 BTU/Hr Corn flames 20 inches height are extinguished in 45-60 seconds by either removing the forced air supply or remove turbulence while all the constituents of combustion remain, plenty of fuel, adequate ambient air supply, 3400 deg F.

I appreciate your humility and I must often end my own posts with a similar disclaimer, "I don't know enough to go further". The important thing is to continue pursuing the knowledge/information that you are lacking. That comes mostly through reading and study. The hardest part sometimes is to simply acquire enough expertise to ask intelligent questions. Unfortunately, there is not enough time in several lifetimes to learn all that we would like to learn.

In regard to your query, you must first acquire enough understanding of the physical universe (read physics and chemistry) to understand what a "flame" really is, and what "solid" really implies. Then you have introduced the concept of "action at a distance" (a wonderful question of classical physics) and also spoken of "coherent light" and even received input that basically amounts to "cool it down by blowing on it or squirting water at it".

Your question is poorly stated. That is understandable. You have not yet acquired the tools that would allow you to do so in a more rigorous manner. This is nominally an engineering forum supposedly hosted and used by those who have attained to some degree of mastery in their chosen fields.

Some respondents take delight in dealing with inadequately formed questions like yours by treating them in an exceedingly literal fashion, only responding to the actual verbiage. This too is understandable. Engineering is a very disciplined way of thinking and that is necessary when you are trying to follow the thread of logic through a confusing tangle of data to achieve (what I consider to be the true goal of an engineer) something that WORKS. Those that have attained this skill are rightly proud of their ability.

With a question like yours, I am inclined to try to understand what you really meant to ask. Here is the best I can do.

If you wish to affect a "flame", you must change or take away one of the components that cause the "flame" to exist. For something to "burn", you need a fuel, (typically, something containing hydrocarbons--a word you need to know), some source of oxygen (find out what oxidation means), and a source of energy or ignition temperature that will allow the chemical reaction to go forward and sustain itself (learn about exothermic and endothermic). When fuel and oxygen are in proximity and brought to ignition temperature, combustion (learn about things like gasification and volatility) will take place. As the combustion reaction occurs, it may or may not release energy in the visible spectrum (study up on electro-magnetic radiation and light), commonly referred to as a "flame". Does that make sense? (Those of you who have a background in chemistry can certainly explain this more perfectly--I'm just trying to give this questioner a pat on the back for an inquiring mind and a little encouragement to dig in and go farther.)

Finally, I have read about "flame speakers" where the ionized column of gasses produced in a flame has been directly modulated with an electrostatic field to generate sound waves (music, voice, etc.) and I recall experiments in the '50s attempting to fight forest fires with high intensity sound pressure levels (SPL).

I hope that your question represented a real and sincere interest in this subject--otherwise the time I have expended is somewhat wasted. My wife wishes I would spend more time talking to her!!

Lonnie

I think you sell him short. I think he is really interested in extracting energy from the flame, from a distance. In other words, somewhat the inverse of hitting it with a laser: a laser can make parts of the candle much hotter -- I think he wants something that can make it much colder. If we can increase the temperature of the candle remotely, then why can we not reduce it? That is a pretty interesting quest. If he plows through the physics texts, and seeks mentors, he may find nay sayers, but that is part of the process.

On the other hand who knows? We are all jumping to conclusions without additional input from the poster. Perhaps he is happy as a clam with Masu's post re the fundamental forces.

Odd... my wife has that same request re talking. But last time we sat down to have a heart-to-heart about the nature of vortices, her eyes just kind of glazed over...

Ken

Thank you for the response! LOL!! Wives are like that sometimes.

Lonnie

I would like to sincerely thank all of the participants who added to this topic. It's given me insight that I did not previously have. I've had a great time doing more research as a result of the suggestions and science info provided.

What has really been exceptional is the involvement from those people that jumped in and added to the topic.

Again, thank you.

srive1