Talk:Candle/Archive 1

How many watts?
In the first section, 'Fuel and Candle Holders' the output of a candle is stated at about 13 lumens, and 40 watts. In the next section, 'Technical Specifications', a average candle is stated at 13 lumens and 77±9 watts. Should this be revised? 99.229.249.110 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Tim

There is clearly no single answer to this. It must depend on the type of wax and the wick length. I suggest that the first entry is changed to something vague such as '30-100 watts' and the second value is removed. Any objections? Mtpaley (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While "77 watts +/- 9 watts" is a bit too exact, it is useful to know, if even roughly, the power of a typical taper candle. So I have changed it to "roughly 80 watts" and added that this is for a taper-type paraffin wax candle. And I have removed the unsourced and conflicting figures from the "Fuel" section.--Rallette (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

which period?
The article says that paraffin candles were especially used in the colonial period: which period? Whose colonies? which ones? this could do with some clarification.CharlusIngus 06:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Creation
Since there are so many subsections on candles' role in relgion maybe it might be better to make another article devoted entirly to candles in ritual? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.101.101 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fire hazard
IMO it's more effective to remind the reader that Leaving an open flame unattended is dangerous than to bury that in a long list of warnings. Note that none of the other situations cautioned about pose an actual threat unless unattended (by a human of responsible age and able body and mind.) Mkweise 16:16 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, if clothes or a curtain catch fire that may be serious, even if you are there. - Patrick 22:40 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with parent. Is the lecture _really_ all that necessary. Any naked flame is dangerous; I fail to see what a list of possible occurences could bring to an article about candles. To be honest, the article could do without even mentioning the dangers of a naked flame - the average person should have enough common sense to realise them, with fire being one of mankinds' luxuries since before time immemorial.

maybe this could be served a little better by creating a section called candle safety or something of the like? --Jpittman 20:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fire hazard should be emphasized, regardless of "obviousness". People who use candles daily are likely to be aware of the danger, or at least used to behaving in a fairly safe way. People who use them very occasionally might just think of them as "cute" rather then "deadly", and will not have proper habits. 69.87.204.77 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a very slow-speed argument, so I may as well leap in over a year since the last contribution... "Deadly" is a typical over-exaggeration that we get all too much of these days. I'm all for leaving any mention of dangers out, since they are obvious, and overplayed. When candles were the main source of light people weren't burning to death all the time, even without the modern endless paranoid reminders we get these days about anything perceived to be slightly risky. It makes little more sense than putting notices of the dangers of electrocution on every article about some pieve of electrical equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riedquat (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

dripping; lead in wicks
I came to the Candle item for info about dripless candles. I am suprised to see no mention at all of dripping, let alone what special circumstances cause it not to happen. // // // I see there is a discussion of hazards. It is certainly appropriate to note in some fashion that candles are the cause of many fires, esp when used by those not regular users, such as during power outages. *** But there are other hazards. I think lead in wicks is one. -kethd Nov 2004 Boston MA

--

Yes, some candles drip, and lose too much wax down their sides. Others drown in a pool of molten wax, which needs to be scooped/poured out. Then you're left with excess wax, plus sidewalls of untouched wax. Badly designed candles, I think.

Perfectly balanced/designed candles that condumed all the way, and don't drip/drown, would be great. DaveDodgy (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Candle
I have added a shot of a candle which we use in Denmark to count the number of days left until Christmas.

If people feel that it makes the page too crowded, then of course just remove it. Martin Geisler 11:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hazards
I removed the following sentence from the Hazards section because it's a bit vague:

"Studies have indicated that the burning of paraffin wax releases a number of known toxins, including the carcinogen benzene."

"Studies have indicated" is very vague. What studies? Are they reliable studies? If there is benzene released, is the amount more than negligible? After doing a Google search, I couldn't find much on this except from soy wax advocates, which may not be the most impartial sources. As written, it seems to me that this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. eaolson 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: You're right, there needs to be a reference to something particular. The fact is, paraffin wax is a solid form of kerosene, and there is no doubt that burning it releases trace amounts of several accepted carcinogens into the air. In addition, the particulates released by any candle can pose a problem to people with respiratory allergies. Would it be acceptable to you if I changed the first paragraph to mention that most modern candles are made of paraffin wax, which is a petroleum product, and that candles can also be made from beeswax (common, traditional) and, in recent years, soy? Then if I can find some reliable source, add something to the hazards about both problems I mention above at a later time? --Trint 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a note of blowing out larger candles. Unfortunately, this advice is only based on one incident and I have no knowledge of the frequency of this type of accident but as the result was quite serious for the individual, and very unexpected, I think it is worth including. All that is known for certain is that whilst Christine Haseler of Cheltenham was blowing out a "normal" 3-4" candle, which had been burning long enough to create a large cup, a fireball was created which caused 2nd degree burning all over her face. I don't want to imply blowing out all candles is dangerous (as I don't believe it is!) so I have added a likely mechanism to make it clear the danger is with large candles where the bowl can create a cup redirecting the air flow back out of the candle. Wax cannot create a fireball unless it is superheated to a gas (unlikely in this case) or finely divided as an aerosol (most likely). I don't know the exact mechanism by which the wax was forced into the aerosol so "vortex" seemed a vague enough term to imply the probable speeded up circular motion around the wick and the reflective motion of the hot wax aerosol back into the face!  - MH 5th July 2006


 * Frankly, I'm skeptical about this. It's completely unverified, and a Google search on "Christing Hasler" and "candle" came up with nothing. I don't think a single incident that happened to someone you know is particularly encyclopedic, especially as you yourself say you're not sure exactly what happened. I think it unlikely that blowing out a candle could create an aerosol of wax droplets sufficient enough to ignite and create a fireball, unless she was blowing as hard as she possibly could. eaolson 05:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, OK, I misspelled her name in the edit summary. I'm a poor typist. Your sarcasm aside, a Google search for "Christine Haseler" yields no relevant hits. As such, this single incident is does not meet requirements for verifiability. As no sources were cited, your proposed mechanism for this incident is original research. Listing the incident violates two Wikipedia policies. As for the physics of your mechanism: melted wax has a low enough vapor pressure that no appreciable amount of evaporation takes place, nor is melted wax aerosolized in any candle I've seen. Without any sort of support for your statements, it's just unsupported rumor, and inappropriate for listing here. eaolson 23:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

<The best way to avoid getting burned from Blowing on candles is to NOT blow on them. The best thing to do it get a Snuffer. Most places that sell candles will have them. It is a small metal cup on a long handle. You simply place the cup over the flame cutting off oxygen. Tada, flame out-no burn.MryStr 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you get melted wax off of a carpet??
Toceano


 * Place a piece of thin white paper over the wax and apply a clothes iron: the wax will melt and be wicked into the paper. njh 04:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, paper bags or paper towels work as well and have more fibers to absorb more of the wax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.252.121.147 (talk • contribs).

Gravity?
This image from NASA that would, in my opinion, be a good inclusion: candle in microgravity. Candles require gravity to function efficiently: The air is heated causes a convection current, carrying away the hot (less dense) CO2 and water vapor, and bringing colder fresh oxygen. Although, many other things besides gravity are requred for a flame (that are taken for granted too), like the presence of oxygen and air pressure, and a lower ambient air temperature than the flame, but few (when lacking) result in such a beautifully illustrative photograph. Thoughts? Splarka (rant) 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold! I think this would be a good addition to the article.


 * Atlant 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (well, as soon as I log back in!)

Can't hold a candle to me
Anybody know when candles were first added to birthday cakes? (I've seen 13h century Germany mentioned somewhere...) Trekphiler 23:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sealing wax
Someone please add something about sealing wax and letters and candles, common a few centuries ago. 69.87.204.77 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are Candles Dangerous?
I am just saying that candles are dangerous because when a small flame touches a surface inside our house, our house might cause a fire. Otherwise we have to extinguish them. Are you sure candles are dangerous? yes --  PNiddy  Go!  02:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are you asking? Everyone in general?


 * Atlant 16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they are, just as balloons or toasters are - common sence makes them safe. Leaving them alight when putting them back in the box, for example, is dangerous. I don't think this needs to be worked into the artcle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.72.163 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Moslems use of candles
I submit here some information so that who ever is going to clean up this article may rechronologize judaism and christianity and insert a bit muslim side too. (Some research if possible). My personnal observation is that Istanbul and provencial mosques were lit by candles and those candles are still hung in proximity to human height no matter how high the ceiligns may be. These circular ornaments of banks of in-glass oil-and-wick candles in iron frames are still a part of the internal architecture in these modern days. Much to the haze of modern HVAC technologies the smoke from the candles were collected into chimneys, before landing anywhere, the smoke-stein was condensed in a cup under the turn of the chimneys for inqmaking process. As for the wax candles, to the right and left of the most prominent location, the mimber or the imam's cove, priest leading the prayer is imam)there are always two candles sometimes a meter thick, probably beeswax, usually special orders donated by notables in the community. MOst often these thick candles are the only furnishings aestheticly balancing the elephant's legs columns supporting the (main )dome. They are occasionally used too only during black outs and never in any seremonies. Outside, in popular tradition it is common to dedicate a candle to the moseleums of historical leaders like pre-republic local religious notables or aziz 'dears' (saints) before or after a pleasant occation or in memory of someone and let it burn to extinction, although such populartraditions are criticised by some religious authorities citing idolatry. 67.86.55.243 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC) wikici

religion and candles
--99.160.58.63 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I am asking questions and seeking answers. I know some Catholics and Wiccans use candles in prayer. The color or the candles is important, White, Purple, Red, Orange, Green. What does the color of the candles mean, Burning the candles in the tallglass holders are they a replacement for prayer. More information or this is needed. 27 Feb 2008
 * If you want to learn about prayer candles use in Catholicism, Methodism, Anglicanism, and other christian churches, then read Votive candles. Tarheelz123 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
History of candle making is largly unsourced and has been since its creation 2 years ago. A recent prod lead to the addition of the first sources. Still, there is very little sourced info. The history section of Candle is unsourced. The limited sourced info in History of candle making fills this gap. "Discuss."- Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, merge. I was thinking that myself last night. Isaacsf (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, merge. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It now has 11 sources. I suppose we should keep the article.Bless sins (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. The History article could use some cleanup and consolidation, but the two complement each other well and would make a better-rounded single article rather than two. Chuckiesdad (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm for keeping them separate. The candle article is a good length now, and it's quick and easy for the reader to click over to the history article if that's what is of interest.Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you should just leave the poor article along i mean seriously imagine if you were told to merge with your sister just because you don't have enough cloths. It's very important that we keep things seperate and pure otherwise it would be extremly hard to find out about somthing fast and efficiently...Yeah!

alternatives to candles
After talking about house fires, the article used to say (An electric candle warmer can be used to release fragrance without the risk of an open flame.) I deleted it. Here's why

It seems strange to me to list one alternative for one function of candles, and not list any alternatives for providing similar mood lighting, or other ways of releasing scents. It borders on commercial promotion of that type of product. If we were to construct a long list of alternatives, we'd also want to include enclosed candle lanterns, etc., which presumably can be safer. Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Split off religion? or Candle use?
Should we consider splitting "Usage: Religion" off as a new article ("Candles in Relgiion", perhaps)? The article is not overly long as is, but given that this sub-sub topic is almost half the article, it seems distracting from the main flow of the article.Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article reads of more about religion than anything else. The article should focus on candles alone, with at most a sentence that says "Candles are used by various religions. --Fremte (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag in the article suggests Candle Use as a new article. That would have the same problem--an overemphasis on religion.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Ceremonial use of lights article is already the right place, but it's not very well globalized. Putting the religion material from here into there would be a really good improvement.Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I retitled the extensive religious use of candles and put at the end. What a candle is goes first, then uses after. Logical. I would agree with the move. --Fremte (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Laminar smoke point?
It would be great if there were a link to an explanation of "laminar smoke point". Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Generically disagree with merging
I agree that the Candlemaking article falls short, but do not agree that this should be merged with Candle, the object/product. Candlemaking is a craft in its own right, both manual and industrial, and the article should examine both fully and compare the two 213.106.227.65 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)]] (213.106.227.65 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)|talk]]) 15:53, 24 June 2009

Candle Flicker Frequency
I find it hard to believe that Ref 24 can credibly demonstrate that "The flicker frequency of a flame is proportional to the square root of the ratio of the acceleration due to gravity to the diameter of the candle. A candle on the moon would flicker at a different frequency than on Earth and wouldn't flicker at all in the absence of a gravitational force (like on a space platform)"

OK, the magnitude of gravity just might be relevant, but how can the diameter of the candle be so important? What about square candles?

I was tempted to delete this section, as being either a hoax or just pseudo science of the worst kind. But I admit that there could be a grain of truth lurking there somewhere.

What does the panel think? - treandafilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.63.224 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It got added along with some good content which gives it some credibility. It's a bit odd to have the discussion of what would happen on the moon.  I don't have easy access to the reference cited.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to my attempt to discredit this claim (after more thought) I suspect that the candle combustion process would be quite likely to fail under conditions of zero gravity. 193.60.63.224 (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Candles DO burn in zero gravity, however they are extremely fragile flames, and are blown out in anything but ideal conditions SeanBrockest (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Light output - article inconsistency
Under the section "Fuel and candle holders", the article states "A candle typically produces about 13 lumens of visible light and 40 watts of heat", but in the section "Technical Characteristics" it states "A modern candle typically burns at a rate of about 0.105 g/min, releasing heat of about 77 W, plus or minus about 9 W [22]. The light produced is about one lumen." Even allowing for reasonable variation between candles, the two figures of one lumen and 13 lumens seem difficult to reconcile. Would someone with more knowledge of this subject than me look into this? 86.7.21.237 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch--thanks. That was my mistake when I first added the burn rate data.  The definition of a lumen is historically liked the the definition of a candle (unit), but I forgot about the 4*pi factor there, which makes it actually 12.6 lumens, +/- a lot, because of the variations in candles.  The 77 W vs. 40 W is probably within the range of normal variation between candles, but at least there is a source behind the 77 W number, so perhaps we should switch over to that throughout the article.Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Scented candles
I think there should either be an article about scented candles, or have a section in this article about them. What do you think? Tarheelz123 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

candle images
are there any candle images in literature works. 'coz in the article the main part is about candle and religion, and i believe there must be many candles in novels but i cannot find them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.213.116.150 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More on religious use...
I agree that there should be a separate link to info regarding uses of candles in all religions and faiths. It seems a bit biased to devote several paragraphs to the symbolic meaning candles within Christianity, but only list the observances when candles are used in Judaism and other faiths. Please let's keep things equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.76.48 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)