It's odd that people would maintain that you were saying the pot "adds more heat". You made it clear in the first video that you weren't saying this. You said clearly, in that video, that the pot (whether it's a metal pot or a clay pot) is absorbing and "collecting" the heat in one place, then radiating it (somewhat like an oil-filled radiator). When we use the candles alone, we're (mostly) heating the air, which then rises above our heads and is of no use to us. When we use the candles to heat an object, and that object is low in the room, we're keeping the heat down where we can feel it and benefit from it.
6 tealight candles can also nearly boil a litre of water in a camping kettle in an hour. That's enough to fill a hot water bottle which will deep you a lot warmer than the heater!
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture Yeah, when the kettle boils, replace it with a pot. I found that as wood absorbs heat but is not a good conductor, it's quite a good thing to use, to see how far heat radiates.
Correct sir. A handful of these small candles don't have enough energy to significantly heat an entire living space (unless really small and very well insulated) BUT they do have enough heat, which if you can slow down the heat loss (via convection) and covert into more radiant heat, can heat a human body near it, which in turn makes a body in a cold environment warmer and more comfortable, and that's the name of the game at the end of the day (unless you need to keep your water pipes from freezing, but that is a bigger fish to fry). So if you're using one of these as a personal body heater while in that space, a nice trick is to glue (with wheat paste or the like) some aluminum foil to cardboard (shinier side out). Shape it to be more convex shaped and put it behind the heater and pointed to wherever you are sitting etc. It will reflect more oft the IR more specifically towards your direction. Radiant IR energy behaves like diffuse light that goes out in all directions in a 360 way. You ideally want at least a 2.5cm or so free air space between the reflector and the heat source.
I find strange the use of term "heat loss" in this context. What we are basically talking about here is that the emanated heat is kept for a longer period of time near the source, which is basically the same thing you are saying. Thank you for your thoughtful comment, and thanks to our good host on this channel.
On a side note, I've been experimenting with making more efficient, cleaner and fuller burning wax stoves. Wax is both a great and frustrating fuel source. It is very energy dense at low weight, is very convenient and safe to transport, and you can get good deals on it sometimes price wise. But it doesn't combust more fully in regular candle form and so some of the fuel gets wasted as unburnt waste byproducts (CO, CO2, etc). One type I made is with a small vacuum insulated SS food container (to get the wax very hot and easily vaporized with all that insulation), in which I put copper mesh (to more quickly and efficiently spread out the heat throughout the wax). Then I took some 1 mm spaced SS mesh and folded it over with horizontal tabs on the bottom (to stand up) and put some carbon felt in between. The wick holder/wick is placed inside the SS vacuum insulated jar, with the copper mesh put on and around it. Then wax put inside. Then I made a "mantle" out of the SS 1 mm mesh (got this idea from Robert Murray Smith) to place around it. This does two things--it helps to convert to radiant heat and makes the updraft and fuel mixing more efficient. I prime it with a very small amount of alcohol of some kind. The goal is to get more and more blue and green blue flames which indicate a more full combustion of the fuel and less CO etc. It does work better than a regular candle, but it likely needs some tweaks and mods to work even better. The other one I made is based more on the rocket stove concept. I took a copper T fitting and fitted the horizontal tube through a small steel food can. I put perlite all around the copper T fitting in the steel can to insulate it (I wanted to use fumed silica [definitely a better insulator], but couldn't find my stash). Then I cut a piece of carbon felt (a wick) to go in the vertical part of the copper T fitting, but not wide enough to cover the horizontal tube hole. I also rolled up some aluminum flashing (as a tube) and put it part way into the horizontal copper T hole. Also gets a SS mesh mantle and gets primed with a very small amount of alcohol. Burns even more efficiently than the above stove, despite much less insulation--probably because the indraft is greater and there is a more turbulent mix of fuel and air. But it is very small--I just wanted to try out the concept and see if it would work. Besides the small size, the aluminum flashing tube doesn't fit the hole tight enough, so a little wax can bubble out. I plan to make a larger version with a copper cup, fumed silica, and have a real, pre-made metal tube put into the intake air hole that either fits more exactly or is affixed with waterglass or the like. Also, the rocket hole + metal tube will be angled up rather than level, so that I can just feed wax in and not have to worry about it coming back out. All of this will go in a cheap steel food can of some kind (but larger) again. Its not exposed to much heat and so it will last a very long time. (I'll probably "cap" the fumed silica in the middle with a thin layer of clay or ceramic fiber insulation treated with waterglass, just so it doesn't have a chance to get air born. I'm also debating whether or not I really need the copper cup--maybe I can just use the copper mesh I have and use another steel food can?) Note, when using steel food cans, you need to burn out the plastic layer inside the can, outside before using it inside as a stove or burner. Just use some kind of alcohol with some cotton balls.
@@mkeyx82 Too fast heat dissipation would probably be a more accurate term. The candle combustion spends some of its energy heating up the air near it, which all rises up with warmer, lighter/less dense, expanded air, and some through direct IR radiation. But since it is not enough fuel and released energy to heat up most of the air and surroundings, the heat is getting dissipated (much upward) faster than it can warm you. With the cast iron pot, you're just slowing down, and converting more of it into radiant IR, through this process, so that it can warm you more directly.
As your pods are well insulated and the temperature was rising, another interesting experiment would be to heat one up to maybe 20 degrees and see what temperature you can maintain just with the 6 candle heater.
You can easily convert a dry bulb thermometer to a wet bulb thermometer. Take the probe of the dry bulb thermometer and wrap a wet napkin around it. It instantly turns into a wet bulb thermometer. Take a second dry bulb thermometer as a control and measure the difference, you will notice that there is a significant difference. I work in the HVAC industry and I have done this in a pinch.
Well put man. I liked this experiment, very unbiased and minimal variables. I've done this without documenting and had very similar results. It's good to see someone take the time to record the process, tests and everything else. It takes much more time than most realize. Thanks again
Thanks for tagging my reply with this link. That is a very interesting experiment thanks for taking the time to do it. I think if I had to reason what is happening here, given that the candles have likely given off the same amount of heat during the experiment in both pods. My guess would be that the pot, being closer to the thermometer is capturing and focusing the heat in the area of the thermometer whereas the control pod likely has the heat going up to the roof and not affecting the thermometer as much. SO.......... this could well prove to be a valid way of heating an area in a room when you know you are going to be in one part of the room, rather than have the heat rise up to the roof where you are not sat watching telly. very interesting indeed. Thank you
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture have you checked? Those cabins look like perfect dwellings for little roof fairies. Actually, the seagulls near me regularly thank me for lighting candles in the house warming their bums as they nest on my roof. Smearing their droppings across my windows is their way of showing appreciation, in the same way a cat leaves dead animals. Or at least I like to think so.
Great video! Would the system be more efficient if the candles were closer to the inside of the cast iron? If the candles were elevated by putting them on 1-2 1/2 bricks, would that that help? Thank you again, is there a good way to vent the carbon monoxide without losing the heat built up? Thank you again. 🙏👍
Sadly the question was 'these can''t work' and the conclusion you made was 'what you experience' they are 2 different outcomes. Of course 'these don't work' is contextual on a number of variables. and whilst I lean towards 'they don't work' my context is more towards people trying to save plants from frost heating larger areas inside greenhouses. Your cabin experiment is an interesting bridge and undoubtedly you are right about what someone experiences, I wouldn't be so foolish to argue that point.
Of course, if you measured the temperature in the ceiling apex, the convected heat in the warmed air would have risen up there. A fraction of a degree in 2 hours is clearly not going to be enough to be felt as "warmer" by a chilled person. But in a controlled small space with a low cover, in a garden cold frame or greenhouse on frosty nights, the radiant heat does make a big difference to growing plants in winter. I have used the system with a single homemade tallow candle inside a cold frame, where I grew masses of salad leaves throughout the coldest part of winter. The candle was a 450g baked beans tin with a cotton wick, filled with tallow, and burned for 4 days. The added bonus of course is the CO2 by-product, which is plant food, that contributed to the abundant growth.
The thermometer didn't measure the radiant effect, it measured the increase in localised air temperature caused by the radiant heat. The radiant heat effect is greater than the thermometer is able to indicate.
glad i was one of the many internet trolls who inspired you to use my perceived negativity to help produce more quality content. candle heaters force the fixed amount of 'energy' to hang around longer. they don't produce more energy just because they exist. cast iron is FAR superior to flower pots for this. (this might just be my opinion) i'd also like to add i still stand by my "coffee heater' comment and that alone might be the reason someone should consider making one. even if you don't really need to rely on a candle heater for warmth.
To clarify, this experiment was planned long before the last video became popular. I assure you I don't pander to the whims of trolls. Please run your theory about energy 'hanging around' past a physicist.
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture i did run it by a physicist a while back before you made that first video. my previous comment was simplistic i admit. if you've found a way to produce more energy from a candle than what it starts with... you should publish a paper on it and win a nobel prize!
Of all the things that didn't happen, this didn't happen the most. Please educate yourself on the three forms of heat transfer. It's very basic physics. Spoiler: it doesn't mention energy 'hanging around longer'.
Hey, thank you for the follow up video! You are absolutely correct about radiant vs convective heat transfer. I think without the pot, there is a little radiant heat from each candle flame and a lot of convective heat preferentially going up with the rising warm air. But the pot radiates heat in all directions and slows the upward movement of warm air. The air near the ceiling is probably warmer in the no pot version, whereas the the lower region is warmer in the pot version. Some of that radiation hits walls, people, the vertical stand behind the candles on which the thermometer sits and warms those structures. The surface area of the pot is much more than the surface area of a small flame (times 6). Here is an excerpt from Dual Survival where Cody Lundin warmed a space to 70 degrees (F) when the outside temp was 31 using a small campfire, a clear plastic sheet and a reflective Mylar sheet. ua-cam.com/video/T0uq3acV5-Y/v-deo.html
I've tried all ways with candles, flower pots, metal cooking pots,tea lights and none of them put out enough heat to make a difference even in a closed space.
I've made a video that demonstrates their effectiveness. It's not a fantastic heater. But it does have an effect. Whether it's enough of an effect to justify their use is an entirely personal choice.
Isn't this just the classic permaculture principal of slowing the flow of energy in its path? Rather than going straight into the ceiling, you interrupt it with the pot. Like a heat swale!
The Thermometer collected some of the radiant heat but not the convective. Thermometer should be placed where the radiant heat cannot influence the readings. Nothing proved.
You're suggesting that to test for radiant heat I should have recorded the temperature beyond the influence of the radiant heat. You've clearly misunderstood the objective.
That's true, however the heat transfer mechanism is more effective when the heat is expressed as radiant heat. Same amount of heat, experienced more effectively.
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture - The clay pots concentrate/trap the heat, but the temperature of the room will be the same as with 4 candles. Imagine four pots, or ten pots, or 100 pots over those 4 candles… the room temp remains the same.
Candles are already radiant heat heat sources, that's why they glow! And as before the difference in measured temperature is insignificant given the inaccurate test conditions. You have not "proven" anything especially given that viewers have to take your word for the displayed temperatures which you say are clearly visible but they're not in the video. I can easily measure greater than 0.1C variance in a single room of my house so for you to get bang on the same reading with two separate cheap consumer level thermometers in completely separate buildings is highly suspicious. If you can't be bothered/can't afford to do proper tests then it's probably best not to even try.
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture This one doesn't understand longwave radiation, but you go and throw shortwave radiation into the mix anyway. I was going to say, "I see what you did there," but realized I should probably spell it out for mfx1.
It's odd that people would maintain that you were saying the pot "adds more heat". You made it clear in the first video that you weren't saying this.
You said clearly, in that video, that the pot (whether it's a metal pot or a clay pot) is absorbing and "collecting" the heat in one place, then radiating it (somewhat like an oil-filled radiator).
When we use the candles alone, we're (mostly) heating the air, which then rises above our heads and is of no use to us. When we use the candles to heat an object, and that object is low in the room, we're keeping the heat down where we can feel it and benefit from it.
Thank you. Beautifully put.
6 tealight candles can also nearly boil a litre of water in a camping kettle in an hour. That's enough to fill a hot water bottle which will deep you a lot warmer than the heater!
Why not both?
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture Yeah, when the kettle boils, replace it with a pot.
I found that as wood absorbs heat but is not a good conductor, it's quite a good thing to use, to see how far heat radiates.
Correct sir. A handful of these small candles don't have enough energy to significantly heat an entire living space (unless really small and very well insulated) BUT they do have enough heat, which if you can slow down the heat loss (via convection) and covert into more radiant heat, can heat a human body near it, which in turn makes a body in a cold environment warmer and more comfortable, and that's the name of the game at the end of the day (unless you need to keep your water pipes from freezing, but that is a bigger fish to fry).
So if you're using one of these as a personal body heater while in that space, a nice trick is to glue (with wheat paste or the like) some aluminum foil to cardboard (shinier side out). Shape it to be more convex shaped and put it behind the heater and pointed to wherever you are sitting etc. It will reflect more oft the IR more specifically towards your direction. Radiant IR energy behaves like diffuse light that goes out in all directions in a 360 way. You ideally want at least a 2.5cm or so free air space between the reflector and the heat source.
I find strange the use of term "heat loss" in this context. What we are basically talking about here is that the emanated heat is kept for a longer period of time near the source, which is basically the same thing you are saying.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, and thanks to our good host on this channel.
On a side note, I've been experimenting with making more efficient, cleaner and fuller burning wax stoves. Wax is both a great and frustrating fuel source. It is very energy dense at low weight, is very convenient and safe to transport, and you can get good deals on it sometimes price wise. But it doesn't combust more fully in regular candle form and so some of the fuel gets wasted as unburnt waste byproducts (CO, CO2, etc).
One type I made is with a small vacuum insulated SS food container (to get the wax very hot and easily vaporized with all that insulation), in which I put copper mesh (to more quickly and efficiently spread out the heat throughout the wax). Then I took some 1 mm spaced SS mesh and folded it over with horizontal tabs on the bottom (to stand up) and put some carbon felt in between.
The wick holder/wick is placed inside the SS vacuum insulated jar, with the copper mesh put on and around it. Then wax put inside. Then I made a "mantle" out of the SS 1 mm mesh (got this idea from Robert Murray Smith) to place around it. This does two things--it helps to convert to radiant heat and makes the updraft and fuel mixing more efficient. I prime it with a very small amount of alcohol of some kind.
The goal is to get more and more blue and green blue flames which indicate a more full combustion of the fuel and less CO etc. It does work better than a regular candle, but it likely needs some tweaks and mods to work even better.
The other one I made is based more on the rocket stove concept. I took a copper T fitting and fitted the horizontal tube through a small steel food can. I put perlite all around the copper T fitting in the steel can to insulate it (I wanted to use fumed silica [definitely a better insulator], but couldn't find my stash). Then I cut a piece of carbon felt (a wick) to go in the vertical part of the copper T fitting, but not wide enough to cover the horizontal tube hole. I also rolled up some aluminum flashing (as a tube) and put it part way into the horizontal copper T hole.
Also gets a SS mesh mantle and gets primed with a very small amount of alcohol. Burns even more efficiently than the above stove, despite much less insulation--probably because the indraft is greater and there is a more turbulent mix of fuel and air. But it is very small--I just wanted to try out the concept and see if it would work. Besides the small size, the aluminum flashing tube doesn't fit the hole tight enough, so a little wax can bubble out. I plan to make a larger version with a copper cup, fumed silica, and have a real, pre-made metal tube put into the intake air hole that either fits more exactly or is affixed with waterglass or the like. Also, the rocket hole + metal tube will be angled up rather than level, so that I can just feed wax in and not have to worry about it coming back out. All of this will go in a cheap steel food can of some kind (but larger) again. Its not exposed to much heat and so it will last a very long time.
(I'll probably "cap" the fumed silica in the middle with a thin layer of clay or ceramic fiber insulation treated with waterglass, just so it doesn't have a chance to get air born. I'm also debating whether or not I really need the copper cup--maybe I can just use the copper mesh I have and use another steel food can?)
Note, when using steel food cans, you need to burn out the plastic layer inside the can, outside before using it inside as a stove or burner. Just use some kind of alcohol with some cotton balls.
@@mkeyx82 Too fast heat dissipation would probably be a more accurate term. The candle combustion spends some of its energy heating up the air near it, which all rises up with warmer, lighter/less dense, expanded air, and some through direct IR radiation. But since it is not enough fuel and released energy to heat up most of the air and surroundings, the heat is getting dissipated (much upward) faster than it can warm you. With the cast iron pot, you're just slowing down, and converting more of it into radiant IR, through this process, so that it can warm you more directly.
True
@@justinw1765 This -----^ is science, people.
I do love a good scientifically controlled clap back. 😅
It was delicious!
As your pods are well insulated and the temperature was rising, another interesting experiment would be to heat one up to maybe 20 degrees and see what temperature you can maintain just with the 6 candle heater.
I loved that video. Actually that is the first video of yours I watched. The fact you thought to do an experiment is brilliant.
Thanks!
Just the test we nedded
So interesting! It made sense that this would work, but I’m glad that was proven with further testing.
Definitively!
You can easily convert a dry bulb thermometer to a wet bulb thermometer. Take the probe of the dry bulb thermometer and wrap a wet napkin around it. It instantly turns into a wet bulb thermometer. Take a second dry bulb thermometer as a control and measure the difference, you will notice that there is a significant difference. I work in the HVAC industry and I have done this in a pinch.
I'll have a try that! Thanks.
Well put man. I liked this experiment, very unbiased and minimal variables. I've done this without documenting and had very similar results. It's good to see someone take the time to record the process, tests and everything else. It takes much more time than most realize. Thanks again
Thanks!
Thanks for tagging my reply with this link. That is a very interesting experiment thanks for taking the time to do it. I think if I had to reason what is happening here, given that the candles have likely given off the same amount of heat during the experiment in both pods. My guess would be that the pot, being closer to the thermometer is capturing and focusing the heat in the area of the thermometer whereas the control pod likely has the heat going up to the roof and not affecting the thermometer as much. SO.......... this could well prove to be a valid way of heating an area in a room when you know you are going to be in one part of the room, rather than have the heat rise up to the roof where you are not sat watching telly. very interesting indeed. Thank you
That's right. Radiant heat.
Exactly.
Thank you perfect 👌
Now you need to do the same BUT with the thermometer at ceiling height 🥴
I'm not sure what that would prove. Nobody lives up at the ceiling.
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture have you checked? Those cabins look like perfect dwellings for little roof fairies.
Actually, the seagulls near me regularly thank me for lighting candles in the house warming their bums as they nest on my roof. Smearing their droppings across my windows is their way of showing appreciation, in the same way a cat leaves dead animals. Or at least I like to think so.
great test with identical 2 spaces !
Thanks!
Great video! Would the system be more efficient if the candles were closer to the inside of the cast iron?
If the candles were elevated by putting them on 1-2 1/2 bricks, would that that help?
Thank you again, is there a good way to vent the carbon monoxide without losing the heat built up? Thank you again. 🙏👍
Sadly the question was 'these can''t work' and the conclusion you made was 'what you experience' they are 2 different outcomes. Of course 'these don't work' is contextual on a number of variables. and whilst I lean towards 'they don't work' my context is more towards people trying to save plants from frost heating larger areas inside greenhouses. Your cabin experiment is an interesting bridge and undoubtedly you are right about what someone experiences, I wouldn't be so foolish to argue that point.
Well, I'm glad that is cleared up!
Omg you did it!!! This is awesome thank you!!
Where did you buy your fork handles?
Well all in all this is a better test setup. Given the premise that its comparing the localised radiant heating effect.
Good tip.Thank you!
You should see how many candles and how long it takes to get a hay box soup meal done and dusted. Now that would be cool!
(And the candle fuel
Cost)
Of course, if you measured the temperature in the ceiling apex, the convected heat in the warmed air would have risen up there.
A fraction of a degree in 2 hours is clearly not going to be enough to be felt as "warmer" by a chilled person.
But in a controlled small space with a low cover, in a garden cold frame or greenhouse on frosty nights, the radiant heat does make a big difference to growing plants in winter.
I have used the system with a single homemade tallow candle inside a cold frame, where I grew masses of salad leaves throughout the coldest part of winter. The candle was a 450g baked beans tin with a cotton wick, filled with tallow, and burned for 4 days.
The added bonus of course is the CO2 by-product, which is plant food, that contributed to the abundant growth.
The thermometer didn't measure the radiant effect, it measured the increase in localised air temperature caused by the radiant heat.
The radiant heat effect is greater than the thermometer is able to indicate.
glad i was one of the many internet trolls who inspired you to use my perceived negativity to help produce more quality content.
candle heaters force the fixed amount of 'energy' to hang around longer. they don't produce more energy just because they exist.
cast iron is FAR superior to flower pots for this. (this might just be my opinion)
i'd also like to add i still stand by my "coffee heater' comment and that alone might be the reason someone should consider making one. even if you don't really need to rely on a candle heater for warmth.
To clarify, this experiment was planned long before the last video became popular. I assure you I don't pander to the whims of trolls.
Please run your theory about energy 'hanging around' past a physicist.
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture i did run it by a physicist a while back before you made that first video. my previous comment was simplistic i admit.
if you've found a way to produce more energy from a candle than what it starts with... you should publish a paper on it and win a nobel prize!
Of all the things that didn't happen, this didn't happen the most.
Please educate yourself on the three forms of heat transfer.
It's very basic physics.
Spoiler: it doesn't mention energy 'hanging around longer'.
Will it power one of those heat powered ecofans? That should be the standard
It'll turn, but they need a very hot stove to move air.
My misses lights about four candles on the hearth and within half an hour the room is significantly warmer…
cool white light bulbs make the room cooler, warm white bulbs make the room warmer. Is it a mind trick or do warm bulbs make heat and cool bulbs cool?
Hey, thank you for the follow up video! You are absolutely correct about radiant vs convective heat transfer. I think without the pot, there is a little radiant heat from each candle flame and a lot of convective heat preferentially going up with the rising warm air. But the pot radiates heat in all directions and slows the upward movement of warm air. The air near the ceiling is probably warmer in the no pot version, whereas the the lower region is warmer in the pot version. Some of that radiation hits walls, people, the vertical stand behind the candles on which the thermometer sits and warms those structures. The surface area of the pot is much more than the surface area of a small flame (times 6). Here is an excerpt from Dual Survival where Cody Lundin warmed a space to 70 degrees (F) when the outside temp was 31 using a small campfire, a clear plastic sheet and a reflective Mylar sheet. ua-cam.com/video/T0uq3acV5-Y/v-deo.html
That's the Mors Kochanski super shelter. A beautiful example of radiant heat, you're right.
I've tried all ways with candles, flower pots, metal cooking pots,tea lights and none of them put out enough heat to make a difference even in a closed space.
I've made a video that demonstrates their effectiveness.
It's not a fantastic heater. But it does have an effect. Whether it's enough of an effect to justify their use is an entirely personal choice.
Store you're Tealights in the fridge, they will burn better and longer. 👍
👍🏻
Isn't this just the classic permaculture principal of slowing the flow of energy in its path? Rather than going straight into the ceiling, you interrupt it with the pot. Like a heat swale!
That's an interesting point.
Yes sir they are wrong. Glad you showed this. Rotflmao
I would be concerned about the fumes building up.
I've mad a video testing carbon monoxide from these heaters.
I wonder if it's not merely radiation, but also an element of the mass-storage-heater about this, and terracotta pot heaters.
Only in the sense that they mostly produce radiant heat, which a mass heater also produces.
The Thermometer collected some of the radiant heat but not the convective. Thermometer should be placed where the radiant heat cannot influence the readings. Nothing proved.
You're suggesting that to test for radiant heat I should have recorded the temperature beyond the influence of the radiant heat.
You've clearly misunderstood the objective.
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture Yes, I may have misunderstood the intent. I thought this was to show a difference in space temp' not object temp'.
Three candles produce three candle-power of heat. The pot contributes no heat. (It has no energy).
That's true, however the heat transfer mechanism is more effective when the heat is expressed as radiant heat. Same amount of heat, experienced more effectively.
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture - The clay pots concentrate/trap the heat, but the temperature of the room will be the same as with 4 candles. Imagine four pots, or ten pots, or 100 pots over those 4 candles… the room temp remains the same.
@@marcusjaybrode2129 Incorrect. Do a little research into the different forms of heat transfer. It's basic physics.
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture - Teach me, oh wise one. Please share your knowledge. 🤣😂😂
@@marcusjaybrode2129 Watch the video. Then google the different forms of heat transfer.
Children can grasp it, easily.
Candles are already radiant heat heat sources, that's why they glow! And as before the difference in measured temperature is insignificant given the inaccurate test conditions. You have not "proven" anything especially given that viewers have to take your word for the displayed temperatures which you say are clearly visible but they're not in the video. I can easily measure greater than 0.1C variance in a single room of my house so for you to get bang on the same reading with two separate cheap consumer level thermometers in completely separate buildings is highly suspicious. If you can't be bothered/can't afford to do proper tests then it's probably best not to even try.
Well aren't you a little ray of sunshine!
Have you tried working as a motivational speaker?
@@CairnOfDunnCroftPermaculture This one doesn't understand longwave radiation, but you go and throw shortwave radiation into the mix anyway. I was going to say, "I see what you did there," but realized I should probably spell it out for mfx1.
👍