What happens when two flames meet from opposite sides?












14












$begingroup$


What happens when two flames (whether from dragons or blowtorches) meet head on? Many films make it appears as a front where the two flames repel each other, but my intuition is that, in fact, the two flames would continue as two waves on the surface of a lake.



In short, does anyone have sufficient scientific skills (or experience) to describe what happens when two flames of the same intensity impact directly opposite one another?



Can a dragon block a fire attack with its own fire?



enter image description here










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 12




    $begingroup$
    A flame is not a wave, it is a flow of hot gas. (That is to say, a flame is a material flow, like a river.) When two such flows intersect they may merge, or they may produce a highly turbulent flow, depending on flow speed and volume. One thing they won't do is pass through one another unmodified. P.S. What is a "chalumal"? Neither Google nor the Oxford English Dictionary know this word.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    8 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Renan For safety concerns, do add fire-protective clothing, safety glasses, and so on. Otherwise, get a third friend to videotape what happens, post the thing on youtube, call 911 and watch the thing go viral for the next contenders for the Darwin award.
    $endgroup$
    – GretchenV
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is a "chalumal"? Are you mistranslating from French? possibly "blowtorch" < commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blow_Torch_(3257353199).jpg >?
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Kaminski
    7 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This experiment could easily have answered your question. I haven't watched it all but you might be able to get some information from it - youtu.be/9_do_hnnXYE?t=291 - There is an instructional video by the same person who tells you how to make these flames so maybe you could try it!
    $endgroup$
    – chasly from UK
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Matrix, I edited your question for grammar and structure but I also made a very significant change. You spoke of two flames crossing but your picture and other statements made it clear you really meant them meeting head on. Crossing in the way you described it would imply the flames met at a 90° angle. If my edit was wrong, please change it back.
    $endgroup$
    – Cyn
    6 hours ago
















14












$begingroup$


What happens when two flames (whether from dragons or blowtorches) meet head on? Many films make it appears as a front where the two flames repel each other, but my intuition is that, in fact, the two flames would continue as two waves on the surface of a lake.



In short, does anyone have sufficient scientific skills (or experience) to describe what happens when two flames of the same intensity impact directly opposite one another?



Can a dragon block a fire attack with its own fire?



enter image description here










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 12




    $begingroup$
    A flame is not a wave, it is a flow of hot gas. (That is to say, a flame is a material flow, like a river.) When two such flows intersect they may merge, or they may produce a highly turbulent flow, depending on flow speed and volume. One thing they won't do is pass through one another unmodified. P.S. What is a "chalumal"? Neither Google nor the Oxford English Dictionary know this word.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    8 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Renan For safety concerns, do add fire-protective clothing, safety glasses, and so on. Otherwise, get a third friend to videotape what happens, post the thing on youtube, call 911 and watch the thing go viral for the next contenders for the Darwin award.
    $endgroup$
    – GretchenV
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is a "chalumal"? Are you mistranslating from French? possibly "blowtorch" < commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blow_Torch_(3257353199).jpg >?
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Kaminski
    7 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This experiment could easily have answered your question. I haven't watched it all but you might be able to get some information from it - youtu.be/9_do_hnnXYE?t=291 - There is an instructional video by the same person who tells you how to make these flames so maybe you could try it!
    $endgroup$
    – chasly from UK
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Matrix, I edited your question for grammar and structure but I also made a very significant change. You spoke of two flames crossing but your picture and other statements made it clear you really meant them meeting head on. Crossing in the way you described it would imply the flames met at a 90° angle. If my edit was wrong, please change it back.
    $endgroup$
    – Cyn
    6 hours ago














14












14








14


2



$begingroup$


What happens when two flames (whether from dragons or blowtorches) meet head on? Many films make it appears as a front where the two flames repel each other, but my intuition is that, in fact, the two flames would continue as two waves on the surface of a lake.



In short, does anyone have sufficient scientific skills (or experience) to describe what happens when two flames of the same intensity impact directly opposite one another?



Can a dragon block a fire attack with its own fire?



enter image description here










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




What happens when two flames (whether from dragons or blowtorches) meet head on? Many films make it appears as a front where the two flames repel each other, but my intuition is that, in fact, the two flames would continue as two waves on the surface of a lake.



In short, does anyone have sufficient scientific skills (or experience) to describe what happens when two flames of the same intensity impact directly opposite one another?



Can a dragon block a fire attack with its own fire?



enter image description here







science-based reality-check science dragons fire






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









Cyn

5,846935




5,846935










asked 9 hours ago









MatrixMatrix

1776




1776








  • 12




    $begingroup$
    A flame is not a wave, it is a flow of hot gas. (That is to say, a flame is a material flow, like a river.) When two such flows intersect they may merge, or they may produce a highly turbulent flow, depending on flow speed and volume. One thing they won't do is pass through one another unmodified. P.S. What is a "chalumal"? Neither Google nor the Oxford English Dictionary know this word.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    8 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Renan For safety concerns, do add fire-protective clothing, safety glasses, and so on. Otherwise, get a third friend to videotape what happens, post the thing on youtube, call 911 and watch the thing go viral for the next contenders for the Darwin award.
    $endgroup$
    – GretchenV
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is a "chalumal"? Are you mistranslating from French? possibly "blowtorch" < commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blow_Torch_(3257353199).jpg >?
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Kaminski
    7 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This experiment could easily have answered your question. I haven't watched it all but you might be able to get some information from it - youtu.be/9_do_hnnXYE?t=291 - There is an instructional video by the same person who tells you how to make these flames so maybe you could try it!
    $endgroup$
    – chasly from UK
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Matrix, I edited your question for grammar and structure but I also made a very significant change. You spoke of two flames crossing but your picture and other statements made it clear you really meant them meeting head on. Crossing in the way you described it would imply the flames met at a 90° angle. If my edit was wrong, please change it back.
    $endgroup$
    – Cyn
    6 hours ago














  • 12




    $begingroup$
    A flame is not a wave, it is a flow of hot gas. (That is to say, a flame is a material flow, like a river.) When two such flows intersect they may merge, or they may produce a highly turbulent flow, depending on flow speed and volume. One thing they won't do is pass through one another unmodified. P.S. What is a "chalumal"? Neither Google nor the Oxford English Dictionary know this word.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    8 hours ago








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Renan For safety concerns, do add fire-protective clothing, safety glasses, and so on. Otherwise, get a third friend to videotape what happens, post the thing on youtube, call 911 and watch the thing go viral for the next contenders for the Darwin award.
    $endgroup$
    – GretchenV
    7 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is a "chalumal"? Are you mistranslating from French? possibly "blowtorch" < commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blow_Torch_(3257353199).jpg >?
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Kaminski
    7 hours ago








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This experiment could easily have answered your question. I haven't watched it all but you might be able to get some information from it - youtu.be/9_do_hnnXYE?t=291 - There is an instructional video by the same person who tells you how to make these flames so maybe you could try it!
    $endgroup$
    – chasly from UK
    6 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Matrix, I edited your question for grammar and structure but I also made a very significant change. You spoke of two flames crossing but your picture and other statements made it clear you really meant them meeting head on. Crossing in the way you described it would imply the flames met at a 90° angle. If my edit was wrong, please change it back.
    $endgroup$
    – Cyn
    6 hours ago








12




12




$begingroup$
A flame is not a wave, it is a flow of hot gas. (That is to say, a flame is a material flow, like a river.) When two such flows intersect they may merge, or they may produce a highly turbulent flow, depending on flow speed and volume. One thing they won't do is pass through one another unmodified. P.S. What is a "chalumal"? Neither Google nor the Oxford English Dictionary know this word.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago






$begingroup$
A flame is not a wave, it is a flow of hot gas. (That is to say, a flame is a material flow, like a river.) When two such flows intersect they may merge, or they may produce a highly turbulent flow, depending on flow speed and volume. One thing they won't do is pass through one another unmodified. P.S. What is a "chalumal"? Neither Google nor the Oxford English Dictionary know this word.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago






3




3




$begingroup$
@Renan For safety concerns, do add fire-protective clothing, safety glasses, and so on. Otherwise, get a third friend to videotape what happens, post the thing on youtube, call 911 and watch the thing go viral for the next contenders for the Darwin award.
$endgroup$
– GretchenV
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Renan For safety concerns, do add fire-protective clothing, safety glasses, and so on. Otherwise, get a third friend to videotape what happens, post the thing on youtube, call 911 and watch the thing go viral for the next contenders for the Darwin award.
$endgroup$
– GretchenV
7 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
What is a "chalumal"? Are you mistranslating from French? possibly "blowtorch" < commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blow_Torch_(3257353199).jpg >?
$endgroup$
– Ethan Kaminski
7 hours ago






$begingroup$
What is a "chalumal"? Are you mistranslating from French? possibly "blowtorch" < commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blow_Torch_(3257353199).jpg >?
$endgroup$
– Ethan Kaminski
7 hours ago






1




1




$begingroup$
This experiment could easily have answered your question. I haven't watched it all but you might be able to get some information from it - youtu.be/9_do_hnnXYE?t=291 - There is an instructional video by the same person who tells you how to make these flames so maybe you could try it!
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
6 hours ago






$begingroup$
This experiment could easily have answered your question. I haven't watched it all but you might be able to get some information from it - youtu.be/9_do_hnnXYE?t=291 - There is an instructional video by the same person who tells you how to make these flames so maybe you could try it!
$endgroup$
– chasly from UK
6 hours ago






2




2




$begingroup$
Matrix, I edited your question for grammar and structure but I also made a very significant change. You spoke of two flames crossing but your picture and other statements made it clear you really meant them meeting head on. Crossing in the way you described it would imply the flames met at a 90° angle. If my edit was wrong, please change it back.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Matrix, I edited your question for grammar and structure but I also made a very significant change. You spoke of two flames crossing but your picture and other statements made it clear you really meant them meeting head on. Crossing in the way you described it would imply the flames met at a 90° angle. If my edit was wrong, please change it back.
$endgroup$
– Cyn
6 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















26












$begingroup$

Flames are not waves, which can cross each other without perturbation.



Flames are basically flows of particles (the combustible) which are undergoing an energetic, exothermic reactions with the comburent (usually air Oxygen).



When the particle flows cross each other they will influence their respective motion, with a "simple" vectorial summation of their velocities, executed according to the principles of conservation of momentum and energy.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It's what I think too, but if we take 2 chalumals, what we can see? there is a projection of fire in each directions a half way ?
    $endgroup$
    – Matrix
    8 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Matrix, the only wrong part in the image is that the flame to not simply disappear. They would spread around more or less like a disk
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    8 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I expect that they will mix rather more than that image suggests too although I have no evidence for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B
    8 hours ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Matrix Too hard to say, someone would need to do the experiment (or look and see if anyone already did it).
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The MythBusters tried something like this: mythresults.com/fire-vs-ice
    $endgroup$
    – Jim Green
    6 hours ago



















4












$begingroup$

Fire is not "a thing" itself, but rather the rapid, exothermic oxidation of some material, normally gas (most or all fluids, that seem to burn are actually evaporating from the heat and only the gas burns).



So if two streams of fire meet, they will in most cases behave, like two colliding streams of gas. Unfortunately I do not seem to be able to find a simulation of this. But here, you can see two streams of fluid (water) collide. Gas will mostly look similar, but there will be more mixing of the two streams and more turbulences, resulting in a bigger cloud where they meet.



[edit: added from comment]

If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.

[/edit]



This of course only works, if both streams are roughly the same size and power and directly colliding. If one is bigger or has more pressure or they hit each other at an angle, it starts to get complicated.



But in basic principle, yes, you can block a stream of fire with another stream of fire.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    yes but we need have exactly the good angle, strength and surface of stream, so it's not realy realist no? In real life, it's impossible to have exactly all variables in good proportion at same time and maintain them over time...
    $endgroup$
    – Matrix
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are also not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.
    $endgroup$
    – Till
    6 hours ago



















4












$begingroup$

It boils down to blocking a stream of gas with another stream of gas.



Fire happens when some sort of fuel undergoes combustion. With dragons this is usually presumed to be a flammable gas they are exhaling. The danger of such a fire comes from the combustion heating the gases that result from the combustion and other nearby gases to such a high temperature that they'll burn you or set you on fire if they touch you. So if you want to block a dragon's fire blast, you need to prevent that stream of very hot gases from touching you.



A simple experiment would be to have two people try to blow smoke into each other's faces at the same time. That should be a very rough approximation of what would happen. I suspect that the two streams actually would cancel out and become a cloud of smoke in the middle.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    -7












    $begingroup$

    Well since fire has no physical substance they should carry on through each other like, "two waves on the surface of a lake." However fire consumes oxygen so passing through where fire had just burn oxygen, they should both die immediately if in a confined space, while if they are outside, imaginable when two fire breathing creatures meet, then the fire should just lose some or most of its size, with anther possibility being that they will combine into one flame (it would depend on the speed of the fire). However if the fire was being created and maintained by a liquid fuel the effect would be near identical to that of which when water meets water head on.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$









    • 11




      $begingroup$
      Fire most definitely has a physical substance -- it's a flow of hot gas. Hot gas emits light just like any other hot body. Why would anybody believe that fire has no substance?
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      8 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @AlexP The Rule of Cool has led to things like that, unfortunately.
      $endgroup$
      – Renan
      8 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Renan possibly also a confusion on how the energy propogates? If you know that a ripple is nothing more than a virbration through a substance and heat is a vibration óf the substance you might confuse the two to be interchangeable. Which in part they even are as a ripple will leave some heat energy and heat energy will cause the surrounding material to start vibrating as it passes its energy. And if you then miss that the heat of the fire is an effect rather than the cause (which is the chemical reaction in exothermic fire) then this misconception is the result.
      $endgroup$
      – Demigan
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Demigan Makes sense, but by Occam's razor I am still blaming cartoons and comics displaying battles of energy streams.
      $endgroup$
      – Renan
      6 hours ago













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136525%2fwhat-happens-when-two-flames-meet-from-opposite-sides%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    26












    $begingroup$

    Flames are not waves, which can cross each other without perturbation.



    Flames are basically flows of particles (the combustible) which are undergoing an energetic, exothermic reactions with the comburent (usually air Oxygen).



    When the particle flows cross each other they will influence their respective motion, with a "simple" vectorial summation of their velocities, executed according to the principles of conservation of momentum and energy.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      It's what I think too, but if we take 2 chalumals, what we can see? there is a projection of fire in each directions a half way ?
      $endgroup$
      – Matrix
      8 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Matrix, the only wrong part in the image is that the flame to not simply disappear. They would spread around more or less like a disk
      $endgroup$
      – L.Dutch
      8 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I expect that they will mix rather more than that image suggests too although I have no evidence for that.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      8 hours ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Matrix Too hard to say, someone would need to do the experiment (or look and see if anyone already did it).
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      8 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The MythBusters tried something like this: mythresults.com/fire-vs-ice
      $endgroup$
      – Jim Green
      6 hours ago
















    26












    $begingroup$

    Flames are not waves, which can cross each other without perturbation.



    Flames are basically flows of particles (the combustible) which are undergoing an energetic, exothermic reactions with the comburent (usually air Oxygen).



    When the particle flows cross each other they will influence their respective motion, with a "simple" vectorial summation of their velocities, executed according to the principles of conservation of momentum and energy.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      It's what I think too, but if we take 2 chalumals, what we can see? there is a projection of fire in each directions a half way ?
      $endgroup$
      – Matrix
      8 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Matrix, the only wrong part in the image is that the flame to not simply disappear. They would spread around more or less like a disk
      $endgroup$
      – L.Dutch
      8 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I expect that they will mix rather more than that image suggests too although I have no evidence for that.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      8 hours ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Matrix Too hard to say, someone would need to do the experiment (or look and see if anyone already did it).
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      8 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The MythBusters tried something like this: mythresults.com/fire-vs-ice
      $endgroup$
      – Jim Green
      6 hours ago














    26












    26








    26





    $begingroup$

    Flames are not waves, which can cross each other without perturbation.



    Flames are basically flows of particles (the combustible) which are undergoing an energetic, exothermic reactions with the comburent (usually air Oxygen).



    When the particle flows cross each other they will influence their respective motion, with a "simple" vectorial summation of their velocities, executed according to the principles of conservation of momentum and energy.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Flames are not waves, which can cross each other without perturbation.



    Flames are basically flows of particles (the combustible) which are undergoing an energetic, exothermic reactions with the comburent (usually air Oxygen).



    When the particle flows cross each other they will influence their respective motion, with a "simple" vectorial summation of their velocities, executed according to the principles of conservation of momentum and energy.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 8 hours ago









    L.DutchL.Dutch

    79.3k26190387




    79.3k26190387












    • $begingroup$
      It's what I think too, but if we take 2 chalumals, what we can see? there is a projection of fire in each directions a half way ?
      $endgroup$
      – Matrix
      8 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Matrix, the only wrong part in the image is that the flame to not simply disappear. They would spread around more or less like a disk
      $endgroup$
      – L.Dutch
      8 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I expect that they will mix rather more than that image suggests too although I have no evidence for that.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      8 hours ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Matrix Too hard to say, someone would need to do the experiment (or look and see if anyone already did it).
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      8 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The MythBusters tried something like this: mythresults.com/fire-vs-ice
      $endgroup$
      – Jim Green
      6 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      It's what I think too, but if we take 2 chalumals, what we can see? there is a projection of fire in each directions a half way ?
      $endgroup$
      – Matrix
      8 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Matrix, the only wrong part in the image is that the flame to not simply disappear. They would spread around more or less like a disk
      $endgroup$
      – L.Dutch
      8 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      I expect that they will mix rather more than that image suggests too although I have no evidence for that.
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      8 hours ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Matrix Too hard to say, someone would need to do the experiment (or look and see if anyone already did it).
      $endgroup$
      – Tim B
      8 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The MythBusters tried something like this: mythresults.com/fire-vs-ice
      $endgroup$
      – Jim Green
      6 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    It's what I think too, but if we take 2 chalumals, what we can see? there is a projection of fire in each directions a half way ?
    $endgroup$
    – Matrix
    8 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    It's what I think too, but if we take 2 chalumals, what we can see? there is a projection of fire in each directions a half way ?
    $endgroup$
    – Matrix
    8 hours ago




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @Matrix, the only wrong part in the image is that the flame to not simply disappear. They would spread around more or less like a disk
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    8 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Matrix, the only wrong part in the image is that the flame to not simply disappear. They would spread around more or less like a disk
    $endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    8 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    I expect that they will mix rather more than that image suggests too although I have no evidence for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B
    8 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    I expect that they will mix rather more than that image suggests too although I have no evidence for that.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B
    8 hours ago






    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @Matrix Too hard to say, someone would need to do the experiment (or look and see if anyone already did it).
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B
    8 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Matrix Too hard to say, someone would need to do the experiment (or look and see if anyone already did it).
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B
    8 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    The MythBusters tried something like this: mythresults.com/fire-vs-ice
    $endgroup$
    – Jim Green
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    The MythBusters tried something like this: mythresults.com/fire-vs-ice
    $endgroup$
    – Jim Green
    6 hours ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    Fire is not "a thing" itself, but rather the rapid, exothermic oxidation of some material, normally gas (most or all fluids, that seem to burn are actually evaporating from the heat and only the gas burns).



    So if two streams of fire meet, they will in most cases behave, like two colliding streams of gas. Unfortunately I do not seem to be able to find a simulation of this. But here, you can see two streams of fluid (water) collide. Gas will mostly look similar, but there will be more mixing of the two streams and more turbulences, resulting in a bigger cloud where they meet.



    [edit: added from comment]

    If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.

    [/edit]



    This of course only works, if both streams are roughly the same size and power and directly colliding. If one is bigger or has more pressure or they hit each other at an angle, it starts to get complicated.



    But in basic principle, yes, you can block a stream of fire with another stream of fire.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      yes but we need have exactly the good angle, strength and surface of stream, so it's not realy realist no? In real life, it's impossible to have exactly all variables in good proportion at same time and maintain them over time...
      $endgroup$
      – Matrix
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are also not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.
      $endgroup$
      – Till
      6 hours ago
















    4












    $begingroup$

    Fire is not "a thing" itself, but rather the rapid, exothermic oxidation of some material, normally gas (most or all fluids, that seem to burn are actually evaporating from the heat and only the gas burns).



    So if two streams of fire meet, they will in most cases behave, like two colliding streams of gas. Unfortunately I do not seem to be able to find a simulation of this. But here, you can see two streams of fluid (water) collide. Gas will mostly look similar, but there will be more mixing of the two streams and more turbulences, resulting in a bigger cloud where they meet.



    [edit: added from comment]

    If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.

    [/edit]



    This of course only works, if both streams are roughly the same size and power and directly colliding. If one is bigger or has more pressure or they hit each other at an angle, it starts to get complicated.



    But in basic principle, yes, you can block a stream of fire with another stream of fire.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      yes but we need have exactly the good angle, strength and surface of stream, so it's not realy realist no? In real life, it's impossible to have exactly all variables in good proportion at same time and maintain them over time...
      $endgroup$
      – Matrix
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are also not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.
      $endgroup$
      – Till
      6 hours ago














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    Fire is not "a thing" itself, but rather the rapid, exothermic oxidation of some material, normally gas (most or all fluids, that seem to burn are actually evaporating from the heat and only the gas burns).



    So if two streams of fire meet, they will in most cases behave, like two colliding streams of gas. Unfortunately I do not seem to be able to find a simulation of this. But here, you can see two streams of fluid (water) collide. Gas will mostly look similar, but there will be more mixing of the two streams and more turbulences, resulting in a bigger cloud where they meet.



    [edit: added from comment]

    If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.

    [/edit]



    This of course only works, if both streams are roughly the same size and power and directly colliding. If one is bigger or has more pressure or they hit each other at an angle, it starts to get complicated.



    But in basic principle, yes, you can block a stream of fire with another stream of fire.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Fire is not "a thing" itself, but rather the rapid, exothermic oxidation of some material, normally gas (most or all fluids, that seem to burn are actually evaporating from the heat and only the gas burns).



    So if two streams of fire meet, they will in most cases behave, like two colliding streams of gas. Unfortunately I do not seem to be able to find a simulation of this. But here, you can see two streams of fluid (water) collide. Gas will mostly look similar, but there will be more mixing of the two streams and more turbulences, resulting in a bigger cloud where they meet.



    [edit: added from comment]

    If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.

    [/edit]



    This of course only works, if both streams are roughly the same size and power and directly colliding. If one is bigger or has more pressure or they hit each other at an angle, it starts to get complicated.



    But in basic principle, yes, you can block a stream of fire with another stream of fire.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 6 hours ago

























    answered 7 hours ago









    TillTill

    1,070415




    1,070415








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      yes but we need have exactly the good angle, strength and surface of stream, so it's not realy realist no? In real life, it's impossible to have exactly all variables in good proportion at same time and maintain them over time...
      $endgroup$
      – Matrix
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are also not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.
      $endgroup$
      – Till
      6 hours ago














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      yes but we need have exactly the good angle, strength and surface of stream, so it's not realy realist no? In real life, it's impossible to have exactly all variables in good proportion at same time and maintain them over time...
      $endgroup$
      – Matrix
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are also not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.
      $endgroup$
      – Till
      6 hours ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    yes but we need have exactly the good angle, strength and surface of stream, so it's not realy realist no? In real life, it's impossible to have exactly all variables in good proportion at same time and maintain them over time...
    $endgroup$
    – Matrix
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    yes but we need have exactly the good angle, strength and surface of stream, so it's not realy realist no? In real life, it's impossible to have exactly all variables in good proportion at same time and maintain them over time...
    $endgroup$
    – Matrix
    6 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are also not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.
    $endgroup$
    – Till
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    If angle, strength and surface are no exact match, but roughly right, it will still result in a lot of turbulences and most parts of the streams will disperse. But it quickly gets unpredictable and there may be small clouds of flame that reach one of the participants or cause collateral damage. If you watch the video, you will see, that the streams are also not exactly the same. As a result, in the first 3 seconds the right source is hit by a blob of the left stream. After that, the streams reach an equilibrium. But this is partly because the sources are perfectly still.
    $endgroup$
    – Till
    6 hours ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    It boils down to blocking a stream of gas with another stream of gas.



    Fire happens when some sort of fuel undergoes combustion. With dragons this is usually presumed to be a flammable gas they are exhaling. The danger of such a fire comes from the combustion heating the gases that result from the combustion and other nearby gases to such a high temperature that they'll burn you or set you on fire if they touch you. So if you want to block a dragon's fire blast, you need to prevent that stream of very hot gases from touching you.



    A simple experiment would be to have two people try to blow smoke into each other's faces at the same time. That should be a very rough approximation of what would happen. I suspect that the two streams actually would cancel out and become a cloud of smoke in the middle.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      It boils down to blocking a stream of gas with another stream of gas.



      Fire happens when some sort of fuel undergoes combustion. With dragons this is usually presumed to be a flammable gas they are exhaling. The danger of such a fire comes from the combustion heating the gases that result from the combustion and other nearby gases to such a high temperature that they'll burn you or set you on fire if they touch you. So if you want to block a dragon's fire blast, you need to prevent that stream of very hot gases from touching you.



      A simple experiment would be to have two people try to blow smoke into each other's faces at the same time. That should be a very rough approximation of what would happen. I suspect that the two streams actually would cancel out and become a cloud of smoke in the middle.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        It boils down to blocking a stream of gas with another stream of gas.



        Fire happens when some sort of fuel undergoes combustion. With dragons this is usually presumed to be a flammable gas they are exhaling. The danger of such a fire comes from the combustion heating the gases that result from the combustion and other nearby gases to such a high temperature that they'll burn you or set you on fire if they touch you. So if you want to block a dragon's fire blast, you need to prevent that stream of very hot gases from touching you.



        A simple experiment would be to have two people try to blow smoke into each other's faces at the same time. That should be a very rough approximation of what would happen. I suspect that the two streams actually would cancel out and become a cloud of smoke in the middle.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        It boils down to blocking a stream of gas with another stream of gas.



        Fire happens when some sort of fuel undergoes combustion. With dragons this is usually presumed to be a flammable gas they are exhaling. The danger of such a fire comes from the combustion heating the gases that result from the combustion and other nearby gases to such a high temperature that they'll burn you or set you on fire if they touch you. So if you want to block a dragon's fire blast, you need to prevent that stream of very hot gases from touching you.



        A simple experiment would be to have two people try to blow smoke into each other's faces at the same time. That should be a very rough approximation of what would happen. I suspect that the two streams actually would cancel out and become a cloud of smoke in the middle.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 5 hours ago









        Jared KJared K

        3,3481523




        3,3481523























            -7












            $begingroup$

            Well since fire has no physical substance they should carry on through each other like, "two waves on the surface of a lake." However fire consumes oxygen so passing through where fire had just burn oxygen, they should both die immediately if in a confined space, while if they are outside, imaginable when two fire breathing creatures meet, then the fire should just lose some or most of its size, with anther possibility being that they will combine into one flame (it would depend on the speed of the fire). However if the fire was being created and maintained by a liquid fuel the effect would be near identical to that of which when water meets water head on.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$









            • 11




              $begingroup$
              Fire most definitely has a physical substance -- it's a flow of hot gas. Hot gas emits light just like any other hot body. Why would anybody believe that fire has no substance?
              $endgroup$
              – AlexP
              8 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @AlexP The Rule of Cool has led to things like that, unfortunately.
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Renan possibly also a confusion on how the energy propogates? If you know that a ripple is nothing more than a virbration through a substance and heat is a vibration óf the substance you might confuse the two to be interchangeable. Which in part they even are as a ripple will leave some heat energy and heat energy will cause the surrounding material to start vibrating as it passes its energy. And if you then miss that the heat of the fire is an effect rather than the cause (which is the chemical reaction in exothermic fire) then this misconception is the result.
              $endgroup$
              – Demigan
              6 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Demigan Makes sense, but by Occam's razor I am still blaming cartoons and comics displaying battles of energy streams.
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              6 hours ago


















            -7












            $begingroup$

            Well since fire has no physical substance they should carry on through each other like, "two waves on the surface of a lake." However fire consumes oxygen so passing through where fire had just burn oxygen, they should both die immediately if in a confined space, while if they are outside, imaginable when two fire breathing creatures meet, then the fire should just lose some or most of its size, with anther possibility being that they will combine into one flame (it would depend on the speed of the fire). However if the fire was being created and maintained by a liquid fuel the effect would be near identical to that of which when water meets water head on.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$









            • 11




              $begingroup$
              Fire most definitely has a physical substance -- it's a flow of hot gas. Hot gas emits light just like any other hot body. Why would anybody believe that fire has no substance?
              $endgroup$
              – AlexP
              8 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @AlexP The Rule of Cool has led to things like that, unfortunately.
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Renan possibly also a confusion on how the energy propogates? If you know that a ripple is nothing more than a virbration through a substance and heat is a vibration óf the substance you might confuse the two to be interchangeable. Which in part they even are as a ripple will leave some heat energy and heat energy will cause the surrounding material to start vibrating as it passes its energy. And if you then miss that the heat of the fire is an effect rather than the cause (which is the chemical reaction in exothermic fire) then this misconception is the result.
              $endgroup$
              – Demigan
              6 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Demigan Makes sense, but by Occam's razor I am still blaming cartoons and comics displaying battles of energy streams.
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              6 hours ago
















            -7












            -7








            -7





            $begingroup$

            Well since fire has no physical substance they should carry on through each other like, "two waves on the surface of a lake." However fire consumes oxygen so passing through where fire had just burn oxygen, they should both die immediately if in a confined space, while if they are outside, imaginable when two fire breathing creatures meet, then the fire should just lose some or most of its size, with anther possibility being that they will combine into one flame (it would depend on the speed of the fire). However if the fire was being created and maintained by a liquid fuel the effect would be near identical to that of which when water meets water head on.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$



            Well since fire has no physical substance they should carry on through each other like, "two waves on the surface of a lake." However fire consumes oxygen so passing through where fire had just burn oxygen, they should both die immediately if in a confined space, while if they are outside, imaginable when two fire breathing creatures meet, then the fire should just lose some or most of its size, with anther possibility being that they will combine into one flame (it would depend on the speed of the fire). However if the fire was being created and maintained by a liquid fuel the effect would be near identical to that of which when water meets water head on.







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 8 hours ago









            Dylan BullDylan Bull

            363




            363




            New contributor




            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Dylan Bull is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.








            • 11




              $begingroup$
              Fire most definitely has a physical substance -- it's a flow of hot gas. Hot gas emits light just like any other hot body. Why would anybody believe that fire has no substance?
              $endgroup$
              – AlexP
              8 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @AlexP The Rule of Cool has led to things like that, unfortunately.
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Renan possibly also a confusion on how the energy propogates? If you know that a ripple is nothing more than a virbration through a substance and heat is a vibration óf the substance you might confuse the two to be interchangeable. Which in part they even are as a ripple will leave some heat energy and heat energy will cause the surrounding material to start vibrating as it passes its energy. And if you then miss that the heat of the fire is an effect rather than the cause (which is the chemical reaction in exothermic fire) then this misconception is the result.
              $endgroup$
              – Demigan
              6 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Demigan Makes sense, but by Occam's razor I am still blaming cartoons and comics displaying battles of energy streams.
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              6 hours ago
















            • 11




              $begingroup$
              Fire most definitely has a physical substance -- it's a flow of hot gas. Hot gas emits light just like any other hot body. Why would anybody believe that fire has no substance?
              $endgroup$
              – AlexP
              8 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @AlexP The Rule of Cool has led to things like that, unfortunately.
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              8 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Renan possibly also a confusion on how the energy propogates? If you know that a ripple is nothing more than a virbration through a substance and heat is a vibration óf the substance you might confuse the two to be interchangeable. Which in part they even are as a ripple will leave some heat energy and heat energy will cause the surrounding material to start vibrating as it passes its energy. And if you then miss that the heat of the fire is an effect rather than the cause (which is the chemical reaction in exothermic fire) then this misconception is the result.
              $endgroup$
              – Demigan
              6 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Demigan Makes sense, but by Occam's razor I am still blaming cartoons and comics displaying battles of energy streams.
              $endgroup$
              – Renan
              6 hours ago










            11




            11




            $begingroup$
            Fire most definitely has a physical substance -- it's a flow of hot gas. Hot gas emits light just like any other hot body. Why would anybody believe that fire has no substance?
            $endgroup$
            – AlexP
            8 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Fire most definitely has a physical substance -- it's a flow of hot gas. Hot gas emits light just like any other hot body. Why would anybody believe that fire has no substance?
            $endgroup$
            – AlexP
            8 hours ago




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            @AlexP The Rule of Cool has led to things like that, unfortunately.
            $endgroup$
            – Renan
            8 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @AlexP The Rule of Cool has led to things like that, unfortunately.
            $endgroup$
            – Renan
            8 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @Renan possibly also a confusion on how the energy propogates? If you know that a ripple is nothing more than a virbration through a substance and heat is a vibration óf the substance you might confuse the two to be interchangeable. Which in part they even are as a ripple will leave some heat energy and heat energy will cause the surrounding material to start vibrating as it passes its energy. And if you then miss that the heat of the fire is an effect rather than the cause (which is the chemical reaction in exothermic fire) then this misconception is the result.
            $endgroup$
            – Demigan
            6 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @Renan possibly also a confusion on how the energy propogates? If you know that a ripple is nothing more than a virbration through a substance and heat is a vibration óf the substance you might confuse the two to be interchangeable. Which in part they even are as a ripple will leave some heat energy and heat energy will cause the surrounding material to start vibrating as it passes its energy. And if you then miss that the heat of the fire is an effect rather than the cause (which is the chemical reaction in exothermic fire) then this misconception is the result.
            $endgroup$
            – Demigan
            6 hours ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @Demigan Makes sense, but by Occam's razor I am still blaming cartoons and comics displaying battles of energy streams.
            $endgroup$
            – Renan
            6 hours ago






            $begingroup$
            @Demigan Makes sense, but by Occam's razor I am still blaming cartoons and comics displaying battles of energy streams.
            $endgroup$
            – Renan
            6 hours ago




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136525%2fwhat-happens-when-two-flames-meet-from-opposite-sides%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            GameSpot

            connect to host localhost port 22: Connection refused

            Getting a Wifi WPA2 wifi connection