Explaining Pressure: Candle + Water + Jar Experiment

AI Thread Summary
The candle and water experiment demonstrates the principles of pressure and gas behavior. When the candle burns, it consumes oxygen, leading to a decrease in air molecules, but the temperature increase balances the pressure. Once the candle extinguishes, the cooling air creates a low-pressure zone, causing the water to rise in the jar. The discussion highlights a common misconception that oxygen consumption alone accounts for the water rise, emphasizing the role of temperature and density changes. An alternative hypothesis suggests that reducing the jar's height could affect the water level rise due to less trapped hot air.
Jimmy87
Messages
692
Reaction score
19
Hi, we did this experiment as an introduction to pressure where you stand a candle on top of a small puddle of water on the bottom of a plate. You then put a glass jar over it and when the candle burns out the water level goes up inside the jar. I found this which shows the experiment if I haven't described it properly:



We were told that the candle burns the oxgyen in the glass jar and this is why it rises. However after reading I found contradicting sources e.g. http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/lab/experiments/why-does-the-water-rise/. Where it says that this line of thinking is a common misconception. Please could someone explain the correct way? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i suspect its because the hot gases are now rapidly cooling thus dropping the pressure inside, the water moves to equalize the pressure on both sides. and hah, if you could do this in horizontal fashion you would get a lot more water to enter.
 
  • Like
Likes Jimmy87
What do people make to the accuaracy of the science behind this link:

http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/pedagogy/waterexperiment/

That there are two effects; one chemical and one physical which balance each other our to start off with hence no water level change when the candle is burning. When the candle burns out there is less air molecules than you started with (as more O2 is consumed than CO2 is released) but the pressure is the same as this is balanced by the increase in temperature. Since the candle has gone out the temperature falls which will decreases the air pressure but not really because the temperature fell so much but because the there are less air molecules than you started with. If you heat up the air and cool it down there would be no pressure change so there must be a loss of air molecules. I definitely did not observe any bubbles coming out from underneath so I don't think air molecules are lost this way but more because of the chemical symbol equation showing less CO2 is released than oxygen is consumed.

I think it seems to fit better because if the oxygen consumption explanation was the only cause then the water level would gradually increase form the start and it doesn't move at all until the candle goes out.
 
Here's what I would hypothesize:

The air above the candle is hot while the candle is burning. That air is less dense than the surrounding air. When you place the glass jar over it, you are trapping the hot air inside it. The candle burns out (because of lack of oxygen) and the air inside the jar cools. That air becomes more dense and creates a volume of relatively low air pressure inside the jar. The pressure difference sucks the water up.

An interesting experiment would be to do the experiment again and reduce the amount of space in the jar that is present above the candle. So make it less tall. Maybe also make the jar fatter so as to keep the jar volume constant. The less space above the candle, the less hot air you trap when placing the jar over it, and (I would think) the less air there is to cool and create a zone of low pressure, and the less water to rise.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top