5 ms·

Why is a mostly-incorrect* analysis of candles on the frontpage? Just because Carmack is saying it? *: Wattage might be the same, but the effect on air quality

by aqme28 4y ago

Why is a mostly-incorrect* analysis of candles on the frontpage? Just because Carmack is saying it? *: Wattage might be the same, but the effect on air quality is different. Humans don't exhale carbon monoxide and smoke.

medstrom 4y ago
It's not incorrect, just misuse of "air quality". In principle it looks like candles and humans could have a very similar effect, because both work by the process of combustion. Humans even supply fat as fuel which is similar to the candle wax. But the details differ so of course different gases could come out as a side effect. Both consume oxygen, which is certainly part of "air quality". But the lesson could've been narrowed down to just oxygen, "air quality" involves other things. Seems main takeaway is that one candle = one human, wrt. oxygen in the room. If the numbers are right.
- danans 4y ago
  > It's not incorrect, just misuse of "air quality". To ignore the the central subject of the comment - air quality - in order to call it "not incorrect" is doing quite a bit of work. > Seems main takeaway is that one candle = one human, wrt. oxygen in the room. If the numbers are right. If we can ignore air quality, what is the difference between this and the comparison between 2 60lb dogs and a human in a room? Or any other animals of similar mass that respirate in the same way? Clearly the comment was an overtly reductive missive targeted at recent concerns about air quality issues created by indoor combustion.
  - medstrom 4y ago
    I only said candle=human with regards to oxygen. Agree a candle is different because of byproduct gases. Strongly suspect that Carmack said "air quality" sloppily and meant specifically the oxygen aspect of it.
    - danans 4y ago
      > Strongly suspect that Carmack said "air quality" sloppily and meant specifically the oxygen aspect of it. Then how is his comment topical or even interesting? It sure sounds like he's wading into the indoor air quality debate that ignited (pun intended) around gas stoves in the last week. But as others have noted, he's a "great man" so his opinions, well informed or not, get broadcast.
- aqme28 4y ago
  A statement about "air quality" that fundamentally "misuses" the term is pretty much an incorrect statement.
blablabla123 4y ago
Not sure, but I remember the comparison with a light bulb. A bit artificial but it puts unintuitive units in perspective
- gnull 4y ago
  A lightbulb's energy consumption and heat emission don't seem intuitive to me at all.
  - aqme28 4y ago
    Doesn't an e.g. 60W lightbulb output 60W of heat? I can't see any reason it wouldn't just be 1:1.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      It's not so simple anymore. Now you have a 60W (equivalent) bulb outputting 9 watts. If you ignore the numbers you can still easily feel the heat, but it's not so easy to translate into human equivalents.
      - gnull 4y ago
        Yes, human equivalent is the key. Even if 60W is 60W, how much is that in the feeling I get on my skin?
      - aqme28 4y ago
        Isn’t that because in that case, 60W refers to the legacy socket size rather than the power output?
        BenjiWiebe 4y ago
        No, it refers to the legacy light output of a 60W incandescent bulb. You can get a large range of wattages for one socket size.
gnull 4y ago
I heard that in some cold snowy places it's recommended to keep a few thick candles in your car in case you get stuck in a blizzard. Those can burn for a long time, light helping someone find you (say, at night), and they can warm you up a bit, maybe you can even get you some warm tea. That surprised me. Reading this adds to that feeling of surprise, and gives a clearer idea of how much heat they emit. I say it's a good post, if one reads it right. (It must be clear to most people that it's taking shortcuts in reasoning about air quality, so you must be mindful of the context you apply this to.)
whateveracct 4y ago
"because Carmack is saying it" has been a guaranteed upvote party since HNers were still on Digg
- holy_based 4y ago
  [dead]
mariusor 4y ago
I agree, I am also starting to get a bit annoyed at all these posts pointing to everything Mr. Carmack says. I know who he is, I am enjoying these posts on twitter where they have their place, but let's not focus all the nitpickyness of HN on every little bit of trivia the man says.

by aqme28 4y ago

medstrom 4y ago

It's not incorrect, just misuse of "air quality". In principle it looks like candles and humans could have a very similar effect, because both work by the process of combustion. Humans even supply fat as fuel which is similar to the candle wax. But the details differ so of course different gases could come out as a side effect. Both consume oxygen, which is certainly part of "air quality". But the lesson could've been narrowed down to just oxygen, "air quality" involves other things. Seems main takeaway is that one candle = one human, wrt. oxygen in the room. If the numbers are right.

danans 4y ago
> It's not incorrect, just misuse of "air quality". To ignore the the central subject of the comment - air quality - in order to call it "not incorrect" is doing quite a bit of work. > Seems main takeaway is that one candle = one human, wrt. oxygen in the room. If the numbers are right. If we can ignore air quality, what is the difference between this and the comparison between 2 60lb dogs and a human in a room? Or any other animals of similar mass that respirate in the same way? Clearly the comment was an overtly reductive missive targeted at recent concerns about air quality issues created by indoor combustion.
- medstrom 4y ago
  I only said candle=human with regards to oxygen. Agree a candle is different because of byproduct gases. Strongly suspect that Carmack said "air quality" sloppily and meant specifically the oxygen aspect of it.
  - danans 4y ago
    > Strongly suspect that Carmack said "air quality" sloppily and meant specifically the oxygen aspect of it. Then how is his comment topical or even interesting? It sure sounds like he's wading into the indoor air quality debate that ignited (pun intended) around gas stoves in the last week. But as others have noted, he's a "great man" so his opinions, well informed or not, get broadcast.
aqme28 4y ago
A statement about "air quality" that fundamentally "misuses" the term is pretty much an incorrect statement.

blablabla123 4y ago

Not sure, but I remember the comparison with a light bulb. A bit artificial but it puts unintuitive units in perspective

gnull 4y ago
A lightbulb's energy consumption and heat emission don't seem intuitive to me at all.
- aqme28 4y ago
  Doesn't an e.g. 60W lightbulb output 60W of heat? I can't see any reason it wouldn't just be 1:1.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    It's not so simple anymore. Now you have a 60W (equivalent) bulb outputting 9 watts. If you ignore the numbers you can still easily feel the heat, but it's not so easy to translate into human equivalents.
    - gnull 4y ago
      Yes, human equivalent is the key. Even if 60W is 60W, how much is that in the feeling I get on my skin?
    - aqme28 4y ago
      Isn’t that because in that case, 60W refers to the legacy socket size rather than the power output?
      - BenjiWiebe 4y ago
        No, it refers to the legacy light output of a 60W incandescent bulb. You can get a large range of wattages for one socket size.

gnull 4y ago

I heard that in some cold snowy places it's recommended to keep a few thick candles in your car in case you get stuck in a blizzard. Those can burn for a long time, light helping someone find you (say, at night), and they can warm you up a bit, maybe you can even get you some warm tea. That surprised me. Reading this adds to that feeling of surprise, and gives a clearer idea of how much heat they emit. I say it's a good post, if one reads it right. (It must be clear to most people that it's taking shortcuts in reasoning about air quality, so you must be mindful of the context you apply this to.)

whateveracct 4y ago

"because Carmack is saying it" has been a guaranteed upvote party since HNers were still on Digg

holy_based 4y ago
[dead]

mariusor 4y ago

I agree, I am also starting to get a bit annoyed at all these posts pointing to everything Mr. Carmack says. I know who he is, I am enjoying these posts on twitter where they have their place, but let's not focus all the nitpickyness of HN on every little bit of trivia the man says.