|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:17 pm
There are many ways people have said Pyrokinesis has been done. There are also many ways in which people go about doing this art. But all versions of this have one underlying theme and definition: To excite atoms of objects so that heat may be induced from said object. The object of pyrokinesis didn't always use to be to make fire. It used to be used to make heat in general, people found that if molecules were excited, then heat was exerted in the form of energy. It wasn't until later on that they discovered that the molecules, after much excitement, could create a fire (given all conditions to make a fire ARE met). Now, to go about doing pyrokinesis, you have to understand where it came from. This kinesis (as well as many others) branched from psychokinesis, or the ability to move things with your mind (statically). Psychokinesis and telekinesis are often confused, Psychokinesis is just the moving part, telekinesis is moving it somewhere. Now, Psychokinesis's connection to pyrokinesis is this, in order to excite the molecules, you must gain control over them and move them to the point where they become excited. Now for pyrokinesis itself, once the molecules are excited, the release heat in the form of energy. This is where Psi comes in, you then use a psi-ball (or bubble if you prefer that) and trap the heat inside, where it can be further excited to ignite a flame. This ability requires a more than basic understanding of the use of psi, since this is also a psionic related art. I'll use the classic candle technique and go into detail with it as an example.
Take an unlit candle and set it on the ground in front of you (preferrably eye level). Once this is done then light another candle and focus on the flame, see it's every movement and come up with a gist of how the flame is freely moving. Once you have become "one" with the movement of the flame, direct your attention to the unlit candle. You should see the outline of a flame on the unlit one. From here, you should focus on the wick, try to picture it at a molecular stage (if not, it's fine) and extend your psi to the wick, from here you have to focus on your psi moving rapidly against the wick, but you also have to focus on the molecules being excited. After you feel that some heat has been created, then make a psi ball to trap the heat. From here, excite the molecules of the wick even more so that more and more heat builds up and if you practice this enough, then eventually a small flame will come from the wick. It won't be big, after the small flame ignites release all of your psi and let it build, and then you're finished. This is a somewhat complicated technique, but it is ever so classic.
I hope you've enjoyed this... Questions and Comments are appreciated, XD.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:13 am
interesting idea but I must tell you that exciting molecules dont make fire it would only make light.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:46 am
Really... Now we must cover the definition of the word heating
Heating: To increase the molecular or kinetic energy of (an object).
Ok, now, the kinetic energy is basically the energy needed to move. And if we can make it move, than it WILL produce heat. And heat at a high enough temperature with oxygen as fuel and the wick as the ignitor, WILL cause a fire.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:49 pm
Necretian Really... Now we must cover the definition of the word heating Heating: To increase the molecular or kinetic energy of (an object). Ok, now, the kinetic energy is basically the energy needed to move. And if we can make it move, than it WILL produce heat. And heat at a high enough temperature with oxygen as fuel and the wick as the ignitor, WILL cause a fire. Heat yes but not fire and at high enough tempture yes but you still need fuel and not just oxygen becuase you would have to get upto temps high as 500degrees. But if you use a existing fire and seprate the oxygen fomr everything else in the air you can cause the fire to increase now that is more along the lines of TK and not PK but if you use a combination of both you can do anything from using a spark to blow up a building to put out a forest fire.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:00 pm
The FLCL Guy Necretian Really... Now we must cover the definition of the word heating Heating: To increase the molecular or kinetic energy of (an object). Ok, now, the kinetic energy is basically the energy needed to move. And if we can make it move, than it WILL produce heat. And heat at a high enough temperature with oxygen as fuel and the wick as the ignitor, WILL cause a fire. Heat yes but not fire and at high enough tempture yes but you still need fuel and not just oxygen becuase you would have to get upto temps high as 500degrees. But if you use a existing fire and seprate the oxygen fomr everything else in the air you can cause the fire to increase now that is more along the lines of TK and not PK but if you use a combination of both you can do anything from using a spark to blow up a building to put out a forest fire. That is a good way to do it, but I wrote my technique with the intent of using as little PK and TK as possible... I wanted this to be mostly the work of Pyrokinesis... And though the temp for a fire to catch is high, it IS possible... And I say Oxygen because pure Oxygen is HIGHLY flammable and can easily catch fire with enough heat. Fire is nothing but heat, heat is nothing but energy, fire has to start as heat, it is never fire until a high enough temperature is reached... Anyone who knows PK and TK could make an already existing flame move and get bigger or smaller... but it's not easy to make a fire... It takes real knowledge of heat energy and fire itself and what a fire needs to ignite... That's what a real pyrokinetic needs to know.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:38 pm
Facinating, and well thought out. Ebert and Rouper gives it two thumbs up. wink
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:36 pm
Joshua_Ritter Facinating, and well thought out. Ebert and Rouper gives it two thumbs up. wink Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it... I know there are a few things that I may not have clarified and I'm working on fixing that, XD.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:45 pm
The FLCL Guy interesting idea but I must tell you that exciting molecules dont make fire it would only make light. You are wrong... Exciting molecules doesn't make light, exciting electrons does... and that's at the subatomic level, not at the molecular level. Now, molecules are constantly moving, vibrating if you will, and when you excite molecules, you make them vibrate even more. And what is heat but the measurement of the amount of movement in an object, which means, the more it moves, the more heat it produces.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:14 pm
Great guide you got here Necratian! Really in depth.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:17 pm
Friction makes heat, the energy used to make friction would give off a glow. If the energy was on a physical level, as it would have to be to make a flame, or anything for that matter, it would become excited and rub together frantically, creating friction. It is my understanding that friction is used to kindle a match.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:29 pm
MicaiahCreston Friction makes heat, the energy used to make friction would give off a glow. If the energy was on a physical level, as it would have to be to make a flame, or anything for that matter, it would become excited and rub together frantically, creating friction. It is my understanding that friction is used to kindle a match. According to Quantum Mechanics, all fundamental particles are constantly vibrating, or oscillating for lack of a better term, which is why Absolute Zero is an impossibility, so you are correct when you say that friction causes heat. And my techniques on here do involve friction, of course, but I do not directly mention it for fear of having to explain it completely and explain it's relevance to this.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|