I watched the video jakesteele linked, and frankly, I’m a little skeptical about how hot it was. My friends and I tried walking across coals once in the firepit in my backyard (yeah, yeah, we were in high school, whaddayawant), and the fact that his path was dark before and after he walked across it tells me it was at least better than what we had. We left footprints, because there was a thin enough layer of ash that our feet were picking it up. He’s not even doing that, so I have to surmise that he’s working with a much thicker layer of ash than we were. Hell, other than a few dramatic fiery bits on the edges, the path isn’t even glowing at all. You call it the power of positive thinking, I call it the power of being a damn sissy. Come back when you’ve walked 55 yards across glowing coals and we’ll talk.
You’re making an unreasonable demand here jakesteele. It’s the world record because it’s not an easy feat to do, mind-over-matter or just pure physics.
People have shown that you don’t need to have a particular mindset to walk distances that originally were claimed to require special preparation and a strong mind, but if the distance is far enough and/or the conditions bad enough, you’ll still feel the heat. And to keep going then requires determination and thick skin.
Demanding that someone repeat the feat of the most determined fire walker in the world, to prove that he wasn’t walking on a particularly ashy pit, and has thick soles… If the top ten 100m dash runners in the world claimed they did it due to psychic powers, would you demand scientists run the distance in 9.7 seconds?
This thread is getting a bit tangled. Let’s see if I can help.
(1) Randi and the million dollars. No-one walking on hot coals is going to win the prize because they wouldn’t be eligible. It isn’t a demonstration of any psychic or paranormal power beyond known science. It’s just a demonstration that bare feet can tolerate high temperatures for a time because of how thermal conductivity works.
It’s also an interesting demonstration that how hot something is and how quickly it can convey heat to bare skin are two different things. You can put your hand in an oven at 400 degrees and keep it there for a long time, because air is a poor conductior of heat. But if you heat a metal cake tin to the same temperature, you can’t bear to touch it for more than a split second, because metal is a very good conductor of heat. Glowing red hot embers can be at a temp of several hundred degs, but you can walk on them for a time because they are only moderately good heat conductors, so the heat energy doesn’t get to your feet quite quickly enough to burn you.
(2) The apparent world record distance versus other demonstrations. As I wrote before, there are countless things that can affect how long it feels tolerable to walk along the fire pit. You cannot compare any two given firewalks because you don’t know if you are comparing like with like. If you rake the ashes and embers down and leave them to cool for a long time, so they no longer glow, then of course you can walk for longer than if you go across while everything is still red hot.
One of the demonstrations I gave was for TV. It was done after sunset and the director wanted the coals to be still glowing red hot… because it looks good on camera. If there had been less emphasis on telegenic qualities, maybe we would have left the embers a bit longer, giving them a chance to cool down, so I and the other walkers could have done a longer walk.
As I keep saying… there are lots of variables to consider. I’ve been to and helped organise public firewalks, where the pit is deliberately kept to a fairly short distance, such as 12 steps. This is not because ‘skeptics’ can’t firewalk for longer distances. It’s for a host of other reasons. Because a wide range of people are taking part, young and old alike, and you want a distance that everyone can walk along. Because 12 steps is enough to demonstrate the point and be fun. Because the fire trench is dangeorus and has to be carefully supervised, and superivising 12 steps of red hot material is easier than supervising a longer stretch. Because maybe the people who own the location are happy for you to dig a trench in their turf that is 12 paces long, but not a much longer one.
So be cautious in the way you compare different firewalks… you never know if you are making a fair comparison.
Yeah, and it has to be an important scientist, like Stephen Hawking.
Yeah, I’ll go along with that, it sounds reasonable and very plausible. It still looks cool and pretty fierce.
Another demonstration of that is something they used to do with the material used on the Space Shuttle tiles.
They would get a block of it glowing hot, then pick it up with their bare hands/fingers.
I can only speak for my one time experience with it, but when we did it (1999 I think?) they did use a lot of water. Remove shoes and socks, roll up pants cuffs, step into a shallow pool of cold water, walk (don’t run) flat footed for 10 feet accross the coals, step onto a piece of cold water drenched sod and wife your feet. This must have been a different or wrong method.
This is my new favorite typo.
The guy in question was even hospitalised after a previous record attempt.
Interesting post from Hampshire. Plainly, different people organising firewalks believe it should be done in different ways. In one of my previous posts I cited a few reasons for wanting to have dry feet. Another is that if your feet are wet or moist, it increases the chances of some speck of hot material actually sticking to the foot - which is something you want to avoid at all costs. For all these reasons, at every firewalk I’ve had anything to do with, there has been emphasis on the need to have dry feet.
The usual set up has been a dry mat or layers of dry towelling at the start, then the actual fire trench, and then a shallow ‘foot bath’ of water which is replaced on a regular basis. All walkers are told to stand still with their feet in the water for at least 5 seconds at the end of their walk, whether they think they need to or not. This is just in case some small speck has adhered to the foot without their realising it. In other words, dry feet start, wet feet finish.
It’s interesting to hear that some people do it differently, but I still think ‘dry first’ is safer and better!
Probably. While doing the “wet” method didn’t leave me with any severe burns it still felt very, very hot and afterwards felt like I had sunburn on the bottom of my feet. I’d like to try the “dry” method to see if it’s more comfortable.