Starting a fire with a Starbucks cup

[Jenn]

Comment: I came across this video on YouTube. It's got to be a joke, but the science sounded good... but the fire looked very fake. Can you make a fire using friction of a Starbucks cup and hot beverage sleeve?

[WonkoTheSane]

Not sure why rubbing the ring at the top of the cup would start a fire at the bottom. Not sure why the fire would start inside the cup instead of where the "reaction" is supposed to be happening. Not sure why we never see the inside of the cup.

Actually, I know why we don't see the inside of the cup. It's a fake job.

Wonko

[TrekkerScout]

The fire started from the bottom of the cup (seen at 2:29 in the video), nowhere near the cardboard ring. Definitely fake.

[Dark Blue]

who the hell gets themselves so far lost that they need to be starting fires but remembers to bring along a carmel machiato? If if it were true, which I think it is obviously fake, I don't think it would be that useful.

[AnglRdr]

"Just below the Rocky Mountains?"

[Troberg]

To ignite a fire by rubbing, you need to apply quite a lot of pressure, which would demolish the cup.

On the other hand, that guy had enough energy to self-ignite...

[BenPenguin]

Somebody is underneith the camera with a lighter. They set fire to the bottom of the cup on the other side when the bottom of the cup is off screen. That is what it looks like to me.

[Foxy Lady]

Looks like a rejected act from "America's Got Talent".

Of course, he's holding the cup bottom below camera range during the "trick".

[Brad from Georgia]

If anyone could stand to have a long, leisurely dinner with this guy, God would surely give that person a get-out-of-hell free card.

[Darth Credence]

The biggest flag that this is fake to me is that he is talking about sodium glycol. AFAIK there is no such thing. Since glycol is an alcohol with two hydroxyl groups, and the reaction of sodium with an alcohol is to replace the hydroxyl group with the sodium, I don't see how sodium glycol could exist.

[Dropbear]

The video supports my theory that credibility is inversely proportional the amount of chest hair revealed.

Dropbear

[Broken Sword]

Originally Posted by Dropbear

The video supports my theory that credibility is inversely proportional the amount of chest hair revealed.

Chuck Norris begs to differ.

[Dropbear]

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

Chuck Norris begs to differ.

Actually he proves my point.

*Dons antiflame suit for protection from Chuck Norris fanboys (and girls)*

Dropbear

Evidently he's trying to fill the gap left by the passing of Billy Mays?

[Debunker]

Um, if you go to the guy's website you'll see he's basically a comedian. So why is anyone trying to take this this seriously?

[Tweetilynn]

I think it's because Jenn received an Email asking if it was real. Then we just alll started making fun.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by Debunker

So why is anyone trying to take this this seriously?

Any images or videos I post in this forum are put up because people have sent it in to question the veracity. This is posted here because people do believe and are taking it seriously, and some of their skeptical friends sent it to us for a little help in disproving it.

[Sjö]

Originally Posted by TrekkerScout

The fire started from the bottom of the cup (seen at 2:29 in the video), nowhere near the cardboard ring. Definitely fake.

Also, when the smoke starts rising, it comes from the inside of the cup, not the outside where the cup and the sleeve touch.