🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hketola.726126290@uclagsm>, hketola@agsm.ucla.edu (Heikki Ketola) writes:
|> If you cannot finish a bottle of champagne you might want to recap the
|> bottle.  Presumably we all have tried that once,  and I guess we left
|> it at that  -it is hard to recap a champagne bottle.  So what can you
|> do?  You certainly don't want to waste the bottle by leaving it open
|> -it would taste like a can of flat Coke the next day.

Actually, (proper) champagne tends to go flat rather slowly.  I've
heard that there is some sort of compound formed between the alcohol
and the carbon dioxide (hydrogen bonding would seem to me to be the
only obvious candidate).  You may believe that or not as you choose.

As for tasting like flat Coke: surely it would have to taste like
carbonated Coke beforehand?  Since I uniformly avoid carbonated (as
opposed to fermented-fizzy) drinks, I'm not really qualified to judge,
but would people _buy_ champagne if it could be substituted by some
cheap sticky brown gloop?

|> I have observed people from both the US and Germany solving this
|> problem this way:  they stick a spoon (handle down) in the champagne
|> bottle and claim without a blink of the eye that the spoon prevents
|> the  champagne from going flat.  Mind you,  with any stretch of
|> imagination you cannot call the spoon a tight fit.
|> 
|> Do you folks believe in this?  I can't believe that it works,  but
|> then being a cheapskate I am I haven't done any empirical experiments
|> either. It just cannot work  -or can it?

This topic has been discussed here in the past.  I don't believe the
supposed effect, but people _do_ swear by it.  If champagne doesn't go
flat anyway, sticking a spoon in the neck of the bottle will surely
(as it were) _work_.
--
Robin (Campaign for Real Radio 3) Fairbairns       rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
"They had twelve years to lay in wait for us" - Bush supporter on Nov 4

My wife is French, and swears by it! But then again she believes that if
you cut hair, it grows faster (any comments on this latter much appreciated).

DB
.

It works. To paraphrase a well-known saying, the proof of the
bubbling is in the drinking. So try it. Better still, test
it. You'll need two fridges, same size, same make, either
empty or loaded with exactly the same contents. Two bottles
of champagne or sparkling wine, opened at the same time
and same temperature. Drink half of each (or pour half of
each out into the sink if you're religion forbids you 
touching the stuff). Now put each bottle into one fridge
and wait 24 hours. Take them out, look, pour a glass
from each, look at the rise of the bubbles, taste them.
Repeat the test a few days later with third parties to
whom you conceal the origin of the bottles.

Incidentally, the lower the wine level in the bottle,
the lesser the effect of the spoon. At half-full, the
bubbles will keep for 24 hours and more. With only
a glassful left in the bottle, there will be no 
measurable difference (at least to my eyes and palate) between
the bottle with the spoon and the one without.

I have no explanation for the phenomenon, but lose
no sleep over it, thinking of Lord Kelvin of the 
Royal Society who published proof after proof that man
could not fly in heavier-than-air machines, and thinking
of all those articles in learned journal which, in my
childhood, repeated that we could never go to the moon
because of the "vitesse de libe'ration" (don't know the
term in English, still remember it in French).

rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
>|> I have observed people from both the US and Germany solving this
>|> problem this way:  they stick a spoon (handle down) in the champagne
>|> bottle and claim without a blink of the eye that the spoon prevents
>|> the  champagne from going flat.  Mind you,  with any stretch of
>|> imagination you cannot call the spoon a tight fit.
>|> 
>|> Do you folks believe in this?  I can't believe that it works,  but
>|> then being a cheapskate I am I haven't done any empirical experiments
>|> either. It just cannot work  -or can it?

>This topic has been discussed here in the past.  I don't believe the
>supposed effect, but people _do_ swear by it.  If champagne doesn't go
>flat anyway, sticking a spoon in the neck of the bottle will surely
>(as it were) _work_.

I missed the past discussion. I have tried the spoon trick with a bottle
of beer, and it did work. The beer was not flat 24 hours after the spoon
was put in. I don't think it would last for days, but the spoon definitely
prolonged the beers carbonated life (so to speak). I too want to know,
how does it work?

	    			
				Michael.
-- 
mos@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au	  One never notices what has been done; one
Customised Software		  can only see what remains to be done...
Solutions Centre,Sydney					- Marie Curie
Telecom Australia

In article <1993Jan4.225818.8575@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>, mos@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Michael O'Sullivan) writes...
>rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:

>I missed the past discussion. I have tried the spoon trick with a bottle
>of beer, and it did work. The beer was not flat 24 hours after the spoon
>was put in. I don't think it would last for days, but the spoon definitely
>prolonged the beers carbonated life (so to speak). I too want to know,
>how does it work?

	The October 1991 issue of Physics Today contained an article titled
	"Throught a Beer Glass Darkly" which described in detail the formation
	of beer bubbles and the subsequent physics of same.

	In terse mode, "bubbles begin as invisible clusters or microbubbles
	of CO2 molecuees that grow on rough spots, called "Nucleation sites..."
	(very similar to the formation of raindrops around dust particles.)
	This explains why some people pour a little salt or sugar into their
	beer to create more foam.

	Also it is noted, "CO2 molecules collect at the nucleation site until
	the resulting bubble reaches a critical size and is able to break
	away..."

	The hypothesis is very simple. The spoon must interfere with the
	nucleation process. Hypothesis expansion follows:

	A/ Spoon collects bubbles (we've all seen this,) and slows down the
	   rate of bubble formation by trapping the bubbles due to increased
	   surface tension.

	B/ Spoon collects bubbles, and resultant supply of microscopic dust
	   particles which are sources of nucleation. (Normally after bubble
	   bursts, dust particle drops down, becomes source of another bubble,
	   but particle adheres to spoon, no longer is active nucleation site.)

	Ok folks, now what?

   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   
                                   | \|_)  By the time we've made it, we've 
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  had it. - Malcom Forbes

frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:


>	The hypothesis is very simple. The spoon must interfere with the
>	nucleation process. Hypothesis expansion follows:

>	A/ Spoon collects bubbles (we've all seen this,) and slows down the
>	   rate of bubble formation by trapping the bubbles due to increased
>	   surface tension.

>	B/ Spoon collects bubbles, and resultant supply of microscopic dust
>	   particles which are sources of nucleation. (Normally after bubble
>	   bursts, dust particle drops down, becomes source of another bubble,
>	   but particle adheres to spoon, no longer is active nucleation site.)

>	Ok folks, now what?

I am no physicist, alas, but, in case A/, what would cause the increase in
surface tension? The handle of the spoon does not normally touch the
surface of the liquid. (This is probubbly a silly remark of mine, in
my unwashed ways, I'd think that the spoon touching the liquid would
decrease surface tension...)

I used to, still do, think that it had to do with ionization -- a sort
of weak electrolytic effect. But again, I am a complete ignoramus in
those matters. It's curiosity that prevents me from keeping my mouth
shut.

In article <1993Jan4.224119.8039@trl.oz.au>, jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
|> 
|> It works. To paraphrase a well-known saying, the proof of the
|> bubbling is in the drinking. So try it. Better still, test
|> it. You'll need two fridges, same size, same make, either
|> empty or loaded with exactly the same contents. Two bottles
|> of champagne or sparkling wine, opened at the same time
|> and same temperature. Drink half of each (or pour half of
|> each out into the sink if you're religion forbids you 
|> touching the stuff). Now put each bottle into one fridge
|> and wait 24 hours. Take them out, look, pour a glass
|> from each, look at the rise of the bubbles, taste them.

Why do I need two refrigerators? (And didn't you forget the spoon?)

mt

tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes,
about my experimental conditions for assessing the
effect of spoons on bubbly stuff:


>Why do I need two refrigerators? (And didn't you forget the spoon?)

It's a short story, even though this topic is old. At least
a year ago there was the same discussion, perhaps on another
newsgroup, and some smartass from the CSIRO (an Australian
agronomical research centre), riled me about carrying out
a controlled experiment, with two bottles open, one with
a spoon, another without, in the same fridge. 

Nothing irks me more than people who will say "that can't 
be true" before even trying. And, in this particular case,
it's neither expensive (beer will do), nor requires fine
measuring apparatus: you just cannot miss the difference,
after 24 hours. Champagne gone flat is champagne gone flat,
period, whereas the one with a spoon in it, 24 hours later,
is still as sparkling as it was the moment you poured.

But the fellow in question insisted on a controlled experiment.
So I mailed back to him: "Yes, by all means, we must carry
out a controlled experiment. However, we mustn't put both
bottles in the same fridge. Who knows if the presence of
a spoon in one bottle does not affect the other? So we
need two fridges. Further, they must be loaded with exactly
the same foodstuff, in the same positions, and kept 
precisely at the same temperatures [here followed a list
of the necessary apparatus, and, among the foodstuff needed,
I'd listed truffles, foie gras, caviar...]. Last but not
least, a scientific experiment must be repeatable. Doing
it once is just not right. So, as soon as you've kindly
provided me with two cases each of a variery of French,
Australian, Spanish, Rumanian, and Californian champagne,
and sufficient quantities of the foodstuffs listed about,
two frost-free fridges (1200 litres) of identical make 
and model..... I shall carry out this much needed controlled
experiment, and let you know the results obtained."

I'm still waiting for the Dom Perignon, truffles, foie gras,
and, even, the necessary frost-free fridges. 

jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>I have no explanation for the phenomenon, but lose
>no sleep over it, thinking of Lord Kelvin of the 
>Royal Society who published proof after proof that man
>could not fly in heavier-than-air machines, and thinking
>of all those articles in learned journal which, in my
>childhood, repeated that we could never go to the moon
>because of the "vitesse de libe'ration" (don't know the
>term in English, still remember it in French).

"Escape velocity". I think the problem the early researchers had was the idea
that the only way to achieve "vitesse de liberation" was to quickly accelerate
to that speed from the ground. They didn't take into account slower
acceleration rates (but longer ones) and slingshotting. I believe that when
slingshoting was invented, it was a total revolution in the science of rocketry
and spacecrafts. I think because I seem to remember doing research in Grade 7
about moon flights and found that books before slingshotting were either
"fantastique" or rather pessimestic. Post slingshot had authors doing orbit
trajectories to Mars and back with minimal fuel costs. I really don't know the
date this happened (been awhile since I did that project), but it isn't
mentioned specifically in the books I have read. But then again, I could just
be ignorant. Could someone 'learn' me? :-)
(Edumacate me, that is). :-)


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travers Naran                                           | "We fear
Mail address: naran@fraser.sfu.ca or naran@sfu.ca       |  change. WHACK!
Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada       | WHACK! WHACK!"
Cmpt. Science student wanna-be                          | -Garth 
Trekker, Leaper, Red Dwarf'er, Prober, etc.             |  "Wayne's World"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------