h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
Sugar weighs heavy on us. Don't make light of the problem.
Could be a good put down, though.' This idea is just aerogel candy' |
|
| |
Edible foam was one of the signature dishes at El Bulli. |
|
| |
Technically, all foam is edible. |
|
| |
So, what's the post about ? |
|
| |
//Technically, all foam is edible.// |
|
| |
Technically you're right, also not technically, but it points
to a
semantic hole in the language. The idea that "edible" or
"eat-able" should mean safe to eat as well leaves the
concept of poison that you can eat, that is, put in your
mouth, chew and swallow, without a word to describe it. |
|
| |
"Here, take these poison candies in case you get caught." |
|
| |
"Then how do I get them in my stomach?" |
|
| |
"But they're not edible." |
|
| |
"Right, OK, chew-able then." |
|
| |
"So they're chew-able, and swallow-able, and you can eat
them, but they're not edible. I'm uncomfortable with
that." |
|
| |
It's fine to leave edible as is, but not without coming up
with a word for stuff that you can easily eat that's deadly
poisonous. I'd suggest the word "eatable" (it's a word, look
it up) be reserved for stuff that can be eaten but
probably shouldn't be. Edible doesn't need both words, in
fact, I've never heard it used. A bowling ball sized chunk
of
polonium is not eatable, a gumball sized piece is. "You
must be
careful with these poison pellets around pets because
they're
eatable.". |
|
| |
I call WIBNI. Any ideas on a way to implement this? |
|
| |
//Technically you're right// |
|
| |
Is there a different kind of right? |
|
| |
Aerogel is silicon and oxygen in a very open lattice
structure. Is a long-chain sugar molecule stiff enough to
create the same sort of structure, with the necessary cross-
linking & stuff? (It's been a long time since I studied organic
chemistry...) |
|
| |
//Technically you're right//
//Is there a different kind of right?// |
|
| |
Technically right is the best kind of right. |
|
| |
//Aerogel is silicon and oxygen in a very open lattice
structure. Is a long-chain sugar molecule stiff enough to
create the same sort of structure, with the necessary cross-
linking & stuff?// |
|
| |
Ummm, I'm going to sayyyyy... sure. |
|
| |
Well, if that can be done, maybe by one of the usual aerogel
production methods, it would be doable. [+] |
|
| |
Yea, I was thinking it would be doable unless it's not. |
|
| |
Does "doable" mean the same as "possible"? |
|
| |
I think this could be done, in a way, via three-D
printing, but I also feel like 3-D printing shouldn't be
allowed here because it could easily become magic. |
|
| |
By my understanding, nanotechnology is allowed here as
long as it's used realistically. |
|
| |
How fluffy is glycogen? The monosacharide ropes of the structure are still going to be quite heavy. |
|
| |