h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
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. |
|
| |