h a l f b a k e r yTrying to contain nuts.
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,
|
|
|
Use a rather large bell jar and use it to lift a large body of water. The partial vacuum causes the swim bladders to enlarge, and the fish float to the top.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Not sure that would work. Fish can easily swim thirty feet up and down without losing control of their buoyancy. |
|
| |
Exactly - wouldn't work. Also, vacuums in the more conventional sense of large suction tubes are already widly used in the fishing industry. |
|
| |
Incidentally, most fish catch the prey not by biting it, but by a really hard suck. |
|
| |
Scale this thing up. Lift the water from the Pacific Ocean to wading level, and prepare to fry up some deliciously popped deep sea creatures. I'm gonna need a bigger reel. |
|
| |
This would require lifting the weight of the water, leaving less hydraulic pressure in the remaining pool (It's a pressure difference, not really a "vacuum"). The fish inside the bell jar may be fine. But grab a fish quickly -- the oceans are connected. |
|
| |
Of course fish can keep their bouyancy from atmospheric to 1 bar (probably much more). But this idea uses less than atmospheric, which I am sure most fish have never experienced. |
|
| |
//Scale this thing up. Lift the water from the Pacific Ocean to wading level// |
|
| |
You fail... at basic physics. You wouldn' be able to lift seawater any higher than (... bloody imperial units, might as well go back to the stone ages) ~32 feet, higher density of salt water notwithstanding. Nice round number of 10m is easier, even though it's 9.81. |
|
| |
[Ling] got it right by saying 30 feet. |
|
| |