h a l f b a k e r yThunk.
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,
|
|
|
By taking a water soluble material, such as sugar resin,
and making it into an egg shape then creating a vacuum
within and sealing the egg to preserve the vacuum one will
have a vacuum egg.
The vacuum created will cause the egg to implode due to
outside air pressure. A vaccum will not
sink in water or
other various liquids but instead will float. So that the
vacuum egg will disolve before the drinker notices the sugar
resin must be highly water soluble.
So the sugar resin must be strong enough to contain the
vacuum and heavy enough to make it sink. If the egg
remains whole, place it in a cup then pour a beverage, say
coffee, in. The liquid being opaque is key so no one will
notice the vacuum egg. When the sugar has disolved
enough the vacuum will suck in a great deal of the coffee
leaving the person with less drink then they thought they
had.
Ask A Scientist: Vacuum Buoyancy
http://www.newton.d.../phy00/phy00844.htm
Result 1 of 17,800 for (a google search) for the words vaccum and buoyancy together. I'm afraid the poster was pulling our collective legs. [jutta, Oct 29 2004]
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:
|
| |
But would an evacuated egg sink? |
|
| |
Exactly what I am wondering, but in a search of the internet I cannot find the topics "buoyancy" and "vacuum" together. |
|
| |
If high school physics still serves me adequately, a vacuum would actually be more buoyant than air. |
|
| |
Well, you'll find it from now on. |
|
| |
Suggest you place your head in the sink and see if it floats. My prediction is that it will bob like a cork. |
|
| |
What is the point of this suggestion? An overly-complicated, difficult-to-manufacture, fragile and prohibitively expensive.....sugar cube? Sorry, but this idea doesn't float. |
|
| |
A vacuum will weigh less than the liquid it displaces, so will float (Archimedes described this more than 2000 years ago). Unless you can identify a suitable soluble sugar with the strength to contain an egg-sized vacuum, and the density to make it sink, then this idea should be [marked–for–deletion] bad science, magic. |
|
| |
"what is the point ...?" to make a mess in the kitchen of course. Boys.... |
|
| |
Its not like you'd have to drill a hole and suck the air out, you could have a heated egg shaped mold with a small amount of liquid sugar in it spinning in a multi-directional centrifuge as it cools. Wouldn't the fact that it's egg shaped make for a strong enough container to not collapse while holding in a partial vacuum?
Now if I can just figure out how to suspend a peanut in there... |
|
| |
Now that i know vacuums are less heavy than water I
know this would not work by the vacuum alone. Thanks to
(jutta) for that link and (suctionpad) for the idea to make
the sugar resin used more heavy enough to sink. I will
adjust the idea to reflect this. |
|
| |
Vacuums are lighter than the air they displace? Tell that to my Hoover, it's heavy as a brick. Joking aside, this sinking egg idea just doesn't float. Well, OK, it does. That's the problem. Look up the ideas for "vacuum spheres" here. Many people, including myself, have done the math to see what sort of forces are created when dealing with vacuum vessels. Sugar just ain't gonna cut it, nor is anything else that you'd be able to hide in a glass. |
|
| |
Seeing the reaction of someone whose sugar cubes briefly float on top of their tea might be fun, though. |
|
| |
Strange. I don't know what numbers everyone else is using, but mine work out fine. Well, as long as you start out with a very thick egg and a very small vacuum bubble. Or you could switch from the egg model to a paper cup with a false sugar bottom. |
|
| |
Oh, and I'm with [oniony] about the idea. Highly expensive way of cheating people out of a cheap yet high-profit item. Not going to bun it though. |
|
| |
[jutta] Yes. That idea I would have bunned. |
|
| |
So we'd be getting more volume reduction simply through displacement, but not much from the actual vacuum. Seems like you'd be just as well off dropping in a big lump of sugar, without all the added trouble of making an airtight shell. |
|
| |
Of course you would. And much better off skipping the whole proceedure. But I don't think that's the point. Though I don't really know the point. |
|
| |
Really any gas would do the same thing, except bubbles would be visible briefly. With hot beverages, I think the egg would dissolve very quickly. Perhaps even before the cup was filled. This would mask the bubbles. |
|
| |
Heh. And the point, even further. |
|
| |
The purpose here (as I understand it: to confuse or trick a drinker) doesn't especially require a vacuum: a conventionally hollow shell would work just as well, although it would leave air bubbles. |
|
| |
But many trick glasses/mugs already exist, which divert the drink into a false bottom or completely contain the drink inside the clear hollow walls. |
|
| |
My own personal favorite for serving the victim less than they thought they were getting are the trick mugs with frogs in the bottom. |
|
| |