Slashdot Log In
The Physics of Beer Bubbles
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Aug 05, 2007 06:09 PM
from the researchers-put-in-a-lot-of-overtime-on-this-one dept.
from the researchers-put-in-a-lot-of-overtime-on-this-one dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "Yesterday, I told you about virtual beer. Today, we follow two North America researchers who are studying the physics of real beer bubbles. 'Singly scattered waves form the basis of many imaging techniques such as radar or seismic exploration.' But pouring beer in a mug involves multiply scattered acoustic waves. They are more complex to study, but they can be used to look at various phenomena, such as predicting volcanic eruptions or understanding the movement of particles in fluids like beer. They also could be used to monitor the structural health of bridges and buildings or the stability of food products over time. Read more for additional references and a photo showing how the researchers monitor beer bubbles."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Frosty Piss (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Frosty Piss (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Under the wrong influence... (Score:4, Funny)
More Research on the Subject (Score:5, Funny)
I'm in the wrong business (Score:4, Funny)
Read more for additional references and a photo showing how the researchers monitor beer bubbles.
People are getting paid to study beer? Where do I sign up?
Work for Anheuser-Busch (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At your local micro-brewery (Score:3, Interesting)
Nowadays the thing I ask myself is "will this job be of any value if civilisation collapses?" If you work in a call centre or IT, be very afraid...but if you can fix a broken irrigation pump or generator, build a hou
Possible uses (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus this gives the added advantage of being able to recruit college students that are torn between a degree in Art History, and one in Math by telling them that they'll be forced to work with beer. It's a Win/Win situation!
Yahoo reference (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yahoo reference (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yahoo reference (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
What about tea? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What about tea? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course the Infinite Improbability Drive is powered by tea.
But Poul Anderson had a real beer-powered spaceship. [fantasticfiction.co.uk]
Parent
Coming up next... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Einstein already studied the subject. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
guinness beer guys. (Score:5, Funny)
guinness beer guys: "Mixing math with beer? Brilliant!!"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One thing that's always interested me... (Score:5, Interesting)
It takes about half an hour for this pattern to form, and for the life of me, I can't figure out what makes it!
Anyone?
Re:One thing that's always interested me... (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I would like to help you out, but a poured beer has never sat for 30 minutes in my presence.
Cheers
Re:One thing that's always interested me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:One thing that's always interested me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Splitting the beer atom (Score:2)
- Stealth Dave
Ig Nobel is pleased! (Score:2)
Getting the cash (Score:5, Funny)
And now for a semi-useful related result (Score:2)
It's all on why bubbles in Guinness move down.
They're obviously just trolling for an IgNoble... (Score:2)
Futurama Bender Beer Brewing robot (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.asciimation.co.nz/bender [asciimation.co.nz]
René Thoms: catastrophe theory (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, he developed a theory. It wasn't until the early 1990s when I was playing in a band and I left a beer on my bass rig for one really short song that anyone proved the actual catastrophe.
Completely flat.
Re:Devil's Advocate here. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientific breakthroughs aren't needles in haystacks, waiting to be found through tedious searching, and if only we made everyone look for them we'd find them sooner. Instead we let scientists research as they wish, the exact requirements for usefulness being decided by sources of funding, and eventually enough seemingly-unrelated, small conclusions come together to yield the breakthrough.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument sounds as though you are adopting the "monkeys at typewriters" view. Although I'll grant that some great achievements have been made by combining smaller conclusions together (technically that's almost the definition of science), there have been a number of things that were discovered as the result of dedicated, untiring study and research. Consider the Manhatten Project, the polio vaccine, and the Apollo NASA project. Each relied, in part, on other seemingly random research, but the true nature of the breakthroughs came from the mandate that brought the projects together. (In fact, it's a debatable point that the Apollo project represents the largest, and most expensive, scientific project conceived for a single purpose in recorded history)
The bottom line is there is a clear causal relationship between directed scientific study and scientific results. That's not to say that an AIDS cure, for example, will be guaranteed to be discovered should scientists be thrown at the problem. However, I think it's incorrect to think that breakthroughs can't be found sooner if more research were directed towards their discovery.
Do I think an AIDS cure could be found if we required every person with a scientific background to research it? Absolutely - if one exists, and I believe one does. Science has proven time and again that, when motivated by necessity, it is quite capable. Penicillin, although previously researched, was difficult to mass produce until the mid-40s. It was due, in large part, to the dedicated work of Florey & Chain, that made the necessary breakthroughs leading to expanded use - and that was partly due to the urgent need for the drug during WW2.
The point is there should be some scrutiny involved in academic research. I have a hard time stomaching stories which expand upon seemingly ludicrous scientific research. If it is the result of random ennui being "itched" by a scientist in his free time, that's fantastic. If it's the result of a directed, 6+ figure research grant, I'm more concerned. There are some issues in society that must be solved by applied science, and should be done in an expedient fashion. If that means we need to take scientists and make them research some topics, perhaps we should. If the world is facing a pandemic such as AIDS, SARS, or Avian Influenza, frankly I want there to be an all-out science "assualt" on the problem. Same goes for a potential NEO collision. And if the money for the research programs comes from taxpayers (as it does for some studies), then "laypeople" have every right to scrutinize the process.
All too often us "laypeople" are fed stories where a scientist heads up a multimillion research project that studies frivolous things, and the justification is that it could lead to diverse breakthroughs, usually related to a recent event. For example, this article points out how the research could help improve techniques in studying the structural integrity of bridges. I actually had to verify the article date because this seemed like a pandering to the recent bridge collapse, although in reality it's just a grim coincidence. Although it would be hard to quantify, I'm willing to guess that the number of scientific discoveries found by accident would be less than the number of discoveries that came about as the result of directed research. Using the penicillin reference, the original antibacterial nature of penicillin may have been an accidental discovery - but the refinement, production, delivery, and derivation of alternative penicillin treatments are all results of directed study.
For what it's worth, I notice in the article that this "beer study" wasn't the focus of the scientist's work, so I'm not as concerned. (It seems from his own admission that it's more of a related diversion.)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Bubbles in Guinness? (Score:2)
Re:Devil's Advocate here. (Score:5, Funny)
If they can spend $17 billion a year on NASA to launch a few people into space to do nothing of use, they can spend a couple of billion to get me a pub-like pint of ale at home, at supermarket prices.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, it seems that after a few weeks of just submitting articles to lull the editors, he's returned, as he ALWAYS does, to pimping his own "blog" (of plagiarised stories and pictures) linked "Read more for additional references ..."
Re: (Score:2)
Don't read it!
This would be the point of a filter, Roland. (shhh about this being ac as well.)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't act like you've never done it... except the several of you that will, I'm in no position to make comments
Re:Roland Zonkpaille (Score:4, Informative)
Im not saying that its wrong to do this - but dont be fooled into thinking that his new links are somehow 'genuine' and hes not whoring as usual.
Parent