The Physics of Beer Bubbles

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."

Re:Devil's Advocate here.

[chuckymonkey]

Maybe, but sometimes science is about researching things that are fun and fairly mundane. Much of what you take for granted such as a cell phone and computer came from research that many at the time scoffed at saying that it had no practical purpose. So really who are we to say what avenue of research will yield useful results? After all when it comes to fluids there is quite a bit that I'm sure we don't understand and research such as this may provide a little snowball of insight that turns into an avalanche of knowledge. Do I think it will? Not really, but hey they're having fun and who the hell knows where it could lead?

Re:Devil's Advocate here.

[intx13]

It always bothers me when laypeople decide what is worth researching. Any time there's an article in which scientists are studying something without the obvious global impact of an AIDS cure, there is always a handful of posters criticizing their focus. Would we really be any closer to a cure if every person with a scientific background was required to study AIDS, and only AIDS?

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.

Not really

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Bud ain't beer so it's hardly on topic.

Re:Devil's Advocate here.

[Londovir]

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.)

Re:Under the wrong influence...

[Anonymous Coward]

1: Exhale normally
2: Locate cork near nasal orifice
3: Inhale deeply and slowly
4: You should smell vapor coming off the cork

I say people who class wine as a more 'sophisticated' and 'connoisseur' drink are fuckwads. The kind of people who tailor their tastes to what they think will present them as the person they are comfortable being.

I've heard people say 'I don't like the taste of beer' (nobody likes the taste of anything, you acquire all tastes.) and then say 'I like wine, it has so much history'.

Beer is the world's oldest alcoholic beverage. It has more history and more manly funny stories than wine. Wine? Yeah, 'oh trish I was sloshed at the office christmas party and kissed kevin from the mail room'. Ok Sheila you 30 something spinster discovering your sexuality amidst mixed feelings of feminist rage and inadequacy, what a win for Wine that was.

Whereas many a tale of Beer consumption has resulted in sank ships, lion wrestling and discovered gold mines.

Beer FTW!

Re:Devil's Advocate here.

[digitig]

Isn't there something more worth while that scientists could be researching?

More worthwhile than a technique that can be used for monitoring the structural health of bridges? Hey, there must be; it's not as if structural health of bridges is a significant issue anywhere at the moment, is it?