What they observed was that the impact of a weight against the mouth of a bottle triggers a compression wave, which hits the bottom of the bottle and bounces off as an expansion wave. Then the expansion wave hits the free surface of the liquid and bounces back as a compression wave, and so on and so on until the waves are damped out.
Because the free surface is relatively close to the bottom of the bottle, we get a train of expansion and compression waves, driving the rapid cavitation of the air bubbles in the beer. The air bubbles collapse due to the train of expansion-compression waves, forming clouds of much smaller daughter bubbles. These daughter bubbles have a larger surface to volume ratio than their parent bubbles, and therefore expand much more quickly. When the wave hits tiny bubbles throughout the beer, the bubbles begin pulsating and then collapse.
Rodriguez-Rodriguez: "So this is, in few words, this is like an explosion. You think about that, the explosion is actually the sudden release of a huge amount of gas that is trying to make it's way out.
So this is what creates these waves and explosions and these things. So this is in few words what happens with the bubbles. The cloud of bubbles that resulted from the explosion. It goes super fast so it multiplies the volume by ten. In a matter of one millisecond to ten milliseconds. When the bubbles collapse they form tiny fragments. Carbonation is usually the result of carbon dioxide forced into pressurized containers.
Tapping didn't make anything worse, so hey, just keep tapping if it makes you feel good. Related Story. Caroline Delbert Caroline Delbert is a writer, book editor, researcher, and avid reader. This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano. Advertisement - Continue Reading Below.
More From Science. There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence that this techniques either works wonders or is entirely ineffective. The experiment was straightforward. The team cooled the cans in a fridge to drinking temperature and randomly divided them into two groups—those to be shaken and those not to be shaken.
They further subdivided each group into cans that would be tapped and those that would be left untapped. They labeled the base of each can appropriately so no researcher involved in the shaking and tapping could easily tell them apart, even subconsciously.
Unwanted foaming must be at epidemic levels there. The researchers then weighed each can, tapped it by flicking it three times on its side with a finger, and then opened it. Finally, they weighed the can again to determine the amount of beer that had been lost.
The results are palate tickling. Sopina and co compared the amount of beer lost for tapped and untapped cans that had been shaken and found no statistical difference—both lost about 3.
They also found no meaningful difference between the cans that had not been shaken—when opened, they lost about 0. The obvious conclusion is that can tapping does not reduce foaming, a result that must be a considerable disappointment for bicycle-riding, beer-carrying Danes.
And Sopina and co have some ideas. One is that flicking does not provide enough energy to dislodge bubbles, perhaps because the energy is absorbed by the aluminium can and the bulk of the liquid. Unfortunately, the team does not appear to have measured the energy imparted in this way, cleverly leaving the way open for more research.
0コメント