Slashdot Mirror


Mixing the Unmixable

markthebrewer writes "From an article in the New Scientist: Conventional wisdom every 15 year-old knows says that you can't mix oil and water without some kind of surfactant. However a team lead by Richard Pashley from the Australian National University in Canberra have done it simply by first removing all dissolved gases from the water. Apart from the obvious potential improvements in salad dressings, it could have an impact on the manufacture of everything from drugs to paint - anywhere an emulsion is required. Apparently, it will also give some insight into the mysterious 'long-range hydrophobic effect' (or why oil droplets coalesce over surprisingly long distances)." Keep in mind the usual scientific caveat: this experiment doesn't seem to have been replicated by other experimenters yet.

6 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. not real science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Keep in mind the usual scientific caveat: this experiment doesn't seem to have been replicated by other experimenters yet.
    AKA: "Uh, guys, some soap fell into the bottle but let's pretend there isn't any and call it science!"

  2. Re:Excuse me... by willll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    well now that i read the link i no what a surfactant is. and i'm 15. so, here i am.

  3. I call BS by Namds · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has got to be a dupe. Think of all of the biological effects that would be couteracted by this. Hydrophobic/hydrophilic effects are the basic reason why proteins fold the way that they do, and biological system's don't have free gasses floating around. Not to mention what would happen to all of our membranes (note, membrane formation is also due to hydophobic/hydophilic effects). Gasses in a biological system are all bound to something - example - Oxygen is bound to hemoglobin or myoglobin, if it isn't it causes serious problems. If water and oil mix without gasses present then we're in a world of hurt and I'd just be mush right now instead of typing this.

  4. Caveat Emptor... by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Be aware that the New Scientist is not a peer reviewed journal.

    The two guys who claimed that they produced cold fusion in a laboratory also didn't publish in a peer reviewed journal. It turns out they were full of crap. Just 'cause it's written doesn't make it so. Once it's in a peer reviewed journal, I'll seriously be interested (chemistry news on /., is that usual?).

    Anyway, the New Scientist is well known for its overhyping of science.

    --
    "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
  5. Re:hmm by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Salad dressings.... I don't know about you, but I would never trust chemically engineered food. Don't eat anything that you can't make at home!!!!!!!! That includes chicken with no heads...:P

    Hmm....

    * Can't butcher in the city of Albany
    * Can't make bread in my crappy apartment
    * Can't grow vegitables
    * No idea how to make Tofu

    So, er... what can we eat? (And why, exactly, should a species that can eat anything from carrion to dirt to dried meat worry about the genetics of its food? Unless the bugger's toxic, mutative, or just bad tasing I see no problem in eating it.)

  6. Re:Excuse me... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I said: "Lick- bitch.". Surfactant? What's that?

    p.s. I am joking.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"