Slashdot Mirror


Swimming As Easy In Syrup As In Water

chthonicdaemon writes "Nature is running a story about scientists at the University of Minnesota who proved that swimming speed is not a large function of the viscosity of the liquid. To do this, they thickened the water in a pool with guar gum. Fun ensued. This is the type of thing that usually keeps to thought experiments. Interesting to see someone prove it."

27 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Forget swimming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about having sex in the stuff?

  2. What about no very low viscosity? by vasqzr · · Score: 4, Interesting


    How come I can't swim in air?

    1. Re:What about no very low viscosity? by dykofone · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure you can. The trick is to make sure you're not touching anything (e.g. ground). At least that's the part that's slowed me down so far. Every time I try and leave the ground I just end up back on it a short time later. (an interesting note: the longer the time period between being in contact with the ground, the more it hurts when I regain contact).

    2. Re:What about no very low viscosity? by |/|/||| · · Score: 3, Funny
      Everybody knows that the trick is simply to hurl your body at the ground, but miss. Try it. The best way to do it is to have somebody distract you at the last moment.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
  3. Terminal Velocity by Arrepiadd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the viscosity of a fluid doesn't influence your speed through it how come you have a terminal velocity while falling in air but not in vacuum.

    And, as someone said, why can't we swim in air?

    1. Re:Terminal Velocity by be951 · · Score: 4, Informative
      If the viscosity of a fluid doesn't influence your speed through it...

      Because that is not actually true. The article seems to describe the experiment fairly well, but the underlying theory quite poorly. If objects (or swimmers) were simply launched into the fluid, the difference would be much more obvious. The key point in the experiment is that you gain about the same amount propelling yourself as you lose due to greater drag for the limited range of viscosities investigated (very high or low viscosity could produce different results).

    2. Re:Terminal Velocity by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Both are actually the same question. Your body is not structured to "swim" in air. Swiming in air is what we call flying. In all cases forward motion is derived by using force to put stuff that was in front of you, behind you, and the reaction is you going forward.

      You are not designed to "float" or "fly" in material as lightly viscous as our atmosphere. The relative density between us, and our lack of a structure designed to produce lift are working against us.

      That's not to say that you can't go a long way towards solving this problem. The suits some skydivers use, with pannels betwen their legs, and from legs to arms, allow them to glide a lot further, and have a different perceived terminal velocity than skydivers without these pannels.

      Our largest failing is that we do not have a wishbone to hang the necesary musculature on for us to convert our arms to wings. This is true even if our bones were filled with air rather than marrow. (side effect, unless the marrow is given a new portion of the body to reside in, our immune system would have some serious issues.)

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    3. Re:Terminal Velocity by Proud+like+a+god · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But when you're travelling through air you're not only countering drag but attempting to create enough lift to counter your weight. Purely forward swimming through air in a weightless environment wouldnt require some energy diverted to counter your weight, quite unlike flying today.

  4. where are the photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    any magazine/newpaper/website that publishes a story like this without photo's should have their ministry of information publishing permit revoked.

  5. Detials here by lhaeh · · Score: 5, Informative
    Going for the goo

    It gives you an idea of how they setup the experement.

    The team devised a Rube Goldberg-like contraption using a large green plastic garbage can, a drill with a mixing head, and a length of PVC piping. The device permitted them to pump the guar gum solution directly into the pool, an operation that took about four hours on a Saturday afternoon.

  6. Re:resistance by Holi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the increased force used to pull your self through the water is offset by the increased viscosity of the fluid.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  7. Bad analogy by El · · Score: 3, Funny

    try running with a large newspaper held in front of you and see how much more difficult it is.Well, yeah, because you keep running into things because you can't see! Also, a newpaper does not remain flat when subjected to wind resistance. Methinks using a stiff piece of cardboard or even a windsurfer sail would be a much better example...

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Bad analogy by rusty0101 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is an even worse analogy than that. The cause of the resistance is not the flat face of the surface, but the flat back of the surface causing turbulance, and drag.

      Put a cone on the back of whatever you are trying to push through the air, and the resistance will be significantly lower.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
  8. Best swimmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The best swimmer should have the body of a snake and the arms of a gorilla," recommends Cussler. Well, as long as we're making ridiculous analogies, I think the best swimmer would have a propeller coming out of their ass!

  9. Why would it? by charlie763 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's really the ratio of the force of friction of you body moving through the water compared to the force of friction of your arms moving in the opposite direction.

    Think about this: If you try to swim in space with its near zero friction, do you go anywhere? No, you don't because there is nothing to push against.

    One thing that might cause a more viscus liquid to slow a swimmer (ignoring fatigue)is the resistance of the liquid to moving behind a swimmer. This creates a vacuum and would be move force for the swimmer to fight.

    I'd like to see them try this experiment in molasses so we can really see if there is a difference!

    --
    Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
  10. Next up: by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Funny

    The mechanics of Natalie Portman locomotion in thermally elevated, coarsely-ground, boiled maize.

  11. Now try it really thick! by iamlucky13 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wish we could've tried this in our fluid's lab!

    I doubt you would get the same effect if you continued to increase the viscosity. The human body has relatively high "form drag" which is resistance due to the shape. At lower viscosities, this would be the significant force. At higher viscosities, the effect of "skin drag" begins to win over. This is caused by shear stress in the boundary layer. In an attempt at English, that means that the fluid immediately in contact with your skin as you swim is moving the same speed as you are. As you move further out, there is a gradient where the layers of the fluid are moving at slower speeds until the edge of the boundary, where the fluid is moving at the ambient velocity (0). The effect of these layers moving at different speeds is a resistance to movement due the viscosity of the liquid. It's easier to explain with pictures.

    And you can't swim in air because you sink to the bottom.

  12. Testing in a more viscous fluid like hot grits? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Funny


    I think there is a need for another data point in this research. What about doing testing in a more viscous fluid? I'm sure that there are a considerable number of Slashdot readers that would like to do research on the very important question of whether Natalie Portman could swim faster in hot grits.

    How can a moderator say the parent comment is off topic when so many Slashdotters would like to be on this topic? More philosophically, how can Natalie Portman be off topic? If she is off topic, that is evidence the topic needs changing, right?

    Of course, this would all be for the advancement of science. No really.

    --
    24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

  13. Woot. by a+whoabot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ' "The best swimmer should have the body of a snake and the arms of a gorilla."

    Edward Cussler
    University of Minnesota '


    TROGDOR!?!?

  14. Underwater intercourse not such a hot idea by MachDelta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, you're not supposed to have sex underwater. Its fine for the guy, but keep in mind that a girl's plumbing wasn't really designed to be plumbing. Pushing too much water up inside her with too much force could cause damage to sensitive things like her fallopian tubes. And even if you go at it gently, there's the risk of literally flooding her. Get enough water up the fallopian tubes and it could pass through the infundibulum abdominal ostium - meaning she gets water in her abdominal cavity, which could very likely give her a nasty infection. Either way there's a risk of illness/injury, permanent damage (infertillity?), or possibly even death (your trick moves aren't so sexy when they cause internal bleeding).

    So by all means, get hot and steamy under the waves, but when you're gonna introduce her port to your hard drive, you should probably do it on the beach (or dock or poolside or whatever). Remember kiddies, interfacing safely isn't just about using a latex firewall!


    Oh yeah, and *insert joke about slashdotters and their sex liv... Actually, screw it, someone else can get the +5 funny. I'm gonna go whack off while dreaming about poolside sex instead. Ok, i'll probably just end up reinstalling drivers, but lets pretend like I went and... err... wait, lets not.

    1. Re:Underwater intercourse not such a hot idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think under normal circumstances the cervix forms a pretty darned good seal. I suspect you would only really need to worry shortly after a gynological exam.

      Supposition of course, I'm not a doctor. But right before my second was born, the mucous plug came out and her water broke - and it made a fairly loud, "Bang!" The baby was sealed in until ready.

  15. Re:The other way 'round... by raygundan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe the Sandia Z-Machine is filled with some sort of cooling or dialectric (i can't remember exactly) fluid that is low-density enough for swimming to be impossible. If you fall in, you're supposed to hold your breath, walk to the side, and climb up the ladder.

    I'm having trouble finding the article that talked about the fluid, but you can at least have a look at a picture of it running (you don't want to swim in it while it's on, I imagine...)

    Picture

  16. absolutely no evidence to support this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Actually, you're not supposed to have sex underwater. Its fine for the guy, but keep in mind that a girl's plumbing wasn't really designed to be plumbing.

    This is a false rumor spread by that Canadian-grandmother-turned-sex-therapist who has the womens' network show (which is hilarious, incidentally. Trust me.) Ask YOUR doctor about any advice you see on the show before you put it to practice ("I saw it on TV, it must be true!"), okay?

    People have been having sex for centuries in the water- lakes, ponds, rivers, oceans, hot tubs, pools, jacuzis, showers, bathtubs- you name it, people have had sex there- and there's simply no evidence of all these injuries you claim(death? Infertility? Riight. I've even seen people claim women could get air embolisms!) A UK women's scuba newsletter asked women divers about their experiences, and surprise- nobody had an injuries.

    If anyone who is actually qualified to speak on this subject can present ANY case evidence of this happening in substantial numbers(linkage, please!), I'll shut up- but I think the parent poster is full of nonsense and these "dangers" are about as "dangerous" statistically as catching, and dying from, West Nile Disease- if at all.

    1. Re:absolutely no evidence to support this! by dynamo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dumb ass: women _can_ get air embolisms, though it's not common.

      Evidence:
      http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1859.html
      http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/o/o r/oral_sex.html (near the end)

      I couldn't find any evidence for the water thing though.

  17. I can't believe nobody's said it yet.... by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 2, Funny

    Resistance is futile...

    Well, I was ALMOST on topic ;-)

  18. Just to clear up some confusion by intx13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The conclusion of the experiment was NOT that "viscosity has nothing to do with swimming speed" but rather that within a certain tolerance of viscosity, the human form performs equally well. This just means that for certain viscosities, humans are able to provide enough force by the swimming motion to propel themselves forward.

    TFA certainly does not say that viscosity doesn't matter. After all, we can't swim on concrete, nor through air, and common sense says that a bullet fired into mud will drastically slow down. The only point being made was that Newton was wrong and the swimming motion of humans compensates for various viscosities.

    It would be interesting to see the experiment performed with various swimming animals to compare the efficiency and adaptability of their swimming to ours.

  19. What about Jello? by jeephistorian · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wasn't there a movie where they filled a pool with Jello and had a a guy dive in for the effect. I seem to recall something about the stunt guy having a time getting back out.

    --
    Huh?