Slashdot Mirror


To Boldly Go Where No Mento Has Gone Before

rjwoodhead writes "This past weekend, my entire family learned what it's like to float in freefall aboard G-Force One (recently featured on the Mythbusters' Moon Hoax show). Being science-lovers, we wanted to do some kind of original experiment. So we decided to test whether the Diet Coke & Mentos reaction was affected by the lack of bubble convection in microgravity. At the link you can find the story of how the experiment evolved and how we talked Space Adventures into letting us fool around with sticky and corrosive cola and candy inside their nice clean airplane, as well as high-speed video of the results."

33 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Sex would have been easier to clean up... by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and more fun too, or so I'm told.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by Jimmy_B · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sex would have been easier to clean up... and more fun too, or so I'm told.

      The experiment was conducted on an aircraft that provides zero gravity for periods of only 30 seconds at a time. That might not be a problem for you, but most people would be left unsatisfied.

    2. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by maxume · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some cultures discourage the act of having sex with your entire family.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe not for your family.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    4. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Funny

      30 seconds is more than enough to fulfill my needs twice.

    5. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by Tawnos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny, but NSFW. Please mark that, as it can get people who work Saturdays in trouble (not me, but others)

    6. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

      The experiment was conducted on an aircraft that provides zero gravity for periods of only 30 seconds at a time. That might not be a problem for you, but most people would be left unsatisfied.

      Are you kidding? Just _thinking_ about 0 G's gets me off.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    7. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some cultures discourage the act of having sex with your entire family.

      How do they know who my entire family is? And why mine?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    8. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by supernova_hq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is slashdot, I don't think 0 gravity is the problem...

    9. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by overcaffein8d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is slashdot, I don't think 0 gravity is the problem...

      the part about this comment that i found funniest is the fact that it was rated "insightful" and not "funny."

      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    10. Re:Sex would have been easier to clean up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      9.8m = 32ft.(approx.) Perhaps this poster works for NASA they have a history of confusion regarding the metric system.

  2. Price by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Informative

    He says 4 grand in the blog - and over at the zero g site it says 5200 when taxes are included, so it looks like prices have been bumped up. I'm still going to start saving up for it though.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Price by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A friend is a private pilot and used to have access to a Cessna 150 Aerobat. He took me up and we went into a couple of zero-G arcs. It's astoundingly cool! And in a little Cessna it was far less than a hundred dollars an hour to play around in.

      Of course, this does have its drawbacks compared to the Vomit Comet. Being a tiny(!) plane, there's no space for a passenger to actually float around the cabin. I unbuckled the seat belt so I was lifted off the seat for a while. A few objects in the cabin floated around a bit. But the little Cessna cannot achieve the speeds and altitudes required to follow a zero G parabola for more than about ten seconds at a time.

      Even if it could, there's a bigger problem. Fuel intake is the limiting factor. Regular planes have a rigid fuel intake inside the gas tanks near the bottom, and the fuel sits on the bottom of the tank. The Aerobat uses "clunk tanks" similar to model planes - weighted flexible hoses in the gas tanks to ensure the fuel and intake hose are on the "bottom" of the tanks even when the plane is inverted. Both types of tanks rely on gravity to keep the fuel and the intake together. Without gravity, neither the fuel nor the intake hose are under any physical obligations to meet up with each other, and the engine can run dry. That's generally considered a "bad thing."

      --
      John
    2. Re:Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work for a well known government agency and have flown in the C9 vomit comet (for free no less...well at least free to me). And I agree that it is definitely worth a good hunk of money. Personally I wouldn't pay it (I'm too cheap) and it's kind of annoying that ZG only does 15 parabolas (most C9 tests do 50+) but they wanted to choose a number that made it worth it to the consumer but didn't make them sick (i.e., wanting more and positive word of mouth).

      I'm supposed to fly the ZG 727 sometime later this year and I look forward to the extra space (100% more volume, 50% more people) above the C9.

  3. Re:Mento by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

    If "Mentos" is "the freshmaker" and not "the freshmakers" then yes, the singular form is "Mentos". I suppose that the plural would then me "Mentot".

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  4. Re:What's the music please? by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Informative

    I really, really should know this but...what's the music in the video?

    In the comments of TFA it links to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carnival_of_the_Animals

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. Re:Slow news day? by mccalli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From problems with the camera to issues getting a mento and coke together. Add in some residual gravity, and it was a complete failure.

    It was experimentation - not a failure. The blog says they're working on improving the design for next time - this is exactly what scientific experimentation should show. Initial postulate, experimentation, refinement based on results.

    Far from a failure, and I certainly enjoyed reading about it and watching the videos.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  6. Re:What's the music please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    As in, the Harry Potter movies ripped it off from Camille Saint-Saens.

  7. Re:What's the music please? by Napoleon+The+Pig · · Score: 3, Informative

    More specifically it's the 7th movement (Aquarium) of The Carnival of the Animals.

  8. What's with the TSA apologist BS? by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The first half of the article expouses the most blatant TSA apologist bullshit I've ever seen:

    Whatever you may think about the rules that the TSA enforces (and I agree with Bruce Schneier in that regard), the fact of the matter is that the frontline staff that you deal with have little or no freedom to apply common-sense discretion, and are often placed in situations where they don't have the time, or the background knowledge, to make an informed decision, which means that the default answer is "no". When you couple that with the fact that anyone can be having a horrible day, and some small percentage of people are jerks to begin with (a smaller percentage than most people assume), and multiply by hundreds of thousands of people going through security a day, it's a recipe for horror stories.

    ...and then he describes how they were pre-briefed and OK with everything...except some clay. Yeah, you heard that right. They were briefed ahead of time, there was no terrorist risk, and these asshats objected to clay because it looked like plastic explosive.

    This has nothing to do with the people going through security, and it's only partly the rules. It is absolutely not okay for a TSA agent to "have a bad day" and do anything except apply TSA policies in a humane but consistent manner. If they can't do so on a "bad day", they need to find a different job.

    TSA screeners and management absolutely LOVE the fact that despite being badly paid, undereducated, and almost always minorities- being a TSA agent places them at the top of the food-chain in an airport. Their words and decisions are that of god, and with a word they can transform anyone's business trip or vacation into sheer hell. Like the case where TSA screeners forced a new mother to drink her own breastmilk to prove it wasn't an explosive or poison.

    They're also, in many cases, dumber than fenceposts. The guy whose Audi key was confiscated because it was a "switchblade", the Macbook Air fiasco...I'm sure there are thousands of similar incidents we never hear about.

    For chrissakes, these people banned NAIL CLIPPERS and thought liquid binary explosives were possible to deploy on a plane because they'd seen in the movies that the baddies had these scary devices that mixed different colored liquids...

    1. Re:What's with the TSA apologist BS? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      and thought liquid binary explosives were possible to deploy on a plane because they'd seen in the movies that the baddies had these scary devices that mixed different colored liquids...

      As John Carmack points out, it is not only possible to have explosives like this, it's not very difficult.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:What's with the TSA apologist BS? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is not whether such an explosive can exist. The problem is whether such an explosive could be mixed in an airplane bathroom without anyone noticing and remain unexploded long enough for Our Villain to get it out of the bathroom and up next to the skin where it might do some serious damage.

      Everything I've heard about such binary explosives indicates that the outcome is an explosion while mixing the stuff in the bathroom, one badly injured terrorist, and one trashed airplane lavatory.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    3. Re:What's with the TSA apologist BS? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is a price for security.

      That's a funny use of the word "price". Normally when you pay the price for something, you get that something in return. I see no evidence that the price we pay constantly to the TSA results in getting security in return.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    4. Re:What's with the TSA apologist BS? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't do it... just remember, the Democrats have fallen just as far... they are beating the same old dead horse of all the stupid, failed politics of the mid 20th century and calling it "change".

      Did you listen to Obama's speech? With certain (admittedly important) exceptions, he sounded more Republican than the Republicans. He called for lower taxes, more personal responsibility, cutting spending, taking care of veterans, on and on.

      Another thing I liked is that he's calling for the elimination of oil imports from the Middle East within 10 years! I *love* that idea. It's bold! He even mentioned *Nuclear Power*!! In his big speech! (believe that from a Democrat?)

      And I really dislike that the Republicans are so beholden to the religious wing, which is getting more and more shrill and insane every year. Why can't they just live their life the way they want and leave everyone else alone?

      Do I agree with everything Obama says? No. I cringed when he called for "equal pay for equal work", which is literally impossible to enforce. But -- I'm convinced that Obama is not your 1980s-style corrupt, tax-and-spend, bribe-the-poor-for-their-vote Democrat.

      McCain? What a tool. I have *zero* confidence he will fix the country, which is literally going backrupt from the Republican's spending insanity the last eight years, and not just from the war. He's also a hot head, and I think at this point we need a cool hand in foreign policy, and not some idiot who can't even control himself in public with his own wife.

      I also have no confidence that he will reign in the SS that GWB created, I mean, the Department of Homeland Security.

      Lastly, and I know this is unusual for a small-l libertarian-leaning Republican, I am very much in favor of medical care reform and universal health care (see my journal entry if you want details -- basically, medical care is not subject to normal supply and demand). Obama's plan is actually pretty reasonable. And medical care is *insane* right now. I had an MRI recently that was $4000 (!!) but reduced to like $350 for the insurance. The real cost of the MRI is probably about $60-$70. McCain gives absolutely no details on how he's going to fix things. The whole "dropping you from the insurance plan because you got sick" thing also needs to be solved.

      I encourage you to balance the normal Democrat foolishness against the current Republican corruption, and also read how centrist Obama really is. I have some amount of confidence that Obama can deliver *some* of what he promises. I have no confidence that McCain won't be another disaster.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:What's with the TSA apologist BS? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you're saying that if TSA's policy was to kick you square in the nuts as you go past, you would "attack the policy", but be perfectly fine with the guy who's actually putting his foot in your crotch?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    6. Re:What's with the TSA apologist BS? by kvezach · · Score: 2, Informative

      The TSA people are tested each and every day. You give them flack over what they do in order to keep people safe...

      No, we don't give them flak over what they do in order to keep people safe. We give them flak over what they do in order to trick some people into thinking they're safe. It's all theater, and the laws of nature don't care about appearance.

  9. Re:Parent translation by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've nothing to contribute, but will do so anyway.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  10. Re:Slow news day? by Fumus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yet I'm still curious why didn't they just use a glass filled with coke?
    Or a tiny scrap of plastic wrapped around the coke, which they could unwind and then add the mentos using their stick.

  11. Re:G-Force-One does not simulate zero-G environmen by Moofie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your point may be technically accurate, but it's misleading. The only difference between a parabolic flight and an elliptical orbit is that one intersects the Earth, and one does not. Of course, that whole hitting the Earth part kinda sucks, so that's why the airplane pulls out of its dive.

    In orbit, the acceleration due to gravity is still substantial. The only difference is, the velocity tangent to that vector is sufficient that you're always falling towards Earth, but you always miss hitting it. You're falling over the horizon.

    "(Note that "in orbit" is still inside the event horizon of Earth's gravitational well.) "

    Event horizon has a specific meaning, and none whatsoever when not talking about black holes. There is no "event horizon" of Earth's gravitational well. It simply gets arbitrarily small with increasing distance.

    "Where experiments would become fascinating is in a satellite in an orbit above Earth that matches the angle and period of the moon's, at a distance that would cause an equal gravitational pull from both Earth and the Moon, and see what happens with two equal but opposite gravity sources effecting the experiment!"

    That's not really an orbit, that's a Lagrange point. The effects will be indistinguishable from orbit. Inertial frames of reference are indistinguishable.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  12. Umm, can you define the TSA job for me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    I have yet to see a precise brief for what I consider about the worst collection of morons ever to be let loose on the public in the name of security theater.

    As a nice, bright and shiny illustration of just how safe you are with these people being given free reign is illustrated by the story of how the TSA grounded 9 planes. My favorite quote: "TSA agents are now doing things to our aircraft that may put our lives, and the lives of our passengers at risk".

    I am yet to be convinced there is a measurable return on investment for the money wasted on TSA, investment in HUMINT would have been a better use of the budget. and THAT annoys me most when those morons do their usual.

    I guess the use of room temperature IQs is essential to stop anyone from thinking about what they're doing, but the result is that they give the impression of being people rejected for writing parking tickets because they were too stupid.

  13. Diet Coke sticky? corrosive? by Britz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always thought the people take diet coke instead of normal coke precisely because it is not sticky, because it does not contain sugar. And I also used to believe that most of the corrosive behaviour of coke also comes from the sugar. But that's just me.

    1. Re:Diet Coke sticky? corrosive? by BluBrick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There may not be any sugar in diet coke, but it's still kinda messy. Still, mix it with the sugar in a Mentos, and you can bet it's gonna get real sticky. Also, the corrosive nature of coke originates not in the sugar, but in the Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) it contains.

      (To be fair, that MSDS is for an 85% solution - about 1500 times stronger than coke)

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    2. Re:Diet Coke sticky? corrosive? by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Informative

      It should be noted that with high concentrations of various chemicals, just because the % concentration is 1500 times higher does not mean the "strength" is 1500 times higher. 85% phosphoric acid is incredibly dangerous, vastly moreso than accidentally spilling 1500 times the volume of coke on your skin (1mL versus 1.5L.) Though 1mL of 85% phosphoric acid wouldn't kill you, it'll do a lot more damage than 1.5L of coke.