Some useful empirical data on how to successfully poor your New Year's Eve libations this weekend:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/28/5726948-how-to-pour-that-drink-scientifically
Alan Boyle writes:What's the best way to pour a glass of New Year's Eve champagne? Scientists have the answer.
If you want to make the most of your glass of bubbly, you should pour the wine down the side of the glass, French researchers reported in a paper published by the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry this summer.
Gerard Liger-Belair and his colleagues at the University of Reims used infrared thermography to track how much carbon dioxide was released from champagne under a variety of pouring conditions. They reported that the traditional technique, which involves pouring the wine straight down into the bottom of a champagne flute, may make a splash — but also releases a lot of the CO2 before the glass can be brought to your lips.
Studies have shown that the release of dissolved CO2 in the mouth is what's behind the pleasurable taste and feel of champagne. Thus, pouring a stream of wine down the side of the glass preserves more of the bubbles, so that they can tickle the palate as you drink. It's not just that fewer bubbles pop: A less turbulent slide into the glass cuts down on the invisible diffusion of dissolved CO2 into the air, which accounts for most of the loss of effervescence. (This is also why narrow flutes are preferred over the wide-bowl glasses of the old days: less surface area for CO2 loss.)
The CO2 loss can be twice as much for a down-to-the-bottom pour as it is for a down-the-side pour, depending on the circumstances, the French researchers found.
Temperature also plays a big role in preserving the bubbly. Storing the champagne at a temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit (3.8 degrees Celsius) seems to be the best way to go. If you pop open a bottle at 64 degrees F (18 degrees C) ... well, at that temperature, you might as well slosh the stuff into a paper cup.
In a 2006 study published in the same journal, Liger-Belair's team listed some other tricks to control how your sparkling wine sparkles after you've poured it into the glass. They found that more bubbles are sparked if there are minute fibers or scratches in the glass. Thus, older, scratched-up glasses release bubbles more quickly than newer, slicker glasses.
If you want bubblier champagne in the glass, you can try wiping the flutes vigorously with a towel to leave some fibers behind. If you want to tone down the bubbles (and let them pop on your palate instead), wash the flutes and let them air-dry on a rack, sans toweling.
But Liger-Belair says the bottom line for maximizing your bubbly is to angle your glass and pour your champagne in a "beer-like" fashion — down the side.
And speaking of beer ... experts do agree that you should start pouring your winter brew down the side, to minimize turbulence and maximize the liquid volume. But at the end, you should pour enough of the beer into the center of the glass to create an appropriate head of foam. This video from How Stuff Works shows you how the two-part pour is done with Guinness stout.
By the way, cans of "draft" Guinness nowadays contain capsules of pressurized nitrogen that maximize the beer's frothiness. The folks at My Science Project (already renowned for their research into the mysteries of Jell-O shots) have conducted some experiments aimed at analyzing the effects of various foam-producing technologies.
And we all know why the bubbles in a properly poured Guinness sink down the inner wall of the glass, don't we? You may have to do that experiment yourself on New Year's Eve. Ah, the sacrifices we must make in the name of science!
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.
EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...
Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.
Maybe it's your arms.
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.
EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...
Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.
My ninth grade science teacher once posed the question asking how to calm down a can of soda before opening it. Someone said 'tap on the top' and his reply was:
So what scientific principle is at play when you tap the top? Or did you forget that you aren't in Magic class?
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:20:47 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.
EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...
Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.
My ninth grade science teacher once posed the question asking how to calm down a can of soda before opening it. Someone said 'tap on the top' and his reply was:
So what scientific principle is at play when you tap the top? Or did you forget that you aren't in Magic class?
:lulz:
I fucking wanted to be.
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:20:47 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.
EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...
Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.
My ninth grade science teacher once posed the question asking how to calm down a can of soda before opening it. Someone said 'tap on the top' and his reply was:
So what scientific principle is at play when you tap the top? Or did you forget that you aren't in Magic class?
:lulz:
You tap the fucking
side to knock the CO2 bubbles off the side, so they'll go back into solution.
Your 9th grade science teacher might have been witty, but he was an idiot.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2010, 05:23:17 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:20:47 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.
EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...
Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.
My ninth grade science teacher once posed the question asking how to calm down a can of soda before opening it. Someone said 'tap on the top' and his reply was:
So what scientific principle is at play when you tap the top? Or did you forget that you aren't in Magic class?
:lulz:
You tap the fucking side to knock the CO2 bubbles off the side, so they'll go back into solution.
Your 9th grade science teacher might have been witty, but he was an idiot.
I don't think that is true... best case scenario, you could knock off bubbles and they would float upward thus displacing less foam when you open it... but I'm pretty sure tapping won't push CO2 back into the solution.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:29:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2010, 05:23:17 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:20:47 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.
EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...
Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.
My ninth grade science teacher once posed the question asking how to calm down a can of soda before opening it. Someone said 'tap on the top' and his reply was:
So what scientific principle is at play when you tap the top? Or did you forget that you aren't in Magic class?
:lulz:
You tap the fucking side to knock the CO2 bubbles off the side, so they'll go back into solution.
Your 9th grade science teacher might have been witty, but he was an idiot.
I don't think that is true... best case scenario, you could knock off bubbles and they would float upward thus displacing less foam when you open it... but I'm pretty sure tapping won't push CO2 back into the solution.
One or the other, it works.
I know it works, because I experimented with it, with two warm diet cokes and a paint shaker.
I'll try the side tapping thing next time I get a warm, shaken soda or beer, though, tapping the top with the side of my thumb has almost always worked, perhaps tapping the side will work much better (though, not sure how much more room there is for it working better, probably better to do it the right way, regardless).
Magic class? I missed out, they didn't offer that where I went to school... Your ninth grade science teacher sounds like a jerk... But who knows? He might have been badass, I can't say, I wasn't there.
I have tested it too, it really does seem to work... Then again, maybe it's magic.
EDIT: By I have tested it, I meant, I have tested tapping on the top.
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
Try aiming for the hole next time.
Much like what she said.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2010, 05:38:15 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:29:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2010, 05:23:17 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:20:47 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.
EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...
Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.
My ninth grade science teacher once posed the question asking how to calm down a can of soda before opening it. Someone said 'tap on the top' and his reply was:
So what scientific principle is at play when you tap the top? Or did you forget that you aren't in Magic class?
:lulz:
You tap the fucking side to knock the CO2 bubbles off the side, so they'll go back into solution.
Your 9th grade science teacher might have been witty, but he was an idiot.
I don't think that is true... best case scenario, you could knock off bubbles and they would float upward thus displacing less foam when you open it... but I'm pretty sure tapping won't push CO2 back into the solution.
One or the other, it works.
I know it works, because I experimented with it, with two warm diet cokes and a paint shaker.
TGRR: breaking science yet again
:lulz:
Just shove the neck bottle down your throat, inhale, and enjoy!
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
Tilt the glass when you do it. And make sure to get it INSIDE the glass. And pour slowly.
That explains a LOT. Thanks for the help, Kai!
So scientists are now replicating food service training?
I suppose repetition is important.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:46:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2010, 05:38:15 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:29:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2010, 05:23:17 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 30, 2010, 05:20:47 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: Fujikoma on December 30, 2010, 03:10:51 PM
I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!
I think perhaps one of your inputs was off. Try running the data again!
Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.
EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...
Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.
My ninth grade science teacher once posed the question asking how to calm down a can of soda before opening it. Someone said 'tap on the top' and his reply was:
So what scientific principle is at play when you tap the top? Or did you forget that you aren't in Magic class?
:lulz:
You tap the fucking side to knock the CO2 bubbles off the side, so they'll go back into solution.
Your 9th grade science teacher might have been witty, but he was an idiot.
I don't think that is true... best case scenario, you could knock off bubbles and they would float upward thus displacing less foam when you open it... but I'm pretty sure tapping won't push CO2 back into the solution.
One or the other, it works.
I know it works, because I experimented with it, with two warm diet cokes and a paint shaker.
TGRR: breaking science yet again
:lulz:
Oddly enough, this is the only way any real progress happens.
Some dumbfuck just HAS to try something.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 30, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
So scientists are now replicating food service training?
I suppose repetition is important.
There was a lab party going on anyway. They decided to be nerdy about it and do tests on their booze.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 30, 2010, 08:07:40 PM
So scientists are now replicating food service training?
I suppose repetition is important.
Yeah, otherwise we'd still be using leeches and homeopathy, because people just think what they are doing is good enough instead of trying new shit and experimenting.
Besides, all scientists do at their professional meetings is talk about [field of research], get shitfaced and reminisce about their youth as wide eyed graduate students listen in.
Science is supposed to be stodgy, always, forever! No fun allowed!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 09:15:13 PM
Science is supposed to be stodgy, always, forever! No fun allowed!!!!!!!!!
Have you noticed that the only people who think science is stuffy stodgy and no fun aren't scientists?
I mean, there are all these artists and philosophers and religious scholars who say that science "sucks the soul out of the universe" but have you noticed that scientists tend to believe the opposite?
It makes me wonder if they're just all envious.
Quote from: ϗ on December 30, 2010, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 09:15:13 PM
Science is supposed to be stodgy, always, forever! No fun allowed!!!!!!!!!
Have you noticed that the only people who think science is stuffy stodgy and no fun aren't scientists?
I mean, there are all these artists and philosophers and religious scholars who say that science "sucks the soul out of the universe" but have you noticed that scientists tend to believe the opposite?
It makes me wonder if they're just all envious.
Different maps... and limited views from that well decorated Prison Cell.
Quote from: ϗ on December 30, 2010, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 30, 2010, 09:15:13 PM
Science is supposed to be stodgy, always, forever! No fun allowed!!!!!!!!!
Have you noticed that the only people who think science is stuffy stodgy and no fun aren't scientists?
I mean, there are all these artists and philosophers and religious scholars who say that science "sucks the soul out of the universe" but have you noticed that scientists tend to believe the opposite?
It makes me wonder if they're just all envious.
I think it's the whole academia thing rather than a science thing. What's not fun about lasers and blowing shit up and chemicals in beakers
Quote from: ϗ on December 30, 2010, 09:20:50 PM
I mean, there are all these artists and philosophers and religious scholars who say that science "sucks the soul out of the universe" but have you noticed that scientists tend to believe the opposite?
It makes me wonder if they're just all envious.
It means that they want to be viewed as authorities on reality, without having to take all those damn math classes.
Philosopher looks at a rose, he says, "pretty flower". Scientist looks at a rose, he looks at how the rose spreads pollen through insects, and how that is accomplished, and suddenly the rose is a hell of a lot more interesting and amazing.
So fuck those people.
Additionally, the best artists I know - ie, the working ones - and the most credible religious people I know tend to look at science as being not only desirable, but absolutely critical to their thinking, even if they don't have as much training as a working scientist.
Philosopher looks at a rose, thinks "pretty flower," and writes about there being an absolute and eternal model of Pretty Flower, existing in a space outside of space, that informs all our ideas of pretty flowers.
Unless he's a postmodernist, in which case he talks about how "pretty flowers" are a discursive technology used by patriarchical elites to delineate the permitted boundaries of ideological deconstruction and resistance to the hegemony of plant-based biopower.
Quote from: Cain on December 31, 2010, 12:29:14 AM
Unless he's a postmodernist, in which case he talks about how "pretty flowers" are a discursive technology used by patriarchical elites to delineate the permitted boundaries of ideological deconstruction and resistance to the hegemony of plant-based biopower.
I'm pretty sure that's gibberish. I'm even more sure that at least one postmodernist has uttered those exact words in all seriousness.
I need to make PoMo Bingo
:lulz:
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2010, 11:18:23 PM
Philosopher looks at a rose, thinks "pretty flower," and writes about there being an absolute and eternal model of Pretty Flower, existing in a space outside of space, that informs all our ideas of pretty flowers.
Quote from: Cain on December 31, 2010, 12:29:14 AM
Unless he's a postmodernist, in which case he talks about how "pretty flowers" are a discursive technology used by patriarchical elites to delineate the permitted boundaries of ideological deconstruction and resistance to the hegemony of plant-based biopower.
:lulz:
Quote from: ϗ on December 31, 2010, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on December 30, 2010, 11:18:23 PM
Philosopher looks at a rose, thinks "pretty flower," and writes about there being an absolute and eternal model of Pretty Flower, existing in a space outside of space, that informs all our ideas of pretty flowers.
Quote from: Cain on December 31, 2010, 12:29:14 AM
Unless he's a postmodernist, in which case he talks about how "pretty flowers" are a discursive technology used by patriarchical elites to delineate the permitted boundaries of ideological deconstruction and resistance to the hegemony of plant-based biopower.
:lulz:
Of course! Then there's the scientist laughing them in the face and disregarding these obviously stupid and unprovable notions.
Nah I've been to these science parties, sure they're funny, and yeah we did get shitfaced, somebody explained me how this banach-tarski paradox actually worked, and I completely forgot :lol: wonderful. You do get the same kind of people that think what they have to say is really really important though, except you can't tell them apart as easy, because they usually tend to dress just as badly as the rest of them. You'll know when they boast the same story for the third time, though.
On the other hand maybe I'm just pissed cause I can't go back there, but I dunno if it was the place I was supposed to be anyway.
This many years later, and I still tap the top.
I know the overall shape of the universe, and the underlying shape of many constructs we have yet to discover. I can't prove anything though, so I may as well be an untalented Van Gogh trying to suck his own ballsack.
Also, did you try shouting "EXPECTO PATRONUS" at your teacher, for science?