Even though it's listed as untrue, I've actually seen it done once. In a demonstration for my 10th grade chemistry class, the teacher shook up a can of soda and then tapped it in a certain way to prevent it from overflowing. And when he opened the can, it didn't.
-------------------- "Elly: Oops, I'm a damsel in distress now. Better scream girlishly and all… ahem. EEEK!"
Schwarz: Look, there's three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the Ninja way. Rey: Isn't that the wrong way? Schwarz: Yup, only stealthier. Posts: 546 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Wake up --- time to die So I'm Evil Get over it
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people Posts: 1551 | From: NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We always tapped the tab, on the top of the can, because supposedly it made little teensy separations in the perforation around the tab, which would allow tiny streams of pressurized gas escape without the foam-out.
Well, now, on second thought, I was probably the only one of my friends that actually tried to come up with a scientific reason why we performed this crazy pre-Dew chugging ritual. So nevermind.
Anyway, I had never heard about tapping the sides of the can or anything, ala the demonstration by the Snopeses.
-------------------- Mr. Sagan did not go too fars, If you just took the time to scan its, You'd count billions and billions of stars, And billions and billions of planets. Posts: 332 | From: Kansas City, MO | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Electrotiger: We always tapped the tab, on the top of the can, because supposedly it made little teensy separations in the perforation around the tab, which would allow tiny streams of pressurized gas escape without the foam-out.
I can't believe that's the way it works... How would *so much* gas escape invisibly and silently? If we were talking micrograms, maybe, but the amount of gas emitted when you pop the top of a soda is measurable in tens of grams at least...
quote: Well, now, on second thought, I was probably the only one of my friends that actually tried to come up with a scientific reason why we performed this crazy pre-Dew chugging ritual. So nevermind.
Well, that, at least, I consider wholly admirable! I do the top-tapping thing, and it seems to work, but I always presumed it was "mechanical," in the same way that tapping a really foamy cup of soda will cause the bubbles to settle. (Or...maybe not?)
quote: Anyway, I had never heard about tapping the sides of the can or anything, ala the demonstration by the Snopeses.
Penn and Teller say it's just a matter of waiting a few extra seconds before opening the can. Tapping on it doesn't do anything (they say) but just causes a delay, during which the pressure subsides on its own.
Experiment: get two identical (as much as possible) cans, same brand, same canning date, same temperature, and shake them up in the same way (paint mixing machine?) then tap one and don't tap the other, open both at same time in exactly the same way (can opening machine?)
Or...just go out into the field and play a nice game of Fizzball...
Silas ("Sizzlin' Weasel on a Stick!") Sparkhammer
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can open a well-shaken can of soda without any overflow or spillage. It's rather simple, and I'm surprised nobody has said anything about it.
All you do is squeeze the can while you pop the tab. Don't crush the can, just feel the pressure of the gas inside of the can.
At least it works for me. Results may vary. Void in Ohio and Puerto Rico.
-------------------- The opinions expressed herein do not represent those of any rational human being and are solely for the purpose of entertainment. Posts: 487 | From: Brick City (Newark), NJ | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up with the tab-tapping belief, but I have since learned that whether it be a tab or a cap, all you have to do is open it enough to let just a little of the gas escape without causing the overflow. Definitely much easier with a cap, as you can control it, i.e. opening/closing as needed, but do-able with a tab.
-------------------- I'm an excellent speller, but a lousy typist. "Just so you know, the words 'just' and 'cramps' - they don't go together." - Ginger Snaps Posts: 323 | From: Chandler, AZ | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Penn and Teller say it's just a matter of waiting a few extra seconds before opening the can. Tapping on it doesn't do anything (they say) but just causes a delay, during which the pressure subsides on its own.
This for the most part is true with most modern soda cans. Do not attempt this with beer. After about 15 seconds if you open the can rapidly there will be no spew (YMMV). It doesn't matter if you chant a spell, tap it, or just stare at it. Just remember to get the best effect open it quickly. And no I'm not just saying that for I can get drinks to spew on you folk. Its just if you open it slowly it will fizz a bit.
-------------------- "The question for joining the protected forum for real magicians should be:
What is the use of women?" Steve W. from JREF's 'This is no fun' Posts: 7622 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never heard of tapping the top of the can. We've (everyone I know) always tapped the bottom of the can. It always works, but it may because because once you know it's shaken you always open it carefully anyway.
posted
1) I dispute that UL-ness of this technique, having done side by side experiments (tap, no tap) so that time isn't a factor. 2) So does famous science teacher Steve Spangler: http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/00000024 And he has a theory on why that works. Not sure if it's backed up with observations (i.e. via a clear bottle or something?)
However, in the rebuttal, snopes does claim mitigation of the fizz. It's a fine line, but my experiments make that pretty significant reduction, so I would claim more truth that not.
One wonders what would it take to change this judgement?
Bdos "fuel for the fire" Error.
-------------------- "Complexity is Easy, Simplicity is Hard." Posts: 13 | From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bdos Error: One wonders what would it take to change this judgement?
Controlled experiments with statistically significant numbers of samples. Having an explanatory hypothesis would also be nice.
(Ordinarily, we'd also ask for double-blind experiments, but in this case, I think we can skip that and take the risk of the "experimenter effect." Also, since waste is a sin, we should have a big picnic or party nearby with volunteers to help dispose of the experimental residue!)
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: Penn and Teller say it's just a matter of waiting a few extra seconds before opening the can.
Silas ("Sizzlin' Weasel on a Stick!") Sparkhammer
As soon as I read that original post I thought of Penn & Teller. I saw them on Letterman once where Penn shook a can of soda up really good. Penn then opened it without it foaming over. He probably didn't wait more than five seconds for it to settle down. I forget exactly what he did to keep it from 'sploding.
Steve S.
Posts: 194 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rychan
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: Controlled experiments with statistically significant numbers of samples.
Wow, that's a pretty high standard to avoid being a "false urban legend"
Why the bias in favor of labelling something false? If we need to experiment with n > 3 samples, it should be undetermined until such an experiment is performed. Especially when those 3 samples done by snopes suggest that tapping DOES reduce foam.
Bdos Error's arguments are also compelling.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: Controlled experiments with statistically significant numbers of samples.
Wow, that's a pretty high standard to avoid being a "false urban legend"
To be really strict, I'd also like to have controls on the cans involved, as opposed to just buying 'em at the supermarket. The experimental set-up would involve carbonating the drink in the first place, to assure uniformity in pressure, temperature, chemical consistency, etc.
But there's nothin' wrong with back-porch science! I was just sayin' what it would really take to conclusively...um...conclude.
quote: Why the bias in favor of labelling something false?
Isn't the bias actually in favor of labelling everything "not yet proven?" The good old null hypothesis... ("H-null rules, okay?")
That's the linguistic problem with skepticism: if someone comes up to you and says, "Milk causes rabies!" and you respond, properly, "No... I won't believe that until it has been proven," the way the other guy hears it is, "I actively disbelieve that." But, technically, that isn't what the skeptic means; he means, "I won't believe that -- or disbelieve that -- until there is enough evidence."
Skeptics, as doubters, are easily mistaken for skeptics, as active disbelievers, simply because of that initial, "No..."
quote: If we need to experiment with n > 3 samples, it should be undetermined until such an experiment is performed.
Agreed. I'll pick up a six-pack of diet caffeine-free Pepsi tonight!
Silas (burp!)
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- I said your name. I wore it like a badge of teenage film stars, hash bars, cherry mash and tin foil tiaras. Dreaming of Maria Callas, whoever she is. Posts: 52 | From: Tuscaloosa, Alabama | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Silas, and will add that a lot of us skeptics when we've tacked the null hypothesis onto a phenomenon will live our lives as though it does not exist. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have negative belief. It's just that it's easier and less stressful to behave as if orange roller skates do not cause cancer, the television screen is not controlled by tiny people inside of the box (okay, I may have negative belief in that), or that ghosts walk among us. It's a really, really fine line, I admit. However, everybody does it to some degree. Some of us just do it with more things than others.
-------------------- Give big space to the festive dog that makes sport in roadway. Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel spokes. Posts: 4267 | From: Seattle | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help with how to stop a can exploding with fizz on opening. However, if you pour soda into a glass and it starts frothing up over the top of the glass, sticking your finger into the foam collapses the foam back to liquid.
Does anyone know why?
-------------------- "You watched it. You can't UNWATCH it." Posts: 1646 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faith: I can't help with how to stop a can exploding with fizz on opening. However, if you pour soda into a glass and it starts frothing up over the top of the glass, sticking your finger into the foam collapses the foam back to liquid.
Does anyone know why?
I Googled (somewhat ineptly) and found two competing theories: one is that the oil (salt, dirt, etc.) on your finger has a chemical effect on the foam. But the other theory is that if you dip a perfectly clean butter-knife or other object into the foam, it will also cause the foam to dissipate, and this theory suggests a mechanical cause: by breaking down the stability of the bubbles, it causes a cascade/avalanche of the foam.
Probably both are true to a degree; a dirty finger would work better than a clean knife, and a dirty finger would also work better than a clean finger.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: Probably both are true to a degree; a dirty finger would work better than a clean knife, and a dirty finger would also work better than a clean finger.
Silas
No offense, but if I'm ever visiting, I think I'll pour my own drinks now...
Arts "no fingers" Myth
-------------------- Stupid, stupid rat creatures! - Bone "The missionaries told us not to cut ourselves. It displeases Jesus." - Elsie Clews Parsons, Kiowa Tales, quoted in The Mourner's Dance, Katherine Ashenburg Posts: 695 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:Originally posted by Faith: I can't help with how to stop a can exploding with fizz on opening. However, if you pour soda into a glass and it starts frothing up over the top of the glass, sticking your finger into the foam collapses the foam back to liquid.
Does anyone know why?
I Googled (somewhat ineptly) and found two competing theories: one is that the oil (salt, dirt, etc.) on your finger has a chemical effect on the foam. But the other theory is that if you dip a perfectly clean butter-knife or other object into the foam, it will also cause the foam to dissipate, and this theory suggests a mechanical cause: by breaking down the stability of the bubbles, it causes a cascade/avalanche of the foam.
Probably both are true to a degree; a dirty finger would work better than a clean knife, and a dirty finger would also work better than a clean finger.
Silas
I would agree with the second theory. I have noticed that the bubble begin to subside before I've even touched the foam.
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: Probably both are true to a degree; a dirty finger would work better than a clean knife, and a dirty finger would also work better than a clean finger.
Silas
No offense, but if I'm ever visiting, I think I'll pour my own drinks now...
Arts "no fingers" Myth
And what are you going to use -- heh heh heh -- for a glass?
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faith: I can't help with how to stop a can exploding with fizz on opening. However, if you pour soda into a glass and it starts frothing up over the top of the glass, sticking your finger into the foam collapses the foam back to liquid.
Does anyone know why?
I Googled (somewhat ineptly) and found two competing theories: one is that the oil (salt, dirt, etc.) on your finger has a chemical effect on the foam. But the other theory is that if you dip a perfectly clean butter-knife or other object into the foam, it will also cause the foam to dissipate, and this theory suggests a mechanical cause: by breaking down the stability of the bubbles, it causes a cascade/avalanche of the foam.
Probably both are true to a degree; a dirty finger would work better than a clean knife, and a dirty finger would also work better than a clean finger.
Silas
Compare a freshly-washed finger to the same finger after you rub your nose. Skin oil from your face just ATTACKS the foam (goes beyond just the bubbles that touch your skin).
G (I'm buying).
Posts: 104 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: Probably both are true to a degree; a dirty finger would work better than a clean knife, and a dirty finger would also work better than a clean finger.
Silas
No offense, but if I'm ever visiting, I think I'll pour my own drinks now...
Arts "no fingers" Myth
And what are you going to use -- heh heh heh -- for a glass?
Silas
You use a glass? Quaint custom, that.
Posts: 724 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
I've got it.
