| From: helen | 9/11/99
18:12:40 |
| Subject: Champagne | post id:
5949 |
| After months (nay, years) of
hear-say and speculation, I'm finally doing the experiment. This morning I went out and bought two bottles of Australian sparkling wine. So begins... Terry's Great Champagne Experiment! Day 1. 3.30 pm. Opened both bottles, and poured a glass from each. Drank said glasses. Both quite nice, despite being from $5 bottles and being consumed in the middle of the afternoon. Both quite bubbly. Placed both bottles in the door of my fridge. Placed a teaspoon in the neck of one! Stay tuned for further reports! | |
| From: helen | 9/11/99
18:30:48 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
5951 |
go Terry! truly you are our Avatar of Alcohol... er, Bubbliness. Speaking of which, how are you measuring bubbles/flatness? | |
| From: phoebe | 9/11/99
18:56:39 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
5957 |
| go
Terry! truly you are our Avatar of Alcohol... er, Bubbliness. Speaking of
which, how are you measuring bubbles/flatness? Quite scientific method, which I'm sure those who argue in the oranges thread that properties and perception are inextricably linked will like. I'll give you three guesses! ;-) | |
| From: phoebe | 9/11/99
19:10:32 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
5961 |
| 1/You will decant a small amount
(say 10ml) of the liquids into vessels with a small open area (test
tubes?) and count the number of bubbles that rise to the surface during a
certain period. 2/You will decant a small amount into a test tube and press the top to your nostril, and time the interval until you sneeze. 3/You will seal a pressure gauge on to each bottle, then agitate each bottle equally, and monitor the pressure curve. I'd do the experiment myself to get more datapoints onto the plot, but an open bottle of champagne in my fridge will last less than an hour, spoon or no spoon. Is it possible that there may be confounding problems, such as temperature difference, or the fact that the outer bottle will get swung at a greater velocity. It may be an idea to repeat the experiment later, with the positions of the bottles swapped. You are a credit to science, TF! | |
| From: phoebe | 9/11/99
19:58:16 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
5975 |
| All I can say is, Trust
Terry! My guess is he's just going to drink it and see, but for all I know Daryn was implying that anyway. I'm not in the mood for irony today, I have a headache. May I be excused? And Terry, could you send some my way? ("Underage dringkin' officer, nah, nah, coulnd't a been ush...") | |
| From: Courtney | 9/11/99
21:44:24 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
6002 |
Hehe... my guess is that you'll drink some of both in one order, see which tastes flatter, then drink them again in the other order to make sure, then drink some you've freshly opened because you forgot to set a control when you started, then drink some of each, then realise that they're both so much flatter than the fresh shampers that you can't distinguish amongst them any more. Then you'll have to invite someone (probably female, to ensure equality of perception) else over to go through the whole thing with you again only to realise there isn't enough shampers to do it all over. So... In the spirit of science you'll have to run some control tests (read drink several more bottles between the two of you) before publishing your inconclusive results in the hope of getting a research grant to get a whole lot more people trying the test with you and I just want you to know that I'll be the first to sign up! (Well, second then - I'm not female ;o) Gotta love science, huh Terry? I think the only mistake you have made is in not getting a think tank group together over several pints of guinness to help you work through the details of your experiment! Nevertheless this is your world, and am happy to merely share in it with you! ;o) | |
| From: Courtney | 10/11/99
15:55:07 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
6182 |
| Oooh, Terry, it's probably too
late, but what about experimenting with a champagne bottle stopper
doovilacky? You know, the silver thing you put on an open bottle. We use
them at work, and I'm tempted to growl at people who don't use them, but
maybe I'm wrong... All in the interest of science, eh? Cheers and bubbles, Courtney | |
| From: sue | 10/11/99
16:03:51 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
6187 |
| Terry's Great Champagne Experiment! Day 2. 4 am (PT + 0/12:30:00) Drank two more half glasses, one from each bottle. No noticable reduction in bubbliness, no noticable variation between the glasses. | |
| From: sue | 10/11/99
18:53:11 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
6235 |
| Terry, Why did you only choose to drink 1/2 glasses? Surely a full glass would have given you a more substantial opportunity to evaluate the bubbles?? | |
| From: masso | 10/11/99
23:34:01 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
6347 |
| Terry, If I read your post correctly, does it say 4 o'clock in the morning? If so,what were you doing drinking champagne or even awake at that hour? Cheers Masso | |
| From: red | 11/11/99
11:25:27 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
6431 |
| Terry's Great Champagne Experiment! Day 3. 12.30 am (PT + 1/09:00:00) Distinctly less bubbly now than when first opened. No readily identifyanble difference in the bubblyness between the bottles. Swiss female research assistant concurs (at lest she did before she fell asleep). Day 3. 9.30 am (PT + 1/18:00:00) Little change from previous report. | |
| From: red | 12/11/99
12:54:55 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
6853 |
| how are they now
??? | |
| From: Master Yoda Oz | 12/11/99
18:33:15 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
6968 |
| Terry's Great Champagne Experiment! Day 4. 3 pm (PT + 2/23:30:00) Wine is still in reletively good condition. Remarably little degradation of bubblyness over the last 48 hours (at least my perception of it, as this aspect is not controlled). No readily identifyanble difference in the bubblyness between the bottles. | |
| From: Master Yoda Oz | 15/11/99
5:26:02 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
7268 |
| Terry's Great Champagne Experiment! Day 6. 7.30 pm (PT + 5/04:00:00) What do you know. Still bubbly. Both bottles. | |
| From: Master Yoda Oz | 15/11/99
9:32:13 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
7288 |
What do you know. Still bubbly. errr... the shampers or the research assistant? | |
| From: Master Yoda Oz | 15/11/99
21:31:15 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
7486 |
| The champagne Chris, the
champagne. The Swiss research assistant is losing some of her bubblyness,
so I'm considering sacking her and recruiting
another. | |
| From: Master Yoda Oz | 17/11/99
11:14:57 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
7909 |
| Terry's Great Champagne Experiment! Day 9. 9.30 am (PT + 7/18:00:00) Remarably, both bottles still have some fizz, at least on pouring. Both rather flat to drink, and it's starting to taste funny. | |
| From: Mjr | 17/11/99
13:03:49 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
7962 |
| Depending on how long you manage
to keep this experiment running, and also how many 'samples' you choose to
test, you made be needing these three letters (well actually, one letter,
repeated 3 times) AAA Alcoholic Avatars Anonymous Mjr (NUFAH) | |
| From: Sue | 19/11/99
12:17:39 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
8715 |
| Terry, Terry, are you ok, last we
heard that champers didnt taste too good, now nothing, I hope you havent
been suffering for the sake of science???!!!! Dont be afraid if your results arent conclusive, we wont mind if you repeat the experiment, I'm sure if you ask nicely a few of us will conduct the experiment with you so you're not out there on your own hanging it out for science. What a selfless man. | |
| From: steve(primus) | 22/11/99
4:35:41 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
9158 |
| Terry's Great Champagne Experiment! Day 14. 2 am (PT + 12/10:30:00) Puored two more glasses. Nearly flat, but still enough fizzyness to form a high density of small (diameter < 1 mm) bubbles on the glass. Tastes much better than last time. No observable difference between the bottles. In the interests of my reputation, I hereby declare Terry's Great Champagne Experiment completed. | |
| From: steve(primus) | 22/11/99
6:39:49 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
9171 |
| Terry's Great Champagne
Experiment! Abstract The theory that a teaspoon placed in the neck of an opened bottle of champagne improves the longevity of the wine was tested by storing two bottles of Australian sparkling wine in a fridge with a teaspoon in the neck of one. The wine was sampled over a period of two weeks. The bubblyness of the wine from each bottle was tested by the investigator drinking a half glass from each bottle. Some of the observations were confirmed by Swiss female research assistant. The apparent persistence of effervescence---though not a controlled aspect of the experiment---was quite remarkable. At no stage was there a detectable difference between the wine from each bottle. The conclusion must be made that the "teaspoon in the neck of the bottle" theory be classed as an "urban myth". | |
| From: steve(primus) | 22/11/99
6:48:07 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
9172 |
| Now why didn't they ask you to
write the preamble Terry? A beautiful abstract which requires immediate
placement in the faq. Perhaps you should write up the experiment and submit it to New Scientist for the Christmas edition. Just a thought. | |
| From: Kothos | 22/11/99
11:01:07 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
9203 |
Are you sure it was the right kind of teaspoon? Shouldn't you have had two more bottles being sampled each day as a 'control pair'? No sorry, I'm kidding, I believe you. (: | |
| From: Alan | 22/11/99
19:03:46 |
| Subject: re: Champagne | post id:
9364 |
| Terry your reputation as a
scientist is destoyed. Sample size. 2 bottles (1 used as the control). Really I think you go and repeat the experiement several more times until at least you can plot the fizziness wrt time (including error bars) and maybe change some of the variables like the female Swiss lab assistant, maybe try Swedish and Canadian female lab assistants. ::=}} | |