Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Secret of Cornstarch Physics

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the never-invite-newton dept.

Science 49

sciencehabit writes "Filling a small swimming pool with cornstarch and water has long been a physicist's party trick. Step onto it slowly and you'll sink, but run across quickly and the oozy mixture will support your weight — almost as though it has turned from liquid to solid. Several reasons have been offered for the phenomenon, but now researchers believe they have the real answer. The key to figuring things out: plunging a 370-gram aluminum rod from a slingshot at around 1 meter per second into a cornstarch suspension." One meter per second doesn't seem very fast for anything launched by a slingshot, but any speed is good as long as it advances important knowledge like this.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here is what I know... (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40628673)

Penn Jillette once almost drowned a midget while wrestling nude in a swimming pool filled with cornstarch. Oh and non-newtonien liquid bla, bla, etc.

Re:Here is what I know... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40628997)

Penn Jillette once almost drowned a midget while wrestling nude in a swimming pool filled with cornstarch. Oh and non-newtonien liquid bla, bla, etc.

Pics or it didn't....

Umm, nevermind.

tfa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40628719)

"Filling a small swimming pool with cornstarch and water has long been a physicist's party trick" Heh,I use a roux

Also from TFA (2)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40630167)

Mixtures of cornstarch, water, and other suspensions have been known as "shear-thickening" materials.

That's quite the parallel construction! Cornstarch is a suspension, and so is water!
I'm afraid this 'science writer' is either not much of a scientist, or not much of a writer.

Stretch Armstrong (1)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 2 years ago | (#40634373)

Adults will remember their kiddy years playing with Stretch Armstrong, the ultimate cornstarch hero

What would be *really* interesting... (2, Funny)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40628751)

...is using a slingshot to shot Natalie Portman at 1 m/s into a vat of HOT GRITS!

Re:What would be *really* interesting... (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40629257)

Darn... haven't seen a Natalie Portman reference here in a long time.

Do you think the results would vary based on naked, petrified, both, or neither?

Re:What would be *really* interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40629423)

Set up as a poll question and find out. Don't forget to include the Cowboy Neil option.

Re:What would be *really* interesting... (1)

broggyr (924379) | more than 2 years ago | (#40629465)

What about CowboyNeal?

Re:What would be *really* interesting... (1)

dokc (1562391) | more than 2 years ago | (#40637063)

What about CowboyNeal?

shot CowboyNeal at 1 m/s into a vat of HOT GRITS ?

All I know from corn starch... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40628775)

is that you can make your own flesh light....

Corn starch and Silicone (I) (5, Interesting)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40628777)

Has anyone made the Sugru clone by mixing silicone I caulk and cornstarch (I think ratios are flexible, up to 1:3 with reasonable cure times)?

As I understand it, the cornstarch absorbs the water and accelerates the silicone cure time, enabling a cure phase where it is hand-moldable like Sugru?

I have a box of corn starch and two tubes of silicone waiting at home for me to try this. There's an instructable for this that focuses on a different project but a lot of the project is spent on making this hand-moldable silicone.

I use Harvey plumber's epoxy (moldable, like clay, but gets rock hard) all the time and I've always wanted a hand-moldable product that would have the finished consistency of silicone. Silicone itself is too goopy and cures poorly if very thick.

Sugru solves this, but its expensive. There are other two-part silicones that can be bought, but they are expensive, too, and this method seems pretty simple and inexpensive (I think I bought two full-size tubes of GE brand Silicone I and a box of cornstarch for about $6, certainly less than $10 total).

Re:Corn starch and Silicone (I) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40629119)

I've read several accounts of the clone mixture and the people reported wonderful results. I've even read several methods for coloring the mixture too.

Re:Corn starch and Silicone (I) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40629311)

Links anyone?

Re:Corn starch and Silicone (I) (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40629411)

Yes, I have. It works well, although you have to play with the ratios to get it to do what you want. It's also smelly and challenging to mix at first.

Re:Corn starch and Silicone (I) (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40630403)

What ratios did you find worked best? I'm more interested in short working times (5 minutes or less) and putty-like malleability (which I think you might call very high viscosity).

I think I've heard that 1:2 silicone:corn starch will accomplish this. I've also heard the mixing is a bitch, and I'm not entirely sure how you measure silicone from a caulk tube without a complete mess.

I plan to try this this weekend, actually. I might even be able to grab some pigment to color it.

Re:Corn starch and Silicone (I) (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#40631733)

I'm not entirely sure how you measure silicone from a caulk tube without a complete mess.

Attach a ruler to your caulk gun and measure how far you've squeezed the plunger... or just use the whole tube in a single batch.

Re:Corn starch and Silicone (I) (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40632733)

There's some logic to that, I guess. I could do the math on the interior of the tube and measure how far the rod on the caulk gun goes in.

I was considering at least for the first batch using small dixie cups on a sheet of parchment paper, as I've read it doesn't stick well to that. The silicone would be squeezed out next to a dixie cup on the paper, with corn starch measured in the cups added to it and then mixed.

I'm going to try 1:1 and 2:1 starch:silicone ratios first.

Re:Corn starch and Silicone (I) (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#40636581)

Or find the specific gravity of the caulk and starch then place your mixing container on a scale (zeroed out for the weight of the container of course).

If you have disposable spoons, you can measure the weight of a level spoon full then and multiply that against the total amount to be mixed. OF course this is by volume which is what I think you are wanting to do. If a spoon of caulk is 1 oz minus the weight of the spoon, and the amount you squeeze out to your mixing container is 16 ounces, just adjust the weight of the other ingredients by 16 and mix for a 1:1 ratio.

Re:Corn starch and Silicone (I) (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40636993)

Sugru is not something I've heard of but I've done a fair amount of plastic mixes.

Go careful with accelerators. I stopped using them after the first fire. It's always better to show some patiences.

And the Nobel goes to (2, Funny)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40628803)

... the inanimate aluminum rod.

Re:And the Nobel goes to (5, Funny)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#40628911)

In Rod We Trust.

(or, more appropriate to the topic : In, Rod We Thrust).

Re:And the Nobel goes to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40629451)

I'll file all of the above under "Titles Outright Rejected for After School Specials".

Re:And the Nobel goes to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40629195)

In rod we trust

Re:And the Nobel goes to (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40637529)

Wow, Nobel prize winner AND the center of Festivus.

Long live the aluminium rod!

Why slingshot? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40628885)

I really wonder about that slingshot... why not just drop the bar from 5cm above? 1m/s is the speed it reaches when dropped from that height.

(actually, I think the journalists fucked up the numbers again)

Re:Why slingshot? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40629083)

Come on -- why couldn't you say "4.9cm"? What's a sigfig nazi to do when everyone gets it right?

Re:Why slingshot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40631417)

Retire to Argentina?

Server slashdoted... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40629025)

This or it's a non-newtonian server and I clicked so fast I couldn't enter.

Been done (1)

cellocgw (617879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40629485)

Mythbusters filled a small pool w/ oobleck and one or two of them ran across it successfully.
The big deal here is not so much the metal projectile but the array of monitoring equipment used to analyze the change in structure of the goo.

Simple behavior... (4, Interesting)

Physics Dude (549061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40629745)

I thought this was well understood and have explained it to my nieces/nephews and many others.

Corn starch as packaged for sale consists of VERY small grains (see http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0144861705005059-gr3.jpg [els-cdn.com] ). When mixed with water in appropriate proportions, they exhibit the same behavior as sand at the beach's edge where it will apear to dry when stepped on and when the pressure is removed will return to being very wet.

This has to do with dense packing behavior: When undisturbed, the particles naturally form a relatively dense packing due to it's low energy configuration. watter fills the space beween the particles. By disturbing the dense packing by applying an external force, the space beween particles increases alowing for more water to be stored in the inter-particle space. The natural dense packing will occur once the disruptive forces have disipated, so to remain in the more 'solid' state, the dense-packing arangement must constantly be disturbed.

If this research is aimed at the reason for the natural dense-packing in the first place, I thought that was also well understood. Am I missing something?

Re:Simple behavior... (1)

Physics Dude (549061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40629825)

I guess I should have read up on all the other ideas/theories first. Interesting, but it seems it's mostly addressed at a macroscopic level from what I have seen. Very interesting.

Doesn't bode well for body armor (3, Interesting)

ebh (116526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40629775)

If the compression forms a (near) solid column from the point of impact to the bottom of the container, that implies that as armor it would do exactly what you don't want it to do, which is transmit the impact through to the wearer over a relatively small area. Effective armor spreads the impact over a wide area, or better yet, turns it into a shock wave that spreads and dissipates throughout the armor.

Re:Doesn't bode well for body armor (3, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#40629929)

    Actually, that would act more like vehicle armor. You want to stop the projectile, rather than it penetrating the vehicle.

    I just watched a few videos on the subject, where they were using pellet guns. The non-Newtonian fluid scattered, looking like foam under the same impact. When it recovered, it moved like a fluid again.

    I'd think, rather than supporting and spreading the force, it would just react like a weak solid. Sure, you can walk across a sheet of foam board without it collapsing. It doesn't make very good armor though.

    Something like layered Kevlar and non-Newtonian fluid may work well, but most likely the overall weight would prevent any sort of practical uses. Unless you're Chuck Norris, and we all know that he doesn't need armor at all. :)

Re:Doesn't bode well for body armor (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40630069)

Would it be possible to eliminate the effect by constructing some sort of disruptive surface below the rod? Something that causes the column to "collapse" as it were?

Re:Doesn't bode well for body armor (2)

Antipater (2053064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40630367)

The point of armor is to prevent penetration, not impact. That's not to say that good armor doesn't also distribute the force, but I'd much rather get a bad bruise from a stopped bullet than shot by a bullet I felt no impact from.

Re:Doesn't bode well for body armor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40630879)

The point of armor is both, actually, but you're correct that penetration is the more important one for typical projectiles.

But GP's point is, if a non-newtonian fluid "solidifies" in a column more-or-less the projectile's diameter, the column will penetrate you just as well as the bullet. And if you use the same layer of kevlar to stop the column of non-newtonian fluid from penetrating (and, to the extent needed, distribute impact) that you would need to stop the bullet directly, what good is the 'bleck doing again?

The point of applying non-newtonian fluids to body armor is to replace trauma plates (which are mainly to distribute the force of heavier impacts) with something flexible, allowing that coverage for sides, shoulders, etc. instead of only chest and back.

Re:Doesn't bode well for body armor (2)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#40632617)

In general correct, but that depends entirely on what you are protecting against.

A typical anti-armor projectile or shaped charge on impact will use a chemical reaction to create molten copper (from a copper ingot in the projectile) that is then explosively discharged into the armor at high speed on impact. This stream of liquid copper melts a hole though the armor and then sprays itself all over the crew compartment killing the occupants in a very gruesome manner while the projectile itself bounces harmlessly off the armor. The defensive armor against this type of munition fires a charge in the armor on impact that blasts the stream of liquid copper away from the remaining armor. This is typically referred to as active-armor and actually contains explosives that will explode when hit with molten metal.

In this case the projectile itself is relatively harmless, it's the molten copper that becomes the penetrator meant to kill those behind the armor. So you are correct, the point is to penetrate and kill, but there is more than one way to penetrate armor, and sometimes it's not the projectile at all that's meant to do the killing.

Re:Doesn't bode well for body armor (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40636121)

Other (older) projectiles use the explosive to transmit a shockewave to the inside of the armor that causes fragments to fly off and kill the occupants. The armor has an extra layer inside to reflect that shockwave before it reaches the inside.

Re:Doesn't bode well for body armor (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40636117)

If the armor doesn't spread the force of impact at all, the impact can be just as deadly as the projectile itself without armor would be. The point of armor is to allow the user to survive contact with a weapon that would otherwise kill them.

Disposal (3, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#40629843)

My first thought was "I should fill my kids' kiddie pool with corn starch and water to have some scientific fun with them!"

My second thought was "How would I clean it up when we're done?"

Somehow, I think dumping it all on the lawn would not be ideal.

Re:Disposal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40630061)

My first thought was "I should fill my kids' kiddie pool with corn starch and water to have some scientific fun with them!"

My second thought was "How would I clean it up when we're done?"

And my thought is to report you to the police.

Re:Disposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40630869)

Dump it on your neighbor's lawn?

Re:Disposal (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40631029)

How about dump it on my dickhead neighbor's lawn.

Re:Disposal (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40645133)

My second thought was "How would I clean it up when we're done?"

Egg drop soup party? Lots of chickens will be required, but, hey, what kind of fun doesn't start with that?

What kind of stupid statement is this? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40630051)

> "One meter per second doesn't seem very fast for anything launched by a slingshot, but any speed is good as long as it advances important knowledge like this."

This is how you chose to contribute to the submission? Really?

This Explains the Exodus (4, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40633521)

Traditional Story
In the Old Testament, Moses told the Israelites [wikipedia.org] not to leaven their bread, and subsequently led them safely across the Red Sea. When the Egyptians pursued them, they drowned.

What Really Happened
Obviously, Moses had someone go around and collect all the baking powder (which these days is made from sodium bicarbonate, tartaric acid and cornstarch [wikipedia.org] ). Some kid started asking a bunch of questions that irritated Moses, such as, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" He explained that they were leaving Egypt. When the child asked, "Why are we eating unleavened bread?" Moses replied, "uh, because we're in a hurry, kid. Stop asking questions!" He then had the Israelites' baking powder dumped into the sea so his people could run across it [youtube.com] . However, since it wasn't pure cornstarch, it was unstable and collapsed by the time the Egyptians tried to cross.

It all makes sense now. God I love mixing science and religion. It's a lot like mixing water and cornstarch. Anything holds up surprisingly well if you run through it fast enough.

Re:This Explains the Exodus (0)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 2 years ago | (#40634059)

Anything holds up surprisingly well if you run through it fast enough

You're right. I skim-read the Bible in about 2 minutes and it seemed fairly sound. Then I actually read it properly and realised it was all nonsense.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?