What Happened to the Man Who Couldn't Tell Water from Syrup?

The article gave appropriate conditions and exceptions for the results obtained.

While it might be just as quick, it wouldn't be as easy. I didn't see any mention of energy consumed.

No it doesn't!

And it is not a question of energy consumed.

"creating a gloopy liquid twice as thick as water" what does this really mean, and how does the viscosity compare with that of syrup?

Does it tell you that guar gum solutions are amongst the most thixotropic of viscous fluids? What effect might this have on drag?

Does it tell you the difference between different types of viscosities, or the difference between 'sticky' fluids and 'slippery' fluids, and the effect this might have on drag?

No, it implies (or, 'states' ?) that the mechanical characteristics of 'thick' fluids are all the same, and therefore making people swim through 'a thick fluid' is exactly the same as making them swim through syrup. It says that a Guar gum solution is the same as syrup. The question is, are they just misinformed, are the not really scientists, or are they something else entirely?

Swimming through syrup didn't work very well for the people in Boston on 14Jan1919.

Boston molasses flood

From the article:

"A wave of molasses does not behave like a wave of water. Molasses is a non-Newtonian fluid, which means that its viscosity depends on the forces applied to it, as measured by shear rate. Consider non-Newtonian fluids such as toothpaste, ketchup and whipped cream. In a stationary bottle, these fluids are thick and goopy and do not shift much if you tilt the container this way and that. When you squeeze or smack the bottle, however, applying stress and increasing the shear rate, the fluids suddenly flow. Because of this physical property, a wave of molasses is even more devastating than a typical tsunami. In 1919 the dense wall of syrup surging from its collapsed tank initially moved fast enough to sweep people up and demolish buildings, only to settle into a more gelatinous state that kept people trapped."

"Physics also explains why swimming in molasses is near impossible. One can predict how easily an object or organism will move through a particular medium by calculating the relevant Reynolds number, which in this case takes into account the viscosity and density of the fluid as well as the velocity and size of the object or organism. The higher the Reynolds number, the more likely everything will go along swimmingly."

This was also covered in an episode of Mythbusters.

I'm puzzled why you think this is not a valid scientific question. There will be a higher drag coefficient moving through syrup but what surprises many is that this also allows a higher propulsive force to be produced. So the valid question is will these two changes balance each other or will one or the other dominate.

Mythbusters also used Guar gum - see above.

I think it is a perfectly valid scientific argument, and a very interesting question. As someone involved in fluidics I have a pretty good idea what I think would happen if you compare swimming in water with swimming in syrup.

What I really object to is when these so-called scientists do an experiment and then con people into thinking the results are real. They are telling people that it is just as quick swimming through syrup as through water, but they have not actually tested it on syrup, or a syrup-like fluid.

Until they actually do, they are fakes and charlatans masquerading as scientists, or clever people.

this should satisfy the "scientist aspect of this silly discussion.http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040920/full/news040920-2.html

regardless of what you might care to believe I think the entire premise of the question has no real world basis in fact. it sounds more like a question of physics posed to students that's managed to have more legs than it deserves. so sure, if the swimmer has more to pull against with the heavier fluid this will give a certain advantage over the thinner fluid, so some might say the additional drag on the swimmer in the heavier fluid will cancel any gains. I'm not looking at it that way. it's simply harder to make your way through thicker so your energy output has to increase to travel the same distance. maybe over a very short distance the numbers would be close but over 100, 200 meters etc. the swimmer making their way through syrup would quit before the one cutting through water

Fredski, that is the link I posted at the beginning.

And the point is not just about thickness. The people who make these claims do not define terms, specifically what they mean when their fluid is '20 times' or '500 times' thicker than water, or "as thick as any syrup I have ever seen". In particular, they show no consideration for, or understanding of, the mechanical properties of fluids that might cause drag.

The worst thing about this sort of rubbish is that most people will believe it.

I think the entire argument is silly....so lets increase the temperature of the syrup and rerun the test lol. I can see it now....next summer Olympics the 100 meter sprint though Mrs. Buttersworth

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/swimming-in-syrup-minimyth.htm

They ignored the data they took!

and...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=750B86RIros

I guess we need a Philadelphia lawyer (or Bill Clinton) to pin down what the exact (and only?) meaning of "syrup" is.

Do we?

Are you saying that water thickened with guar gum is a syrup? Is gravy a syrup? Is custard a syrup? Is emulsion paint a syrup?

Are you saying that we don't know what syrup is like? Whether it is maple syrup, corn syrup, sugar syrup, we know what syrup is like.

So for someone to say that a fluid is 20 times, or 500 times thicker than water is just downright stupid terminology in the first place, but to state that swimming through thickened water is the same as swimming through syrup is totally preposterous, and this is the sort of thing that would be said by journalists and media hypesters, not by scientists.

Why don't you just take a pint of syrup of ipecac, and get this all out of your system?

Because, syrup or no, it's a thousand times thicker than water, and will stick in his craw.

You're absolutely correct. It is very frustrating when people refuse to explain things in proper scientific terms. Accurate measurement of the critical attributes are important to any proper informed discussion of a topic. Now what attribute of guar gum syrups makes them an invalid syrup?

We need a real scientific study on energy expenditure during mud-wrestling. Give three cheers for thixotropic fluids!

Yes, I wondered if it had been shaken or stirred I also wondered about its specific gravity, if high, the swimmer might be aquaplaning along the surface.

I wonder how hard it would be to swim in a pool of mercury--maybe easier just to walk on it.

Rumor has it that he changed his name in Sticky and wanders in technical forums.

With the right kind of "syrup", you can run across...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw

I would surmise that the terminologly was chosen based upon the audience being polled for response and participation.

The article is being pushed to the "e-world" for response from the general population audience and not to the scientific or engineering community.

Today most people emphatically avoid any scientific terminology because it overwhelms them, is too boring, and they just want the "bottom line" in layman terms. (Reader Digest Version."

The person(s) performing the testing may well have collected valid scientific DATA however if they were to publish the DATA in scientific terminology, the size/quantity of the audience/people that would thoroughly read the article would decrease dramatically.

In today's business world we have training such as "How the Technical Person Effectively Communicates with Management" and several other "Dummy down" classes that focus specifically on how to eliminate technical and scientific terminology and replace the wording with vague terms such as; "1,000 times thicker than water".

Why? I quote: "We do not have a clue what you are talking about in our meetings and there is way too much scientific and technical language in your reports."

Is a syrup a syrup a syrup?

Many restaraunts serve "syrups" which are very different in texture from the same name ( corn, maple ) that you would purchase at the grocer's.

on line sources define syrups as sugars dissolved in water; the viscosities will vary with the dilution of the sugar, so it begs the question which syrup is being considered a true syrup?

For the purposes of testing the theory, the "scientists" chose a viscosity which would show, within the limits of practicality in physical strength and cost of the medium ,the difference in swimming efficiencies in various viscosities.

I agree that while it may not have been a syrup a la molasses, the interpretation of the results is far more questionable than the study which produced them. You can take the results from swimming in a light syrup to cover all syrups; but then that would have to assume that the swimmer gained a proportionate strength when swimming in thicker syrups. A typical human would not get far into the viscosity curve since they would be overcome much as a fly on fly paper.

Or maybe a swimmer coated in BUTTER would slide more easily thru the syrupy waves and skew the results ?

Again, I agree that not all syrups are alike and therefore any conclusions one draws from the results must take that fact into account. ( but then there are always those who would choose to remain ignorant out of spite)

This whole demonstration is a farce.

The rheology and viscosity, 1 centipoise at 20 °C, of water is well known and these qualities are repeatable and predictable.

"Syrup" is a nebulous term "is a thick, viscous liquid". The term, without further definition, is meaningless in any sense except the most general way.

YUP - - -