[turtle]

Originally Posted by cosus Why not just buy cans of soda and rid yourself of this excess labor?

Cans have such a nasty taste to them. It really effects the flavor. Plus, there are too many studies that indicate Aluminum being linked to Alzheimer's Disease being ingested from things like aluminum cans and cookware.

I like the balloon idea. I'm interested to see how your testing turns out.

[cosus]

Well in that case what of glass bottles?

[Windowsrookie]

Coke is teh nasty in a can.

[PKIDelirium]

Originally Posted by Windowsrookie Coke EVERYTHING is teh nasty in a can.

T,FTFY.

[joveblue]

Cans FTW!!!!

Dunno about the whole Alzheimer's thing though... But they're better to drink out of than plastic and they cool down quick on ice or in the freezer.

Mmmm Vanilla Coke in a can....

(people actually drink that Dr Pepper crap?)

[cosus]

Hey, Dr. Pepper is an acquired taste. You know for hick, gun totting, drive thru liquor store, Bush breeding Texans, they make a mighty fine fountain drink.

[digitalprimate]

Originally Posted by joveblue ...and they cool down quick on ice or in the freezer.

Shouldn't it be quickly?
Really off-topic, and I apologize if this sounds pedantic. But I just wanted to test my level of English here.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by cosus Hey, Dr. Pepper is an acquired taste. You know for hick, gun totting, drive thru liquor store, Bush breeding Texans, they make a mighty fine fountain drink.

Hey! I resemble that remark!



Resent! I mean, resent.

[zippy]

Day one results:
At about 24 hours after the initial pour and re-seal, both bottles of soda were back to that expanded/pressurized feel. Yes, even the bottle that had had all of the air squeezed out (after 2 measured cups of Dr. Pepper poured out) managed to completely re-inflate (good thing we marked the bottles).

But how did the soda perform? For starters, the new pour from the bottle that was not squeezed seemed to have a visibly larger fizz head. Both bottles were poured at the same rate - as well as could be without robots */makes mental note to build robot/* and the head on the non-squeezed bottle had an extra 1/4 to 1/2 inch of foam. Good scientific evidence!

Both tasted well enough to serve and enjoy for the average soda drinker, so either method after just one day would be suitable for consumption. But there was a detectable difference. Of course, I knew which one was which, so my opinion may not carry much weight, but when my wife did a blind taste test, she also picked the non-squeezed pour as being the fizziest. More proof!

I predict a much more noticeable difference after day 2. In fact, I would go so far as to predict that the squeezed out bottle may no longer be considered drinkable by the casual soda consumer, and definately not by a serious kind-of-sewer.


As an aside, but of particular interest. When we first started this experiment, my wife was on the phone with her out-of-state brother. She told him of our plans, and coincidently, he said that they had just had a conversation earlier that day about whether it was better to pour a warm soda over ice, or pour first and add ice later. Oh great mysteries of life, why do you taunt us so? I may have to do some testing on this one as well */makes note to search for grant funding/*.

Also, the three high-techy gadgets (all manufactured by the same company) have been ordered from Amazon, and are expected later in the month. I eagerly await that head to head to head bruhaha!

[zippy]

Day 2 results:

After another 22 hours on the counter, the squeezed out bottle was about 1/2 the way towards regaining full shape. Looks like a lot of CO2 loss once again.

Next, we open the bottles. The one with the air squeezed out gave a little "fssst" upon opening - okay, so there's a bit more life in it. How about the other bottle? "FFSSSSSSTT!" Ah, now that's more like it. That's the sound we like to hear. Compelling stuff, I say.

But how about taste? A little surprisingly, the squeezed out soda was still drinkable, but not surprisingly, the other was noticeably better. In fact, it also had about twice the head as the other when poured.

Taste sampling today was done with straight, room temperature pours. No ice was added either before, or after, and I really am wondering what kind of a difference it would make. So for day 3, I will do a couple of pours: over ice, and pour first then add ice. Presumably, these will be done with just the non-squeezed bottle, as I don't anticipate the squeezed out bottle will have much life left. Also, since even the non squeezed soda is starting to lose it's luster, I am hoping that the difference in timing of the ice will be more noticeable. I may be wrong, but that's my gut feeling.

I've decided to wait for the arrival of the high tech fizz keepers to do the balloon test. It should make for a good 5-way challenge.

Riveting stuff I know.

[Banana]

It's odd. I used to buy into squeezed 2-liter bottle when I worked overnight and could store my 2-liter in a fridge as a economical way to have a beverage for couple of days. Never I had seen it regain the shape whenever I return the next day for my next shift, and that is still true even if I had a day or two off.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by Banana It's odd. I used to buy into squeezed 2-liter bottle when I worked overnight and could store my 2-liter in a fridge as a economical way to have a beverage for couple of days. Never I had seen it regain the shape whenever I return the next day for my next shift, and that is still true even if I had a day or two off.

The storing in a fridge is the key. The solubility of CO2 varies inversely with temperature. Therefore, by keeping it cold you kept more of the gas in the soda and not in the air of the bottle. Hence, no expansion of the bottle.

[Banana]

Oh, I got the fridge part confused; I thought he said he was keeping it in fridge but no it was on counter.

Silly ol' me.

[digitalprimate]

Originally Posted by cynical_rock The storing in a fridge is the key. The solubility of CO2 varies inversely with temperature. Therefore, by keeping it cold you kept more of the gas in the soda and not in the air of the bottle. Hence, no expansion of the bottle.

That's why global warming is such a b*tch: The more the earth warms up > the more CO2 from seawater is released > the more greenhouse gasses are released in the atmosphere > which contributes to the warming up of the sea and earth >...

[cosus]

I don't know. When I find a company that makes products that turns CO2 into air, I think we'll have a big winner in the stock market. There's nothing more American than betting on a natural disaster to make you some money.

Now I wonder if Armstrong Nursery has gone public yet...

[spikeh]

TBH don't drink soda. It's so bad for you. Fruit smoothies are the way forward. I buy the innocent ones and put them in the freezer and defrost them a little before drinking. Iced acai smoothie is the best thing since ever.

[cosus]

Diet pop is as bad for you as a cup of soda water.

[spikeh]

Isn't it traditionally full of carcinogenic sweeteners, though?

[Banana]

Originally Posted by spikeh Isn't it traditionally full of carcinogenic sweeteners, though?

Funny, that. I just read a Discovery article that stated that despite researchers trying to prove otherwise, nobody has came up with a conclusive proof that artificial sweeteners are carcinogenic. Even saccharine, which used to come with a warning that it caused cancer in lab rats has been shown to be safe after showing that the study was flawed and doing a new study.

Not that I'm rushing to stock up on artificial sweetener. As silly and naive it may be, I just don't think a synthetically made stuff can ever be on par with what is made out there in nature.

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by Banana Funny, that. I just read a Discovery article that stated that despite researchers trying to prove otherwise, nobody has came up with a conclusive proof that artificial sweeteners are carcinogenic. Even saccharine, which used to come with a warning that it caused cancer in lab rats has been shown to be safe after showing that the study was flawed and doing a new study. Not that I'm rushing to stock up on artificial sweetener. As silly and naive it may be, I just don't think a synthetically made stuff can ever be on par with what is made out there in nature.

I stand corrected. But yes, I won't be buying it in bulk just yet either

[cosus]

Yeah, if you are a 2 ounce mouse eating 2 pounds of sweet 'n low a day, then cancer might be possible. Otherwise, you are safe. I wonder if eating that much toast would give cancer, let alone a bowel obstruction.

[digitalprimate]

Still, diet soda is also too acidic to be drinking it throughout the day. It just eats away your teeth. (And apparently fruit juices in general have that too)

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by cosus Yeah, if you are a 2 ounce mouse eating 2 pounds of sweet 'n low a day, then cancer might be possible. Otherwise, you are safe. I wonder if eating that much toast would give cancer, let alone a bowel obstruction.

The point isn't that it causes cancer but that a carcinogen can increase the chances of cancer. People were saying exactly what you said above about passive smoking until very recently.

[cosus]

Oh yeah, then they discovered that unless you live with a chain-smoker, second hand smoking causing cancer is negligible.

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by cosus Oh yeah, then they discovered that unless you live with a chain-smoker, second hand smoking causing cancer is negligible.

Second hand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult non-smokers in the United States each year (Source: California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005). Amongst other things. But thanks for polluting the internet with your conjecture

[cosus]

What? Alright... I think I need to take you outside and give you a spanking.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15033

...the most exhaustive, longest-running study on second-hand smoke and death. Find no connection.

UCLA study show no connection of second hand smoke and health. UCLA, a respectable university with a reputation to keep in the state with some of the harshest smoking laws in the world.

[spikeh]

Citing sources from 2003 and 2004. If you want to rely on a study that predates the one I cited, then go ahead. But if you're saying there's no link between passive smoking and death then you're ignoring, um, fact. If you want to carry on discussing this then start a new thread, but before you do, you should read up a little. Start with Wikipedia, they usually have pictures

[cosus]

First off, the study I stated was a much longer, much larger study that has been peer reviewed. Plus, it would be more appropriate to link me to something else than wikipedia.

[zippy]

HEY! This thread is a serious scientific study on the aspects of keeping soda fresh in a 2-liter bottle. If you want to debate the affects of second-hand smoke, then I suggest one of you volunteer to spend all of your time around someone who smokes and keep us up to date on your impending health crisis.

And no, I won't take that one on myself as I have much bigger things to worry about - for instance sampling for the fizzies in my pop!

Now, wrist-slaps all around for your thread de-railers.

You got a problem with that?

I thought not.

-the Fizzmaster

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by zippy HEY! This thread is a serious scientific study on the aspects of keeping soda fresh in a 2-liter bottle. If you want to debate the affects of second-hand smoke, then I suggest one of you volunteer to spend all of your time around someone who smokes and keep us up to date on your impending health crisis. And no, I won't take that one on myself as I have much bigger things to worry about - for instance sampling for the fizzies in my pop! Now, wrist-slaps all around for your thread de-railers. You got a problem with that? I thought not. -the Fizzmaster

sorry dude. I'm ducking out of it. It's like arguing with a Creationist