Talk:Carbonation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Contents


[edit] Shaking

The article states:

"It is commonly said that shaking a carbonated beverage will cause large amounts of foam to erupt upon opening, and it is often believed that shaking a bottle containing a carbonated beverage will cause the pressure inside to rise. In fact, when a pressure gauge is attached to a pressurized bottle of a carbonated beverage, it is found that the pressure within does not increase. It is instead the formation of tiny bubbles from the agitation that causes the foam; upon opening, the size of the bubbles will rapidly increase due to the reduction in pressure, resulting in excessive foaming."

This can be proven false by anyone with a plastic container containing a carbonated beverage. Seal the container, apply pressure with your hand to the outside, shake the container, apply pressure again. There will be a noticeable difference in pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly second this - the statement given is absurd and the experiment described is what I would have suggested. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed this section for the reasons given above, and also because it is completely unsourced. If someone can give a well-sourced proof that the pressure does not increase, they are welcome to add it back in. Beatfox (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I took the liberty of deleting the global warming section as I am certain that it is just bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Japadrum (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what does this mean?

Carbonated liquids can pose a potential hazard; if shaken or jolted in an enclosed space such as a bottle or can, the carbonation can cause pressure to build to the point where it could cause a violent, explosive decompression when the seal is broken that could possibly cause injury.

Cause injury? to whom? Dappled Sage 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what?

Using H2C03 (aq) is not incorrect: it indicates that the carbonic acid is in solution. Type "H2C03 (aq)" into Google and you'll get quite a few hits. To be more correct, CO2 should also be (aq) rather than (g), since it is dissolved CO2 that reacts with water. The correct formula would be

H2O + CO2 (aq) ↔ H2CO3 (aq)

Saying H2O (aq) would be redundant, since it is saying "water dissolved in water", which is rather mundane, and thus truly not needed. Brian Rock

I get 7 hits with the quotes, and 1 hit without the quotes.

Darrien 19:17, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)
I thought maybe the alteration I made last time might have influenced you to look at it in a new light, but I guess not. Chances are nobody but you or I care about this. It really is a minor point - it's not worth any more effort on my part. I'll not change it again. Brian Rock 00:31, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
If the above sounds like a bit of attitude crept in, pardon. Brian Rock 00:37, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How can you tell which soda has the most carbonation?

How can you tell

which soda has the most carbonation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.191.19 (talk • contribs)

look at how many bubbles there are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.172.178 (talk • contribs)

The correct answer is to look at the price. Whatever is cheapest has the most carbonation. I have no idea why. Ewlyahoocom 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I must agree with Ewlyahoocom that cheap often means more carbonation, I will try to test some with my manual Carbonation tester and post the results if I can find the right fittings.--Phillipbeynon 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] soda

Do you mean that we get the same fizzy sensation, though there are no bubbles, or that the drink tastes the same, or nearly the same, when there are no bubbles? I assume the former -- why not say "fizzy sensation" then instead of taste?


Further, what happens to the carbonic acid when the drink goes flat? Are the bubbles carrying the acid traces? What ensures the sense of homogenous distribution of bubbles?

Thanks, eliot

No, it doesn't have the same fizzy sensation, because there are no bubbles. It tastes the same. You can see from the formula at the top of the article that there is an equilibrium between aqueous carbonic acid and gaseous carbon dioxide. I guess you could say the bubbles are "carrying the acid traces", because they are made of carbon dioxide. —Keenan Pepper 04:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What does Carbonated Water do to people, other than adding fiz to the drink, some one told me it will make you very sleepy, and thats why they add caffeen to Sodas to per you back up, also I heard it taks Calcium out of your system and its bad for your bones ? are any of these things true ? Thanks para

How could carbon dioxide do all those things? —Keenan Pepper 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold cabonation

During addition of carbon dioxide to soft drink, the process is usually cold. Why is that? -Olotu O.

Could it be because the solubility decreases with temperature? —Keenan Pepper 16:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
No, gas solubility increases as the temperature decreases (this can be seen by leaving a cold glass of water to warm up to room temp - small gas bubbles form). But then how is the carbonic acid equalibrium affected by temperature? Possibly the overall effect is that carbonation occurs fastest at low temperatures, anyone know? - Jack (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Jack has it right. Co2 solubility increases as temperature decreases. Check out Mccann's Website

[edit] Current article on carbonation: horrible

this current article on carbonation is horrible. i am now fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.172.178 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Talk from Effervescence

Is it true that in a perfectly clean glass with no dirt contamination (dust etc.) effervescence cannot happen as there are no seed crystals for the fizzing to start? I mean, as an example, if you pour champagne in a cleanroom clean glas the champagne rests rather dull and fizzy-free? --Abdull 09:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest you check out nucleation. Christophe Lasserre 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Effervescent

Just wondering if effervescent should have a definition in its own right - since the definition applies more widely than to bubbles arising from carbonation CustardJack 12:20, 14 April 2005


[edit] Merge

carbonated water is made by carbonation. Neither is a particually complicated thing, and they don't really merit their own articles. It would be useful to have the info for both on the same page. I say merge' - Jack (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)'

[edit] Effervescence is not the same as carbonation

Carbonation is a specific example of effervescence. Surely Carbonation should be a subtopic in effervescence, not vice versa. 195.137.93.230 03:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of Caffiene

Is this section vandalism? As far as I know Carbonation has nothing to do with Caffeine. When this section is removed or edited, please remove the essay-entry|section tag. Thanks.--France3470 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now removed this section completely as no one has responded. If this was indeed part of the article please revert my changes.--France3470 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaking: re-equilibrate?

I don't think there's a verb based on equilibrium. I don't know what the writer is trying to say, so I didn't re-write it using a valid verb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EdX20 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. I believe, though I am certainly no expert, that re-equilibriate can be changed to "bring to equilibrium". I don't really understand this sentence either; it may need some clarification.--France3470 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I own the antique device (pictured) used to measure the level of carbonation before distributing product to soda fountains. Upon reading section I found it clumsy if not in error. I've removed the "re-equilibrate" bit and added something which is unfortunately kind of wordy and doesn't mesh well, but I think it's still an improvement.--Phillipbeynon 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Immediately after resealing a carbonated liquid the pressure is still at atmospheric. The gas coming out of the liquid then raises the pressure in the space, until it finally reaches equilibrium, and then the gas production stops. The rate of gas production is more or less proportional to the surface area of the liquid (including the surface area of any bubbles), since the CO2 diffuses across the surface area at a roughly constant rate.WolfKeeper 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If you shake the bottle after resealing you produce lots of little bubbles, which gives a greater total surface area, so the gas evolves more quickly and equilibrium is reached sooner.WolfKeeper 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you WolfKeeper for adding "speeds the rate ". That's much more precise. I think there is still something missing from this section on shaking though. It seems to me that given these percepts, a bottle left sitting long enough would eventually reach the same explosive potential as one that has recently been shaken, however this is not the case, as I believe, if left to sit, the recently shaken bottle will "calm down". I use these subjective terms because I don't believe pressure is the main force involved here. There seems to be something more to this.

[edit] what diagram do you think its needed?

tellme and if i can ill do it Yupi666 00:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offtopic: Hazards and Dangers

Am I the only one who thinks the discussion of the negative health effects of soda and dangers of carbonated beverage containers is way off topic in an article that is supposed to be about carbonation? These things relate specifically to drinks so it seems like they would be better placed in the article about soft drinks.

Also, the text at the bottom of the section that says "[edit] see also" along with the complete lack of citations or links makes it look like the entire section was directly copy/pasted from someplace else.

I'm in favor of deleting the entire Hazards section. Objections? ThinkGreen 01:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Edward Willhoft added this section sometime previously on the wrong page, got angry when it was removed, and pasted it directly into this article and the article on carbonated water. I still don't think it's appropriate for this page. --ThinkGreen 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is offtopic. And way out of its proportionate significance to the topic. Richard J Kinch 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Could we possibly move this someplace else or start a new article about beverage containers? The author obviously put a lot of effort into it (see his comments on my talk page) so I'd like to try and clean it up and find a place for it if we can. My main concern now is over whether it is encyclopedic enough to be included in wikipedia; my impression is that it reads too much like a research paper written for some other purpose, but with some effort I think it could be adapted enough to comply with wikipedia's quality standards. I'd like to get other peoples comments, and I'll probably get started on a new article this weekend if there are no objections. --ThinkGreen 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is an off topic dis UR MOTHER cussion, since the widest recognized application of carbonation is in soft drinks. Anyone researching carbonation is not going to be put off by a discussion of carbonation's effects when used in soda. It relates directly to the topic and should be left in. jparenti 20:56, 04 October 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that if a person were looking for information on the health hazards of soft drinks, they would simply pull up the detailed article on soft drinks; there is an extensive section covering the same material in greater detail there, so this section only serves as a poorly placed duplicate. As for the section on "physical dangers"... while the information is good, the level of detail seems ridiculous for something only tangentially related to carbonation itself and I think it would be better placed in a new article about beverage containers.
Just because somebody reading this article wouldn't be "put off" by the inclusion of this information isn't a reason to keep it here. We should be striving to make wikipedia as professional as possible, and that means we should be aiming for clarity and focus in every article we work on.
Furthermore, unilaterally removing a tag without discussion seems a little inappropriate--especially given that two other people have expressed an opinion contrary to the one you seem to possess. The whole point of the tag is to invite discussion.
--ThinkGreen 09:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the note is not regarding dehydrations due to the process of carbonation, but of the consumtion of Caffiene, which is unrelated to the topic discussed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.194.32 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where does the CO2 come from for the carbonation?

What is the source of the CO2 used in carbonating beverages such as cola? Anybody know? It someone know for sure it would be a good addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.162.56 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)