See query. By “go back” return to the status quo ante (if it ever does, completely)–ie, no crazy spritz when I unscrew the lid.
I’m basically interested in the calculations for this question. I’m guessing they’re fairly rudimentary, and wondering whether diving tables (or their inverse, high-altitude skydiving tables) are the same thing in principle, with us, blood, and nitrogen compared with bottle, liquid, and CO2.
A gas is MORE soluble at colder temperatures so cooling the soda bottle would quicken the redissolution of your CO2.
Dive tables are an attempt to make sure that nitrogen doesn’t bubble directly out of your blood and terrorize your insides. This would be accomplished by either not ascending too quickly giving you a chance to exhale the nitrogen and/or not being underwater long enough or at such a depth to accelerate the dissolution of nitrogen to begin with.
I remember something about testing if tapping a can of soda reduces fizz over. It turns out it doesn’t but that the 20-30 seconds was usually enough time for the CO2 to get back into the soda.
The Master speaks:
https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1034/will-tapping-a-pop-can-keep-the-carbonation-from-exploding-on-opening/
These guys took the question seriously…
I haven’t gone to the cite yet, but am compelled to note pleasant username/post combo.
For fuck sake:
Go out and buy a 12 pack and do the work.
If you are that destitute. I will reimburse you.
There’s no relation to N2/dive tables or anything like that.
If you have an unopened container of beverage pressurized with CO2, the dissolved and free/gaseous portions of CO2 will be at equilibrium regardless of whether you shake it or not. As noted in the various replies, the resting period required to avoid having a recently-agitated can shoot its creamy load in your face has to do with how long it takes for the large number of tiny CO2 bubbles you’ve created to rise to the surface and rejoin with The One Big Bubble at the top. The tiny bubbles weren’t created by CO2 coming out of solution, and they aren’t destroyed by CO2 going back into solution: they form the same way bubbles would form in a can full of soapy water, through simple entrainment, and they dissipate the same way soapy-water bubbles do, through the bubbles popping.
Calculating how long the resting period should be depends on a couple of factors:
#1: how fast the bubbles rise to the surface. You can calculate a terminal velocity for a bubble based on its size and buoyancy, and estimate how long it takes for bubbles at the bottom of the can to get to the top. There will of course be a distribution of sizes for the bubbles you generate by shaking, but you can chose a representative size on the small end of the distribution and go from there.
#2: how fast the bubbles burst after they’ve reached the top. If you open your can/bottle immediately after shaking, the evenly-distributed bubbles will allow a lot of CO2 out of solution and will blast a lot of the beverage out of the can. If your bubbles are all gathered at the top (but not yet burst to rejoin The One Big Bubble), they will still expand when you relieve the pressure and you’ll get a blast of light foam and spray. The amount of time it takes for those bubbles to dissipate after reaching the top depends on the nature of the beverage. If it’s plain seltzer water, the bubbles should go away fast, just as they do when you pour it into a glass. If it’s beer, they will likely take longer, just like the foamy head on a beer persists after you pour it into a glass. Can’t think of a way to calculate this time, since it’s dependent on beverage properties.
I’m planning a science experiment involving a Porsche and 12 hookers if you are willing to join my gofundme campaign.
Are you sure it’s soda you’re talking about, Leo? This is another one of those Joyceian ‘queries’.