i cant believe nobody caught this. the experiment used full bottles of champaigne, the theory is that used bottles(like, half full)were preserved. to me, the jury is still out.
Why would there be any conceivable difference between the two?
I’m baffled. 
In science it’s the inconceivable differences that come back to bite you. I agree with the OP. Cecil’s experiment did not sufficiently disprove the original hypothesis.
Your objections are illogical.
Neither the container, nor the champaign, nor the spooner are altered by the amount of wine in the bottle.
Cecil’s experiment remains valid.
Link to the article, for everyone’s benefit.
Actually, not quite true.
In a full bottle, the handle of the spoon would, most likely, be immersed in the Champagne.
In a half-full bottle, this is doubtful.
Mind you, I don’t think the spoon thing works (it’s like tapping on the top of shaken soda pop cans), but there is a conceivable difference between the two experiments.
An equally valid argument, of course, is that Cecil ran only one test. Lots of random variables could arguably have an impact, ranging from fullness of bottle to irregularities in the refrigerator location (perhaps the proximity of a stale pepperoni-and-anchovie pizza affected the air in the refrig, for instance.) The bottom line here is that Cecil is not now, nor has ever pretended to be, a scientific academic researcher.
As Cecil reported, the silver chain was immersed in the Champagne, and it acted as a starting node for bubbles. As you know, a gas will evolve more quickly from a liquid if there’s a rough place for bubbles to start.
So, yes, the half-full bottle, which wouldn’t have the spoon/chain immersed, might be significally different.
I’m guessing that it still won’t work, but the objections from orange whip and DS Young, Esq are valid.
the experiment didn’t use half empty bottles of champaign. something you would want to preserve. maybe there is something in the air that preserves it, i don’t know… but prove me wrong.
No, that’s not how the scientific method works, you know. You have a hypothesis (the silver spoon thing). Now you (or others) must show that the hypothesis is valid, by experimental means, if possible. Now Cecil’s experiment has not supported your hypothesis, so you’ve got some work ahead of you.
In other words, in the scientific process, once you have the idea, it’s up to you to prove that it’s the right idea – not us having to prove you wrong.
Have you tried the experiment yourself? What were your results?
The original assertion was:
So even a half-full bottle should have the silver spoon immersed at least partially. Using a chain would, as the experiment suggested, provide
as opposed to the smooth surface of a spoon handle (assuming a smooth surfaced spoon handle was used, although even a textured handle would not have as many surfaces for bubbles to form). Also there may be a difference in the wine used. Should it be an “authentic Champange” or will an American bubbly work? What about an Asti? Is it only the good stuff or would a $5 bottle of Cooks suffice? I could see the point of preserving the last half of a $50 bottle of Moet, but would just as happily pour the remains of a $7 bottle of Martini and Rossi down the drain the next morning.
I agree with the article and the general consensus that the effort will fail, but I also agree with the OP that, despite the impending experimental doom, the experiment is not really valid unless done properly with 1. A smooth surfaced object and 2. A wine worth preserving in the first place. That said I have no intention of paying $40 for a silver baby spoon and, if I do aquire a nice bottle of bubbly, do not forsee the “half-full” condition happening anytime soon.
half bottle of champaign…yeah right :smack:
btw: i’m just sayin. sheesh!
But the level of the surface of the bubbly might affect the results. For a full bottle of bubbly, an area the same size as the internal neck of the bottle is exposed to air. For a half empty (half full?) bottle, a greater area is exposed to air. Same reason we use wider wine glasses for red wine than for, say, champagne or white wine…the surface area exposed to air has an effect.
Isn’t there usually (or always?) an attempted explanation for why the idea will/won’t work? In other words, what you’re actually testing, not just the experimental setup.
That’s what’s missing here for me- even if Cecil’s experiment wasn’t a great one, nobody’s tried to explain WHY the spoon in the bottle would have any effect at keeping carbonation IN the Champagne?
That, to me, marks it as essentially a folk belief, since nobody’s ever come up and said anything like “Silver ions from the spoon interact with the alcohol and do X, Y and Z, and prevent the CO2 from coming out of solution.”
Actually, even that is a wide-spread misunderstanding of how the scientific process works. One never truly proves that a hypothesis is correct. Instead, one attempts to gather evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis, or else contradicts the hypothesis.
If one finds evidence that outrightly contradicts the hypothesis, then one rejects the hypothesis and concludes that it is false. But if one finds evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis, that never really proves it is true. Here, one mere fails to reject the hypothesis.
Furthermore, evidence of any sort is often a little fuzzy. There are always other factors that must be filtered out as best one can. Thus, we turn to statistics: If one finds a fair body of evidence contradicting the hypotheses, then one concludes that the hypothesis is probably false, and if that evidence is strong enough or voluminous enough, then one rejects the hypothesis with a high level of confidence.
But no amount of positive evidence ever proves a hypothesis correct. The best one can do, given enough evidence consistent with the hypo, is to fail to reject the hypothesis with a high degree of confidence.