Champagne in space

[cjp]

I have a question from a quiz I would like to ask you:

What happens when you open a bottle of champagne in the ISS?

A: the champagne comes out very fast in thousands of mini-balls
B: the champagne comes out slowly as a single liquid ball
C: the champagne generates large bubbles, but a large part stays inside the bottle
​

My thought on this is that the lack of gravity does not make much difference, and the pressure in the ISS is 1 bar (says Wikipedia), so that isn't different either. So, I'd go for A.

I guess this is never actually tried inside an expensive and sensitive spacecraft environment, but has this ever been tried in one of those zero-G airplanes?

 

[Urwumpe]

I also go for A, as there is no hydrostatic pressure... C would also be thinkable, but I expect that the gas would rather eject most of the the champagne.

 

[lennartsmit]

Wetenschapsquiz zeker? Let's go for A!

 

[Artlav]

I think it will come out relatively slowly as a column of foam, that will ballify as more of it will leave.
If you wait longer, the bubbles will likely coagulate into several largish ones, both inside and outside the bottle.

So, that will be B and C at once.

 

[cjp]

A related question is the following:

I wanted to really understand the entire thing, so I tried to calculate some things. I estimated that when all CO2 in the liquid is dissolved, followed by expansion to 1 atmosphere, the added volume of gas is 2 liters per liter of liquid.

Then, how is it possible that if you don't shake a Champagne bottle on Earth, you can actually open it with only a moderate amount of Champagne leaving the bottle? With a liquid+bubble mixture of x liters that expands to 3x litres, I'd expect at least 2/3 of it to leave the bottle.

Also, how does the shaking make a difference?

 

[pete.dakota]

I choose D: It gets drunk in moderation by off-duty astronauts.

 

[tblaxland]

Then, how is it possible that if you don't shake a Champagne bottle on Earth, you can actually open it with only a moderate amount of Champagne leaving the bottle? With a liquid+bubble mixture of x liters that expands to 3x litres, I'd expect at least 2/3 of it to leave the bottle.

Because not all the CO2 effervesces (?) at once. The rate is dependant on the air pressure and the amount of CO2 dissolved. You can see this if a soft drink, or champagne, is opened in a hyperbaric chamber - no bubbles form if the pressure is high enough. Shaking increases the rate of effervescence by increasing the kinetic energy of the liquid - if you let it stand for a while you will be able to open the bottle normally. Temperature (effectively kinetic energy of the liquid molecules) also plays a role so at higher temperatures more bubbles are produced. Beer glass makers use this phenomenon to make glasses that keep a good "head". This is done by having a rough surface on the bottom of the glass. The higher surface area conducts heat into the liquid faster, generating more bubbles and sustaining the head longer. The down side is you can end up with a "flat" beer a lot faster, so bottoms up! EDIT: I should add that the rough surface also promotes bubble formation directly, regardless of the temperature conduction.

I'm with Atlav, the answer is somewhere between B & C.

 

[agentgonzo]

The ambiant pressure on the ISS is lower than that on earth, which means that the rate of evolution of CO2 from solution will be greater than that on Earth. However, the lack of gravity will mean that as the bubbles are produced, they will not rise to the surface of the champagne. As the production of bubbles can only happen at a nucleation site (unless the change in pressure is large enough), this will only happen on the surface of the liquid where it meets the glass (a scratch or dirt). This means that as the gas comes out of solution, it will remain in the same place and the bubble will just increase in size, rather than detatching itself from the edge of the bottle once it reaches a certain size as we see here on Earth. Therefore, I suppose that upon initial opening, the evolution of CO2 from the champagne will force the existing liquid out of the end of the bottle as a tube of liquid (that will turn almost instantly to foam/spray - see below). As more of it comes out, more of it will be the evolved CO2 and this will turn the champagne into more of a foam. As the pressure of the ejected champagne from the bottle and the remaining champagne-foam inside the bottle reaches the ambiant pressure of the ISS, more CO2 will come out of solution, this time all throughout the liquid/foam (no nucleation site will be necessary at this low pressure) and the champagne will turn into a more thick foam, possibly forcing the ejected champagne and champagne inside the bottle into a fine mist/spray and coating the surrounding area.

 

[MajorTom]

I suppose Champagne can be classified as a monopropellant, though it would be poor for use in a spacecraft. But in an astronaut...:lol:

[Edit]
Anyway, back to the question at hand. I think it will be a combination of A&B.

Initially, since the pressure in the bottle is higher than ambient, you'll see rapid expulsion of gas and liquid, creating many small blobs of liquid. But that will settle down. Long term, 2/3 of the material will be outside of the bottle, if what cjp says is true. The final "pouring" of the liquid + gas as it escapes the bottle should be fairly calm and smooth provided the bottle isn't being jarred, or there are no big air currents disturbing the champagne.

I tend to think that the rushing of the liquid out of the bottle will cause plenty of nucleation sites (neck of the bottle, vortices in the fluid) so that the foaming action will be big just after the bottle opens, and very small at the end.

 

[tblaxland]

The ambiant pressure on the ISS is lower than that on earth, which means that the rate of evolution of CO2 from solution will be greater than that on Earth.

No. The ISS operates at 14.7psi, just like at sea level. Not that it makes any significant difference to the rest of your statements

 

[Eagle]

I'm of the opinion that most of the liquid will actually stay inside the bottle.

Because the champagne-bottle interface is the primary nucleation site you're going to have initially a skin of bubbles fill that interface while the majority of the liquid stays intact in the center.

Depending exactly on how the surface tension lets the bubbles recombine and draws around the liquid will change the answer. But I would expect a shell of mostly 'flat' bubbles around the inside of the bottle and more 'regular' bubbles in the neck.

 

[Andy44]

Anyone with a private plane want to do an experiment?

 

[tblaxland]

I'm of the opinion that most of the liquid will actually stay inside the bottle.

Because the champagne-bottle interface is the primary nucleation site you're going to have initially a skin of bubbles fill that interface while the majority of the liquid stays intact in the center.

Depending exactly on how the surface tension lets the bubbles recombine and draws around the liquid will change the answer. But I would expect a shell of mostly 'flat' bubbles around the inside of the bottle and more 'regular' bubbles in the neck.

On the surface of Earth if you open a bottle of champagne, you get some liquid expelled from the bottle by the pressure of C02 bubbles forming. Surely this is independent of gravity? In addition, on Earth (assuming you have the bottle upright) gravity holds the liquid in whilst the bubbles rise up and out of the neck. On the ISS, there would be nothing to hold the liquid in and more liquid would be expelled.

 

[Hielor]

I'm of the opinion that most of the liquid will actually stay inside the bottle.

Because the champagne-bottle interface is the primary nucleation site you're going to have initially a skin of bubbles fill that interface while the majority of the liquid stays intact in the center.

Depending exactly on how the surface tension lets the bubbles recombine and draws around the liquid will change the answer. But I would expect a shell of mostly 'flat' bubbles around the inside of the bottle and more 'regular' bubbles in the neck.

You're failing to take into account that as the bubbles form around the edges, they will effectively "squeeze" out the champagne.

 

[Eagle]

@tblaxland
I couched my statement by saying 'most' will stay inside. As in 80%+ would stay in the bottle as opposed to the 1/3 remaining proposed by others above.

@Hielor
But which is easier to move, liquid or gas? So is the foam going to squeeze the bubble of liquid like a tube of toothpaste or will the liquid resist and the foam pushes itself out around the liquid? The answer to the first is obvious, the answer to the second is some of both, but mostly the foam will move.

Next time you have time with a big soapy bucket form a few inches of foam and move your hand through it at constant speed. Notice the viscous resistance, compare that to a similar volume of liquid.

Think the tiny bubbles make a difference? Test some shaving cream. Water is still more viscous. One of the reasons you don't overfill the lubricating oil in your car is so it doesn't get foamed up and provide less protection.

 

[tblaxland]

But which is easier to move, liquid or gas? So is the foam going to squeeze the bubble of liquid like a tube of toothpaste or will the liquid resist and the foam pushes itself out around the liquid? The answer to the first is obvious, the answer to the second is some of both, but mostly the foam will move.

Next time you have time with a big soapy bucket form a few inches of foam and move your hand through it at constant speed. Notice the viscous resistance, compare that to a similar volume of liquid.

Think the tiny bubbles make a difference? Test some shaving cream. Water is still more viscous.

Except that the bubbles are attached to the surface of the bottle and surface tension will hold them there quite effectively. There would be less friction on the bubble-liquid interface than on the bubble-bottle interface and the liquid would get forced out first. It will, however, take quite a few bubble around the neck with it so I think that you would get a fairly even mix of liquid and CO2.

For example, take your bucket of soapy water and tip it over slowly. The water will flow out and most of the bubbles will stay stuck to the surface.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Anyone with a private plane want to do an experiment?

And yet people complain that there is no science left to do aboard the ISS. :lol:

 

[Hielor]

@Hielor
But which is easier to move, liquid or gas? So is the foam going to squeeze the bubble of liquid like a tube of toothpaste or will the liquid resist and the foam pushes itself out around the liquid? The answer to the first is obvious, the answer to the second is some of both, but mostly the foam will move.

Next time you have time with a big soapy bucket form a few inches of foam and move your hand through it at constant speed. Notice the viscous resistance, compare that to a similar volume of liquid.

Think the tiny bubbles make a difference? Test some shaving cream. Water is still more viscous. One of the reasons you don't overfill the lubricating oil in your car is so it doesn't get foamed up and provide less protection.

On Earth, the spray from a champagne bottle is largely just foam, because the bubbles float to the "top" very rapidly. In zero-g, there is nothing to make the bubbles detach from the walls of the bottle and move toward the neck, since there is no gravity to provide a pressure differential for buoyancy. The liquid is unable to push the bubbles toward the neck, since any force it applies to them will be outward, not "upward."

Basically, the effect you're describing is buoyancy--which doesn't work well in zero-g. There are numerous videos on YouTube of bubbles inside water spheres (watch the alka-seltzer one especially), and you can easily see that the liquid doesn't "push" them out.

Watch this video:

This is basically as close as I could find to the topic at hand. Notice that without an "up", the bubbles don't go anywhere to leave the liquid, but rather stay in place and expand in size. The bubbles expanding in size will force the liquid out of the mouth of the bottle.


-----Post Added-----


Also read:

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=29812

Yes, it is true that the gravity of the system itself will create a buoyant force, but this will be so negligible on the time scales we are considering that it can be safely disregarded.

 

[cjp]

Ah, I forgot our old friend Youtube. Let's have a look.

Diet coke & Mentos in Zero G:

Some numbers and slow motion videos:

Now that last video made me think:

• Maybe the popping of the cork is primarily caused by the expansion of the gas in the bottle. Bubble formation will only take place later, and results in the mostly foamy stuff that comes out of the bottle.
• Some of the CO2 must still remain inside the liquid, as the remaining Champagne is still bubbling when it's in your glass. It seems that bubble formation is a relatively slow process, even compared to gravity pulling the bubbles upwards.
• Probably there is a lack of nucleation sites in the liquid, or otherwise the bubble formation would go faster. I'm sure a Mentos would help :lol:. The bubbles formed when the bottle is opened probably originate from the liquid/glass surface.
• The Champagne doesn't automatically stream out of the bottle with much speed. The guy had to continuously shake the bottle to speed up the bubble formation, and keep his thumb on the opening to make it go faster.

So, what I think now is that this happens:
on earth:

• The cork releases itself, and is accelerated by the high pressure inside the bottle
• The gas in the bottle (being directly below the cork) rapidly expands, and mostly leaves the bottle
• The decreased pressure inside the bottle causes bubbles to form, but they only form at the liquid/glass surface.
• The bubbles rise due to gravity, and together form a foam that fills the top part of the bottle, and partially escapes the bottle
• Most of the liquid remains inside the bottle, and continues to bubble slowly

in the ISS:

• The cork releases itself, and is accelerated by the high pressure inside the bottle
• The gas in the bottle (wherever it is) rapidly expands, pushes everything between it and the opening of the bottle outside, for as far as it keeps expanding
• The decreased pressure inside the bottle causes bubbles to form, but they only form at the liquid/glass surface.
• The bubbles can not rise due to lack of gravity, so they stay at the glass surface. Bubble formation slows itself down, as contact between liquid and glass is decreased. The bubbles will push a part of the liquid out, about the same amount as the foamy stuff that escapes on earth.
• Most of the liquid remains inside the bottle, and continues to bubble slowly. Bubbles don't rise, so they give the liquid foam-like structure

Me switches to C.
I wonder whether the quiz makers really know the right answer. They have this kind of quiz every year, and there is always a lot of discussion afterwards.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I think it's A, but doesn't it totally depend on whether they shake it first or not?
(they don't mention shaking in the quiz)

[edit]
missed your last post cjp, before posting myself. Now you made me doubt about the reality of answer A indeed!
You're right, the 'Nationale Wetenschapsquiz' on christmas eve, has often given us the wrong answers, finally to be corrected in the newspapers a few weeks later...
[/edit]

Anyone with a private plane want to do an experiment?

I'll ask, but they probably won't allow us to do it as the champagne will most likely get all over the cockpit, instruments, etc.. Besides 5 to 8 seconds of 0-g might be a bit too short for this experiment

Maybe simonpro can try to do it, if he still does the parabolas regularly?

regards,
mcduck