Out of the kitchen widow I can see the four turbines. All are turning
today, at 15rpm.

The sugar lumps were exposed to high humidity and then kept in a dry
place. They take ages to dissolve. Could they have dissolved on the
surface of each grain, then solidified again but with less total surface
area?

Bill

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:03:01 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Out of the kitchen widow I can see the four turbines. All are turning
today, at 15rpm.

The sugar lumps were exposed to high humidity and then kept in a dry
place. They take ages to dissolve. Could they have dissolved on the
surface of each grain, then solidified again but with less total surface
area?


If you have a kitchen widow, how come you are still posting here?

On Wednesday, January 4th, 2012, at 18:32:02h +0000, Nemo asked:

If you have a kitchen widow, how come you are still posting here?

It is because he employs a widow to do all the chores in the kitchen
that he has time to post here.

I wonder if he also has a poet under the stairs, or did that
service stop when the national poetry board was privatized?

Well lets hope he is not a user of Pubic Transport as well.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, January 4th, 2012, at 18:32:02h +0000, Nemo asked:

If you have a kitchen widow, how come you are still posting here?

It is because he employs a widow to do all the chores in the kitchen
that he has time to post here.

I wonder if he also has a poet under the stairs, or did that
service stop when the national poetry board was privatized?

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:03:01 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Out of the kitchen widow I can see the four turbines. All are turning
today, at 15rpm.

The sugar lumps were exposed to high humidity and then kept in a dry
place. They take ages to dissolve. Could they have dissolved on the
surface of each grain, then solidified again but with less total surface
area?

Bill

About 40 years ago we agreed to take part in a survey about sugar
cubes, and were sent two packs that were unmarked except for A and B.

One pack contained actual cubes, the other were more rectangular
cuboid, and these dissolved much quicker than the regular cubes.
Some time later Tate & Lyle marketed quick dissolving sugar lumps.

I don't think the shape had any influence, the surface area would
still be the same, maybe a manufacturing technique to prevent the
crystals from adhering to each other, or an additive of some kind.



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In article , Graham. wrote:
About 40 years ago we agreed to take part in a survey about sugar
cubes, and were sent two packs that were unmarked except for A and B.

One pack contained actual cubes, the other were more rectangular
cuboid, and these dissolved much quicker than the regular cubes.
Some time later Tate & Lyle marketed quick dissolving sugar lumps.

I don't think the shape had any influence, the surface area would
still be the same, maybe a manufacturing technique to prevent the
crystals from adhering to each other, or an additive of some kind.

The ratio of surface area to volume does indeed depend on shape, so
making anything that has to dissolve in liquid a different shape could
make it dissolve faster.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Graham. wrote:
About 40 years ago we agreed to take part in a survey about sugar
cubes, and were sent two packs that were unmarked except for A and B.

One pack contained actual cubes, the other were more rectangular
cuboid, and these dissolved much quicker than the regular cubes.
Some time later Tate & Lyle marketed quick dissolving sugar lumps.

I don't think the shape had any influence, the surface area would
still be the same, maybe a manufacturing technique to prevent the
crystals from adhering to each other, or an additive of some kind.

The ratio of surface area to volume does indeed depend on shape, so
making anything that has to dissolve in liquid a different shape could
make it dissolve faster.

Compare 1kg of free-running salt with a 1kg block of solid salt.

Bill

Compare 1kg of free-running salt with a 1kg block of solid salt.

Takes me back to granddad chopping salt off the block he used to buy about
once a year. The size of a small brick and in grease proof paper.

It probably wasn't a kilo though ;-).

Paul DS

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:03:00 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Graham. wrote:
About 40 years ago we agreed to take part in a survey about sugar
cubes, and were sent two packs that were unmarked except for A and B.

One pack contained actual cubes, the other were more rectangular
cuboid, and these dissolved much quicker than the regular cubes.
Some time later Tate & Lyle marketed quick dissolving sugar lumps.

I don't think the shape had any influence, the surface area would
still be the same, maybe a manufacturing technique to prevent the
crystals from adhering to each other, or an additive of some kind.

The ratio of surface area to volume does indeed depend on shape, so
making anything that has to dissolve in liquid a different shape could
make it dissolve faster.

Rod.
I was doubting my own words as I typed them.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Roderick Stewart wrote:

The ratio of surface area to volume does indeed depend on shape, so
making anything that has to dissolve in liquid a different shape could
make it dissolve faster.

Indeed. The smallest possible ratio being that of a sphere.

Also, the ratio reduces as the volume increases.

--
SteveT