h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Use a rather large bell jar and use it to lift a large body of water. The partial vacuum causes the swim bladders to enlarge, and the fish float to the top.
[link]
|
| |
Not sure that would work. Fish can easily swim thirty feet up and down without losing control of their buoyancy. |
|
| |
Exactly - wouldn't work. Also, vacuums in the more conventional sense of large suction tubes are already widly used in the fishing industry. |
|
| |
Incidentally, most fish catch the prey not by biting it, but by a really hard suck. |
|
| |
Scale this thing up. Lift the water from the Pacific Ocean to wading level, and prepare to fry up some deliciously popped deep sea creatures. I'm gonna need a bigger reel. |
|
| |
This would require lifting the weight of the water, leaving less hydraulic pressure in the remaining pool (It's a pressure difference, not really a "vacuum"). The fish inside the bell jar may be fine. But grab a fish quickly -- the oceans are connected. |
|
| |
Of course fish can keep their bouyancy from atmospheric to 1 bar (probably much more). But this idea uses less than atmospheric, which I am sure most fish have never experienced. |
|
| |
//Scale this thing up. Lift the water from the Pacific Ocean to wading level// |
|
| |
You fail... at basic physics. You wouldn' be able to lift seawater any higher than (... bloody imperial units, might as well go back to the stone ages) ~32 feet, higher density of salt water notwithstanding. Nice round number of 10m is easier, even though it's 9.81. |
|
| |
[Ling] got it right by saying 30 feet. |
|
| |