Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
The best idea since raw toast.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


           

Vacuum fishing

Not as practical as dynamite, but quieter.
  (+1, -2)
(+1, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

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.
Ling, Apr 01 2008


Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.



Annotation:







       Not sure that would work. Fish can easily swim thirty feet up and down without losing control of their buoyancy.
ldischler, Apr 01 2008
  

       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.
DrCurry, Apr 01 2008
  

       //thirty feet//   

       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.
Amos Kito, Apr 01 2008
  

       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.
Ling, Apr 02 2008
  

       //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.
Custardguts, Dec 05 2008
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle