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
Just add oughta.

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,


           

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

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

[link]






       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
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

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