Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Diapers + gratuitously more than enough to saturate them...

  1. #1

    Default Diapers + gratuitously more than enough to saturate them...

    I am curious, as to what would happen, if one were to [HYPOTHETICALLY, of course] take a package of diapers, with a few [3-5] holes in the plastic, no bigger than 1 cm. in diameter, and tossed said item into a large quantity of water, gratuitously enough for the package to displace 4-8 times (to allow for size expansion, whilst removing/absorbing water from the surroundings) its' current volume, and still remain completely covered in water, what would happen? I am, obviously, not suggesting anyone do this, as it would be a pretty large and terrible waste of resources, but rather, I am just curious as to how they would react. Would the plastic tear, and the diapers expand out of them? Or, would the plastic hold the diapers so tightly compressed, that they do not have enough capillary force to absorb the water? Any theories? Any proof to back those up? I am thoroughly intrigued... But maybe that's what 9 in the morning posting [after no sleep] does to you...

    I personally think the package would burst open. Anyone else? Scientific/theoretical proof would be nice, especially the capillary force [if that's the right term] that diapers require to expand and take more water in. Thanks for helping me satisfy my curiousity, the fact that it's a completely ridiculous idea aside. =)

  2. #2
    Elli

    Default

    Hmm...got me thinking.

    Right, so for the package to rupture and burst open, the force from within the bag would have to be greater than the force from outside the bag and the strength of the bag itself.

    If it were in a tank of water, the pressure from this body of water would surely even out the force from expanding nappies and make it less likely to break...right?

    So, to remove that factor, I'm now imagining inserting a hose into the package, on dry land, and filling the package to full but not bursting, then removing the hose and resealing the package. But, am I right in thinking that the package contains it's capacity whether or not the water is swishing around in there or if it has been absorbed by the nappies and is now a gel? The package might be full of expanded nappies instead of free-moving water, but it hasn't had anything to increase it's capacity further. Even if you were to reconnect the hose, there would come a point where you could not get anymore water in, because the package would be full. If you forced water in, by using a high pressure hose, the package might rupture but that would happen regardless, so I'll ignore that scenario. In a body of water, with no high-pressure hose, no more water could enter.

    However, if the gel (that nappies turn water into) actually takes more room than the water/gel crystals when seperate, then there is an active force from within the nappies. Nappies with SAP expand numerous times their original size but if the nappy were simply a water-tight bag, would the liquid poured into them also take this same amount of space? Say you have 100ml of water and you poured this into a measuring tube containing 100ml of unused gel crystals, would the resulting mixture have to be 200ml? If it were more, then would that suggest an active reaction rather than an effective but passive absorption of fluid? I know that when nappies are very full it is possible for them to burst, but is this just because they get sat on?

    Because I imagine (though am by no means certain) that it is a more passive absorption rather than an active reaction, I think the package would be very full, but not burst open.

    If there was a weak spot on the package however, I guess that might break under the increased tension. For example, often on a nappy package there is the perforated line opening. But as soon as the package tears open a little, it is no longer as stretched so I imagine it wouldn't be forced to open any further.

    Interesting question though, for geeks like me!

  3. #3

    Default

    Same here. We had some of that sodium polyacrylate [Diaper gel contents] in science, and before I even knew it was in diapers [about 3 years back] I learned of its' expansion and absorbtion capabilities. I am wondering if the capillary force [of the crystals attracting water [but not combining with it, thus why water can evaporate out, and is not changed and can be pressed out with enough force] is enough to cause a package of diapers [which I should assume would float untill soaked] to burst open. But yeah, when we got to see that substance in AP Chem for the 'first time', and he was showing it off like it was AWESOME [after taking a glass of water and pouring it into the crystals, then flipping the glass and saying OOH SNAP NO WATER!] I just looked at him and said, "Yeah, I love sodium polyacrylate, too." He gave me this ??? How does he know that look. So he's like "... Yes...Yes, that is correct. And can anyone tell me what this is commonly used i-" "Commonly used as either a decicant, and a general water absorber. Being experimented with as an ingredient in wildfire prevention in places such as Cali, and also found in diapers." Everyone was like... How does he know that? Probably thought something into how I know it's in diapers, but whatever. Nobody asked. Hehe. At any rate, it does expand when saturated, from my observation. Thus how a glass of water "disappears".

    ADISC's science nerds, unite! We shall conquer this problem, for SCIENCE! =D

    Edit: Found a demo to prove it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vais8pL0w8U
    Last edited by adaffme149; 11-Jul-2009 at 20:17.

  4. #4
    Elli

    Default

    Ah ok, I hadn't known what capillary force was. I had thought that the polymer was somehow left incomplete and the water combined with it. I didn't know it could evaporate and I thought that when water is squeezed back out, that's because the little partical thingys have been burst, allowing the water back out. But you say the water doesn't actually combine, right? That's interesting. You're a better scientist than me!

  5. #5

    Default

    Heh, no. I just have two years of chemistry (One of them being a college-level chemistry class, including the bonding natures of chemicals...) Basically, capillary force is the reason why, if you take a piece of paper, and dip it to a pre-set line, in water, and hold it there, that water seems to creep up the paper... It's the force at which water can be sucked in, and if it is greater than the pressure keeping it from happening, it obviously doesn't happen. And naw, it doesn't combine, more just absorbs. I donno. Either way, it was a nice little musing at the time, to consider. I think of odd shit like this all of the time [even though I prefer my answers to be even, haha. Even numbers are just nicer.]

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by adaffme149 View Post
    I am curious, as to what would happen, if one were to [HYPOTHETICALLY, of course] take a package of diapers, with a few [3-5] holes in the plastic, no bigger than 1 cm. in diameter, and tossed said item into a large quantity of water, gratuitously enough for the package to displace 4-8 times (to allow for size expansion, whilst removing/absorbing water from the surroundings) its' current volume, and still remain completely covered in water, what would happen? I am, obviously, not suggesting anyone do this, as it would be a pretty large and terrible waste of resources, but rather, I am just curious as to how they woulad react. Would the plastic tear, and the diapers expand out of them? Or, would the plastic hold the diapers so tightly compressed, that they do not have enough capillary force to absorb the water? Any theories? Any proof to back those up? I am thoroughly intrigued... But maybe that's what 9 in the morning posting [after no sleep] does to you...

    I personally think the package would burst open. Anyone else? Scientific/theoretical proof would be nice, especially the capillary force [if that's the right term] that diapers require to expand and take more water in. Thanks for helping me satisfy my curiousity, the fact that it's a completely ridiculous idea aside. =)
    i think this would create a massive, destructive, catastrophic explosion. alert the military!

  7. #7
    Jeffy

    Default

    Haha! i've tried this once XD I threw an open package of good-nites into the creek by my house in order to "destroy evidence". I had only just opened them too so i was really mad >: $17 down the drain.
    I went back the next day cause incidentally my favorite sitting spot is right by the creek. And it actually got caught on a branch and swelled up really big and split the package open, they were all saturated and big and stuff.
    Also I tested this theory when I went to the rave at A-Kon padded... Except I wore an old pair of whitie-tighties over it to keep it from crinkling when i was walking down to the dance. Well... needless to say I drank a lot of water and danced the night away... and bambinos hold a LOT and I got this bright idea to put a stuffer in for kicks. It actually soaked up and swelled up so much it stretched out the waistband so bad it ruined the undies and ripped around the front a little bit n.n; thanks bambinos for ruining my big boy undies!

  8. #8

    Default

    Hehehe... Not THAT'S market security. "Our product will not only make you feel like a baby, it'll DESTROY your adult garments!" : lol :
    Heh. Couldn't help making the joke, no matter how bad it was. At any rate, your observation is pretty much what I think would happen, but this can't be counted as an official test result [sorry ], as they were open, thus providing a more weak spot for tearage to occur. And I was also thinking more along the line of say, the CVS/Rite Aid packages... Not sure if it is, but I'd think GoodNites packages are a little less rugged.

    At any rate, since your test results are the closest we've got, we are forced to conclude, that in a skewed ideal setup [the package being open in one large spot, thus not providing an ideal flow of water in a semi-even pattern, and providing a critical weak point], the capillary force of one package worth of GoodNites diapers, is in fact stronger than the containing force of the packaging around it.

    SCIENCE! =)

  9. #9

    Default

    Oh, the joys of modern science :P
    Personally, I'd think the few holes might create points of stress that would make it easier to rip, but if they were small enough, because the diaper would be expanding not on one specific point, but across a relatively large surface area, I don't think they would affect the ripping too much. It also might depend on how sturdy the plastic casing is. I think if it was being all pressed together by the plastic it might not swell as much, but maybe if it was left in for a long time...?

    Although in truth, I probably have no idea what I'm actually talking about :P

  10. #10

    Default

    Oooh... New plan. Do read.



    Haha, sorry. I haven't had enough SCIENCE lately, and this seemed like a good way to sum up my idea.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.