It is a solvent, after all
April 14, 2023 2:06 AM   Subscribe

Can water solve a maze? Science YouTube Steve Mould built a couple of models that shows us that it can, but with a couple of interesting limitations (SLYT).
posted by Harald74 (11 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite
 
I was originally thinking mercury in a vacuum might give the same results as the simulation, but the problem with mercury is that it has an even higher surface tension than water, even in a vacuum. But at the same time, there would be no air in the way. Could a chemist out there tell me if that would work better, or would something like diethyl ether, with a very low surface tension and very high vapor pressure, be better? Or is there something else that would work instead?

Not that I'm suggesting that anyone do either of those liquids in real life. Liquid mercury is dangerous and ether has a propensity to evaporate out, proving fumes that get people high and also can explode. If you're going to huff ether, don't do it while seeing if it will solve a maze.
posted by Hactar at 2:46 AM on April 14, 2023


@matthen2: "to tell if a maze is solvable, just hang it by its corners! The first maze stays in one piece, so there is no path from the entrance at the top to the exit at the bottom. The second maze splits apart along the solution." :P
posted by kliuless at 2:56 AM on April 14, 2023 [4 favorites]


Nice job on the post title.
posted by Optamystic at 4:22 AM on April 14, 2023 [7 favorites]


Actually I'm both disgusted with and a little bit proud of myself for the title, being an ESL speaker.
posted by Harald74 at 4:52 AM on April 14, 2023 [28 favorites]


As anyone who has tried to hunt down the source of a mysterious water leak (especially the dreaded “where did that water stain on the ceiling come from?” roof leak) in their home, the video, while great fun, does elicit a “well, duh” response. Water flows along the path of least resistance, which can often be oddly, maddeningly, circuitous.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:06 AM on April 14, 2023 [1 favorite]


I was originally thinking mercury in a vacuum might give the same results as the simulation

If you wanted to get that result (which I think is less interesting than Steve Mould's result) you don't need vacuum, you just need air vents at all the dead ends. But I guess once they filled up, water would start shooting out of the air vents. Oops.
posted by crazy_yeti at 8:34 AM on April 14, 2023 [2 favorites]


The second maze splits apart along the solution

Now that is analog computing!
posted by clew at 9:10 AM on April 14, 2023 [1 favorite]


A low surface tension, low volatility fluid is a lubricating oil. They're essentially designed to be high-wetting and fluid.

The other thing you need is Newtonian viscoelestic behaviour. A sheer-thinning or sheer-thickeneing fluid would cause problems with his method too.

You could manage the dead-ends with a pneumatic manifold to balance pressures. Not that hard to do. Probably could do it all passively with mechanical parts.
posted by bonehead at 10:14 AM on April 14, 2023


Crazy_yeti, I think you're on to something. There are porous-but-hydrophobic filters that can let air pass while blocking water that I've seen in applications as diverse as molecular biology labs and satellite design. Maybe even the entire back plane of the maze could be built with that stuff?
posted by traveler_ at 2:02 PM on April 14, 2023


Steve is not the only mould solving mazes for science.
posted by The Bellman at 2:45 PM on April 14, 2023 [1 favorite]


Maybe even the entire back plane of the maze could be built with that stuff?

Water being restricted from flowing into dead ends because of air pressure makes the physical model better at solving mazes than the air-free simulation. Why design that out?
posted by flabdablet at 9:22 PM on April 14, 2023 [2 favorites]


« Older For the crouton petters   |   Household Formation Is Destiny Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments