Gravy and Gravity

It isn't just gravity vs gravy in play here, you also have fluid dynamics such a viscosity, adhesion and porosity all weaving their tangled web.

The surface tension of the gravy stops it from spreading too fast but if you have buttered the mash then the co-efficient of friction of gravy on mash is much reduced, facilitating a higher velocity to its lowest point.

make it too thick and the gravy will not percolate through the peas as hoped, resulting in a glacier like push to the lowest point where the surface tension will make it form a dome of sorts, often causing it to pull together in places where the plate no longer extends to, resulting in the stalegtites forming.

It is a many faceted gem this thing of beauty that is gravy.

Would you believe this was actually a homework from my physics degree to study the fluid dynamics of gravy on a Sunday lunch? I think they were just too cheap to write up some proper homework tasks!

This was a plate of toad in the hole, served with carrots and greens, both broccol and spring greens. I think my batter although crisp was also absorbant especially where it was cut.

If it were well buttered mash, then would it depend on how buttery the mash was? More fat then the gravy slides off.

Going back for seconds of gravy risks the horror that is skin, skin on gravy is only a fraction less disgusting than skin on a milk pudding, it's never a good idea to have to slice gravy of chew the lumps!

Iain the fact that you still remember all this shows what an effective lesson it was.

TheCatWoman said:

Iain the fact that you still remember all this shows what an effective lesson it was.

i'm a bit weird in that I love to understand the physics that governs our everyday world and the lesson had homework tasks that made you look at real workd situations and try to work out the physics involved to achieve the effect you saw (ie develop a hypothesis) and then see if the law of physics backed this up.

Then it had to be reproducable and capable of being changed yet remain consistent.

So one example was watching the rain moving down the window on the bus / train going home (lots of this in Scotland) and measure the angle of the water drops on the window and work out which laws were in play.

So you would have gravity, friction, surface tension, wind resistance and even evapouration.

I must have looked a right weirdo with holding up my protractor to the bus window, timing the drips and scribbling furiously in my notepad.

The course was Applied Physics which was right up my street. It was a shame it lost itself in year 3 to be all maths and theory (especially advanced quantum theory) where I lost interest.

I still do some of the practice sessions when bored sometimes - much to my wifes annoyance.

I really don't see the point of bikes with massive fairings and stuff, but then I was used to rattling around on "proper" bikes, old and British, a Triumph Bonneville was comfortable for a passenger a semi chopped solid framed A10, was not, especially in the cold and wet.

I've always thought of bikes as being a lifestyle choice rather than just a means of transport.

TheCatWoman said:

I don't get these people who have these massive goldwing tye of bikes

I did own one of the very first Goldwings (1975 model, 1,000cc) which I picked up cheap as it needed a lot of repairs.

No plastic fairings or any of the modern rubbish - it even had a kick start (plus electric start thankfully).

It really was like driving your armchair - it wallowed over rolling curves in the road, had brakes that certainly felt like they were made in 1975 and had a, err, stately power delivery.

It still beat all the hot hatchbacks of the 1980s although slowing down took advanced planning.

All that said I quite liked the quality and reliability of it - once serviced and the cam belts changed it was lovely and smooth.

It wasn't gravity that was this ones biggest enemy but inertia.

TheCatWoman said:

I don't get these people who have these massive goldwing tye of bikes

I did own one of the very first Goldwings (1975 model, 1,000cc) which I picked up cheap as it needed a lot of repairs.

No plastic fairings or any of the modern rubbish - it even had a kick start (plus electric start thankfully).

It really was like driving your armchair - it wallowed over rolling curves in the road, had brakes that certainly felt like they were made in 1975 and had a, err, stately power delivery.

It still beat all the hot hatchbacks of the 1980s although slowing down took advanced planning.

All that said I quite liked the quality and reliability of it - once serviced and the cam belts changed it was lovely and smooth.

It wasn't gravity that was this ones biggest enemy but inertia.

I really don't see the point of bikes with massive fairings and stuff, but then I was used to rattling around on "proper" bikes, old and British, a Triumph Bonneville was comfortable for a passenger a semi chopped solid framed A10, was not, especially in the cold and wet.

I've always thought of bikes as being a lifestyle choice rather than just a means of transport.