Talk:Oobleck

Untitled

The discussion linked to here http://sciconn.mcb.arizona.edu/oobleck/oobleck.html repeats the urban myth about glass flowing. See http://glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html for a debunking.

Good point. I've removed the link. - DavidWBrooks 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, based on consistency, I'm going to say Nickelodeon Gak is definitely glurch or glurch-based.

I have removed the "citation needed" tag regarding the plot summary of Bartholomew and the Ooblek. Since when do plot summaries need citations? The only possible statement that could require citation, as it regards a prior book, is a link to the article on the book it regards, which I believe is more than enough citation. -- Upthorn 05:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was added because the text does make that allusion to an event in another book without mentioning the book. (It bends the principle of least astonishment merely to link to that book without actually mentioning the title.) Technically, since this isn't an article about a book, the article would benefit from cited references for both books. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Microwave

My oobleck evaporated so I thought heating it will get the molecules to loosen up. Instead part if it turned into a clear jelly? What just happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.245.27 (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

You made a particularly gross form of pudding. The corn starch reports that pudding is just starch, milk, eggs, sugar and flavoring. Also see the starch article, where you'll find that cornstarch is the root of a number of gel candies, like jellybeans and gummybears. --Mdwyer 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Boom?

what happens if you detonate explosive, say one stick of dynamite, in oobleck?

--Vemba Tsith 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd make a mess. A stick of dynamite would likely destroy the oobleck. I believe the oobleck would solidify, then shatter, then disintigrate. Too bad I don't still have access to a high-speed camera! This might be fun to do a little WP:OR on. (Not really.) --Mdwyer 05:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

well

When you heat oobleck the water in it will evaporate and because the starch is sticky it will stick to itself and harden. Starch itself is like oobleck without water and has not sticked to itself. And yeah this article's preferences or sources do not have the need to be cited. If you have any questions then come on! Skele 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Glurch

Although smiler glurch and oobleck are not the same thing therefor should we not split the articles? Jasoninkid 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think its a good idea, because there wouldn't be enough to tell. Ofcrourse there's always a possibility that that we could rename the article.Skele (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Glurch and oobleck

I dont know what's the difference between them (except glurch has glue instead of water), I dont even know what is glurch, even thou I deffinetly know what is oobleck. If there ISN'T any difference on how they act then I'd say we shouldn't split them.Skele 09:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Glurch sounds very similar to homemade Silly Putty made by combining white liquid glue and liquid starch. The only difference is that Glurch is made with solid instead of liquid starch, right? 84.155.202.9 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. Silly Putty might have more in common with Oobleck than Glurch. If I understand correctly, Glurch and Oobleck have little to do with each other (aside from being cool!). One is a thixtropic fluid, the other is a polymer, if I recall correctly. I just haven't gotten around to fixing the article, yet. --Mdwyer 06:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mdwyer. But when changing this kind of article you shouldn't split it in many articles if even the minorly similar fluids act the same way. Then we would have many articles that would have almost the same liquid explained many times. I suggest we should keep one article and make subarticles if needed. Skele 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Smell

I am not sure if oobleck has dilatants or not and I did not write the text there is now. But I do know that oobleck starts to smell after three days. Pardon my language but the smell is similar to a pile of dog shit in the summer in about 40 C and that is worth mentioning so DO NOT delete it and say now it's good. Rewrite it. Skele (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're that excited about it, it can stay - but it's pretty silly. Everything made in the kitchen is perishable - nobody adds presevatives to homemade items. Your sentence is roughly equivalent to writing "Oobleck has mass and falls to the floor when you release it." it's a true statement but wildly unnecessary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I still didn't write the text there is now. But hey you can try it yourself. Just make a bit of oobleck leave it in room temperature for three days or in the fridge for about five or six days and you've got yourself a stink bomb. Skele (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK - sorry, I thought you had added it. I'll remove the statement again as (IMHO) unnecessary - as I say, most things made in the kitchen of stuff from the cabinet stinks after a few days. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh whatever. Skele (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oobleck pets.

I once created a oobleck pet. Well, it wasn't really a pet, more like a blob that had gone solid but was slightly liquid. Has anybody else made one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.96.31 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No.

Well you can make a "cymatic pet" out of it by putting some in a pan, and put the pan on a speaker (or subwoofer) and make it play a tone around 60 -100Hz (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKxKVpHZe5Q ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abb615 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)