I’m thinking that no, it doesn’t. Which begs the question of why we do it? Is it a psychological thing?
Yes, it does. By blowing over it, you evaporate some of its water, which cools it down. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization
Thank you.
I think I saw a show 20 or so years ago that tried to debunk this and obviously either they messed up, or I wasn’t paying attention.
(The show was called Brainiac).
You’ve been unclear on a fundamental concept of basic physics for ~20 years? Because a TV show said so? 😶
I mean it was called Brainiac and it did have John Tickle walking on top of a pool of custard. Are you suggesting I was wrong to use that as my foundation for all knowledge??
Nothing to see here. Carry on, citizen. we’re so fucked as a species
You can test your hypothesis of “no, it doesn’t” pretty easily. Feel free to report back with results and method used.
Methods:
- Make a cup of Hot Chocolate
- Get two spoons, put them in your hot chocolate to warm up to remove the variable of heat transferring into the spoon.
- Take one spoon out, fill it up, blow on it for a few seconds, then put it in your mouth.
- Take the second one out, leave it out for the same amount of time you would have if you had blown on it, then put it in your mouth.
Report on temperature difference. If you had an instant-read thermometer you could even be more certain of the results.
Air cooled engines quite literally stay cool by being blown on.
It does. Heat conduction is faster when the temperature difference is large. Air soaks up a lot of heat, so still air is a poor heat conductor. If you’re blowing it around, you’re increasing the amount of fresh, colder air that can interact with the food.
One spoonful and a couple of breaths is small enough stuff to have a relatively small effect and a lot of error margin, though.
I would think it does, because you are blowing comparatively cold air on it, which will transfer some heat out of the food.
It works well enough for CPUs and graphics cards.
Convection says yes.
Yes, it does
It doesn’t beg the question, Mr Tyson. Stick to boxing.
To supplement this comment, I googled things:
Using the phrase “begs the question” to mean “raises the question” is a common misuse of the term. In academic and professional writing, “begs the question” actually refers to a logical fallacy where a statement assumes the truth of the conclusion it is attempting to prove. To avoid confusion, it’s best to use “raises the question” when you want to indicate that something prompts or suggests a question.
An example:
“Vintage furniture is better than new furniture because it’s usually made from real wood.”
This statement relies on the assumption that real wood is the superior material for furniture. However, nothing in this claim explains why that’s the case, so it begs the question, “What makes real wood better than other materials?”
I don’t understand the Mike Tyson reference though.
I assume Mr Tyson refers to Neil degrasse Tyson in this case since it’s a science question but not sure why he’s relevant in this case.
omg, why I’d go to Mike Tyson? this is a facepalm moment
I, for some reason, thought that Mike Tyson said something about this and was googling that a bit earlier.
Because the first comment mentioned boxing. I’m pretty sure they intentionally conflated Neil with Mike for comedic effect
I’m thinking that no, it doesn’t.
You can literally see the difference (not to mention feel it). The amount of steam coming off the food after blowing on it is less.
Also, you’re misusing the phrase “begs the question.” It doesn’t mean “leads me to a question.”
You’re right. But in the interest of no stupid questions I thought I’d ask anyway, because…you know, what if?.
And thanks for the grammar lesson, I didn’t ask for that one but I’ll take it on board.
It doesn’t mean “leads me to a question."
It does, though. In fact, that’s considered the primary definition, per Merriam-Webster.
Begging the question means “to elicit a specific question as a reaction or response,” and can often be replaced with “a question that begs to be answered.” However, a lesser used and more formal definition is “to ignore a question under the assumption it has already been answered.” The phrase itself comes from a translation of an Aristotelian phrase rendered as “beg the question” but meaning “assume the conclusion.”
It’s literally a moot point, all over again.
That’s a case of a dictionary caving to a misuse being so common that it becomes the new norm. If a dictionary claimed “supposively” was an acceptable spelling of supposedly, would that make it correct?
Yes. That’s exactly what dictionaries do. Where else would we go for DEFINITIVE answers?
So, someone could release their own dictionary and thus become a DEFINITIVE authority on language?
Dictionaries are supposed to reflect the official lexicon.
At what point does slang enter the official lexicon?
Wow. I’m not sure if you’re serious or trolling.
But to answer your question, someone did release their own dictionary… and, thus, became a definitive authority on language… in 1847. That someone (actually someones) were the Merriam brothers. They then bought a license from another someone named Webster. Maybe you’ve heard of them.
If you are serious, you are digging pretty damn deep trying to make your point. If you’re not careful, you might come out on the other side of the world.
So anyone with standards is a troll now? Jesus fuck.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive; when meanings get changed by popular usage, so too do dictionaries follow.
Terribly sorry you’re learning this so late in life. Might have saved yourself some frustration otherwise.
Besides evaporation, blowing on something which is very hot will bring it closer to room (or breath) temperature by removing the air right next to it which has been heated up already and is ‘protecting’ the hot item a bit from direct exposure to the room air. When you blow that hot air away the hot item then touches the room air and heats that up, which cools it down.
The same applies to cold things, you can melt ice cream for example much faster by blowing on it even if you use a fan instead of hot breath.
The simple answer is that it takes time. You’ve removed it from the hot pile of food and given it a few moments to cool, surrounded by cooler air.
I bet if you did an experiment where you blow on on spoonful while it waits and with the next one you just pause without the blowing, you’d find little difference between the two experiences.
You know how you wind can make you feel pretty cold even when it’s warm outside? The effect is even stronger for food, since the ratio of surface area to volume is bigger, and the temperature difference is much bigger.
