.... it consisted of a champagne hang over and flying home to california.

I hate dealing with flying.

worst birthday ever...

Flying with a hangover fucking sucks, man.

(you know, you're older than I thought you were. I'm not sure how you should feel about that).

In Response to tynic (#23100):

On the other hand, you're younger than I thought you were.

Interestingly, Tynic is older than you, and I'm younger. This may have something to do with it all.

In Response to sakuruth (#23102):

I personally figured that you were around that age. I however have no idea how old either tynic or sakuruth are...

In Response to snipergirl (#23106):

Well, since 'Nic is out of school and has a degree (yay engineering!), I'm assuming she's older than 22. And I turned 20 at the end of October. Mostly I figured Kornz to be just a few years later, in the mid-twenties range.

Then again, I hang around with grad-school geeks, so my perceptions of age are skewed - they act 16, and generally have for nearly a decade.

In Response to tynic (#23100):

Flying with a hangover fucking sucks, man.

Despite all of the Cash fans around here, I think Willie has the strongest advice for this one.

In Response to tynic (#23100):

Flying with a hangover fucking sucks, man.
That's why planes sell alcohol. Nothing kills a hangover like more booze.

In Response to banzai (#23163):

planes sell alcohol

Try EgyptAir!

I probably fly more than most, about 100 flights a year, and I can tell you catagorically that drinking at altitude is a bad idea. The alcohol gets into the blood more easily and so the effects are greater then at sea level. Plus if you get turbulence then, yerk.

A flight I used to take regularly was back to London on Friday afternoon. The duration was 2 1/2 hours and in our group the consumption record stood at 8 gin and tonics. The problem was I was always too drunk to do anything that evening. Except go to the pub.

That said, Friday night I shall take a few wines with my diner as I cruise elegantly over Europe. Maybe this week I'll take a plane as well.

In Response to Nagy_Vilmos (#23166):

The alcohol gets into the blood more easily and so the effects are greater then(than)at sea level.

So that explains why rockstars are always running around air planes completely devoid of clothing or participating in other lewd activities.

In Response to GeminiCrash (#23169):

So that explains why rockstars are always running around air planes completely devoid of clothing or participating in other lewd activities.

No, they're just dicks. Ditto the "air rage" assholes that assault the flight attendants and crap on the service cart.
 

In Response to gtyrrell (#23170):

that assault the flight attendants and crap on the service cart

Are you thinking of the same radio shock-jock bit as I am?

In Response to Dynedain (#23173):

Are you thinking of the same radio shock-jock bit as I am?

I don't listen to shock-jocks, so I doubt it. From Reuters, 21 Oct 1995:

The president of an investment banking company is facing criminal charges after police say he defecated on a service cart and assaulted a flight attendant on a flight from
Buenos Aires to New York.

TCW Americas President Gerard Finneran, 58, of Greenwich, Conn., was arraigned in federal court in Brooklyn late yesterday after the disturbance on a United Airlines flight Friday into John F. Kennedy Airport.

According to the complaint, Finneran drank excessively during the flight and allegedly pushed a female flight attendant who refused to serve him. He then allegedly defecated on a service cart and tracked feces throughout the airplane. That prompted the pilot to suspend food service.

In Response to Nagy_Vilmos (#23166):

The alcohol gets into the blood more easily and so the effects are greater then at sea level.

Can somebody explain the biomechanics/physics behind this one?

Unless its simply that the cabin is pressurized for an altitude other than sea level so there is less oxygen to go around. In which case, we are looking at a pressurization problem, not altitiude effect. So that's not a promising explanation for el Nag.

In Response to deerboy (#23221):

From what I understand, the pressure is a little lower then that at sea level. According to Boeing [boeing.com], the pressure is about that of an altitude of 8000ft (2500m) and that is why less alcohol gets you drunk then at sea-level.

The lower the pressure on the body, the easier it is for absorption. So because the alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream more quickly, the effect is greater. You don’t need to go up in a plane to prove the effects of faster absorption. If you drink four beers over an evening (double for Tor), you will be effected but not to any great extent. Drink the same quantity over a shorter period, say 47.8 seconds, and the effect will be far greater; even if you drink no more all evening you will still be in a worse state at the end of the night. The same amount is consumed, it is purely the absorption rate that effects you.

In Response to Nagy_Vilmos (#23222):

The lower the pressure on the body, the easier it is for absorption.

Um, could somebody explain the biomechanics/physics behind this one?

It has to be the oxygen. Sherpas would get less drunk on a plane. Regardless, you apparently agree that your first point about altitude was a hyperbole.

In Response to deerboy (#23225):

Ha! I take it all back. This [sportsci.org] is the best information I can find on how the diuretic nature of alcohol will exacerbate the dehydration caused by altitude, causing a greater effect from the drink.

I did find another medical paper on this but it was just too compliminated.

I'm not a scientist and it's a long time since I did that school stuff. I do however fly a lot.

[bad joke]
My arms hurt
[/bad joke]

In Response to deerboy (#23225):

Um, could somebody explain the biomechanics/physics behind this one?

Three things screw you up when boozing on a plane: pressure, oxygen, and dehydration.

The lower air pressure allows alcohol to dissolve into solution (in this case, your blood) more easily. With less pressure in the air, the alcohol expands to a larger volume more easily because Nature abhors a vacuum (which is why Nature's rugs are always so filthy, but that's another topic). This increases your uptake rate, and gets you drunk quicker.

Consider an analagous situation: some bastard makes you laugh while drinking (at sea level), and you snort valuable beer out your nose. Ew. It's not comfortable, and it'll be dripping for a while, but you won't get drunk any faster. Now, take something alcohol-based (say, a medicinal nasal spray), aerosolize it, and take a big sniff. Pretty good mechanism for taking stuff through the moist tissues of your mucous membranes and into your blood stream, on account of this alcohol has a huge surface area, and is readily absorbed. No, it's not the same as snorting a vaporous beer; and yes, the nasal cavity is a particularly good place to get anything into your bloodstream quickly, but it is based on the same fluid mechanics.

Second: the air is significantly less oxygen-rich "at altitude", so you may be feeling headachy and irritable even before you start drinking (if this is your natural state, you may not realize that it's happening). Since the (toxic) effects of alcohol involve interrupting your brain's oxygen supply, this also accelerates the drunkening, unless you're well acclimated to the lower oxygen levels (c.f.: Sherpas, passim).

Lastly, the drier air contributes to dehydration, which is a side-effect of drinking. Dehydration may or may not (depending on whose research you believe) be a causative factor of hangovers, but it surely doesn't help when you're sportin' a brainhammer.
 

In Response to Nagy_Vilmos (#23228):

From the link: Alcohol acts as a diuretic and will exacerbate the dehydration seen at altitude.

Interpretation: the diuretic nature of alcohol will exacerbate the dehydration caused by altitude, causing a greater effect from the drink.

What makes you think that dehydration increases 'effect from the drink'?

(you can always tell when Brits start trying to talk 'smart')

In Response to gtyrrell (#23230):

Recap: point two (O2), I covered. No definitive answer on point 3 (dehydration). And, although I mentioned I know little about biomechanics, it is obvious that you understand even less than I do (point 1 - pressure).

Well, maybe not, but here are my thoughts. The real question is what regulates pressure in the stomach - is it atmospheric, based on your body's forces, based on blood pressure, or completely independent? The only hypothesis that works for your theory is that the pressure is atmospheric. However, as gas is forcibly ejected from my stomach by passing up and out in the form of a belch, I doubt stomach pressure is atmospheric, so pressures in my stomach are probably defined by my body.

Now, you have argue that differences in atmospheric pressure should mean more than jack squat inside a pressurized body made out of massively denser fluid than the surrounding atmosphere. I would guess that within the realm of atmospheric pressures where there is enough O2 for respiration, exterior pressures won't matter much. So, unless somebody can present some maths of densities and changes in pressure due to this, throw this theory out (If somebody wishes to dork this problem with math, please include some calculations for comparable immersion in water).

Unless you are taking your alcohol through an inhaler. Which, although illuminating, is a silly comparison. Sillier than Zamphir, in fact. Unless I absorb all of my alcohol through respiration of my drunk breath.

I must add that I do appreciate your condescending tone troughout. Makes it sound like you know something.

In Response to deerboy (#23259):

The force is simply atmospheric pressure. If you went the other way and increased the pressure on the body without increasing the volume of gas within the body, then all your little organs would shrink to nothingness. Of course you don’t believe this, so go to the local swimming pool and fill a balloon with air then dive in and take it down with you. Two or three meters will be enough to show visible shrinkage from the increased pressure. If you put on a scuba tank on and went down ten meters it would shrink to half its original size. While you are down there fill another balloon with air and tie it shut. Now ascend and watch the balloon expand and eventually burst.

Now air has the same effect as the pressure increase or decreases, but as it is far less dense then water, it’s effect can really only be measured over hundreds of meters. So as you go up in aircraft the atmospheric pressure is reduced. Equivalent to about 2000m.

Your body does not explode because the pressure is the same inside and out, except for the air trapped in your ears and that is why your ears ‘pop’ as you change altitude. So the pressure inside your stomach reduces and the alcohol can get into the blood more easily; as previously explained.

This is how the atmospheric pressure changes the effectiveness of alcohol.

This is not theoretical, it is fact.

In Response to Nagy_Vilmos (#23267):

You’re kind of new around here, so I’ll try to be nice. You might be more accustomed to other locations on the internet, so I’ll key you in that this isn’t really the place to swagger around spouting out high school (secondary school, whatever) physics and biology lessons and act like you are some kind of expert. (Although this behavior does agree with some others’ [goats.com] theories about rugby players) If you’re going to preach to me about pressure, please demonstrate that you know enough about it to not call it a ‘force’. There pretty much only one person I’m going to defer to scientifically around here, and she works with friggin robots.

My point has been that the ‘pressure’ idea sounds good to bunch of oxygen deprived guys getting drunk on a plane, but it doesn’t seem to meet the burden of scientific proof. The only thing you have demonstrated is your arrogant attitude and that you are not a much of a scientist.

Yes, things behave differently at different pressures, but at what magnitude? I would guess that if alcohol absorption were significantly affected by these pressure changes, so would many other biochemical reactions, which would be pretty dangerous. The only thing I have ever heard about altitude, though, is oxygen depletion, which is sufficient to explain the ‘drunker’ phenomenon. I also have heard that the human body acclimates to these high elevations to more efficiently utilize oxygen. I have heard of no other metabolic changes, particularly different sized organs or any other compensation such as you would suggest. You might call such thoughts ‘science’ or 'facts', but I merely call them ‘deductions’ from my limited base of knowledge. Still, your ‘science’ has to explain away my simple deductions to have any shot.

Of course, if I wanted to do something even partially scientific, the doctor [chemcases.com] is in, and she says Ethyl alcohol (ethanol, CH3CH2OH) is a low molecular weight aliphatic (open chain) compound, which is completely miscible with water.

This is not theoretical, it is fact.

In Response to deerboy (#23259):

although I mentioned I know little about biomechanics, it is obvious that you understand even less than I do

Entirely possible, but I do know quite a lot about fluid mechanics useful methods of approximation for solving problems [amazon.com]. Feel free to challenge as you find helpful/necessary/amusing.

The only hypothesis that works for your theory is that the pressure is atmospheric. However, as gas is forcibly ejected from my stomach by passing up and out in the form of a belch, I doubt stomach pressure is atmospheric, so pressures in my stomach are probably defined by my body.

I don't follow your logic. Belching and farting are throttling processes: something goes from one pressure to another in a discrete period of time, with some degree of equilibration occurring. All the belch proves is that your stomach had a higher gauge pressure than the surrounding atmosphere, not that the atmosphere can't affect the structure of the stomach. Unless you've got the proverbial abs of steel, your body is a sack of mostly dirty water, with some slightly-foamed mineral deposits for variety. These will respond to atmospheric pressure changes.

Now, you have argue that differences in atmospheric pressure should mean more than jack squat inside a pressurized body made out of massively denser fluid than the surrounding atmosphere. I would guess that within the realm of atmospheric pressures where there is enough O2 for respiration, exterior pressures won't matter much. So, unless somebody can present some maths of densities and changes in pressure due to this, throw this theory out (If somebody wishes to dork this problem with math, please include some calculations for comparable immersion in water).

Is empirical evidence sufficient? My friend Gail got fucked up big time at 8700 feet on Mount Shasta because of exterior pressures that you think aren't significant. The time climbers spend acclimating isn't just to get used to the lowered oxygen levels, it's to let the body redistribute fluids and get used to the lowered pressure. Most people find their clothes too tight because their bodies swell (even with all the layers), and their appetites seriously out of whack; you literally can't tell how much to eat because your stomach has a different volume. It's climber's lore that this is primary reason somebody who's got altitude sickness spends so much time puking.

Or let's go in the other direction. My sister the SCUBA diver can deliver a half-lecture on exactly why the greater pressure at depth causes you to suffer nitrogen narcosis. She says it's more fun than being drunk, if you manage to avoid drowning. I don't dive, so I'll take her word on it.

Want numbers? Sea level is considered "standard pressure" at 29.9 inches of mercury; at 8000 ft the commonly-publicized value for airliner cabin ambient conditions), that's dropped to 22.2 in. Hg, which is a significant fraction of the way to vacuum. If you care for something less abstract than barometers, try this: base camp (where there's enough oxygen for respiration) for a big mountain is typically 12 - 15000 feet; water will boil over in the 180s (Farenheit) at that altitude. 8000 ft has a boiling point of 195 F, plus or minus a degree or so. All things being equal (like maintaining a reasonable core body temperature), that lesser pressure means quicker incorporation of a solute. (formulas used given below; all numbers subject to roundoff and local conditions)

I can dig out my old fluid mechanics text and start running math on the effects of pressure changes inside/surrounding thin-walled pressure vessels (like a stomach) if you like. That won't give us a more accurate answer than the first-order approximations we have here, but even without those calculations, I think it's reasonable to conclude that at least some of the pressures on/in the stomach...

Read the rest of this comment...

In Response to deerboy (#23271):

I believe pressure deffinately has something to do with it. When diving, it is fairly easy to get "the bends" which is when the bubbles of nitrogen in your blood expand too fast, caused by returning to the surface too quickly for your body to naturally compensate.

However, that is caused by a change in pressure, much like the balloons in a swimming pool recounted above. I have no idea how long it takes a body to acclimate to the change in cabin pressure during an airline flight.

In Response to Dynedain (#23274):

The bends has to do with dissolved gas in solution. Like in a beer.

Mmmmm.

Beer.

Yummy beer.

60 minute beer.

BRB

.
.
.
.
.

Sorry, got distracted. If we are talking about gases we are talking about oxygen, not the effect of pressure on alcohol absorbtion, which is we are down to arguing about. I agree with pressure arguments as long as they focus on oxygen.

As alcohol is fully mixed with water (as somebody pointed out before), somebody would need to demonstate, biochemically, that somehow the body selectively absorbs alcohol over water from this equal mixture and that atmospheric pressure affects this selection. Fluid mechanics will not solve this problem, the body has to be doing something nonthermodynamic (locally).

In Response to gtyrrell (#23273):

Well, now, that's more like it. You provide some strong points in response to my rambling, and your hypothesis passes through one hoop. As I was trying to say, though, although fluid mechanics is a good start, the key questions remain biomechanic - things like osmosis and the like. You can break out as many fluid mechanic books as you want, you're not going to satisfactorally answer the alcohol absorption problem, which seems to be a bigger hoop. Read my opther posts to get what I mean.

Still, I'm sorry your friend Gail got 'fucked up big time', but I don't know what that means. I also don't think this has anything to do with nitrogen narcosis. I must admit that I don't see how boiling points directly relate to solute absorption, you need a few more delta G's and S's to convince me (I'm not saying this point is wrong, I'm just being lazy). Lowered pressures will reduce dissolved gas pressures, though, which is a different problem.

In Response to deerboy (#23278):

I must admit that I don't see how boiling points directly relate to solute absorption, you need a few more delta G's and S's to convince me (I'm not saying this point is wrong, I'm just being lazy).

Fair enough. It will take some time to find the texts and run the numbers. I'll post results anon.

Disclaimer: if it turns out that proof requires experimental apparatus, forget it. I've got better things to do than mess around with a human stomach.