Does the "Hand in Warm Water" Trick Really Work?

iStock / NickS
iStock / NickS

As the kids head off to summer camp, many of them will partake in the timeless tradition of trying to get their friends to pee themselves by slipping their hand into some warm water. Does this actually work, or have generations of campers wasted their efforts?

We can’t say for sure. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests the prank works reliably, but, as they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. Some friend of a friend who swears this happened to him at camp decades ago doesn’t really count for much. To test things out in a controlled environment, the MythBusters once tried the trick on each other and a crew member in a lab with sleep-monitoring equipment and moisture alarms in the beds. Their results were less than impressive: zero wet beds (to be fair, though, a sample size of three isn’t great).

I’m not aware of any other scientific testing of the trick, and am not convinced that it does work, or that it doesn’t. It’s plausible, but light on evidence. 

If you’ll join me in the Speculation Zone, though, I’d hazard a guess that if the trick does work, it would rely on the power of suggestion. We’ve talked before about how having to pee when you hear the sound of running water is a kind of conditioned response, spurred by the unconscious connection we make between the sound and the act. I don’t think it's out of the question that a similar connection could be at work here, but it doesn’t seem as direct. Wet hands are associated with urination through hand washing, which you do after relieving yourself, and there don’t seem to be many issues with people losing control of their bladders other times they get their hands in some warm water. 

There is such a thing called “immersion diuresis,” which is urination brought on by temperature and pressure changes from immersing the body in water, but research suggests that whole limbs or the whole body needs to go under water for this mechanism to work, and a single hand isn’t enough. 

Are Any of the Scientific Instruments Left on the Moon By the Apollo Astronauts Still Functional?

Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong left the first footprint on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong left the first footprint on the Moon on July 20, 1969.
Heritage Space/Heritage Images/Getty Images

C Stuart Hardwick:

The retroreflectors left as part of the Apollo Lunar Ranging Experiment are still fully functional, though their reflective efficiency has diminished over the years.

This deterioration is actually now delivering valuable data. The deterioration has multiple causes including micrometeorite impacts and dust deposition on the reflector surface, and chemical degradation of the mirror surface on the underside—among other things.

As technology has advanced, ground station sensitivity has been repeatedly upgraded faster than the reflectors have deteriorated. As a result, measurements have gotten better, not worse, and measurements of the degradation itself have, among other things, lent support to the idea that static electric charge gives the moon an ephemeral periodic near-surface pseudo-atmosphere of electrically levitating dust.

No other Apollo experiments on the moon remain functional. All the missions except the first included experiment packages powered by radiothermoelectric generators (RTGs), which operated until they were ordered to shut down on September 30, 1977. This was done to save money, but also because by then the RTGs could no longer power the transmitters or any instruments, and the control room used to maintain contact was needed for other purposes.

Because of fears that some problem might force Apollo 11 to abort back to orbit soon after landing, Apollo 11 deployed a simplified experiment package including a solar-powered seismometer which failed after 21 days.

This post originally appeared on Quora. Click here to view.

What Makes a Hotel Breakfast 'Continental'?

Hotels often offer a complimentary pastry and fruit breakfast.
Hotels often offer a complimentary pastry and fruit breakfast.
tashka2000/iStock via Getty Images

The continental breakfast, which is typically made up of pastries, fruit, and coffee, is often advertised by hotels as a free perk for guests. But why is it called continental, and why don’t patrons get some eggs and bacon along with it?

The term dates back to 19th century Britain, where residents referred to mainland Europe as “the continent.” Breakfast in this region was usually something light, whereas an English or American breakfast incorporated meat, beans, and other “heavy” menu options.

American hotels that wanted to appeal to European travelers began advertising “continental breakfasts” as a kind of flashing neon sign to indicate guests wouldn’t be limited to American breakfast fare that they found unappealing. The strategy was ideal for hotels, which saved money by offering some muffins, fruit, and coffee and calling it a day.

That affordability as well as convenience—pastries and fruit are shelf-stable, requiring no heat or refrigeration to maintain food safety—is a big reason continental breakfasts have endured. It’s also a carryover from the hybrid model of hotel pricing, where American hotels typically folded the cost of meals into one bill and European hotels billed for food separately. By offering a continental breakfast, guests got the best of both worlds. And while Americans were initially aghast at the lack of sausages and pancakes on offer, they’ve since come around to the appeal of a muffin and some orange juice to get their travel day started.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER