Beware Of Taking Liquids In Hand Luggage!!!

andrewmoorcroft

Peterbaker. Thankyou for your explanation. This is exactly what i meant with my expanding crisp packet and half empty bottle analogy. I find moonrakerz's first response to my post a little confusing. He claims that my post was complete rubbish whilst continuing to say almost the same as myself with the main difference being the laymans use of the word 'pressurized' because that's what most people say just like many incorrectly call a vacuum 'negative pressure' when we know there's no such thing! I was referring to the bottle leakage and meant the cabin is not pressurized above the bottle pressure. You are saying that the cabin has become pressurized relative to outside when i am saying that it hasn't become pressurized in absolute terms or relative to the bottle. You have to take it in the context of the preceeding posts and the peoples misunderstanding of the cause of the bottle leakage before you can in trying your best to offend people!

The fact of the matter is that most people think that the cabin pressure increases to above that at the ground and this squeezes the liquid out when infact the opposite is true. I.e, The pressure in the container remains at the same pressure as when the top was put on at sea level and the depression in the cabin causes the pressure differential and consequently the flow from the inside of the bottle to the cabin or suitcase until there is no pressure differential or the top re-seals!

If the cabin did maintain pressure or become slightly pressurized then the bottle would be less likely to leak.

I have a question for moonrakerz to help me understand his confusing terminology. You say i am wrong when i claim the cabin is at a partial vacuum (20%) when at 0.8 bar when the outside pressure is lower at altitudes above 8000ft. Well in outerspace it is well known that it is almost a perfect vacuum. I guess you would say this is wrong because the gauge pressure is zero and the pressure was 'atmosheric'. If you were to take a rigid container that contained virtually nothing (almost a perfect vaccuum), would you say that the vaccuum in the container would dissapear if you took it to outerspace in the same way as you would say that there was no vacuum in the cabin if both the cabin and external pressure were both the same at 8000ft?

At the end of the day i think it will slowly dawn on you that the outside of the container was not pressurized by the pressure in the cabin and it is the partial vaccuum surrounding the container that causes the leak.

Oh.. and when i said that the cabin is never pressurized i meant in absolute terms and was referring to the case of civil airlines that cause the shampoo to leak! I'm sorry i didn't mean development testing, or when a bomb goes off inside a plane or the one milli bar pressure increase at sea level if everyone were to open a can of pop and fart at the same time!

sandieb

moonrakerz wrote: »

Yeah ! can you get shampoo in tablet form ?

I believe you used to be able to buy shampoo bars from Lush. Possibly they stock them still.

rubia1409_2

Vampgirl wrote: »

I've never had my case go missing (or anything leak either) despite flying every couple of months for work, maybe if I'd had then I might be more bothered about it, I take extra medication in my handluggage but that's it - if the case goes missing then I'll use the hotel toiletries and go shopping for clothes (any excuse LOL). I can't stand travelling with a lot of hand luggage and if my luggage were to go missing it wouldn't be things like toiletries I was worried about :rolleyes:

I'm superstitious and think if I pack one change of clothes in my handluggage then my case won't go missing! So far it's worked! If I'm going somewhere sunny I just put in a bikini and a sundress. I always think you feel so much better if you can just put clean undies on!!!:rotfl:

shirlsky

sandieb wrote: »

I believe you used to be able to buy shampoo bars from Lush. Possibly they stock them still.

Yes, they still sell the shampoo bars. Very nice they are too!

moonrakerz

andrewmoorcroft wrote: »

I have a question for moonrakerz to help me understand his confusing terminology.

I was going to let this rest as other users of this thread were obviously getting a little bored with the way the subject had developed.

However:

1. There is only one user of "confusing terminology" and I'm afraid it isn't me !
Until I retired, I worked for the largest manufacturer of civil aircraft in the world, I NEVER heard the expression 'negative pressure' used inside or outside of the company, which andrewmoorcroft claims to be in common use.

2. 'Partial vacuum' - no such thing ! a vacuum is a vacuum or it isn't. Just like you can't be 'partially dead' or 'partially pregnant'.

3. "The fact of the matter is that most people think that the cabin pressure increases to above that at the ground" - no they don't and neither I nor anyone else on this thread said it did - except you of course, to support your poorly based points.

I had once already taken the hint to drop this pointless discussion - perhaps you will now as well.

FINI

BLUroma

moonrakerz wrote: »

I was going to let this rest as other users of this thread were obviously getting a little bored with the way the subject had developed.

I totally agree, that is if you were referring to the fact that this thread is way off track from the first point made. Trust me it is fun seeing people respond to something you've brought to their attention and I do appreciate everyone's contributions on this thread...HOWEVER...I myself (and perhaps other people visiting this thread are thinking the same) it would be great to see this thread get back on course and let's discuss the issue I brought up at the beginning..."TAKING LIQUIDS/TOILETRIES IN YOUR HAND LUGGAGE WHEN TRAVELLING." I believe in freedom of speech and all that, but ALL the comments here about cabin pressure, etc. honestly, really have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Re-read my very first thread for a reminder if you need to. In that regard those threads are off track. I would still like to hear from anyone else that's had a similar thing happen to them when travelling and suggestions on how we can resolve it with the UK/EU Transport Security if we can at all, or other things they've done to solve the issue...I like the tip about the shampoo bar from Lust, so thanx I'll check it out to see if the product works for me. LET'S KEEP IT GOING!!! THANX & CHEERS ~ BLUroma

moonrakerz

BLUroma wrote: »

moonrakerz wrote: »

I believe in freedom of speech and all that, but ALL the comments here about cabin pressure, etc. honestly, really have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.

I did actually originally answer a question that was relevant to the OP - no more, honest !!!!

hammy_the_hammer

i'll come back with put your liquids in your hold luggage and let security spend the time saved looking more stringently at those that HAVE to take liquids through security

BLUroma

I AGREE 100%...hammy the hammer. That was my conclusion after this happened. It's not worth it if you can avoid it in the first place...unless however you are travelling on a short trip with only your hand luggage. In that sitution you're pretty much forced to carry your toiletries in your hand luggage. No one can really afford to dispose of these items every time you travel, ie. buy new one's every time you travel or even just use hotel issued shampoo, etc. I CAN'T ANYWAY!!! So I will opt for putting liquids in my main luggage and make sure it is in a separate plastic bag in case it leaks due to pressure differences inflight. THANX ~ BLUroma ; )

andrewmoorcroft

moonrakerz wrote: »

1. There is only one user of "confusing terminology" and I'm afraid it isn't me !
Until I retired, I worked for the largest manufacturer of civil aircraft in the worldFINI

You obviously didn't design cabin pressure control systems! Did they let you retire early? I have an MSc in thermodynamics and develop matlab scripts for control systems.

moonrakerz wrote: »

I NEVER heard the expression 'negative pressure' used inside or outside of the company, which andrewmoorcroft claims to be in common use.FINI

Shows how limited your expert knowledge is! Check out this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pressure

moonrakerz wrote: »

'Partial vacuum' - no such thing ! a vacuum is a vacuum or it isn't. Just like you can't be 'partially dead' or 'partially pregnant'.FINI

You should give up now! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

moonrakerz wrote: »

"The fact of the matter is that most people think that the cabin pressure increases to above that at the ground" - no they don't and neither I nor anyone else on this thread said it did - except you of course, to support your poorly based points.FINI

I don't think that the pressure increases to above that at the ground. No where in my posts does it say this!

I notice that you didn't attempt to answer my questions. I'm quite happy to finish my posts on this thread with the knowledge that anyone who reads this and thought that the cabin pressure is increased to that above ground level has learnt something. Wonder if you really will drop this thread?