Pickles glow when you plug them in. Science explains why 8%

By Emily Conover0%

7/7/2026, 1:05:18 AM

Topics: Physics

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 117 hits. Analysis detected 846 faulty-reasoning hits from 452 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.9% and a BS Rank of 8% (19,258 of 20,882 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.20% of the article peer group.

COCOA BEACH, Fla.  Here’s what happens when you plug in a pickle. 
At an otherwise formal meeting of the Electrostatics Society ofA scientist, a jar of pickles and a power strip walk into a room. 
The punchline involves physics, glowing condiments and a scientific party trick.America, electrical engineer Joshua Méndez Harper pulled out a jar of pickles, a power strip and some electrodes. 
“I’m hoping we will not have the fire alarm go off,” he said. 
He skewered each end of a pickle with an electrode and flipped the switch. 
The pickle sizzled in protest, then glowed bright orange at one end. 
As an aroma of singed pickle wafted over the audience, he shut off the power. 
It’s a decades-old scientific parlor trick, and now Méndez Harper’s group at Portland State University in Oregon may figured out what the dill is. 
Pickles are typically soaked in a salty brine. 
Since saltwater consists of ions  electrically charged atoms  pickles are able to conduct electricity. 
But the glow’s cause is debated. 
One idea is that pickle juice boils at the electrode, creating a pocket of vapor that blocks current flow, causing sparks to fly across the gap. 
Another idea involves electrolysis, a process through which an electric current breaks water into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. 
That mixture is explosive, so heat from the electrode might trigger small, luminous blasts. 
Méndez Harper and colleagues outfitted a pickle with monitoring equipment in their laboratory, including a high-speed camera and hydrogen sensor. 
Then they zapped it with either alternating or direct current. 
(Méndez Harper is a professional  don’t try this at home.) 
Alternating current is the type from a wall socket, in which the charge flow switches directions periodically, whereas direct current is a steady flow. 
Hydrogen was produced in both cases, indicating that some electrolysis does take place. 
But puzzlingly, the glow appeared only with alternating current. 
That suggested the mechanism actually involves both effects at once, Méndez Harper said in a talk June 16. 
The oscillating nature of alternating current might help keep the vapor pocket open, allowing sparks to form that ignite the hydrogen and oxygen, Méndez Harper explained. 
Direct current, he proposed, could make the vapor pocket unstable, so that it collapses, producing hydrogen but no sparks, and therefore no ignition and no glow. 
The team also wanted to answer why only one side of the pickle glows. 
That was less complicated: It’s the juicier side. 
A pickle placed vertically always glows on its bottom end, where brine collects, the team found. 
After the demo, the pickle went in the trash. 
Taste tests weren’t on the menu. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.3%Emily Conover: 3.4%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 1.2%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Emily Conover: 2.9%Science News: 2.5%Availability Heuristic12.2%This article: 3.5%Emily Conover: 0.3%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Emily Conover: 4.5%Science News: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias6.4%This article: 4.4%Emily Conover: 7.0%Science News: 4.2%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 2.4%Emily Conover: 0.2%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion2.4%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.7%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Emily Conover: 7.2%Science News: 4.2%Optimism Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 1.5%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Emily Conover: 4.2%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias11.1%This article: 3.5%Emily Conover: 0.3%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Emily Conover: 1.0%Science News: 1.4%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 1.1%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Emily Conover: 0.1%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%Emily Conover: 6.8%Science News: 4.5%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 5.8%Emily Conover: 2.7%Science News: 1.1%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.4%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.9%Emily Conover: 2.8%Science News: 4.0%Hasty Generalization6.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.5%Science News: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.1%Emily Conover: 3.3%Science News: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion20.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.9%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 20.4%Emily Conover: 2.9%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.4%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Emily Conover: 0.2%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.6%Science News: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.2%Emily Conover: 1.3%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal8.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.8%Emily Conover: 1.2%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Emily Conover: 0.3%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground1.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.4%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.9%Science News: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.7%Emily Conover: 1.7%Science News: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.7%This article: 25.9%Emily Conover: 3.7%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice25.9%This article: 3.8%Emily Conover: 0.3%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination3.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Conover: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Emily Conover: 0.4%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.3%

452 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker18%attributed speech369writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageJoshua Méndez Harper • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJoshua Méndez Harper • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJoshua Méndez Harper • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJoshua Méndez Harper • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joshua Méndez Harper

100%flagged-word coverage
83 attributed words100% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.7 ptsWriter: 31.7%Joshua Méndez Harper: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Joshua Méndez Harper: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Joshua Méndez Harper: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.8 ptsWriter: 0.8%Joshua Méndez Harper: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.