Learn How to Make Water Disappear

Learning intricate card tricks and complex hand movements can be overwhelming and hard to execute in front of an eager audience, so here is a how to perform a magic trick that does not require any skill but, instead, just a little bit of science. Here is the premise of the trick: You tell an unassuming bystander to pour a glass of water into your magician’s hat. You wave your hands over the hat and chant a seemingly realistic spell. When you flip the hat over, no water pours out… not even a drop. So how did this happen?

While the audience believes that the enchanting spell you cast over the hat made the water disappear, the real magic is rooted in the chemistry behind one particular item: the diaper. When we think of diapers, words like “ew” or “baby” or even “ew babies” come to mind. However, after reading this, you might have a new perspective on the amazing properties of diapers.

We’re now going to do something no ordinary person would do: dissect the diaper. The magical substance that you will line your magician’s hat with can be found underneath the lining of a diaper. This substance is a water-absorbing chemical called sodium polyacrylate. Polyacrylate can absorb more than 200 times its own mass (which is extremely fortunate for those potty training and those who have to change the diapers of potty trainers). Although this superabsorbent polymer is now found in a wide variety of products like medical bandages, female hygiene products and diapers, the substance was originally manufactured for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the 1970s. The original use for polyacrylate gel was to improve the water retention in soils in an effort to improve germination and plant growth (Liu, 2001).

sodium polyacrylate
This is the chemical structure of sodium polyacrylate. The molecule is a polymer, so this structure repeats beyond the bars in the diagram.

Sodium polyacrylate is a network polymer that contains sodium ions. The key to the absorption process and this magic trick is understanding basic rules of diffusion, osmosis and bonding. Osmosis is the when molecules in a solvent move from a less concentrated solution to a more concentrated solution. In this magic trick, when the water comes into contact with the sodium-containing polymer, the sodium diffuses into the water. This results in the replacement of sodium atoms with water molecules in the complex network (Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). The polymer is essentially a long chain of negatively charged molecules and bonds to water through hydrogen bonds. The bonds allow the network to swell and hold the water in place, which is why the resulting mixture is crystal-like, fluffy substance that does not spill out of the hat. Now that you know the secret to this trick you will now be able to hone and perfect your water vanishing skills!

Hopefully now when you think of diapers you think “awesome, absorbent polymer.” That said, there are limitations to how amazing this polymer is. Although bunnies are about 70% water, please know a diaper will not make a bunny disappear.

Here’s what you need for the trick:

–       Hat

–       Source of sodium polyacrylate (>2g)

–       Glass of water (8 floz.)

Start with some sodium polyacrylate at the base of the hat. You can tape a diaper to the bottom of the hat to conceal the water-absorbing polymer. Ask someone to pour a regular glass of water in the hat. Swirl the hat around and distract the audience while the water absorbs. The absorption time will depend on how much sodium polyacrylate you use and how much water is added, however, this process should occur within a matter of seconds to minutes. Once you are convinced everything has been absorbed, flip the hat over and watch the audience be amazed!

 

 

 

 

References:

Carnegie Mellon University (n.d.). Super absorbing polymer powder. Retrieved from https://www.cmu.edu/gelfand/education/k12-teachers/polymers/polymer-and-absorption/super-absorb-powder.html

Foy, J. M., & Schnieden, H. (1960). Estimation of total body water (virtual tritium space) in the rat, cat, rabbit, guinea‐pig and man, and of the biological half‐life of tritium in man. The Journal of physiology, 154(1), 169-176.

Liu, M., & Guo, T. (2001). Preparation and swelling properties of crosslinked sodium polyacrylate. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 82(6), 1515-1520.

Parks, L. R. (1981). Cross-linked sodium polyacrylate absorbent. U.S. Patent No. 4,295,987. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.