Tar Pitch Drop Captured On Camera

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tar Pitch Drop Captured On Camera

Posted by Soulskill on Friday July 19, 2013 @02:56AM from the you-can-now-die-happy dept.

New submitter Ron024 sends this news from Nature: "After 69 years, one of the longest-running laboratory investigations in the world has finally captured the fall of a drop of tar pitch on camera for the first time. A similar, better-known and older experiment in Australia missed filming its latest drop in 2000 because the camera was offline at the time. The Dublin pitch-drop experiment was set up in 1944 at Trinity College Dublin to demonstrate the high viscosity or low fluidity of pitch — also known as bitumen or asphalt — a material that appears to be solid at room temperature, but is in fact flowing, albeit extremely slowly. ... The Trinity College team has estimated the viscosity of the pitch by monitoring the evolution of this one drop, and puts it in the region of 2 million times more viscous than honey, or 20 billion times the viscosity of water. The speed of formation of the drop can depend on the exact composition of the pitch, and environmental conditions such as temperature and vibration."

142 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

....now do that with glass
1. Re:Ok.... by i+kan+reed · 2013-07-19 03:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Didn't you notice that the titration device was made of glass and showed zero sign of change? That's because glass isn't an amorphous solid.
2. Re:Ok.... by Sockatume · 2013-07-19 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  I know you're just saying that to screw with pedants... but I hate you anyway.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
3. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Glass *is* an amorphous solid. The point is that it isn't some sort of superviscous liquid.
4. Re:Ok.... by slashmydots · 2013-07-19 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Nobody seems to be able to decide what the heck glass is. You've got the controversial cathedral glass thickness reports. Then you've got the slightly more easily provable fact that it shatters. The consensus seems to be that it's not completely solid and from there, people can argue all they want. But since the tar was inside glass and we have to assume the glass morphed, their measurement isn't completely accurate. So...time to start the experiment over again, lol
  
  But that's not the only reason. The luminosity in the room changed slightly and the material is black. That means it changed temperature slightly, which over 69 years could cause significant viscosity measurement inaccuracies. Plus, the room probably wasn't even properly climate controlled anyway.
  
  So let's start it over and do it right this time! Forget landing on Mars, we need to know the viscosity of tar, damn it!
5. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 04:46 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Nobody seems to be able to decide what the heck glass is.
  Actually the Nature article on the pitch drop states:
  "Scientists used to believe glass to be a slow-moving liquid as well — in part because old church window panes are thicker at the bottom — but it is now considered a solid."
  and points to this as a reference. Zhao, J., Simon, S. L. & McKenna, G. B. Nature Communications
  Nature is a fairly reputable journal so I think I'll go with glass as a solid for the time being.
  The issue regarding the windows panes appears to be that the differing thicknesses from one side of the window to the other is because of the manufacturing method. Also they put the thicker side at the bottom in order to prevent breakage because they weren't idiots.
6. Re:Ok.... by MozeeToby · 2013-07-19 04:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The cathedral glass reports have nothing to do with glass flowing and everything to do with how glass was made hundreds of yeas ago.
7. Re:Ok.... by rwise2112 · 2013-07-19 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  The cathedral glass reports have nothing to do with glass flowing and everything to do with how glass was made hundreds of yeas ago.
  I've heard that as well, but can't seem to get around that it would be unlikely that all the glass would be installed with the thicker part towards the bottom.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
8. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It would be very likely because that is exactly what they did for stability reasons.
9. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not ALL of it is. People knew that you should put the heavy end at the bottom. So that's what they did. But nobody is perfect and sometimes they fucked up. So there are examples where say a stained glass window has 80 pieces of glass and 79 are thick at the bottom but one is thick at the top.
10. Re:Ok.... by pla · 2013-07-19 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I've heard that as well, but can't seem to get around that it would be unlikely that all the glass would be installed with the thicker part towards the bottom.
  
  Do you store your beer cap-up or cap-down?
11. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody seems to be able to decide what the heck glass is.
  Nobody on the internet seems to be able to decide what glass is... but your indecisiveness doesn't mean it hasn't been settled in science circles some time ago. Even by the 90s, the description of glass as an amorphous solid was unanimous among all material science work I've seen. There is a very small contingent suggesting that it could be considered a phase separate from solid and liquid, but otherwise amorphous solid is a subset of solids (and there are amorphous solids other than glass, so glass is a proper subset).
  There isn't any controversy here in the material science, only by people on the internet who try to argue stuff while real work moves on.
  (And several of these tar pitch drop experiments have temperatures recorded, and have notes about when they had or lacked temperature control... there are other ways for far more precise and quicker measurements of high viscosity anyways.)
12. Re:Ok.... by datavirtue · 2013-07-19 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  2 million times more viscous than honey
  So, it's like concrete?
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
13. Re:Ok.... by MozeeToby · 2013-07-19 06:06 · Score: 2
  
  If I hand you a piece of glass that is noticeably thicker on one end and tell you to put it in the window, you're not going to put the thick side down? Almost all glass is found that way because it was installed that way on purpose for stability reasons and, arguably more importantly, to prevent water pooling at the bottom of the window seal. I say "almost" because there are, in fact, instances where it was installed incorrectly.
14. Re:Ok.... by jason.sweet · 2013-07-19 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  So they would spend decades carving the ornamentation, but only do a half-ass job installing the glass?
15. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  Wait another thousand years. If a hole forms at the top of the window, then glass is a liquid.
16. Re:Ok.... by Mr.+Freeman · 2013-07-19 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Contrary to popular belief, glass does not flow at all. This was a bullshit myth generated when some people realized that some old pieces of glass in some windows were thicker at the bottom than the top. This is actually because of how the glass making techniques of the time worked, some parts of the glass would be thicker. Naturally, it makes sense to put the thickest end of the glass towards the bottom of a window, which is why most of the windows are thicker at the bottom. However, we can also find windows that are thicker on the sides or the top, entirely disproving the nonsense "flowing glass" myth.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
17. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  If you mean solid concrete, the viscosity of that is another factor of million to billions larger than pitch. Liquid concrete that has not set has typically viscosities about ~10 times that of honey, although it is not really an ideal liquid...
18. Re:Ok.... by asliarun · 2013-07-19 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're just saying that to screw with pedants... but I hate you anyway.
  If you're going to talk about pedantry, I don't understand the experiment to begin with. My concern is probably naive, but consider the fact that over a hundred detectable earthquakes occur every days, and thousands more occur that are too mild to detect.
  Aren't earthquakes introducing massive errors in this experiement - considering how long it has been running?
  If this concern is valid, they should have used a good vibration isolation mechanism, and I'm not sure if they did.
19. Re:Ok.... by Anubis+IV · 2013-07-19 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually a common misconception that glass behaves as a slow-moving liquid. Most people who believe that have heard about glass being thicker at the base of windows in old buildings and homes than it is at the top, which is supposed to be proof that it has flowed down. While that fact about the glass being thicker at the bottom is oftentimes true, it's not because the glass is flowing, but rather because the manufacturing processes for glass were not as precise as they are today, so the people who assembled the windows did the sensible thing and put the thicker side on the bottom.
  While the molecular structure of glass does classify it as an amorphous solid, in practice it has never been observed to be flowing, and studies done on centuries-old glass have consistently failed to substantiate the notion that it is flowing.
20. Re:Ok.... by Instine · 2013-07-19 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  I've lived in a house old enough to have windows that have 'sagged'. There's little difference between the two other than times scales (the glass was well over a century old. I don't know for sure how old, But part of the building was built in 1684. Looking at it, there's no question it is flowing under gravity. This was in the North of England, where temps do not get especially high.
  
  --
  Because you can - or because you should?
21. Re:Ok.... by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-07-19 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Thank God. I was expecting to explain the manufacturing process and instillation methods of window glazers of old all over again. You have saved me the hassle.
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
22. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Earthquakes around Ireland don't get much above a 5.0, and estimates of peak ground acceleration (with a one in a thousand chance per year) are around 0.25 m/s^2. The effects of linear viscosity are proportional to the pressure, so any change in apparent weight will be proportional to the changes in flow. So, in this case, it seems like it could introduce a ~2% error for a short period... and even with a generous allocation for non-linear behavior would not make that big of a difference. This isn't a precision experiment anyway, as there are other, far more precise ways of measuring viscosity of high viscosity materials.
23. Re:Ok.... by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-07-19 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  what you perceived as 'sag' are in fact manufacturing artifacts.
  The way modern plate glass is made is to float a layer of molten glass on the surface of a bed of molten Tin. This allows the glass to harden to a solid, while sitting on a perfectly level surface.
  The way plate glass was made up until the mid 1900's was to place a large blob of soft glass on a very large turntable, and spin it. This resulted in the glass spreading over the turntable, forming a generally flat and mostly smooth surface. Due to centrifugal forces, the outside rim of this large round plate would be thicker than the inner area. This large disc would then be cut into squares, with the waste glass recycled back into the glass making process.
  Obviously, spinning glass like a pizza does not make a pane of glass free from distortion and imperfections, thus causing the sagging ripples you witnessed in the house you speak of. (I lived part of my childhood in a house built in 1918, and it also had glass that appeared to have deep ripples and sags in it, which caused me to learn about the glass making process.)
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
24. Re:Ok.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-19 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  You've got the controversial cathedral glass thickness reports.
  There's nothing controversial about them. We've only learned how to mass manufacture perfectly coplanar glass panes only in the last century and a half or something like that.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
25. Re:Ok.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-19 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  Even by the 90s, the description of glass as an amorphous solid was unanimous among all material science work I've seen.
  "Folk knowledge" like this is to some extent present in every field. For example, in the field of linguistics, "everybody knows" that Inuits have hundreds of different words for snow...except, well, they don't. If the piece of knowledge is peripheral (= not often exercised, as opposed to, say, Newton's laws of movement which you see around yourself exercised all the time), AND difficult to verify at the same time, there's always potential for blunders like these to happen because few people bother to check.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
26. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  How is that "folk knowledge"? The basis of glass being an amorphous solid by the 90s, as opposed to decades early concept of a viscous liquid, is due to a variety of tests. By then there were quite a few measurements of the viscosity of glass, along with other things like rock, and extensive exploration of viscoelasticity (early models of solids having a mix of elasticity and viscosity go back to Maxwell and Kelvin). Work has continued on this with still papers being published on measurements of glass. The distinction between amorphous solids and crystalline solids had become quite important to material science, and to some degree to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics research. Glass is one of the easiest amorphous solids to look at, although a lot of practical work ends up dealing with other materials.
  This isn't some consensus due to repeated folk knowledge, this is more like the consensus that has developed around quantum mechanics and GR. Of course those theories could be wrong, but the consensus is there now due to actual body of research and data.
27. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Flat plate glass goes back to the 17th century, just until early mid 19th century, it required manual grinding and polishing, so it was exceptionally expensive. It wasn't until the early 20th century that it became cheap and mass produced. Although there were some intermediate techniques that weren't flat, but weren't a simple gradient either in the late 1800s, and some of the early flat glass didn't quite look flat because of material consistency issues.
28. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  There was also a period of time, which may be much more applicable to early 20th century windows, where the glass was made by inflating large cylinders of glass, then unrolling them. This could also produce wavy glass.
29. Re:Ok.... by hazah · 2013-07-19 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Damn.. Love that verse!!
30. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Are you a troll? Or are you just very consistently wrong on science articles despite your confidence? Having seen your posts come up before, you seem to be very good at creating plenty of comments correcting you on basic things...
31. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  2000 years from now people will be arguing that painted roofing sheets are magic because they all have the coated side facing to the sun.
  Surely you wouldn't install every single sheet with the correct side facing up?
32. Re:Ok.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-07-19 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I store my Spaghettios upside down. It makes all the rings settle to the top, so when I turn it right-side-up and open it, I can pour them into the pan much easier. There are very few, if any, stuck to the crease/dent around the inside bottom of the can.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
33. Re:Ok.... by VortexCortex · 2013-07-19 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  May his noodley appendage touch you, I was expecting to explain my relief at not having to explain. Thanks be to you, and also to FSM.
34. Re:Ok.... by VortexCortex · 2013-07-19 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I see you're not a member of the glazier union...
35. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  Why can't people just say it flows above certain setpoint S. This is just another classical mathematical limit of matter that flows above/below certain setpoints of temperature. Think of it as the Absolute Zero of a particular substance between liquid and solid form. Yes I understand what a limit is I understand what absolute zero is. Think of your limit 0 as flow and no flow. Matter doesn't just instantly jump from one form to the other, there is no doubt a limit that exists for each substance, for each molecule that interacts, they don't all just go zonk, right out!(Bill Cosby). Some of the molecules are in one form or the other and jump back and forth near that limit; hence, your pussying out by describing it as "amorphous solid" is complete crap. Just like "Pluto isn't a planet because it doesn't clear it's orbit, woops, neither does Earth, but we'll let that slide". Another wannabe researcher that NEEDS to have his name published. After 40 years of doing nothing but yarn about things that are complete crap, you realized that you must DO SOMETHING! I will get about 1% of the people that actually study this(astronomy, Pluto and beyond) and DECLARE 1 LESS PLANET! YES I DECLARE THIS BECAUSE MY 1% WILL DECIDE WHOSE PAPER GET'S PUBLISHED FROM HEREAFTER. Does anyone see the problem? How dare you go against the 1%?
  No "amorphous solid" is not "unanimous". No Einstein is not "unanimous" in that both are not complete. I'm not saying your finding are wrong, they are just very much incomplete, due to our limit of our research abilities. To say it's unanimous is giving up. Why study it anymore? You gave up.
36. Re:Ok.... by Darinbob · 2013-07-19 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Because sometimes it's the other way around, the thicker part is at the top. But you just start with one person saying "hey, you notice how the glass is always thicker at the bottom" and the listeners assume that is fact. Then he goes on and says "it's because glass flows like liquid and after one hundred years it is thicker at bottom" and the listeners walk away thinking that they just learned something amazing. Over the years this story gets repeated and repeated until school children are taught it as a fact that isn't question. If someone does see a some of the glass with the thicker part at the top they just assume it was installed this way but that it doesn't disprove the notion (maybe in a couple hundred years the thick part will be back at the bottom).
37. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  If glass were an amorphous solid, yet more viscous than tar, how could you tell in that video, which one cannot sufficiently zoom to really get a close look at the glass?
38. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  No "amorphous solid" is not "unanimous". No Einstein is not "unanimous" in that both are not complete. I'm not saying your finding are wrong, they are just very much incomplete, due to our limit of our research abilities. To say it's unanimous is giving up. Why study it anymore? You gave up.
  Do you know what unanimous means? Because if you did, you would realize trying to act like it meant "complete" or "finished" is a nonsensical argument. Where does it say research on this has stopped? Because in fact another post and others talk about how research of the topic has been ongoing and it is a big, important area of research for various reasons.
  
  Why study it anymore? You gave up.
  Why bother trying to comprehend comments before you reply to them? You seem to have given up yourself and have some other irrelevant issue you are trying to get off your chest and shoe horn into this discussion.
  And funny enough, your excessively wordy description of what a glass transition is was actually pretty close to accurate, until you suddenly said those that use the term "amorphous solid" some how gave up even though they would have otherwise agreed with you until your off-topic tangent.
39. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody seems to be able to decide what the heck glass is. You've got the controversial
  
  the description of glass as an amorphous solid was unanimous among all material science work I've seen.
  These are not statements about completeness or accuracy, these are statements about the views of scientists on the subject. No matter how accurate or complete a theory is, if you say the theory is controversial when the scientist are not divided on the issue, then you are wrong. And yet oddly you also seem to be advocating a description that matches the same theory/description you chide someone else for.
  Not that the unrelated rant you used your misreading as a launching point for is any more coherent... because it is not like research of Pluto has stopped or papers can no longer be published about the topic, or get blocked.
40. Re:Ok.... by rwise2112 · 2013-07-19 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  If I hand you a piece of glass that is noticeably thicker on one end and tell you to put it in the window, you're not going to put the thick side down? Almost all glass is found that way because it was installed that way on purpose for stability reasons and, arguably more importantly, to prevent water pooling at the bottom of the window seal. I say "almost" because there are, in fact, instances where it was installed incorrectly.
  Ah thanks. I wasn't aware that it was something that noticeable.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
41. Re:Ok.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-21 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  No more unlikely than that all my friends' mothers' legs be installed with the thicker part towards the bottom.
42. Re:Ok.... by gzuckier · 2013-07-21 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  I've always found this whole glass business to be dubious.
  The way glass was made at the time means not only that the thickness was uneven, but also that it would not change monotonically. So, there is no reason to believe the thickest part would be at the edge at all, rather than just somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that one edge would be thicker than the other, even aside from this; the thickness of the edges is going to vary from point to point so that there is likely to be thick and thin regions on any edge. Given this, the idea of determining the thicker half of the glass via the thickness of the edge, and thus installing it with the center of gravity in the lowest position seems dubious at best, even if that would be advantageous.
  Anyway, these old windows were not a large sheet of glass, but were assembled from small panes and, certainly in stained glass windows, these panes wouldn't be symmetrical and lend themselves to flipping over and still fitting in the same hole.
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
43. Re:Ok.... by Darinbob · 2013-07-21 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  The glass is thicker in the middle when it's first made. The molten glass is spun to flatten it, so it's thinner at edges and thicker in the middle. It is then cut into small panes and pieces. Thus the slightly thick part is at one end. The effect was noticed on normal panes.
44. Re:Ok.... by Sockatume · 2013-07-21 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  On the timescale of an earthquake pitch is essentially solid. There'd be more risk of it smashing than anything else.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Dripping tar, drying paint by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Must be a slow news day.
1. Re:Dripping tar, drying paint by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Since you asked for it, here is drying paint ... but Watching Grass Grow might be too much excitement for 'ya! ;-)
2. Re:Dripping tar, drying paint by davester666 · 2013-07-19 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  I'm just hoping they also have a slow-motion video of the drop, so we can see all the fine details.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
3. Re:Dripping tar, drying paint by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Must be a slow news day.
  What's the over/under on the dupe?
pitch-drop observer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:04 · Score: 1

quite tantalizing for a very long time pitch-drop observer like myself
That reads like rule 34 is already satisfied.
Like an Old Guy at the Urinal: Forever for a Drop by InitZero · 2013-07-19 03:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Are you done yet in there, Grandpa?
Cheers,
Matt
And I thought... by roc97007 · 2013-07-19 03:08 · Score: 2

*I* had a lot of time on my hands...

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Drop? by h4rr4r · 2013-07-19 03:10 · Score: 1

I guess it made a droplet, but it did not seem to drop. It was touching the bottom before the top broke off.
1. Re:Drop? by tsa · 2013-07-19 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you look closely at where the thing that holds the funnel is attached to the vertical rod, you see it 'jumps' upwards a few mm when the drop falls. It suddenly doesn't touch the grey thing underneath it anymore. I call this a hoax.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
2. Re:Drop? by Antipater · 2013-07-19 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  And if you let go of a heavy object, your arm will rise a few mm. Things deform under load. When the load is released, they return to equilibrium.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
3. Re:Drop? by TCQuad · 2013-07-19 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Some jumping could theoretically occur on the arm that's holding up the funnel, but the position of the C-clamp on a lab stand itself shifted up slightly (some separation forms between the tar pitch c-clamp and the other arm that's steading the lab stand). That's not going to happen without human intervention.
  
  From when the jump occurred, it appears that they lifted the clamp slightly to allow space for the next drop.
4. Re:Drop? by tsa · 2013-07-19 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I meant. The strange thing is: the clock seems to not jump when the clamp jumps upward.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
5. Re:Drop? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus Christ, someone has actually managed to formulate a conspiracy theory about a fucking pitch drop experiment. Will wonders never cease?
  
  Now seriously go take your meds.
6. Re:Drop? by uglyduckling · 2013-07-19 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're failing to appreciate that the video is massively sped up. What you describe as 'suddenly' does indeed look like a cut edit, but was probably a fairly slow upwards movement of the arm as it regained equilibrium after the drop fell. Watch the clock to see.
OK, well... by synaptik · 2013-07-19 03:12 · Score: 2

OK, well I'll mark that one off my Bucket List now...

--
HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
1. Re:OK, well... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Really? I thought it didn't count if you didn't see the drop drop live.
Re:This is now a poop thread. by PPH · 2013-07-19 03:12 · Score: 0

Next, we film the tar pitch after burritos.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:12 · Score: 1

Another hundred years and our hard drives will be good enough to store countless hours of video while we wait to see air bubbles rising in a vertical pane of glass. Honestly, somebody has to find better uses for their time. I can't believe this experiement has been running since 1944.
1. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by h4rr4r · 2013-07-19 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Glass bubbles do no rise in panes of glass. Glass is not a liquid.
  http://io9.com/the-glass-is-a-liquid-myth-has-finally-been-destroyed-496190894
2. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  It is not like managing the experiment is a full time job and requires someone to sit and stare at it 24/7, or even 8-5. These times of experiments mostly just sit in a cabinet in some physics department lobby, with once a month or less check of temperature records and seeing if it is close to making a drop. The only moderate amount of effort needed is when moving the thing to a new location or building due to the department moving or renovating. In that sense, it is no different than any other preserved antique instrument that needs a little tlc to keep from falling apart.
3. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by sjames · 2013-07-19 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  A few minutes active prep, then just letting it sit isn't really a big deal. It's not like the buy had to sit there staring at it the whole time.
4. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  It should be noted that that study focused on amber, not glass. It seems to me that's a little like studying the properties of rock to determine the properties of steel. It should be fairly easy to prove/disprove the "glass is a liquid" theory using real world measurements. Simply put a cylinder of glass (lets say 2 cm x 15 cm) measured to extreme accuracy into a fairly sizable centrifuge set to 100-200g. Leave it in there for a year or two and then measure it, if it hasn't changed at least at the micrometer level you can be fairly certain that glass is solid.
5. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  There are plenty of other studies around using more common forms of glass (e.g. fused silica). You analogy to rock and metal is flawed though. A glass is defined as any material that shows a glass transition, which would include amber. Your complaint is more along the lines of a paper that says "Metal tested to have property X" and you are complaining it may not be relevant to steel when it used copper as a convenient example. The main merits of that study are that it was a test over very long time scales. If you are interested in short time scale, high precision tests, there are a bunch around, using interferometer setups to measure small changes. These are used to measure viscosity of various solids for testing viscoelasticity models.
6. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  Noone would believe some weirdo staring at pitch for 69 years straight anyway.
7. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you are me. My department head said I would get a PhD if I ever saw the drop fall. Here I am, he long since retired.
8. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  Your proof is far too long and unnecessary.
  The key difference in material states are the phase transitions that occur at the critical temperatures. The simpler, more practical experiment is to heat some glass until it's molten. Then allow it to cool to a solid monitoring the temperature continuously. During this cooling time you must not apply any heat from the furnace (sounds obvious but stated for the record).
  If solid glass is a solid at the molecular level, the temperature will drop continuously from the peak molten temperature to room temperature. The curve may not be straight but it will be smooth.
  If solid glass is still a fluid at the molecular level, there will be an interval of a few minutes where the temperature does not change. At all.
  The glass is radiating heat the whole time. So how can it radiate heat and yet the temperature is unchanged? The energy comes from the phase transition. The molecules reorganize themselves into a lower energy state, often a crystalline or semi-crystalline state. This allows the glass to radiate heat yet remain at constant temperature.
  Now that I recall though, the transparency of glass was one of the supporting arguments for glass as liquid. The random molecular organization helps with transparency. Apparently crystal boundaries often interfere with light transmission. I'm no expert though, and I'll leave it to others to argue over various clear crystals and non-clear liquids.
9. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  Oops. I reversed the cooling scenarios!
10. Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  The glass transition is notorious for not being a first order phase transition. There is no plateau in the heating curve, and the result in most cases is a metastate that has more energy than a crystalline solid, so it is not as simple a transition to look at with thermodynamics. Discussion over it being a second order transition is on going. But effectively, the properties of glass are mechanically solid, similar to other materials like rock and metal that can show cases of flow in extreme enough conditions too.
Not too bad to watch by h4rr4r · 2013-07-19 03:12 · Score: 5, Funny

The video was not too bad, far less boring than baseball.
1. Re:Not too bad to watch by Aelanna · 2013-07-19 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  I actually find the pitcher-batter mind games, statistics, and pitch mechanics and aerodynamic physics of baseball to be far more interesting than any other mainstream sport. Your mileage may very, I suppose.
2. Re:Not too bad to watch by phantomfive · 2013-07-19 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  That's because you skipped the windup. Watch it for seven years and say that.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:Not too bad to watch by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Other sports don't need those things to be interesting. Baseball is really just a stats course that's occasionally interrupted by a bunch of guys wearing matching outfits.
4. Re:Not too bad to watch by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-07-19 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  There was a time when people were surprised by the frenetic pace of baseball.
  "It is a game which is peculiarly suited to the American temperament and disposition; the nine innings are played in the brief space of two and one half hours, or less."
5. Re:Not too bad to watch by h4rr4r · 2013-07-19 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  People drank a lot more back then.
  Also they had far less entertainment available.
6. Re:Not too bad to watch by lxs · 2013-07-19 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, when you compare it to cricket it's lightening fast. A game that can be played from start to finish in less than three days? Madness!
Tar Roads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:12 · Score: 0

Does this mean that tar-based road surfaces are slowly flowing downhill?
1. Re:Tar Roads by RabidReindeer · 2013-07-19 04:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Does this mean that tar-based road surfaces are slowly flowing downhill?
  Not so slowly, now that it's summertime.
2. Re:Tar Roads by Anubis+IV · 2013-07-19 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  In a word? Yes. But considering that these experiments have managed to only produce a single-digit number of drops in several decades of operation, I doubt that the tar on the roads will be flowing quickly, even if it does get warmer than it would under the experimental conditions. More than likely, cracks would develop in the road and the pebbles added to the mix would have been knocked out long before the flow of the tar itself would ever become a problem...at which point they'd simply pave the road again.
3. Re:Tar Roads by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-07-19 07:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I read a blog by a guy who had walked across the United States, from the Atlantic in Georgia, to the Pacific in California. He crossed Midland TX in August, and noted that during the middle of the afternoon, walking down the highway, while traffic was low, there was this odd constant popping/crackling sound. He finally stood still and investigated it for a while, and discovered that it was the road tar making the sounds as is slowly boiled in the summer sun. little bubbles would form, bulge out the surface, and then burst with a tiny 'pop'. I don't know if this answers your question, but it seemed to be a good time to tell that story.
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
4. Re:Tar Roads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  Most places get their asphalt from petroleum production, where it is the stuff rejected by fractional distillation as not boiling at even the highest temperatures of ~400 C. So it would seem kind of surprising if to see the tar in a road boiling. However, roads do heat up quite a bit in hot sun, and will build up a lot of stress from thermal expansion. Especially when the heat is more than expected or if the road is new and not well designed, the road can start cracking and buckling from the expansion stress. But these days there are places trying to get road materials from other sources as it becomes more economical to try to turn asphalt into synthetic oil, and I don't know how widespread that has become.
Re:This is now a poop thread. by davidbrit2 · 2013-07-19 03:16 · Score: 1

Should bring it down from a decade to a couple of hours.
Why does the equipment move? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-19 03:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why does the funnel clamped to the stand move just at the moment of the breakage? I call shenanigans!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Why does the equipment move? by wasteoid · 2013-07-19 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably to separate the drop from the suspended volume in the glass funnel. The drop already "dropped" or hit the bottom.
2. Re:Why does the equipment move? by Antipater · 2013-07-19 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  I'm at work and can't see the video. But if you're saying that the funnel jerks upwards as the drop falls away, that's to be expected. The clamp assembly no longer has to support the weight of the drop, so it should "bounce" upward a little before reaching a new, less-weighed-down equilibrium position.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
3. Re:Why does the equipment move? by jason8 · 2013-07-19 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  In that video, 3-4 seconds = 1 day of actual elapsed time. So maybe after the drop fell, there was some human intervention to move the clamp up slightly, but the intervention isn't visible in this video?
4. Re:Why does the equipment move? by BemoanAndMoan · 2013-07-19 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why does the funnel clamped to the stand move just at the moment of the breakage?
  I'm assuming its so that there is a bit more space for the next drop of tar to form, since the one that just fell is going to take some time to incorporate into the bottom mass. Probably didn't have to happen right right away, but it would allow the next drop to begin forming from the earliest possible fixed rest point.
  I'm betting that the longish length of the previous one had the monitor worried for years that it would reach the bottom mass without pinching off first.
5. Re:Why does the equipment move? by KalvinB · 2013-07-19 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because of the weight of the tar being released.
  
  --
  Work Safe Porn
6. Re:Why does the equipment move? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  The camera man paused the video and then moved the clamp up and then resumed the video. You're right to call shenanigans, because technically the tar didn't fully drop it was still connected. The act of moving the clamp finished the separation. This was a miscalculation, when the experiment was originally set up they placed the clamp too close to the container. I don't think this counts as a completed drop because the separation was caused by interference with the experiment by a researcher.
7. Re:Why does the equipment move? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think this counts as a completed drop because the separation was caused by interference with the experiment by a researcher.
  Or you know, they could just base calculations on the time it takes the drop to fall a certain distance, and not the separation part which is much messier to model. So it doesn't really matter anyways.
Paint? by Rixel · 2013-07-19 03:21 · Score: 1

I wonder how many times the camera caught paint drying in that lab?

--
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
money quote by phantomfive · 2013-07-19 03:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

This quote from the article is so great:

“I have been examining the video over and over again,” Mainstone says, ”and there were a number of things about it that were really quite tantalizing for a very long time pitch-drop observer like myself.”....Mainstone, who has spent most of his life waiting to see a drop fall with his own eyes, congratulated the Trinity College team.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's a fake video by OzPeter · 2013-07-19 03:28 · Score: 0

If it was a real video then where is the other 69 years worth of video???? I bet that they can't come up with all of the rest of it can they!

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
1. Re:It's a fake video by phantomfive · 2013-07-19 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't film it for 69 years, they only set up the camera recently.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Slooo ooooooooo oooooo ooooow news day. by StormyWeather · 2013-07-19 03:28 · Score: 1

N/T
Now disprove the glass pane urban legend by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-07-19 03:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Claim A: glass panes in very old cathedrals in Europe is thick at the bottom and thin at the top because glass had flowed over the centuries.
Claim B: Claim A is an urban legend. citation 1 citation 2 and you can find more on the net.
Claim C: Claim B is an urban legend.
Now can someone set up some cameras and prove Claim C? That would be supercool, one level recursive urban legend.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Now disprove the glass pane urban legend by sjames · 2013-07-19 05:19 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, they tried but the camera had a glass lens and went out of focus for some reason.
2. Re:Now disprove the glass pane urban legend by Anubis+IV · 2013-07-19 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why use a camera? Just use a micrometer and you should be able to get a result more quickly than a typical camera will pick up on it. Also, sapphire lenses could be used to get around the issue with glass lenses tainting the experiment.
3. Re:Now disprove the glass pane urban legend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  Why use a micrometer, when you can use an interferometer sensitive to nanometer measurements, and place the glass under stresses much higher than from the self-weight? Because that is what actual measurements of glass viscosity at room temperature has done.
4. Re:Now disprove the glass pane urban legend by Sockatume · 2013-07-21 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need cameras to disprove Claim C, we've been digging up thousand-year-old glass artefacts for centuries now, and not one of them has shown any evidence of flow.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The very definition of a slow news day. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 03:31 · Score: 0

That and watching paint drop I suppose.
Or commenting on a Slashdot article.
Fuck.
1. Re:The very definition of a slow news day. by thomasw_lrd · 2013-07-19 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or this
  
  --
  21st Century Renaissance Man
2. Re:The very definition of a slow news day. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  * Tar-drops to radio-feathering *
  Meanwhile, Japanese scientists have replicated (after 30 million tries) the detection of Neutrinos changing state between Ibaraki and the pool-detector-thigamajig....
  Amurkan science gets tarred and feathered
69 years of the worst dinner conversation ever by DougOtto · 2013-07-19 03:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Wife: What happened at work today, honey?

Scientist: Oh nothing...

Lather, rinse, repeat.

--
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
Crap. by grub · 2013-07-19 03:41 · Score: 1

I sneezed!

--
Trolling is a art,
Ooops... by OakDragon · 2013-07-19 03:45 · Score: 1

What if... in the 40th year or so, someone knocks it over. Sorry! What would be the appropriate punishment? :)

--
Dark Reflection
1. Re:Ooops... by pla · 2013-07-19 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  What would be the appropriate punishment?
  
  You have to squeeze the drop back into the funnel so it can start over.
Just like... by patchouly · 2013-07-19 03:47 · Score: 1

So there is something more boring than watching grass grow.
Glass by kdogg73 · 2013-07-19 03:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

Don't forget the viscosity of plain old glass.

--
Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
I go through this every morning around 7:30am by goffster · 2013-07-19 04:11 · Score: 0

But no one wants to see it.
1. Re:I go through this every morning around 7:30am by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  It takes you 7 years to squeeze one out? That's some constipation you've got there.
Irish tar by hankwang · 2013-07-19 04:13 · Score: 1

I just returned from holiday in Ireland and apparently temperatures were exceptionally high. One day, my shoe soles were essentially paved (they looked like road surface) because the roads I had walked on were molten. I wonder whether this droplet has anything to do with the weather conditions.
By the way: exceptional weather means a week of sunny weather with 24-28 degrees C temperatures. Irish asphalt is probably optimized for cooler and rainier weather. :-)

--
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
nothing?!? by Sloppy · 2013-07-19 04:33 · Score: 1

Wife: What happened at work today, honey?
Scientist [excitedly]: I confirmed the hypothesis that pitch is perfectly solid!

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Like an Old Guy at the Urinal: Forever for a Dr by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 04:48 · Score: 0

Hell, when I'm overcaffeinated I have to do the same thing or I get pee all over myself when putting my junk back in. Annoying!
color me disapointed by louden+obscure · 2013-07-19 05:09 · Score: 1

Pitch may be a dictionary synonym for tar or bitumen, but out in the real world pitch is not asphalt. Pitch is an entirely different beast from its bituminous asphalt derived cousin, as anyone that has had the displeasure of replacing a pitch based roofing system by means of a roof tear off can attest.
Kinda like cramming windoze and debian into the same definition of an OS. For a site that claims to be befitting of nerds the articles increasingly seem to be reported by the local 6:00 news team. I believe netcraft has confirmed it; slashdot has jumped the shark.

--
Serenity now, insanity later.
1. Re:color me disapointed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  It is pretty clearly referring to tar pitch, which yes, is different than resins and other plant derived pitches, but is still pitch, even if roof sealants tend to abbreviate a narrower category to the word pitch.
It would have been more exciting if by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:17 · Score: 0

the video had some rap music in the background.
Slowest drip in the world? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 05:29 · Score: 0

Hey, my friend works for Microsoft, you insensitive clod!
Keystone Pipeline by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 06:00 · Score: 0

The Keystone Pipeline's purpose is to transport this stuff. Now we know why they have to dilute the bitumen before it goes in.
69 years wasted by jtownatpunk.net · 2013-07-19 06:01 · Score: 1

because they didn't have enough separation. For crying out loud, even I can see that it's still attached to the source when it hits the bottom, then there's a Rock Bottom style cut where someone lifts the source and the drop breaks off. So now they're going to have to move it up a few inches and wait another decade to try again. Why the Hell isn't this mentioned in the article. It's just completely ignored.
1. Re:69 years wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Sure we could do it again in 69 years but they still want to know who the fuck recorded over the boring drip video ?
Playing with time by spaceyhackerlady · 2013-07-19 06:18 · Score: 1

If you didn't know the time scale had been messed with, the video looks like very thick oil or honey dripping. Some sort of invariant with liquids, I suppose. I thought it was kind of interesting.
I've done time-lapse videos of clouds and things. Haven't done one of paint drying or grass growing.
Yet. :-)
...laura
IndeeRe:Tar Roads by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-19 06:42 · Score: 1

Indeed. The lumpy waves as you approach a stop sign are actual waves, formed by the drag between tires and tar (or dirt) just like between wind and water.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:IndeeRe:Tar Roads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  If you put your ear to the road, do you hear the ocean?
At least it wasn't in Scotland... by Muad'Dave · 2013-07-19 06:57 · Score: 1

.. because as we all know, There are no ... tarrrrr pits[ch] in Scotland!

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Staring at the drop by olip85 · 2013-07-19 07:09 · Score: 1

I would so have put a screaming zombie appearing from nowhere right in the middle of that video.
Not really... by SpinyNorman · 2013-07-19 08:10 · Score: 1

http://www.cmog.org/article/does-glass-flow
Old glass windows more likely show variability in width due to the way "plate" glass used to be manufactured... It was spun out into a sheet under centripetal force by swirling a blob of molten glass on a rod (the center swirly piece, broken off the rod, sometimes being seen in old cottage windows, etc).
Fake! by Tablizer · 2013-07-19 08:58 · Score: 1

Somebody just Photoshopped their shitting session into it.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Like an Old Guy at the Urinal: Forever for a Dr by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 09:43 · Score: 0

uid of 14,847? First hand experience, eh? ;)
They messed with it! by EkriirkE · 2013-07-19 09:46 · Score: 1

The drop wasn't near tall enough to watch the thinning of the drop tail, and you can see they messed with it to try and get it - they raised the armature holding the funnel after it had dropped causing it to sheer off under the funnel and plop to the side. If they had allowed it to fall further I imagine there would be a tapered very long, stringy, wispy filament.

--
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
Hmm, I post at the speed of Tar Pitch by Saadhaka · 2013-07-19 17:20 · Score: 1

Nuff said
Holy shit! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-19 18:38 · Score: 0

OP delivered!