Talk:Pitch drop experiment

message: As far as I can see, this article never explains the point of the experiment. What did Parnell hope to learn? The viscosity? The drop frequency should be well determined by now after eight drops, and the viscosity of the pitch has apparently already been estimated from that. Were there other goals that have not yet not been achieved? Just higher precision? Is the experiment continued for any scientific reason, or simply because of its curiosity value? --mglg(talk) 21:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the university web information it seems that the "experiment" was never actually intended as a scientific measurement but simply as a demonstration, for teaching purposes, that some apparently solid materials do behave like high-viscosity fluids. I added a phrase to this effect. --mglg(talk) 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Experiments don't always need a point?  It is wonderful and thought provoking!  Just think of the things that have happened in the world and its still dripping.--Screen42 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  "simply because of its curiosity value?": isn't this the fundamental cause of any scientific experiment or demonstration? Of any investigation that starts by asking "why does this...?" What better reason do we need? If humans were not motivated by curiosity, we would be sitting in caves eating raw mammoth... (in hindsight this perhaps may have been the better path (but that is a discussion for another forum)).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.123 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I just recieved the reply to my request above for permission:
:Your recent message to UQ Physics found its way to me, as the Custodian of the Pitch Drop Experiment.  There is no way in which I would want to see the present image deleted from the Wikipedia page.  So long as the indicated acknowledgment is given, I am happy for that image to be 'used' by anyone with a legitimate interest in the experiment.  Would you therefore please spell out for me now the form of words that need to be used to ensure that the image remains on the Wikipedia page, and then will continue to be available for use by interested persons.
:John Mainstone
:Professor J S Mainstone OAM
:School of Physical Sciences :  Physics
:The University of Queensland   Q  4072
:::::: and
:Adjunct Professor, ACU National
I will now consult the forms or maybe one of you could help me if it is too confusing. I want to see if we can get this permission business straightened out.--Filll 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as both pictures are from Commons, I have removed the photo request tag. Kevin 01:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That poor professor, I'm currently harrassing him about the commons pictures too.  The pics on the Commons might get erased soon, in which case I'll re-upload my copies to English wikipedia alone.  WLU 11:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now have a reply from University of Queensland

message: Around 1976 the University of St Andrews (Fife, Scotland) had a similar experiment that had been running for several decades.  I'm afraid I don't remember the actual start date, but it may well have rivalled or preceded that of the University of Queensland's.  As this experiment is very simple to set up and maintain, I suspect that other academic institutions may also have one running, hidden away somewhere and likely forgotten.40.0.96.1 (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need a reliable source to add anything to the page.  WLU (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just a quick googling: http://everything2.com/title/pitch%2520drop%2520experiment Twipley (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Thanks for finding documented confirmation of my 30-year-old memories, Twipley. I did search for corroboration back in 2007, but failed. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's another source for the St. Andrews experiment, a University of Queensland press release from 1999 https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/1999/02/experiment-reaches-delicate-pitch . (I also saw the St. Andrews experiment with my own eyes in the 2000s.) RW Dutton (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel Experiments 

message: Another experiment that predates this one: http://www.npr.org/2012/11/23/165030844/experiments-that-keep-going-and-going-and-going  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.129.90 (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some improvements to William James Beal and added a link to that page. I don't know whether Beal's experiment meets the criteria for inclusion in the Guinness Book of Records. (Does anyone have an online source I can cite for Guinness Records?) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest experiments. 

message: I noticed that User:Ansgarjohn added some content which User:Wdanwatts deleted without any edit comment. Ansgarjohn, please read WP:V; added material needs to be sourced. Wdanwatts, please read WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You need to as a bare minimum give a reason for your revert in the edit summary and, if the revert is likely to be challenged, it is usually a good idea to explain your reasoning on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: Would anyone care to speculate as to why there is a 9V battery in the lower left corner of the image of the experiment? 168.140.181.4 (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For scale? We wouldn't want anyone to think maybe the experiment is 20 stories tall or something that would fit under a thimble... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  battery 

message: Right now the page reads:
:"In May 2013 the experiment was moved to a temporary location. This caused some critics to question the integrity of the experiment with this movement coming at a time when the next drop is imminent."
Who are these critics and what, exactly, were the criticisms? Surely the editor who added the above passage heard it somewhere... 
http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-experiment says:
:Due to plans for the refurbishment of the historic Parnell Building affecting the site of the Pitch Drop Experiment, scheduled to begin today (Tuesday, 28 May 2013), the experiment has been moved to a temporary location until mid-July. The live view is still available (as seen below), from the experiment’s temporary location.
I personally would question leaving it where it was in the middle of major construction. Of course there was a risk that jostling it might cause it to snap off (thus confirming the "never drops when a person or webcam is watching" jinx), but it clearly did not.
If anyone from the University is reading this, could you please check local sources (local newspaper, campus newspaper) for info on this? I would love to see a story detailing how they moved it. Have one person hand-carry it and hope he/she doesn't trip? I have done a fair amount of work in the aerospace industry, and we use special carts with huge soft tires and a mechanism that floats the item on a cushion of air rather than touching the cart. 
Another interesting question is whether they are going to move it back later when the risk is greater and there is no compelling danger where it is, or whether they are going to wait until the next drop before moving it back.
Another question that someone from the university can answer: those two webcams go to separate computers running on separate uninterruptible power supplies, right? And they save the info to two solid-state disks, right? And you have dual lighting on uninterruptible power supplies so that if there is a power outage you don't have two working webcams recording a pitch black (note pun) room, right? And all of this gets tested on a regular schedule, right? Don't make me fly all the way to Australia just so I can slap you, M'kay? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot about redundant Internet access so that we all can see this event live. Wsw70 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I predict that there will be media reports and a sudden surge of interest shortly before the next drop, thus crashing their web server. I would really like to see a response to my comments above from the University rather than being able to say "I told you so." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with improving the article? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The university clearly has some amount of redundancy, as evidenced by the triple webcams. If we could find a reliable source that describes the redundancy steps taken it would make a nice addition to the article. I have done an extensive web search and have failed to find any sources at all on this. Someone in Australia might be able to find a source. We have had previous questions answered by university staff and students. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: If you came here to edit this page because you read somewhere that there was a drop on 18 July 2013, please go back, read it again, and ask yourself the following two questions:
Is this Wikipedia article about the pitch drop at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia which started in 1927, or is it about the pitch drop at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland which started in 1944?
Is the web site where you read about this talking about the pitch drop at Trinity College in Dublin or is it talking about the pitch drop at the University of Queensland in Brisbane?
I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I went there yesterday and confirmed that nothing dropped.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

text: This article can talk about both experiments.  The Trinity College one just needs its own section. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE STOP! 

message: The article says "The eighth drop fell on 28 November 2000, allowing experimenters to calculate that the pitch has a viscosity approximately 230 billion (2.3×1011) times that of water". Why it was not possible to calculate earlier?--RicHard-59 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not earlier? 

message: It is implied, but not clear, that this pitch is bitumen (petroleum), not coal tar or plant resin. Keith McClary (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which pitch ? 

message: I imagine that it would be possible to estimate the viscosity of room temperature pitch by measuring the viscosity of more liquid pitch at a range of higher temperatures and extrapolating backwards. Have any such experiments been done?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.128.92 (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative methods of measuring the viscosity of pitch 

message: From Lord Kelvin : an account of his scientific life and work by Andrew Gray (1908) 
:"Returning to the difficulty of the elastic solid theory, that while its rigidity is enormous, it offers no obstacle to the planets and other heavenly bodies which move through it, it may be interesting to recall how Lord Kelvin used to deal with it in his elementary lectures. The same discussion was given in the Introductory Lecture at Baltimore. The difficulty is not got over by an explanation of what takes place. it is turned by showing that a similar difficulty exists in reconciling phenomena which can be observed every day with such ordinary materials as pitch or shoemakers wax. A piece of such wax can be moulded into a tuning-fork or a bell, and will then, if struck, sound a musical note of definite pitch. This indicates, for rapidly alternating deformations started by a force of short duration, the existence of internal forces of the kind called elastic, that is, depending on the amount of deformation caused, not on the rate at which the deformation is increasing or diminishing, as is the case for the so-called 'viscous forces' which are usually displayed by such material. But the tuning-fork or bell, if left lying on the table, will gradually flatten down into a thin sheet under only its own weight. Here the deformation is opposed only by viscous forces, which, as the change is very slow, are exceedingly small." 
:"But let a large slab of it, three or four inches thick, be placed in a glass jar ten or twelve inches in diameter, already partly filled with water, and let some ordinary corks be imprisoned beneath, while some lead bullets are laid on the upper surface. After a month or two it will be found that the corks have disappeared from the water into the wax, and that the orifices which they made in entering it have healed up completely; similarly the bullets have sunk down into the slab, leaving no trace behind. After two or three months more, the corks will be seen to be bursting their way out through the upper surface of the slab, and the bullets will be found in the water below. The very thing has taken place that would have happened if water had been used instead of pitch, only it has taken a very much longer time to bring it about. The corks have floated up through the wax in consequence of hydrostatic upward force exerted by the wax acting as a fluid ; and the bullets have sunk down in consequence of the excess of their weights above the upward hydrostatic force exerted on them as on the corks. The motion in both cases has been opposed by the viscous forces called into play." 
:"The application of this to the luminiferous ether is immediate. Let the ether be regarded as a substance which can perform vibrations only 'when times and forces are suitable,' that is, when the forces producing distortion act for only an infinitesimal time (as in the starting of the tuning-fork by a small blow), and are not too great. Vibrations may be set up locally, and the medium may have a true rigidity by which they are propagated to more remote parts ; that is to say, waves travel out from the centre of disturbance. On the other hand, if the forces are long continued, even if they be small, they produce continuously increasing change of shape. Thus the planets move seemingly without resistance. The conclusion is that the apparently contradictory properties of the ether are no more mysterious than the properties of pitch or shoemakers’ wax. And, after all, matter is still a profound mystery." 
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Kelvin's bullet/cork experiment 

message: I won't add this to the article but it's obvious that if this experiment were ever to be made into a movie, the sound track should be `John Cage's As Slow as Possible.
Atlant (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. WurmWoodeT 09:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Obvious Soundtrack / Theme Song