Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tar Pitch Drop Captured On Camera

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the you-can-now-die-happy dept.

Science 142

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Looks like (0, Flamebait)

Linux User 33 (2988621) | about a year ago | (#44327711)

It looks the same as wet shit dropping LMFAOOO

Ok.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327775)

....now do that with glass

Re:Ok.... (4, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44327825)

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.

Re:Ok.... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44328241)

Glass *is* an amorphous solid. The point is that it isn't some sort of superviscous liquid.

Re:Ok.... (2, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44328687)

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!

Re:Ok.... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329093)

Nobody seems to be able to decide what the heck glass is.

Actually the Nature article [nature.com] 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 [doi.org]

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.

Re:Ok.... (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about a year ago | (#44331307)

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.

Re:Ok.... (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#44329247)

The cathedral glass reports have nothing to do with glass flowing and everything to do with how glass was made hundreds of yeas ago.

Re:Ok.... (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year ago | (#44329343)

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.

Re:Ok.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329467)

It would be very likely because that is exactly what they did for stability reasons.

Re:Ok.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329639)

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.

Re:Ok.... (1)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#44329645)

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?

Re:Ok.... (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#44330191)

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.

Re:Ok.... (2)

jason.sweet (1272826) | about a year ago | (#44330247)

So they would spend decades carving the ornamentation, but only do a half-ass job installing the glass?

Re:Ok.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330253)

Wait another thousand years. If a hole forms at the top of the window, then glass is a liquid.

Re:Ok.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329987)

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.)

Re:Ok.... (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about a year ago | (#44330053)

2 million times more viscous than honey

So, it's like concrete?

Re:Ok.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330361)

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...

Re:Ok.... (1)

Instine (963303) | about a year ago | (#44331089)

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.

Re:Ok.... (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44327903)

I know you're just saying that to screw with pedants... but I hate you anyway.

Re:Ok.... (1)

asliarun (636603) | about a year ago | (#44330439)

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.

Re:Ok.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331353)

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.

Re:Ok.... (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about a year ago | (#44330345)

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.

Re:Ok.... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#44330557)

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.

Dripping tar, drying paint (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327785)

Must be a slow news day.

Re:Dripping tar, drying paint (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44328213)

Since you asked for it, here is drying paint [watching-paint-dry.com] ... but Watching Grass Grow [watching-grass-grow.com] might be too much excitement for 'ya! ;-)

Re:Dripping tar, drying paint (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44329379)

I'm just hoping they also have a slow-motion video of the drop, so we can see all the fine details.

Re:Dripping tar, drying paint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329979)

Must be a slow news day.

What's the over/under on the dupe?

Going fer the frosty! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327807)

And I would have had it if it weren't for that video that looks like my poop dropping

FUOYE UTME (-1, Offtopic)

dharreyflap (2989789) | about a year ago | (#44327823)

POST-UTME TESTS The Federal University Oye-Ekiti has scheduled its 2013/2014 Post-UTME Screening tests to hold from Wednesday 31st July to Friday, 9th August, 2013. 2.0 VENUE Federal University Oye-Ekiti, Ekiti State Ikechwuku Iheanacho ICT Centre. http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/site-news/248-20132014-post-utme-screening-exercise- [fuoye.edu.ng]

pitch-drop observer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327845)

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 (5, Funny)

InitZero (14837) | about a year ago | (#44327871)

Are you done yet in there, Grandpa?

Cheers,
Matt

The very definition of a slow news day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44328177)

That and watching paint drop I suppose.

Or commenting on a Slashdot article.

Fuck.

Re:The very definition of a slow news day. (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year ago | (#44328207)

Or this [watching-grass-grow.com]

Re:The very definition of a slow news day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329101)

* 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

Re:Like an Old Guy at the Urinal: Forever for a Dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329125)

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!

This is now a poop thread. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327881)

We waited all this time to see _that_???

And yes it does look like poop dropping into the toilet on a Monday morning after a hard weekend of whiskey drinking.

Re:This is now a poop thread. (0)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44327929)

Next, we film the tar pitch after burritos.

Re:This is now a poop thread. (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year ago | (#44327981)

Should bring it down from a decade to a couple of hours.

And I thought... (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44327889)

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

Drop? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327909)

I guess it made a droplet, but it did not seem to drop. It was touching the bottom before the top broke off.

Re:Drop? (1)

tsa (15680) | about a year ago | (#44328257)

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.

Re:Drop? (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#44328323)

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.

Re:Drop? (1)

TCQuad (537187) | about a year ago | (#44328989)

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.

Re:Drop? (1)

tsa (15680) | about a year ago | (#44329623)

That's what I meant. The strange thing is: the clock seems to not jump when the clamp jumps upward.

Re:Drop? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330883)

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.

OK, well... (2)

synaptik (125) | about a year ago | (#44327927)

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

Re:OK, well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331119)

Really? I thought it didn't count if you didn't see the drop drop live.

Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327931)

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.

Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327961)

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 [io9.com]

Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329721)

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.

Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330865)

There are plenty of other studies around using more common forms of glass (e.g. fused silica [springer.com] ). 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.

Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44328937)

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.

Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44329551)

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.

Re:Moore's Law Catches Glass Bubbles on the move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331029)

Noone would believe some weirdo staring at pitch for 69 years straight anyway.

Not too bad to watch (5, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44327935)

The video was not too bad, far less boring than baseball.

Re:Not too bad to watch (2)

Aelanna (2695123) | about a year ago | (#44328019)

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.

Re:Not too bad to watch (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44328145)

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.

Re:Not too bad to watch (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44328047)

That's because you skipped the windup. Watch it for seven years and say that.

Re:Not too bad to watch (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#44329353)

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."

Re:Not too bad to watch (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44329459)

People drank a lot more back then.

Also they had far less entertainment available.

Re:Not too bad to watch (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44329775)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44327937)

Does this mean that tar-based road surfaces are slowly flowing downhill?

Re:Tar Roads (4, Funny)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#44328623)

Does this mean that tar-based road surfaces are slowly flowing downhill?

Not so slowly, now that it's summertime.

IndeeRe:Tar Roads (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44330675)

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.

Re:Tar Roads (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#44330599)

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.

Why does the equipment move? (4, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44327989)

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

Re:Why does the equipment move? (1)

wasteoid (1897370) | about a year ago | (#44328111)

Presumably to separate the drop from the suspended volume in the glass funnel. The drop already "dropped" or hit the bottom.

Re:Why does the equipment move? (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#44328169)

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.

Re:Why does the equipment move? (1)

jason8 (917879) | about a year ago | (#44328757)

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?

Re:Why does the equipment move? (1)

BemoanAndMoan (1008829) | about a year ago | (#44330179)

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.

Re:Why does the equipment move? (1)

KalvinB (205500) | about a year ago | (#44330663)

Because of the weight of the tar being released.

Paint? (1)

Rixel (131146) | about a year ago | (#44328045)

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

money quote (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44328077)

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.

It's a fake video (0)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#44328139)

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!

Re:It's a fake video (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44330337)

They didn't film it for 69 years, they only set up the camera recently.

Slooo ooooooooo oooooo ooooow news day. (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | about a year ago | (#44328147)

N/T

Now disprove the glass pane urban legend (2, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#44328155)

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 [unl.edu] citation 2 [stackexchange.com] 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.

Re:Now disprove the glass pane urban legend (5, Funny)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44329581)

Well, they tried but the camera had a glass lens and went out of focus for some reason.

Re:Now disprove the glass pane urban legend (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#44331091)

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.

69 years of the worst dinner conversation ever (3, Funny)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about a year ago | (#44328185)

Wife: What happened at work today, honey?

Scientist: Oh nothing...

Lather, rinse, repeat.

nothing?!? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about a year ago | (#44328953)

Wife: What happened at work today, honey?

Scientist [excitedly]: I confirmed the hypothesis that pitch is perfectly solid!

Crap. (1)

grub (11606) | about a year ago | (#44328289)


I sneezed!

Ooops... (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about a year ago | (#44328327)

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

Re:Ooops... (1)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#44329891)

What would be the appropriate punishment?

You have to squeeze the drop back into the funnel so it can start over.

Just like... (1)

patchouly (1755506) | about a year ago | (#44328355)

So there is something more boring than watching grass grow.

Glass (1, Interesting)

kdogg73 (771674) | about a year ago | (#44328401)

Don't forget the viscosity of plain old glass [jimloy.com] .

mod ^0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44328547)

movce any Equipment

I go through this every morning around 7:30am (0)

goffster (1104287) | about a year ago | (#44328663)

But no one wants to see it.

Re:I go through this every morning around 7:30am (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44331229)

It takes you 7 years to squeeze one out? That's some constipation you've got there.

Irish tar (1)

hankwang (413283) | about a year ago | (#44328697)

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. :-)

flamebait? (-1, Flamebait)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44328709)

“I have been examining the video over and over again,” he 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.”
That's just asking for people to tear him a new ass online, lol.

color me disapointed (1)

louden obscure (766926) | about a year ago | (#44329425)

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.

It would have been more exciting if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329553)

the video had some rap music in the background.

Slowest drip in the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44329705)

Hey, my friend works for Microsoft, you insensitive clod!

Keystone Pipeline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44330149)

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 (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#44330155)

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.

Playing with time (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | about a year ago | (#44330363)

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

Staring at the drop (1)

olip85 (1770514) | about a year ago | (#44330941)

I would so have put a screaming zombie appearing from nowhere right in the middle of that video.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?