
Trinity College experiment succeeds after 69 years - duggieawesome
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/463097-trinity-college-dublin-pitch-experiment/
======
chm
"The experiment was begun by a colleague of Nobel Prize winner Ernest Walton
in the physics department of Trinity in 1944."

Am I the only one who finds this insulting? They could at least name the
guy!!!

~~~
yaddayadda
"Over the years, the identity of the scientist who began the experiment was
forgotten, and the experiment lay unattended on a shelf where it continued to
shed drops uninterrupted while gathering layers of dust. Physicists at Trinity
College recently began to monitor the experiment again. Last April they set up
a webcam so that anyone could watch and try to be the first person ever to
witness the drop fall live." \- [http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-
moving-drop-caugh...](http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-
caught-on-camera-at-last-1.13418)

------
robomartin
The first thought that popped into my punny little brain was: Why didn't they
use a centrifuge to accelerate results?

The one variable that could be controlled is the gravitational force on the
substance. If we were on the moon the experiment, as designed, would take far
longer to produce a drop. By using a centrifuge they could have easily
simulated significantly greater gravitational forces and arrived at a result
much sooner.

EDIT:

The Queensland experiment data says that it takes about 13 years for a drop to
form and fall [1]. You'd need less than 5,000 g's to make it happen within a
day or about 160 g's to get results in 30 days.

[1] [http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-
caugh...](http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-caught-on-
camera-at-last-1.13418)

~~~
samatman
Chemist here. We use centrifuging to separate components of a suspension by
weight.

Pitch is a suspension. The heavy stuff would drop to the outside, the
viscosity would be affected, no experiment.

~~~
robomartin
> Chemist here. We use centrifuging to separate components of a suspension by
> weight. Pitch is a suspension.

The last bit is puzzling: Are all suspensions fluids? And all fluids are
viscous (even non-newtonian)?

If so, why do we need an experiment to prove that pitch --a suspension-- is a
fluid and is viscous?

On the point of using a centrifuge. Is there something particularly special
about gravity on earth that does not affect pitch? In other words, if we
exposed pitch to 0.1x, 1x, 10x, 100x and 1000x g, at what point would the
fundamental characteristics of the material invalidate the experiment. Are
fluids and their viscosity only defined on earth (ignoring thermal and other
non-gravitational effects)? Perhaps pitch is a viscous fluid on earth but a
solid on the moon, where gravity is 1/6 of ours?

Is this experiment only valid at 9.8 m/s^2 then? What's the tolerance based on
the substance under test?

~~~
samatman
To answer your second question, there is some critical number, which we do not
know empirically, after which pressure will separate pitch.

We could apply some higher acceleration for a shorter time, but that
acceleration would have to be highly consistent, and there is no way to
shorten the experiment enough to keep that equipment from being unproductive
to even contemplate.

Sometimes patience really is the best answer.

~~~
robomartin
OK, had a break so I looked around a little to see what I could learn [1],
[2], [3] and [4] are my launching points.

So I read that asphalt is actually a colloid and that pitch is not the same as
asphalt. The Wikipedia page on pitch [3] says it is a "viscoelastic polymer".

So I have to ask. Can a polymer be a suspension or a colloid on its own or is
pitch a polymer colloid in another "host" substance?

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_(chemistry)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_\(chemistry\))

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(resin)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_\(resin\))

[4]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloids)

~~~
samatman
Pitch is also a colloidal suspension, or colloid. The various polymers that
make it up are not of equal weight, and there are little bits of graphite in
there too. The chemistry of pitch is by no means simple, destructive
distillation can go in many directions.

~~~
robomartin
Learned a lot through this thread. Thanks.

------
peterkelly
I bet the grad student involved is celebrating now that they can _finally_
submit their thesis

~~~
willis77
Woah woah woah, not so fast, Doctorate McPhdsosoon. Science is repeatable. See
you at lab meeting next Monday morning. Please come prepared with a roadmap
for phase 2 trials. These grants don't write themselves, you know.

~~~
snowfox
Phase 2 would be continue to wait to see if the glass funnel would drip in
order to prove whether glass is a solid or liquid.

------
duggieawesome
It should be noted that this experiment is different than the Queensland
experiment, which is still going on.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment)

~~~
dalore
How are they different? Both the article and the wikipedia link you gave
mention they are similar experiments. It seems they are the same experiment to
me.

~~~
berberous
Same experiment, but I for one was interested to know it was not the
Queensland one, because that one has a great Radiolab episode about all the
times they missed the drop (webcams failing, etc.). Their pitch is due to drop
soon too, so it's sort of sad someone else beat them to finally filming it.

~~~
synchronise
They didn't really record a 'drop', the tail was still connected, so the
experiment is still on.

------
kfury
People have waited through so many failed attempts to record the drop that
nobody wants to mention that they didn't 'really' record an unassisted drop.
The bead is still connected when it hits bottom, and the tail doesn't break
until they raised up the suspended platform.

Check the video and notice that the suspended vessel jumps about 2 inches
higher just after the drop.

It's a good recording, but I'm looking forward to a better one in 2026.

------
jkn
While I'm fond of this type of down-to-earth experiments, I'm curious about
the scientific value of waiting for decades to observe the drop falling due to
Earth's gravity, versus placing the apparatus in a centrifuge, which I imagine
would dramatically accelerate the process. Maybe the higher forces would
affect the way the drop is formed, in a way that was deemed undesirable?

~~~
contingencies
_down-to-earth experiments_

Bwahahahah!

~~~
gk1
Please keep the discussion constructive. No, there is no pun there.

~~~
epo
Don't be so sanctimonious. Calling an experiment involving gravity "down to
earth" is mildly amusing and is kind of a pun, albeit a feeble one. Much like
your sense of humour it would appear.

------
throwit1979
Um, not to take away from the achievement of the result, but couldn't this
result have been obtained in much less time with higher force than 1G in, say,
a centrifuge?

~~~
ChuckMcM
In other news students preferred "watching the pitch" over lectures by a
margin of 2 to 1. :-)

~~~
omegant
They learned as the pitch flowed!

------
Peroni
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(resin)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_\(resin\))

~~~
xtc
"Petroleum-derived pitch is black in colour, hence the adjectival phrase,
'pitch-black'."

That was the most interesting thing I found in this experiment.

------
morb
Radiolab had an interesting segment about the Pitch Drop Experiment,
interesting to listen: [http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-
now/](http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-now/)

------
Peroni
I think (hope) it's worth noting the location of this experiment. Trinity
College, and the Irish in general, tend to gravitate towards romanticised
notions. Even our scientists.

It honestly wouldn't surprise me in the least if the experiment was initiated
knowing full well it would take decades to complete but they went ahead anyway
'for the craic'.

~~~
mef
"For the craic", the original "for the lulz"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic)

------
elmuchoprez
"Over several decades a number of drips did form in the funnel and fall into
the jar, giving credence to the hypothesis that pitch is indeed viscous."

It sounds like the experiment, as designed, reached a conclusion in far less
time than 69 years. It just took 69 years for someone to think about video
taping it.

~~~
RobAley
Nope, assuming they designed it for scientific rigour. Without observation, it
would be impossible to say, for instance, that some external force (vibration,
wind, mischievous students) hadn't caused the drip to form or fall/break off.
The experiment didn't reach a firm conclusion (to some level of certainty)
without observation.

~~~
nagrom
That's what the parent said: there were previous chances to definitively end
the experiment by observing drips, but no-one thought to monitor it with a
video camera until recently. There was no need to wait 69 years.

~~~
RobAley
No, they said "It sounds like the experiment, as designed, reached a
conclusion". As designed it didn't, as they didn't include camera-based
observation in the design, the design called for someone to notice the drip to
prove the viscosity of the substance, and that didn't happen until now.

Maybe it was a badly planned experiment (or more likely, the cost/availability
of cameras in those days prohibited their inclusion in the plans).
Nevertheless, no firm conclusion can be drawn that the experiment could have
been ended early, those previous "drips" may not have happened without
external forces applied and so even if cameras had been used it may not have
ended until now. Its probably likely that it would have ended had cameras been
available, but the scientific method generally calls for a greater degree of
certainty than "probably likely" before calling an experiment a success.

And of course, it is called an "experiment", not a "certainty". Mistakes
happen and they're not always optimal, that’s all part of the fun of science!

------
finnh
I call shenanigans. In the time-lapse, the funnel "jumps" upward right when
the drop falls (0:56). Unless the funnel's mounted on a spring (?), this is a
clear indication that somebody interfered with the drip. I declare this video
null and void!

...or maybe the video camera just got jostled when all scientists started
dancing around in their glee =)

~~~
aarondf
More likely than not, the whole setup there is SIXTY NINE years old and a drop
of pitch weighs a bit.

Or they got bored and cheated. 50/50 really.

------
ryen
Have they analyzed the dripped substance? My first thought is that it could be
from condensation formed on the pitch over a large amount of time due to
temperature gradients.

------
shabble
The Beal seed viability experiment[1] has been running for 120+ years, and
iirc they keep increasing the interval between trials because there are only
so many seeds stored, and so far they haven't had a significant failure in
germinating and growing them.

[1]
[http://www.amjbot.org/content/89/8/1285.full](http://www.amjbot.org/content/89/8/1285.full)

------
tragomaskhalos
My favourite thing about this story is the various times that this and similar
experiments around the world missed capturing the actual drip due to various
glitches and snafus; imagine the howl of anguish of the researcher coming in
one morning to find that _yes_ something has finally happened after all these
years, only to discover that some doofus had left the lens cap on ....

------
matt1
For a bit more background on the history of this experiment and why the
previous drips were missed, check out this recent Radiolab podcast:

[http://joshuafoer.com/radiolab-the-pitch-drop-
experiment/](http://joshuafoer.com/radiolab-the-pitch-drop-experiment/)

~~~
hansjorg
The Radiolab episode was about a similar experiment at the University of
Queensland in Australia.

------
wooptoo
The title is misleading. The experiment did succeed before, it just hasn't
been captured on camera.

~~~
robterrell
Seriously, people did science before there were cameras, right? I think the
drop splatted under the funnel is enough evidence to call it done.

------
defective
I think, after a few missed drops, that I might have added a backup camera.

~~~
rmc
Well it started in the 1940s. There weren't many webcam then, and video
cameras (and tape) were expensive.

~~~
defective
Of course, I understand that. But it lasted so long, through tenured
generation after generation. Even though I'm aware it wasn't anyone's master
work, it had to be quite frustrating to miss it decade after decade.

------
adjustafresh
Anyone else reminded of those old Heinz Ketchup ads...Anticipation
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLoyg3JKRQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLoyg3JKRQ)

------
carlsednaoui
Heard about this the Pitch Drop Experiment on Radiolab couple weeks ago. Very
interesting episode: [http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-
now/](http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-now/)

"...the Pitch Drop Experiment is so slow, you can watch it for hours (check
out the live cam) and not detect the slightest movement. But that doesn't mean
nothing's happening. Professor John Mainstone tells us about his desperate
attempts to catch the flashes of action hiding inside this decades-long
experiment."

------
ISL
If you wanted to do this experiment with reasonable statistics, it's quite
amenable to parallelization. Pitch is cheap, funnels are cheap, dusty basement
shelves are (potentially) cheap, and webcams are inexpensive. Doing ~300 of
these in parallel wouldn't be hard, and would allow considerable investigation
of systematic effects.

Decade-scale experiments aren't hard, but they do require planning.

------
dokem
why did the pitch have to drip? Isn't the fact that a drip was forming proof
that the pitch was flowing?

~~~
LeeLorean
Seems like it to me. Maybe they thought the whole drop quantam tunneled to the
bottom

I guess you could have asked that if you find a tree that's fallen in a
forrest, did it actually fall over if no one saw it?

------
user24
I sort of take issue with "experiment succeeds". You don't (shouldn't) set up
an experiment to prove or disprove something, merely to discover.

I'm sure the issue, if indeed there is one, is with the reporting not the
scientists though.

~~~
pseut
substitute "ends" for "succeeds" if you're feeling pedantic. I think that for
a decades long experiment the two words become synonyms.

~~~
davebees
It's still running!

------
codezero
Science has been confirming results for a long time without the aide of video
proof. This sounds like fluff. It's cool fluff, but it's pretty ridiculous to
assert that the theory couldn't be proven without video proof.

------
donutdan4114
View this one live: [http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-
experiment](http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-experiment)

------
thehme
This is really cool. I only wish we knew the name of the "colleague of Nobel
Prize winner Ernest Walton", so he can get credit for this.

------
mathattack
There couldn't have been an easier way to test this?

------
aarondf
That pitch was a little thick and quite slow. 6/10.

------
juice13
What's up with one sentance per paragraph? Feels like reading the simple
wikipedia.

------
adamrneary
"...the scientific value was questionable..."

------
marco-fiset
Am I the only one to think that this is pretty boring?

------
cupofjoakim
Dude, I'm finding this hilarious. 69 years to prove that something is a fluid?
I picture two really old scientists watching the tape, only to have one of the
old geezers turning to the other to spill the sacred words: "Told you so".

~~~
digitalsushi
Science isn't about "told you so". It's about rigor, about completion. It may
seem hilarious because of the length of time involved for the experiment to
complete, but what if the results hadn't been what we assumed? Science is the
only enlightenment we have, and to dismiss the outcome as obvious is to climb
back into the dark ages.

~~~
jgreen10
Really? Scientists are people. Proving each other wrong is one of the biggest
motivators to do years of painstaking, labour-intensive research. Of course,
you can't prove someone wrong without being rigorous.

~~~
negativity
It gets finnier if you imagine Stephen Hawking saying "I told you so." to
Leonard Susskind.

    
    
      D'OOOH... WERNSTROM!!!

~~~
lightcatcher
You might find this to be "finny":
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93Hawking%E2%80%93...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93Hawking%E2%80%93Preskill_bet)

~~~
negativity
Finny is a perfectly cromulent word, sir...

