Wildepad
02-18-2008, 04:21 AM
Disclaimer -- this is not for a particular story, but "guy acquires
weird device" is a trope with a long pedigree (even I've used it
before, in a story in Asimov's). I am interested in exploring it now
to give me things to think about during a dry spell -- I'm quickly
approaching another hiatus, when I shouldn't sit up for long periods
of time, meaning my computer use won't include newsgroups (okay -- I
can hear the cheering, :) but as always happened before, I'll be back
in a few weeks/months).
You receive a package from someone you knew and respected a long time
ago but who you lost touch with when they went off to explore New Age
crystals in India.
Inside is an instruction sheet and one of these:
1) A white disk 4cm in diameter, 8mm thick in the center tapering
evenly to 2mm at the edge.
Instructions: "Flip it over"
Examination: You can move it forward, backward, up, down, side to
side, even put it on the desk and spin it like a top, all with no more
effort than anything else of similar size and shape.
But you cannot tilt it to a noticeable degree.
Going too far: You put it on the heel of one hand, place the heel of
your other hand on top, interlace your fingers, squeeze down, and try
with all your might to turn it over it. Before going a full degree,
there is a 'snap' and you find that you have a handful of warm powder.
Analysis of residue: The particles are microscopically identical in
size and shape. Composition is 92% silica, 4% iron, 3.5% copper, 0.1%
lutetium. The other 0.4% is a mixture of most of the elements from
neon to barium, the concentration of each varying slightly from sample
to sample.
2) Two plastic cups. One is plain. The other has a thin sheet of
plastic glued vertically in it to divide it in half. Across the top of
the barrier is a porous ceramic bar, 2cm square x the width of the
cup. There is a deep groove in the top of the bar.
Instructions: "Fill plain cup with room temperature water. Insert two
thermometers. Record their readings. Move thermometers to opposite
sides of divided cup. Carefully pour water into groove. Note
thermometer readings."
Examination: You follow the instructions. The water trickles through
the bar, fairly equal volumes on both sides of the barrier. There is
approx. a 6 degree (F) temperature difference between the sides.
Switching the thermometers around verifies the temperature difference
-- each side about 3 degrees off from the initial water temperature.
You try it with cold tap water and the results are approximately the
same (but whether the temp difference is slightly greater or lower,
I'll not hazard to guess).
You try it with ice water. Results are in line with first two trials.
You try it with hot tap water. Ditto results.
Going too far: You try it with 160 degree (F) water from a coffee/tea
maker. When the cup is about half full, the bar shatters into a
powder.
Analysis of residue: Same as for 1).
3) Part 1: A white tube, 7mm OD x 4mm ID x 2cm long. There is a green
dot near one end, a dot of red near the other end.
Part 2: A white bar 3.5mm dia. x 2cm long with green on one end and
red on the other.
Instructions: "A) Place tube on desk with green end up. Drop in bar,
green end up. Lift tube.
B) Repeat with red ends of both up.
C) Repeat with red end of tube up, red end of bar down.
D) Repeat with green end of tube up, green end of bar down.
Examination: Before following the instructions, you look through the
tube, push the end of a paperclip through it, even shine your laser
pointer through it. There is nothing to indicate it's anything but a
simple, empty, nonmagnetic, opaque tube.
For both instructions A and B, the bar slips in easily and is left
standing on the desk when you lift away the tube.
Instruction C (red dots together) is impossible -- it feels exactly
like trying to touch the south poles of two powerful magnets together,
and the bar isn't large enough for you to get a good enough grip on it
to force it straight down.
D (green dots together) is even more interesting -- the bar stops at
the top of the hole. Pushing down on it forces the tube to rise as the
other end of the bar comes out the bottom at exactly the same rate, as
if the tube were of zero length. Releasing pressure on the bar lets
the tube fall back down until the bar is once again balanced on the
top end of it.
A couple of pennies lets you establish that if there is less weight on
the bar than the weight of the tube, the bar stands over the hole; if
the weight is even slightly more, the tube rises until it stands flush
with the top of the bar.
By using a paperclip, you can push the bar down so that its end clears
the top/bottom of the tube, at which point the tube shoots up and
hovers, exactly the same as two ring magnets on a pole.
Retesting shows all results are the same whether the tube is upright,
held at an angle, etc.
Going too far: you lay the tube on its side, position green end of bar
at green end of tube, and use a pair of pliers to try to squeeze the
bar and tube together without letting the bar exit the bottom. At
moderate pressure, both bar and tube shatter into dust.
Analysis of residue: Same as 1 except for addition of different colors
of a common fingernail polish.
Question One: Which of these violates the most laws of physics?
Question Two: Which, if any, would you be most interested in procuring
another sample of for more rigorous testing?
Assumption A) It is basic human nature to apply 'a little more force'
when faced with something that you know should move but won't. If you
never do it, replace the "you receive a package . . ." with "you are
present when a colleague receives a package . . ." and replace all
instances of: "you [do this or that]" with: "the colleague who you
can't stop [does this or that]."
Assumption B) It is late evening/a long weekend/whatever, so when you
find the very first oddity in the item's behaviour, it would be
inconvenient to take it straight to a proper lab or testing facility,
and you are too curious to just put it on the shelf until the next
workday. If you are not the type to toy with strange things, proceed
as in Assumption A), replacing "you" with "a colleague."
Assumption C) The exact sequence of testing and the type of testing
done would probably be different from stated, varying be individual,
(Example -- for item 2, I'd pour out the water from the first test
carefully, to keep the divisions from mixing, and pour one half back
in to see the volume/temperature differences.) but I believe most
people would reach the "going too far" point within a reasonable time,
and to state such possibilities would create an impossibly long post.
Also, I'd invariably miss quite a few that other people find obvious.
--
weird device" is a trope with a long pedigree (even I've used it
before, in a story in Asimov's). I am interested in exploring it now
to give me things to think about during a dry spell -- I'm quickly
approaching another hiatus, when I shouldn't sit up for long periods
of time, meaning my computer use won't include newsgroups (okay -- I
can hear the cheering, :) but as always happened before, I'll be back
in a few weeks/months).
You receive a package from someone you knew and respected a long time
ago but who you lost touch with when they went off to explore New Age
crystals in India.
Inside is an instruction sheet and one of these:
1) A white disk 4cm in diameter, 8mm thick in the center tapering
evenly to 2mm at the edge.
Instructions: "Flip it over"
Examination: You can move it forward, backward, up, down, side to
side, even put it on the desk and spin it like a top, all with no more
effort than anything else of similar size and shape.
But you cannot tilt it to a noticeable degree.
Going too far: You put it on the heel of one hand, place the heel of
your other hand on top, interlace your fingers, squeeze down, and try
with all your might to turn it over it. Before going a full degree,
there is a 'snap' and you find that you have a handful of warm powder.
Analysis of residue: The particles are microscopically identical in
size and shape. Composition is 92% silica, 4% iron, 3.5% copper, 0.1%
lutetium. The other 0.4% is a mixture of most of the elements from
neon to barium, the concentration of each varying slightly from sample
to sample.
2) Two plastic cups. One is plain. The other has a thin sheet of
plastic glued vertically in it to divide it in half. Across the top of
the barrier is a porous ceramic bar, 2cm square x the width of the
cup. There is a deep groove in the top of the bar.
Instructions: "Fill plain cup with room temperature water. Insert two
thermometers. Record their readings. Move thermometers to opposite
sides of divided cup. Carefully pour water into groove. Note
thermometer readings."
Examination: You follow the instructions. The water trickles through
the bar, fairly equal volumes on both sides of the barrier. There is
approx. a 6 degree (F) temperature difference between the sides.
Switching the thermometers around verifies the temperature difference
-- each side about 3 degrees off from the initial water temperature.
You try it with cold tap water and the results are approximately the
same (but whether the temp difference is slightly greater or lower,
I'll not hazard to guess).
You try it with ice water. Results are in line with first two trials.
You try it with hot tap water. Ditto results.
Going too far: You try it with 160 degree (F) water from a coffee/tea
maker. When the cup is about half full, the bar shatters into a
powder.
Analysis of residue: Same as for 1).
3) Part 1: A white tube, 7mm OD x 4mm ID x 2cm long. There is a green
dot near one end, a dot of red near the other end.
Part 2: A white bar 3.5mm dia. x 2cm long with green on one end and
red on the other.
Instructions: "A) Place tube on desk with green end up. Drop in bar,
green end up. Lift tube.
B) Repeat with red ends of both up.
C) Repeat with red end of tube up, red end of bar down.
D) Repeat with green end of tube up, green end of bar down.
Examination: Before following the instructions, you look through the
tube, push the end of a paperclip through it, even shine your laser
pointer through it. There is nothing to indicate it's anything but a
simple, empty, nonmagnetic, opaque tube.
For both instructions A and B, the bar slips in easily and is left
standing on the desk when you lift away the tube.
Instruction C (red dots together) is impossible -- it feels exactly
like trying to touch the south poles of two powerful magnets together,
and the bar isn't large enough for you to get a good enough grip on it
to force it straight down.
D (green dots together) is even more interesting -- the bar stops at
the top of the hole. Pushing down on it forces the tube to rise as the
other end of the bar comes out the bottom at exactly the same rate, as
if the tube were of zero length. Releasing pressure on the bar lets
the tube fall back down until the bar is once again balanced on the
top end of it.
A couple of pennies lets you establish that if there is less weight on
the bar than the weight of the tube, the bar stands over the hole; if
the weight is even slightly more, the tube rises until it stands flush
with the top of the bar.
By using a paperclip, you can push the bar down so that its end clears
the top/bottom of the tube, at which point the tube shoots up and
hovers, exactly the same as two ring magnets on a pole.
Retesting shows all results are the same whether the tube is upright,
held at an angle, etc.
Going too far: you lay the tube on its side, position green end of bar
at green end of tube, and use a pair of pliers to try to squeeze the
bar and tube together without letting the bar exit the bottom. At
moderate pressure, both bar and tube shatter into dust.
Analysis of residue: Same as 1 except for addition of different colors
of a common fingernail polish.
Question One: Which of these violates the most laws of physics?
Question Two: Which, if any, would you be most interested in procuring
another sample of for more rigorous testing?
Assumption A) It is basic human nature to apply 'a little more force'
when faced with something that you know should move but won't. If you
never do it, replace the "you receive a package . . ." with "you are
present when a colleague receives a package . . ." and replace all
instances of: "you [do this or that]" with: "the colleague who you
can't stop [does this or that]."
Assumption B) It is late evening/a long weekend/whatever, so when you
find the very first oddity in the item's behaviour, it would be
inconvenient to take it straight to a proper lab or testing facility,
and you are too curious to just put it on the shelf until the next
workday. If you are not the type to toy with strange things, proceed
as in Assumption A), replacing "you" with "a colleague."
Assumption C) The exact sequence of testing and the type of testing
done would probably be different from stated, varying be individual,
(Example -- for item 2, I'd pour out the water from the first test
carefully, to keep the divisions from mixing, and pour one half back
in to see the volume/temperature differences.) but I believe most
people would reach the "going too far" point within a reasonable time,
and to state such possibilities would create an impossibly long post.
Also, I'd invariably miss quite a few that other people find obvious.
--