Trinity College experiment succeeds after 69 years .. Pitch dripping from a funnel.

After decades of waiting, physicists at Trinity College have for the first time captured a rare scientific event on camera.

70 years after the experiment was set up, the scientists have videoed pitch dripping from a funnel.
The experiment was begun by a colleague of Nobel Prize winner Ernest Walton in the physics department of Trinity in 1944.

Its aim was to prove that the black carbonic substance pitch is a viscous or flowing material.
The experiment involved placing several lumps of pitch into a funnel and placing the funnel in a jar.
The jar was placed in a dusty cupboard, first in a store room and then in a lecture theatre and left.

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.

However, the dripping was never witnessed or captured on camera, which would have definitively proved the theory.

www.rte.ie...

It's apparently one of the longest running scientific experiments (since 1944) which is nice but can anyone explain to me why this pitch dripping from a funnel is so important ? How is this gonna help us and what is the purpose of this ?

Regards, Alundra

It was more closure than it was leading to anything super important. If you understand everything is made of smaller bits, ( atoms ) and even so forth, than it's not too hard to jump to the idea that everything basically is in one state that operates in many aspects, solid, gaseous, liquid, plasma. That every kind of matter flows and moves, just is a matter of time.

It's been a big deal and even in debate ever since, I remember hearing about it in school and as well on TV programs, people thought maybe it was being heating up somehow and dripping that way or that it was some other issue that no one was able to see. But there you have it and now people can continue living.



The end.

reply to post by Alundra


That's a very long experiment! It's good they were able to prove what they set out to prove.

Also have you ever played the game Alundra?

reply to post by LadyofGlass

You mean the Game ''Alundra'' ?
It is one of my all time favorite games , played it on the old PS1.
Certainly one of the best Action RPG's ever.

Regards, Alundra

reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined

Thanks for the nice reply.

Love how you finish with .. "The End"

I read something many years ago about glass flowing. I believe it was a SF story but the premise of the story was that window glass, as a super cooled liquid, was measurably thicker at the bottom than the top after 60-70 years and people could retrieve views through micro thin slices of these windows.
My question is: does glass flow?

reply to post by Beartracker16


Yes I meant the game.

Glass flow hasn't been observed. I like this article on it...if anyone has any legitimate examples of glass flow let me know. Hey that rhymed.

www.glassnotes.com...

Seems like this is old news because it was previously proven by another University according to Wikipedia.

Tar pitch is a viscoelastic polymer. This means that even though it seems to be solid at room temperature and can be shattered with a hard impact, it is actually fluid and will flow over time, but extremely slowly. The pitch drop experiment taking place at University of Queensland is a long-term experiment which measures the flow of a piece of pitch over many years. For the experiment, pitch was put in a glass funnel and allowed to slowly drip out. Since the pitch was allowed to start dripping in 1930, only eight drops have fallen. It was calculated in the 1980s that the pitch in the experiment has a viscosity approximately 230 billion (2.3×1011) times that of water.[1] The eighth drop fell on 28 November 2000, and the ninth is expected to fall during the second half of 2013.[2] Another experiment was begun by a colleague of Nobel Prize winner Ernest Walton in the physics department of Trinity College in Ireland in 1944. Over the years, the pitch had produced several drops, but none had been recorded. On Thursday, July 11, 2013 scientists caught pitch dripping from a funnel on camera for the first time. [3]

en.wikipedia.org...

And yes, glass does flow as a liquid but very slowly. Otherwise it could not over time be thicker on the bottom that it was when it was first made. I have seen old window panes in old shacks in the woods that clearly show these liquid properties of glass.

There is a discrepancy here. The Ops article says they ( Trinity) did not catch the flowing pitch on camera but the Wikipedia article says they did

Originally posted by Beartracker16
I read something many years ago about glass flowing. I believe it was a SF story but the premise of the story was that window glass, as a super cooled liquid, was measurably thicker at the bottom than the top after 60-70 years and people could retrieve views through micro thin slices of these windows.
My question is: does glass flow?

Yes, I've seen the same story. There have been tests done on the oldest examples of glass found untouched and in-situ which proved that over time it does become distorted.

I think this whole thing is more about when the theory was suggested. It was thought back then that many solids remained so, indefinitely, when there were theories that every solid material eventually succumbs to gravity and "flows" - for want of a better word. It might take decades, or centuries, but eventually it happens.

It would be cool to see if the same thing applies to solid metals such a steel. How long would it take for a steel beam to start to bend?

I think this is mostly a story about how this man was right before others accepted it, and was ahead of his time when it comes to particle physics and the study of solid matter.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

But they did capture it on camera .. it says so on the first paragraphs :

70 years after the experiment was set up, the scientists have videoed pitch dripping from a funnel.

If you follow the link it's explained further that they used a webcam to video the experiment.

And the video is on that webpage as well so ...

(maybe i should have added that in the op)

The flowing qualities of Pitch probably isn't hugely important, but it adds another tiny piece of provable knowledge to the gigantic field of fluid dynamics. Given the experiment required no more than a funnel, beaker and a bit of Pitch - and plenty of patience - I'd argue it was well worth doing.

After all, it's often the tiny realisations in science that ultimately have the largest consequences.

As for glass flowing, I'm not certain the process has been conclusively observed. It's certainly true that old glass windows are usually thicker at the bottom than top, but I think that's also now generally agreed to be the result of inprecise manufacture and the logical value of placing the thicker end downwards rather than a scientific observation

I was surprised, some time ago, to learn that glass is classed as a liquid, beats me how someone can come to that conclusion, I know its liquid when hot, but cold?

reply to post by pikestaff


It's not a liquid it's an amorphous solid that has a glass transition.

Regarding glass, my understanding is that glass may indeed flow, but over the course of millions of years. The reason that very old window glass appears to be thicker at one end than the other is due to the process of its manufacture. Modern window glass is poured on a perfectly smooth pool of liquid metal, which is why you may have heard it referred to as 'float glass' while antique window glass was blown in the traditional way through a tube, forming a bubble of semi-molten glass, which was then split and flattened into panes. What they ended up with was a very uneven surface compared to modern glass.

Glass does NOT flow, this is a myth.

I've seen some windows over 100 years old, and yes the bottom is thicker than the top. But that's how it was when it was built. The trimming around the individual window panes prove this, as wood was applied to keep the glass in, and the wood follows the shape of the glass. meaning the opening for the glass was thicker at the bottom than the top. Which means the glass was out or shape when installed.

There are artifacts thousands years old made of glass and they are not reduced to a solid puddle of glass. There is one particular piece, I believe from the earlier roman era, a glass cup or vase or something with an intricate lattice of glass laid over the main body. There are broken pieces, but other than that, it's still 100% perfectly in shape.

Glass does not now, it's a myth, science (and evidence of old glass) proves this. Uneven window panes shows nothing other than crappy manufacturing ability for glass a hundred years ago.

Originally posted by James1982
Glass does NOT flow, this is a myth.

I've seen some windows over 100 years old, and yes the bottom is thicker than the top. But that's how it was when it was built. The trimming around the individual window panes prove this, as wood was applied to keep the glass in, and the wood follows the shape of the glass. meaning the opening for the glass was thicker at the bottom than the top. Which means the glass was out or shape when installed.

There are artifacts thousands years old made of glass and they are not reduced to a solid puddle of glass. There is one particular piece, I believe from the earlier roman era, a glass cup or vase or something with an intricate lattice of glass laid over the main body. There are broken pieces, but other than that, it's still 100% perfectly in shape.

Glass does not now, it's a myth, science (and evidence of old glass) proves this. Uneven window panes shows nothing other than crappy manufacturing ability for glass a hundred years ago.

---

The technical term is "Glass Creep" and yes ALL crystalline solids FLOW...eventually....because
the shards (i.e. the glass-like shards or micro-particles of any glass or ceramic or even metals)
have elements of Van Der Waals forces that influence their position in relation to OTHER
particles within 3D space.

Electrostatic adhesion can happen at microcosmic scales as well. For a macro-scale version
of static adhesion, rub an inflated balloon on your sweater in a very dry environment and watch
the balloon stick to yourself....ERGO, you get electrostatic adhesion -- push the balloon a little
and it wants to move to a specific spot. Push it a lot and the adhesion fails and the balloon falls.

The Van Der Waals forces at work on microcosmic scales are NOT UNIFORM on all facets or
sides of any given particle (of a variable size and shape) within a lump of glass, ceramic, metal
or ice, and this causes a given crystalline particle to "automatically" move itself to equilibrium
in terms of desiring an equal amount of attraction forces to be applied all over the individual shard.
The cascading effects of individual shards wanting to move about in relation to their nearest
neighbouring particle will eventually be seen as "Glass Creep" as the individual particles
"jokey for position" within a given volume of 3D space.

Please NOTE this has NOTHING to do with the Strong Nuclear Force which happens
at Planck's length scales nor does it have ANYTHING to do with gravity. It is electrostatic
adhesion between the facets of semi-loose-fitting micro-particles of glass-like materials
at micron-level particle sizes that want to jokey for equal position within a given cubic
volume of 3D space.

And YES Glass Creep DOES exist, ESPECIALLY with oxide-ceramics such as Silica.

reply to post by StargateSG7


Is what you are saying something that could be observed within a reasonable amount of time? It sounds like a property that takes effect so far out that any piece of glass would have been eroded before the property you are suggesting would have turned it into a pool. I think when people point to "glass flow" they are asking if there observable flow in glass and the answer is no. Theoretically you could probably place glass in some space free from weather for millions of years and it MIGHT turn into a puddle but again it hasn't been observed.

Originally posted by LadyofGlass
Is what you are saying something that could be observed within a reasonable amount of time? It sounds like a property that takes effect so far out that any piece of glass would have been eroded before the property you are suggesting would have turned it into a pool. I think when people point to "glass flow" they are asking if there observable flow in glass and the answer is no.

There's a lot of confusion on this topic, and even in this thread we have differing viewpoints.

I have an excellent source explaining the answer but it's long winded because it's reasonably thorough, so I'll point out a few highlights.
1. Not all glass is created equal. For example, pyrex glassware is made of glass that will withstand higher temperatures than some other kinds of glass.
2. The claim about glass panes being thicker on the bottom has not been substantiated as a flow of the glass.

Is glass liquid or solid?

There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter that is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic. In terms of its material properties we can do little better. There is no clear definition of the distinction between solids and highly viscous liquids. All such phases or states of matter are idealisations of real material properties. Nevertheless, from a more common sense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience. The use of the term "supercooled liquid" to describe glass still persists, but is considered by many to be an unfortunate misnomer that should be avoided. In any case, claims that glass panes in old windows have deformed due to glass flow have never been substantiated. Examples of Roman glassware and calculations based on measurements of glass visco-properties indicate that these claims cannot be true. The observed features are more easily explained as a result of the imperfect methods used to make glass window panes before the float glass process was invented.

There's a lot more detail in that link if anybody is really curious about the details.

Also, this topic of the properties of glass is obviously related to the topic of the OP which involves similar considerations to those discussed in that link, namely the material properties.

yes but does a watched pot take longer to boil,,?,,remember ,,observation,,automatically, tarnish's the result,,

Originally posted by BobAthome
yes but does a watched pot take longer to boil,,?,,remember ,,observation,,automatically, tarnish's the result,,

Sometimes observation affects the result (I wrote a thread about observer effect), but I would disagree with the "automatically" claim.

We observed a supernova in 1987 and I would argue that you'd be hard pressed to say how our observation affected the supernova. Likewise we can measure glass thickness accurately without having a significant effect on the glass thickness. But measuring glass flow at room temperature is probably as hard as measuring the acceleration of the Earth toward a paper clip when you drop a paper clip. You can calculate the expected amount of acceleration, but it's not measurable, as far as I know, and not because of observer effect.