On 18 veebr, 11:21, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
> 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"
>
Short. No explanation why or what to expect. You hope that he wouldn=B4t
instruct you so if it were dangerous to carry out the instruction.
> 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.
>
In other words - you can rest it on any external sup****t by its edge.
A normal disk would fall over when rested on a sup****t off-center,
because it flips over - this disk cannot.
> 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.
>
Performing the analysis takes a lot of time.
If you have unexpectedly broken the disk while carrying out the
instruction, you would be wary. Sure, it did not cut your fingers. But
the instructions did not spell out "Expect it to break - it will not
hurt you, and it is im****tant that you break it!".
> 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 ****ous 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.
>
What is the temperature on the colder side?
> 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 ****ne 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. Pu****ng 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.
> --
|
