Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the Did-you-let-Chuck-Norris-try? dept.

People, trucks and even military tanks have tried and failed the task of pulling apart two phone books lying face up with their pages interleaved, like a shuffled deck of cards. While physicists have long known that this must be due to enormous frictional forces, exactly how these forces are generated has been an enigma – until now.

A team of physicists from France and Canada has discovered that it is the layout of the books coupled with the act of pulling that is producing the force.

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-mystery-impossible-interleaved.html

[Source]: http://theconversation.com/solved-the-mystery-of-why-its-impossible-to-pull-apart-interleaved-phone-books-46697


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:44PM (#229035)

    I never said that what you said was subject to those concerns. I was just listing some alternatives that could provide similar privacy to your suggestion of using a book and listed some possible shortcomings in those suggestions as well.

  • (Score: 2) by martyb on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:29AM

    by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:29AM (#229388) Journal

    Then again you are still making assumptions. (emphasis added)

    I never said that what you said was subject to those concerns.

    I suspect we may be running into a purely verbal disagreement coming from the use of the word "you".

    In this case, as *I* read it, "you" is referring to *me*. This statement reads to me that you are accusing me of making assumptions; ones that I did not make at all. I gather (now) this was unintentional and that a choice of a different non-specific pronoun would have avoided the confusion.

    If you had used the word "one" instead of the word "you" in your original comment [soylentnews.org], then we are in general agreement.

    --
    Wit is intellect, dancing.