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
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Mystery of Why It's Impossible to Pull Apart Interleaved Phone Books - Solved
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Funny) by skullz on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:49PM
15 years after they were obsolete and 5 years after people got mad about all the dead trees to produce, the answer is solved! Thank you, Science People!
One less thing to fret about at 2 am.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:06PM
This is being driven by the need to understand the structure and behaviour of new micro and nano-engineered materials, which have impact on many aspects of life from medical applications to solar cells. Besides, chinese finger-traps are still just as relevant as ever.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Friday August 28 2015, @12:36AM
Amazingly, they're not obsolete.
Three years ago I went into a sales meeting to discuss the placement of the company in the Yellow Pages. At the time they were heavily trying to upsell their SEO services. Ended up getting a couple of dedicated phone numbers to track any calls that may have come from the Yellow Pages. You would be surprised. There were indeed phone calls coming in from the number dedicated to the printed ad.
Not obsolete yet, or at least, I've still had to deal with it in business. If your demographic is over 50, then you may actually *need* an ad in the Yellow Pages.
I suspect that fact that they're freely delivered to residences and businesses has something to do with it.
I'm still surprised sitting here writing this comment. *scratches head*
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by martyb on Friday August 28 2015, @01:56AM
Besides working even when you don't have an internet connection, there is another often overlooked advantage of looking up information in dead-tree format: no tracking.
I can scan through the 'Yellow Page' listings and get an idea of what is out there, where they are located, which names I may recognize based on others sharing their experience, and then, and only then, need I make a call to them. Were I to try and do the same online, each one of those queries would be dutifully logged and cross-referenced with all the other personal info they could possibly glean directly from me and/or from an information broker.
Same idea with reading a dead-tree newspaper... I can read however much or little I want to read without having all of that activity tracked and logged.
And once again with a using a paper map versus something online like mapquest or googlemaps.
I just remind myself that whatever I am looking at, they are almost guaranteed to be tracking my looking at it. TANSTAAFL.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:26AM
> I just remind myself that whatever I am looking at, they are almost guaranteed to be tracking my looking at it.
"When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Totally out of context, but sounds good anyway.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday August 28 2015, @02:59AM
It does, but the abyss represents an abstract concept of infinity and an endless void with just you in it, IMHO. It stares back is a reference to the fact that it affects you.
To say this is to attribute this idea of the infinite somehow tainting our lives with its presence, and being of such intimidating power. Doesn't sit well with me, since those people are just flawed men and women, with very finite power that we have given them and a temporary existence.
I would prefer this:
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @05:13AM
"Besides working even when you don't have an internet connection, there is another often overlooked advantage of looking up information in dead-tree format: no tracking."
If you download a book onto a computer with software containing search functions you might be able to search through it without being tracked.
Then again you are still making assumptions. You assume the software you are using to search for something isn't tracking you. Lets assume it's open source and you are confident it's not. You assume the operating system isn't tracking you. Lets assume it, too, is open source and you can be confident it isn't. These days you assume the hardware isn't tracking you as well. I suppose you can put it on a device that's not connected to the Internet in any way. Inconvenient but possible.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday August 28 2015, @11:29AM
I specifically referred to "looking up information in a dead-tree format."
In your reply, I see an introduction of the concept of downloading a book onto a computer and then performing a search upon that, whereupon you list a number of (valid) concerns for doing so. This seemingly culminates in suggesting that the whole thing is a 'bad idea.' As I posited strictly a dead-tree version of the document, only the strawmen that you introduced would be subject to those concerns. So, you raised valid concerns but none of them are applicable to the original post.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:44PM
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
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.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday August 28 2015, @03:10PM
And yet, despite me not even having a land line, the phone company still plops a new one on my porch every year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @07:33PM
Uses that immediately came to mind:
Shread it and add it to a compost heap as brown content (like dead leaves).
This page also suggests using it as weed-defeating mulch. [thriftyfun.com][1]
Broadsheet-sized grocery ads seem like a better material for that--unless your garden is really tiny.
Using zero-cost phone book pages (or newsprint) to clean windows in place of non-gratis paper towels is a trick my mom adopted many decades ago.
(Mentioned by a commenter on the linked page.)
[1] Really awful HTML. [w3.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:51PM
I just saw you and I'm so lazy. Here's my number! Call me moooooooooooooobe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:57PM
When reproduced this effect can be used to enclose Free Speech Zones with deceptively impenetrable fences to keep the peons in their place.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:05PM
They'll fail. You know... "information wants to be free" and all that jazz; besides the phone books are replaced by apps for tablets - good lock... errr.... I mean, good luck interleaving those tablets.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:14PM
You're missing the point! which is to make deceptively strong fences out of paper! Think of the Chinese Finger Trap in fence form.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:21PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:26PM
Gretchen, stop trying to make (grin) happen.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:48PM
I'm not. Actually, I'm pretty happy to make it my own signature, if I could figure out how to protect it as my own(... naaah. Doesn't worth the effort)
Besides, there is an almost subliminal but serious point that I may wanted to make in my original reply [soylentnews.org]: people today are less sensitive to physical gathering, the freedom on speech moved quite a lot on the net. Which means if the people really care enough to gather, some flimsy phone books will stop them - just throw some gasoline over them then use an app to fire it up (grin)
If they really want to stop them, they'll need to disrupt their phone/tablet communication (build their tablet locks instead of phonebook lock).
S'rely**... if people really care, good luck with that [newscientist.com]
---
*, ** and don't call me Shirley either
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @11:10PM
lol 'mr (grin)' failed to recognize 'mr !' — hoist by your own retard
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 27 2015, @11:54PM
Subtle, indeed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:11PM
Adam and Jamie try to separate two phone books by hand, fail, then ponder which of "two 18-wheelers" or "lots of C4" for separation would make the best slow-mo replay.
Meanwhile the NSA is pretty certain that once linked, phone books stored in their database have no reasons to be ever separated...
Microsoft feels like commenting about browser interleaved in OSes, but decides to give the lawyers a rest.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:26PM
Too late. They already did that one . . . see Youtube for the low down on "Phone Book Friction". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOt-D_ee-JE/ [youtube.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Informative) by Freeman on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:28PM
The Mythbusters have already tackled this beast and it took a mere 8,000 lbs of force to pull them apart. It's a very interesting episode.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @11:20PM
> The Mythbusters have already tackled this beast and it took a mere 8,000 lbs of force to pull them apart. It's a very interesting episode.
The amount of force required is the what of the problem.
Did they also explain the why of the problem?
The point of this research wasn't to measure absolutes, but to figure out a working model of the forces involved and produce a formula for calculating them so guys like the mythbusters wouldn't have to resort to empirical measurements.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @03:05AM
So they are replacing science (empiricism) with rationalism (math). But, but, science is supposed to be the end all be all of accurate human knowledge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @05:30AM
That's some shitty trolling. You should at very least understand that science is not "empiricism". Science is usage of scientific method, which includes math.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @12:14PM
It isn't a troll, and you are wrong. Science requires evidence, ergo empiricism, no scare quotes required. Math does not require evidence. It is a self-contained implementation of rationalism just as science is an implementation of empiricism.
This is junior college level knowledge, how could one person mark it troll and another not even grasp the fundamentals to understand the question on a tech news website?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:52PM
Uh...
So you come up with a cool formula. Now is it right? What do you do? You do something like what the mythbusters guys did and TRY it. Does it match your results? If not why not?
Mythbusters is usually 'lets try' and then if that does not work 'lets blow it out with crazy'. Yes their 'science' is weak. But it is also entertainment. They usually follow the model fairly ok. Their rigor could use a bit of work though. Theory->work out the plans to test->Test->retry->Test->retry->some conclusions, or more test needed, or 'impossible'. They even go back and re-try things all the time. They also come to bad conclusions all the time. That is science. It is messy and does not work right all the time. For example the speed camera one was good example. They said 'cant do it' then the top gear guys say 'well you need a faster car'. They got a rocket car (bit sensationalist) and sure enough they said 'yep we were wrong'.
Their whole show is based around 'lets take these crazy ideas people have and TEST them'. They throw in some fun because science does not have to be dry and boring.
You know the other half of science... Test test test test test and test some more and then see if someone else can replicate it.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday August 28 2015, @04:02PM
So they are replacing science (empiricism) with rationalism (math).
Not at all. They are replacing ignorance with enlightenment, and using science to do it. Many similar efforts have in the past created useful models for the world around us; F=ma and E=mc^2 are famous examples, and familiar to even grade school children.
Where you appear to be mistaken (and the probable reason for your troll mod) is that the difference between empiricism and rationalism isn't the use of math, but the use of experiment to test our reasoned speculations. Rationalism is great at coming up with reasonable explanations for phenomena we observe, but can lead us to wrong conclusions when we have incomplete knowledge of the subject. Empiricism takes the reasoned speculation from rationalism a step further and verifies or refutes the reasoning based on a test.
The current topic for discussion, friction between interleaved books, is a great example. There were several theories proposed for how the friction was caused, all of which were inadequate because they did not account for significant factors of which their proponents were unaware. An approach based on rationalism would simply say "my explanation makes sense, so it must be the correct answer", and continue to be incorrect. The latest experiments, reported on in TFA, disproved the theory that friction would increase linearly with the thickness of the books, found out what the true relationship is, then created a model suitable for making accurate predictions. That model was then tested for validity.
Math as a tool in empiricism is fine. In this case, it brought a poorly-understood phenomenon from the realm of "here's a table of past results" to "here's an equation you can use to design new inventions around this phenomenon". As long as there's a test involved to verify the validity of the equation math will hurdle the gap from rationalism to empiricism with style.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday August 28 2015, @03:45PM
The title is false though "The Mystery of Why It's Impossible to Pull Apart Interleaved Phone Books - Solved". By that reasoning, there should be a definitive answer as to why it's impossible to pull them apart. Not why it's really, really, hard to pull them apart.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 30 2015, @10:14AM
You're just being pedantic. It is essentially impossible for a human to pull them apart without using heavy machinery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @11:37AM
What did they blow up in *that* episode?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @04:05PM
They destroyed the books (binding ripped off), they did not successfully separate them.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 28 2015, @12:25AM
It's a variation of the Chinese finger puzzle - the harder you pull, the harder they stick.
🌻🌻 [google.com]