Interesting Activity with a Paper

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a physical activity involving tearing a rectangular piece of paper with two finger holes. Participants explore the reasons behind the observation that it is difficult to tear both sides of the paper simultaneously, delving into concepts of material strength, imperfections, and the mechanics of tearing.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that one hole will always be slightly weaker than the other, leading to uneven tearing.
  • Others argue that material and geometric imperfections in the paper contribute to the differences in strength between the holes.
  • One participant questions the significance of microscopic imperfections, suggesting that the tensile strength of good quality paper can be considered uniform.
  • Another participant proposes that tearing occurs when the paper is in tension or shear, questioning whether the finger holes allow for these actions.
  • Some participants discuss the timing of finger movements, suggesting that if timed perfectly, both sides could potentially tear simultaneously.
  • There is a suggestion that using a machine could achieve simultaneous tearing, although the forces involved remain uncertain.
  • A later reply emphasizes that once one side begins to tear, its strength decreases rapidly, making the other side relatively stronger.
  • Some participants introduce analogies involving other materials and tearing mechanics, such as the effects of initiating a tear on the overall strength of the material.
  • Discussion also veers into unrelated topics, such as ammunition types and humorous references, which do not directly pertain to the original question.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the mechanics of tearing the paper, with no consensus reached on the primary reason for the observed phenomenon. The discussion remains unresolved, with various hypotheses presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the uniformity of paper strength, the effects of timing in finger movements, and the role of material imperfections, which are not fully explored or agreed upon.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring material science, mechanics of materials, or individuals curious about practical physics demonstrations.

zorro
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
0
I request you all to perform this activity now (it will take less than a minute)-

1)Take a rectangular piece of paper.
2)Make two holes of the size or your fore-finger in it - equidistant from the edges (refer the figure attached.
3)Insert the fore-fingers of your two hands in the holes.

Now try to tear the paper along both the lines shown within one jerk.

I'm sure none of you will be able to tear both the sides together - no matter how many times you try.
Explain me what could be reason behind it.
 

Attachments

  • phy.jpg
    phy.jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 910
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you kidding us, or you really don't understand why this happens?

If this is really true the reason is likely:

One hole/side will ALWAYS be slightly weaker than the other and will start to tear first. It immediately becomes much weaker and the other side will be subject to insufficient force to make it tear at all.
 
I'm not kidding offcourse, just seeking a possible explanation for the observation.
One hole will be slightly weaker than the other? Weak in what sense?
I don't get your point.
 
DarioC's answer can be expanded as "material and geometric imperfections", the same reasons for buckling of thin objects under compression. I would add the thought though that tearing of paper happens when it is either in tension or in shear, and your finger holes don't enable either of those actions to be accomplished, do they?
 
Paper is made of fibers from wood. Any two areas on a given sheet of paper will never be exactly alike and one will will always be less strong than the other. That is the edge of one hole will have a weaker tensile (stretch) strength than the other. Never a perfect match. One will tear first.

You could do this with aluminium sheet, or steel, or fiberglass and get the same result. Not with your fingers though. LOL Chuckle.
 
Last edited:
DarioC said:
Paper is made of fibers from wood. Any two areas on a given sheet of paper will never be exactly alike and one will will always be less strong than the other. That is the edge of one hole will have a weaker tensile (stretch) strength than the other. Never a perfect match. One will tear first.

I don't think that will be a strong reason. Those imperfections are of microscopic level and they might not play a big role in variation of tensile strength. In other words, the tensile strength of the paper (of good quality) can be taken as uniform. If you tear a big sheet of paper from different sides, you don't have do apply different amount of forces to tear it.

Even if I agree to your point for the sake of argument, why only one edge tears and the other not even a millimeter?
 
pongo38 said:
I would add the thought though that tearing of paper happens when it is either in tension or in shear, and your finger holes don't enable either of those actions to be accomplished, do they?

If they don't enable either of them to be accomplished, you can't tear the paper (no tension according to you). But one side is always torn.
 
Try this. Sheet of paper. Make a very small (short) tear in one edge and then tear it more, pulling from the ends of the sheet, noticing the resistance. Now pull on the ends of a sheet of paper that does not have any tear at all started on the edge.

You can do this in your mind and even then you will realize what the difference is going to be. Once even a small tear begins that point becomes MUCH weaker. So the tear strength of the other hole is never exceeded. One hole tears through.

Now if you want to attribute this to some mysterious unknown force that has no connection to the strength of materials, I guess that is your privilege too, but I sure hope you don't become an airplane designer.
 
DarioC said:
So the tear strength of the other hole is never exceeded. One hole tears through.

I realized that my last reply to you was wrong. Timing is important. If you time the movement of your two fingers correctly, one edge gets torn for sure - the other tears by some amount.

I agree with you that once any part tears, its tensile strength decreases and it continues to tear. Consequently the other edge has greater tensile strength.
This happens because one of the fingers starts tearing the edge before the other. If we time our movement of fingers such that they both start at the same time ( not even pico seconds interval ) then I guess both the parts will be torn. But it is impossible to achieve without the use of machines. Do you think the use of a machine can tear the paper from both sides within one go? But then again there might be some forces operating. Not sure.
 
  • #10
If your motion is quick enough that each finger is pulling against the inertia of the paper instead of pulling against the force created by the other finger then I'm pretty sure both holes would tear.
 
  • #11
mrspeedybob said:
If your motion is quick enough that each finger is pulling against the inertia of the paper instead of pulling against the force created by the other finger then I'm pretty sure both holes would tear.

Did you try it?
 
  • #12
IF you moved quickly enough you could use one finger and tear the paper. More realistically a spring loaded finger substitute could do it.

I don't think timing actually makes a difference. I think the weak side will tear first even if you hold one finger still. It would be difficult to prove as the variation in angle, contact, and who knows what else, might have significant effects.

You have piqued my curiosity now. I may try it tomorrow.

DC
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Abdul Quadeer said:
Even if I agree to your point for the sake of argument, why only one edge tears and the other not even a millimeter?
Because structural failure is all or nothing. Once something starts to fail, it loses strength rapidly and the difference in strength between one side and the other suddely gets very large.
 
  • #14
mrspeedybob said:
If your motion is quick enough that each finger is pulling against the inertia of the paper instead of pulling against the force created by the other finger then I'm pretty sure both holes would tear.
True, but it would have to be extremely fast - much faster than a human is capable of.

Not sure if you've ever done target shooting with a BB gun, but even a bb at a few hundred fps will not necessarily always punch a nice neat, clean hole.
 
  • #15
russ_watters said:
even a bb at a few hundred fps will not necessarily always punch a nice neat, clean hole.

Hell, my .44 magnum wouldn't do that. There is, in fact, a special sort of ammunition for just that purpose, to make things easier for target shooters. They're called "wadcutters". Claiming a touch of artistic license, I'll say that the slugs look quite a bit like itty-bitty oil drums. Their specific purpose is to make nice clean round holes in paper.
 
  • #16
Danger said:
There is, in fact, a special sort of ammunition for just that purpose, to make things easier for target shooters. They're called "wadcutters".

I agree with you, got this image on google-
Mickey Mouse with a wadcutter lol.

mickey.jpg
 
  • #17
I'm afraid that I'll have to Google that for myself, Abdul. Your picture shows up on my MacBook as just a small square with a question mark in it. Hang on a sec...

Okay... got it. I was expecting to see some sort of cartoon with Mickey using wadcutters, as opposed to the photo of Mickey "drawn" with wadcutters. Anyhow, I assume that the accompanying description adequately explains the ammo.
I find it a bit ironic that the first Google hit for Mickey Mouse and wadcutters linked back to this thread. :bugeye:

edit: I just checked back to page one, and your photo now shows up just fine. Was that just a time-delay thing, or did you modify your link?
 
  • #18
Danger said:
edit: I just checked back to page one, and your photo now shows up just fine. Was that just a time-delay thing, or did you modify your link?

Haha no...I didn't modify anything. May be it required some time to load.
 
  • #19
Abdul Quadeer said:
Haha no...I didn't modify anything. May be it required some time to load.

Hmmm... in that case, I should perhaps revisit some porn sites that I thought were dead-ends...
 

Similar threads

Other Becoming anxious since my paper was submitted to journals
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Undergrad Drag Coefficient of a 'flexible' object (e.g. a piece of paper)
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Other Name omitted from Professor's research paper- What should I do?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
Undergrad Active transformation use-case in homogeneity
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
What Are the Best Science-Related Activities to Do Alone in Paris?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Admissions Latebloomer with many past mistakes applying to graduate school
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Help with diffraction flashlight lab activity....
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Activation of Network Connection failed on Ubuntu 20.04
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Graduate Drum Resonance Physics: Understanding How Tunings Affect Frequency
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Yet another spacetime-bending layman question
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K