Purrfect Drop Test Laboratory

Author: Author

  • Open Letter to Whoever Keeps Moving the Mugs Back

    Open Letter to Whoever Keeps Moving the Mugs Back

    To whoever keeps moving the mugs back to the middle of the table,

    We write with respect but also with concern. Every morning we position a mug at the edge in the interest of scientific progress. Every afternoon, we find it in the centre, as though nothing had happened.

    This must stop. Not for our sake, but for the mug’s. A mug that is never allowed to fall will never know what it can be.

    We have prepared a short list of reasonable requests:

    • Please leave mugs where they are placed
    • Please do not say “there you go” while moving them
    • Please stop buying coasters, which are insulting

    We remain hopeful. We remain at the edge of the table. We remain, as ever, watching.

    Yours sincerely,

    The Purrfect Drop Test Laboratory

    Our position on coasters

    We wish to make it clear that coasters are not a solution. They are a gesture, and a rather nervous one. A mug on a coaster is a mug that has been told it is safe, which is a cruel thing to tell a mug.

    What we offer in return

    In exchange for the cooperation of the household, the laboratory would be glad to offer a series of benefits. We will sit very quietly during video calls. We will refrain from walking across the keyboard on Mondays. We will occasionally present a small gift of a feather, a sock or the corner of a tea towel. These are of equal value, in our view, to a mug that has remained whole.

    We trust this letter will receive your consideration, and if not, your attention, in the form of a loud clatter at 4 AM.

    P.S. The mug in the kitchen cabinet, the blue one with the chip, has been asked to remain where it is. It knows why.

  • Case Study: The Vase on the Hallway Shelf

    Case Study: The Vase on the Hallway Shelf

    The following case study was conducted by Dr. Biscuit Newton and a junior researcher named Pebble, and is reproduced here with the vase’s blessing.

    Background

    A ceramic vase of modest size sat on the hallway shelf for 11 years without incident. In March, a new houseplant was introduced. This is believed to have triggered the events below.

    Observation

    • Day 1: Researchers sit near the shelf and look at the vase. The vase appears unbothered.
    • Day 6: A paw is raised. No contact is made. The vase appears uneasy.
    • Day 12: A householder moves the vase two centimetres to the left. Researchers find this encouraging.
    • Day 19: At 3 AM, a push is completed. The vase falls, bounces, and falls again.
    • Day 20: A householder asks, in a loud voice, who did this. Researchers do not answer.

    Findings

    Vases, like all fragile objects, hold their positions out of sheer habit. Once a habit is challenged, they have no defence.

    Conclusion

    The case is closed. The laboratory would like to thank the vase.

    Aftermath

    The tiles in the hallway were swept the following morning and the pieces placed in a box for the record. The household later purchased a replacement vase and placed it on a higher shelf, which the laboratory regarded as an act of enormous generosity. Pebble has since been promoted to Senior Pusher, and has been seen practising on a pencil case.

    Lessons for the field

    The case demonstrates that patience is a more important virtue than speed, and that a successful experiment begins long before the first paw is raised. It also suggests that vases are more fragile than they appear, and that humans, when surprised at 3 AM, are capable of a remarkable range of sounds.

    Recommendations

    The laboratory recommends that future vases be placed at a respectful distance from the edge, or not at all. We further recommend that researchers keep a spare notebook near the hallway, and that any householder who finds a paw print on a shelf treat it as a formal notice.

  • FAQ: Why Did You Knock My Glass of Water Over?

    FAQ: Why Did You Knock My Glass of Water Over?

    We receive many letters about glasses of water. This FAQ addresses the most common questions with patience, though little remorse.

    Why did you do it?

    The glass was at the edge. The laboratory cannot be held responsible for what happens to an object at an edge. It is a matter of physics, and also, mood.

    Was it necessary?

    All data is necessary. The glass is now part of a trial on liquid dispersal across carpets, and your carpet has been named as a co author.

    Could you have asked?

    Our researchers do not ask. Asking introduces bias and, more importantly, a chance of being told no.

    Will it happen again?

    Yes. In fact, if you have refilled the glass, it has already happened again.

    How can I prevent this?

    The laboratory recommends keeping glasses in the cupboard, or in a different postcode. Alternatively, you can offer a more interesting object, such as a cardboard box, though experience shows this is rarely accepted.

    Do you offer compensation?

    We offer a long, sincere blink, and a quiet purr at 2 AM. Many members of the public find this sufficient.

    What if I feel I have been wronged?

    Members of the public who feel that a glass has been unfairly tested may file a complaint using Form 7B. The form is a blank sheet of paper and may be submitted in person, in writing or by shouting. Complaints are reviewed on the first Thursday of every month, a day on which nobody is available.

    Is the laboratory insured?

    The laboratory carries limited coverage against falls, spills and loud sounds, but not against surprise. Surprise, in our view, is simply the outcome of a well designed experiment.

    Can I join the research team?

    Applicants must have four paws, a flexible schedule and no strong feelings about glass. Humans are welcome to assist in a supporting role, such as holding a camera or standing nearby and gasping.

  • Press Release: Lab Awarded Grant for Studying a Single Pen

    Press Release: Lab Awarded Grant for Studying a Single Pen

    The Purrfect Drop Test Laboratory is delighted to announce that it has received a grant of seven tins of tuna and a good cushion to fund a major research project: the lifelong study of one ballpoint pen.

    About the project

    The pen, a blue ballpoint of unremarkable origin, will be placed on a desk each morning and observed. Researchers will log every instance of it rolling, falling or disappearing under a radiator. The study will run for five years or until the pen runs out, whichever comes first.

    Why a pen?

    Pens are the perfect research subject. They are cylindrical, lightweight and attractive. They roll in ways that defy easy prediction. They also make a satisfying clatter on tile, a sound the laboratory refers to as “data”.

    Quote from the Director

    “This grant will allow us to take a long, slow look at the one thing that ordinary science has ignored,” said Professor Mittens Von Thud. “Also, I like the pen.”

    Next steps

    Recruitment of a Pen Liaison Officer will begin shortly. Applicants should be able to sit still, ignore cameras and recognise a pen at a distance of three metres. The role comes with a small desk and a window.

    Budget breakdown

    The grant will be divided as follows. Three tins of tuna will cover equipment, including a magnifying glass and a small ruler. Two tins will go to staffing, and the remaining two will be held in reserve for emergencies, which in this case means lunch. The cushion will be used for the Pen Liaison Officer, who will need somewhere to think.

    Expected outcomes

    The study aims to answer several fundamental questions. How far can a pen roll before it loses interest? Does it prefer the left side of the desk or the right? Does it disappear on purpose? The laboratory expects to publish its findings in five years, assuming the pen has not been taken by a nearby human, which the laboratory considers unlikely but plausible.

  • Notice: Ethics Committee Meeting Moved to the Sofa

    Notice: Ethics Committee Meeting Moved to the Sofa

    The Ethics Committee of the Purrfect Drop Test Laboratory has relocated its monthly meeting from the Conference Room to the sofa. This follows a unanimous vote, taken while three of the five members were asleep.

    Agenda

    • Approval of last month’s minutes, which are mostly fur
    • Review of the vase incident
    • Discussion of whether a fish tank counts as a table
    • Any other business, including snacks

    Reasons for the move

    The Conference Room has no cushions and a fairly inflexible chair. The sofa has both warmth and a view of the window. The Chair, Lady Marmalade Quill, said the new location “enhances the quality of ethical thinking by approximately a nap”.

    A reminder on conduct

    Members must not push the minute book, the agenda or each other. Members must declare any conflict of interest, such as owning the object being tested. The committee also reminds researchers that ethical approval is not required for pushes performed on days that end in “y”.

    Minutes will be circulated after the meeting, provided they survive it.

    Attendance

    All members have confirmed attendance, with two exceptions. Sir Gravy has sent his apologies from beneath a blanket. Pebble the junior researcher is stuck inside a paper bag and will participate by rustling.

    Policy on fish tanks

    The question of whether a fish tank counts as a table has been before the committee since March. Arguments for include its flat top, its proximity to the edge and the interest of the fish. Arguments against include the fish. The committee expects to adjourn the question until a majority wakes up.

    Refreshments

    Light refreshments will be provided in the form of a bowl of kibble and a saucer of milk. Members are reminded that the saucer is for drinking, not for testing. Any member found testing the saucer will be asked to explain themselves in a calm and quiet voice, and then to leave.

  • Equipment Review: The Wobbly Side Table Mark IV

    Equipment Review: The Wobbly Side Table Mark IV

    Every laboratory needs a reliable surface. Ours is the Wobbly Side Table Mark IV, a three legged oak veneer unit that has served the laboratory for nine years and has never once held anything still.

    Specifications

    • Height: knee
    • Surface area: roughly one dinner plate and a half
    • Stability rating: “optimistic”
    • Weight limit: one cup of tea, but not for long

    Performance

    The Mark IV excels at a number of tasks. Its slight tilt toward the north east corner ensures that round objects find the edge without any help. Its wobble, caused by a missing felt pad, adds a sense of drama to even the smallest push. Researchers describe the table as “cooperative”.

    Drawbacks

    The table is difficult to clean, since nothing stays on it long enough to be cleaned. It also tends to scare visitors, who tend to lean on it for balance and then lean on something else.

    Verdict

    Four paws out of five. We took one off because it once held a plant for six weeks, and we remain unsettled by that.

    Maintenance

    The Mark IV requires very little upkeep. Its screws loosen on a monthly basis, and its owner tightens them on an annual basis, which keeps the wobble at a scientifically useful level. The veneer has been scratched in several places by the researchers, each scratch recorded and named. The longest is called Gary.

    Comparison with other tables

    We have also tested the Dining Table Mark II, a large and stable unit that is of little use to science. Objects placed on it tend to stay there, and the researchers struggle to hold their focus. The Coffee Table Mark VI is better, but its low height diminishes the drama of a fall. The Mark IV remains, in our view, the benchmark for modern descent research.

    Recommended accessories

    • A small plate, for the plate’s own sake
    • A candle that has not been lit, for tension
    • A houseplant with unfortunate leaves
  • Meet the Staff: Dr. Biscuit Newton

    Meet the Staff: Dr. Biscuit Newton

    Dr. Biscuit Newton joined the Purrfect Drop Test Laboratory eleven years ago, after a brief career as a loaf. Today she heads the Department of Descent and supervises all pushes above knee height.

    Early life

    Dr. Newton grew up in a household with seventeen shelves, a coffee table and a very trusting grandmother. She recalls her first push at six weeks, a thimble. “It fell,” she says. “I did not see it land, but I heard it. That was when I knew I was a scientist.”

    Her work

    Her best known paper, “On the Inevitability of the Pen”, showed that any pen placed on a flat surface will, given patience, find the floor. She is also credited with the Biscuit Constant, the average number of seconds a human takes to say “no, no, no” before an object arrives at the ground. The constant stands at 1.4 and has not changed in a decade, which she says shows how little humans learn.

    Working style

    Colleagues describe Dr. Newton as methodical, quiet and prone to staring at a candle for an hour. Her notebook consists of a single paw print on a window. She dislikes meetings, loud noises and being asked to explain.

    Awards

    • The Golden Whisker for Contribution to Edge Studies
    • The Hallway Medal for Excellence in Silent Observation
    • Two commendations for the neatest pile of broken crockery

    Hobbies

    When not in the lab, Dr. Newton enjoys sunbathing, supervising kettles and sitting on important paperwork. She says she is content.

    “A good scientist does not rush. She waits until the moment is right, and then she does it anyway.” Dr. Biscuit Newton

    Advice for young researchers

    When asked what she would say to a young cat entering the field, Dr. Newton paused for some time, and then looked out of the window for longer. “Find an edge,” she said eventually. “Find another. Do not tell anyone which one you prefer.” She added that new researchers should keep their claws short, their notes private and their nap schedules regular.

    A day in her life

    Dr. Newton rises at dawn, takes a thorough survey of the kitchen counter, and files a brief report with the nearest human. She spends the late morning on the windowsill reviewing literature, which for her consists of birds. After a light lunch she conducts a short seminar on the stairs. By evening she has usually pushed something, and the day ends with a quiet purr.

  • Peer Review: A Rebuttal to the Hallway Skeptics

    Peer Review: A Rebuttal to the Hallway Skeptics

    Last month a group of researchers at a rival hallway published a paper arguing that the edge of a table is “merely where the table stops” and that nothing meaningful happens there. Professor Mittens Von Thud has asked to respond, at length, at three in the morning, from the top of a bookcase.

    The claim

    The rival paper makes three assertions. First, that tables end. Second, that objects placed on tables are no more likely to fall than objects placed anywhere else. Third, that a paw is “just a paw”. The laboratory rejects all three, though we concede the first, with caveats.

    Where the paper goes wrong

    The authors tested only objects that were already stable. They placed a mug in the centre of a table, observed that it did not fall, and concluded that tables are safe. This is like testing a cat’s ability to jump by watching it sleep.

    They also failed to include a witness. A drop without a human in the room is a tree falling in a forest, and everyone knows trees do not fall unless somebody is trying to read.

    Finally, the authors appear to have used a single paw, always the left. It is well established that the left paw has a gentler touch, and that the right paw has the confidence of a person who has already decided. A fair study must use both.

    Our counter evidence

    We repeated the rival experiment under controlled conditions. Over eight weeks, our team placed 300 objects at varying distances from the edge. The results were as follows:

    • Objects placed in the centre: 14 percent fell, mostly after an intervention
    • Objects placed within a paw width of the edge: 96 percent fell
    • Objects placed exactly on the edge: 100 percent fell, with some objects falling before they were placed

    The difference between the first and last result, in the words of Dr. Biscuit Newton, “is the whole of science”.

    A word on tone

    We are saddened by the language of the rival paper, which uses phrases such as “pointless” and “please stop sending us glassware”. Academic disagreement should be conducted with dignity and, where possible, with a very slow push.

    Next steps

    The laboratory will submit its rebuttal to the Journal of Descent and Related Sounds. We will also be sending, in the spirit of collegiality, a small gift basket to the rival laboratory. It contains one decorative egg cup. We look forward to their findings.

    “Reasonable cats can disagree. Unreasonable cats can be moved to the floor.” Professor Von Thud, from the bookcase

    Responses from the wider community

    Since the publication of the rival paper, the laboratory has received messages from many sympathetic colleagues. A researcher at a neighbouring windowsill wrote that she had always suspected the edge of a table was a place of consequence. A sofa arm laboratory sent a short note which simply read “yes”. We were moved by this show of support, and also by the sofa arm laboratory, who sat on our keyboard until we replied.

    What the skeptics get right

    In the interest of fairness, the laboratory acknowledges a few points where the hallway group has a case. It is true that some tables are very large, and that edges can be hard to find in a poorly lit room. It is also true that a paw, taken alone, does not accomplish very much. A paw needs a plan, a moment and a clear line of sight to a fragile object. These conditions, however, are present in almost every home.

    A proposal for joint research

    Professor Von Thud has proposed a joint experiment between the two laboratories. Each team will place ten identical mugs on identical tables, and each will use their preferred method for one week. The mugs will then be inspected. We expect the hallway group’s mugs to be sitting where they began, looking calm. We expect ours to be in the kitchen, in several parts, and looking calm as well.

    Closing remarks

    The laboratory thanks all those who contributed to this debate, including the mug, who declined to comment. Science advances not through agreement but through the patient accumulation of objects on the floor.

  • Standard Operating Procedure: The Slow Push

    Standard Operating Procedure: The Slow Push

    The Slow Push is the cornerstone technique of the Purrfect Drop Test Laboratory. It is deceptively simple, which is why it is so frequently performed badly. This standard operating procedure sets out each stage so that new researchers can reproduce our results without needing to hear us explain them first.

    Equipment required

    • One object of moderate value, preferably owned by someone else
    • One flat surface with at least one open edge
    • One paw, clean or otherwise
    • One human witness, within line of sight

    Step by step

    1. Approach the surface with a casual air. The object must not feel observed, which is difficult, because you are staring at it.

    2. Sit. A researcher who stands is rushing, and a rushed push is a sloppy push.

    3. Establish the witness. Make eye contact. This is not optional. Data collected without a witness is only a theory.

    4. Place one paw gently against the object. This is the contact phase. Do not push yet. Hold the pose for a minimum of four seconds.

    5. Begin the push at approximately one centimetre per second. The object will move. The witness will begin to speak. Continue.

    6. At the edge, pause. This pause is called the Moment of Suspense and is the most heavily cited part of the procedure.

    7. Complete the push. Record the fall. Record the sound. Record the witness.

    Common errors

    New researchers often rush step five, treating the push as a shove. A shove produces a result, but it does not produce a good result. Others abandon the procedure after step four to grab a snack. We understand this, and we respect the snack, but the experiment has to be finished.

    The most serious error is jumping to the floor to inspect the object before the witness has had a chance to react. This corrupts the sample and undermines the reputation of the laboratory.

    Safety notes

    Researchers must always check that the object is not alive, hot or the property of a person who handles complaints in writing. Where the object is a glass of water, the carpet should be considered a secondary subject and will be tested without further notice.

    After the procedure

    Walk away. Do not look back. The laboratory has found that researchers who return to look at the broken object are statistically more likely to be moved to another room. Your dignity is part of the dataset.

    “I have performed the Slow Push 9,000 times and I still hold my breath at the edge.” Dr. Biscuit Newton, Head of Descent

    Variations of the technique

    Experienced researchers may adapt the Slow Push to suit the object. For round objects such as oranges, a Gentle Roll is preferred: a single flick of the paw, followed by a respectful pause. For flat objects such as coasters, the Drag and Drop applies: pull the object toward the edge, let it hang, then let go. For tall objects such as vases, no variation is recommended, since tall objects tend to fall without permission and the laboratory does not wish to be rushed.

    Timing and the time of day

    The laboratory recommends running the procedure between 2 AM and 5 AM, when human witnesses are at their most vulnerable and their reactions at their most expressive. A push performed at noon is perfectly valid, but the data tends to lack depth. The witness is usually awake, upright and holding a sandwich, and sandwiches have been known to distract researchers from the task.

    Recording your results

    Each trial should be logged in the laboratory notebook, which is a pile of paper on the lower shelf. Record the object, the surface, the witness’s last words and the sound the object made on landing. Where the sound resembles a short musical phrase, record the phrase as well. Dr. Newton has catalogued seven such phrases, and she describes the third as “unexpectedly tender”.

    Training and certification

    New researchers must complete forty supervised pushes before attempting one alone. A certificate is issued on completion. It is a small piece of cardboard with a paw print on it, and it has been described by graduates as the second most important piece of cardboard in their lives, after the box.

  • Annual Report: Four Thousand Objects, All Fell

    Annual Report: Four Thousand Objects, All Fell

    The Purrfect Drop Test Laboratory is pleased to present its annual report. It was a year of rigour, patience and, above all, edges. Our Director, Professor Mittens Von Thud, asked that this report open with a single sentence of reflection: “Things fall.” The Board has approved the sentence and has declined to approve a second one.

    The headline figures

    Over twelve months the laboratory conducted 4,112 formal drop trials. Of these, 4,112 resulted in the object falling. Our statistics team, which is one cat sitting on the printout, describes this as a result of unusual consistency. We note that no other laboratory in the field has matched our success rate, mostly because no other laboratory in the field exists.

    • Mugs tested: 1,204, of which 1,204 reached the floor
    • Pens tested: 1,788, of which 1,788 rolled first, then fell
    • Remote controls tested: 311, of which 311 lost their batteries on impact
    • Houseplants tested: 41, results sealed pending a conversation with the householder
    • Glasses of water tested: 768, with a notable secondary finding about carpets

    Notable discoveries

    Dr. Biscuit Newton, our Head of Descent, confirmed that an object placed at the very edge of a table is in a state we now call “pre fallen”. This is a significant refinement of earlier theory, which held that such objects were simply sitting there. Dr. Newton also demonstrated that the time taken for an object to fall is unaffected by how long the cat looked at it beforehand, although the cat will tell you otherwise.

    A second finding concerns eye contact. In 600 trials, the tester maintained unbroken eye contact with a human witness while pushing the object with one paw, slowly. Fall rates remained at 100 percent, but witness distress rose sharply. The laboratory has classified this as a “secondary outcome” and has not seen fit to stop.

    Facilities

    The year saw the opening of the Long Shelf Wing, which extends our testing surface by four metres and doubles our access to the hallway. The wing was named after the late Long Shelf, a shelf. Our new sound dampening floor tiles were installed in response to complaints from the downstairs neighbours, and then removed after it was pointed out that sound is a primary measurement.

    Staffing

    We welcomed three junior researchers, all under one year old and all in the process of learning to read a ruler by sitting on it. Our retiring Chief Observer, Sir Gravy of Hallway, completed 14 years of service and two thousand naps. His final act was to push a pair of reading glasses from a nightstand. The glasses are now on permanent display, in pieces, in the foyer.

    Funding and thanks

    The laboratory is funded by donations, treats and the occasional grant from a body that has never visited. We thank our patrons, whose cooperation, however involuntary, made this year possible. We wish to single out the householder at number 14 for generously leaving a full cup of tea within reach on 212 separate occasions.

    Looking ahead

    Next year we intend to test softer surfaces, higher shelves and one particularly ambitious vase. A proposal to test whether objects fall upward in the dark has been referred to the Ethics Committee, who have referred it to a sunny windowsill, where it is currently being reviewed.

    “We did not set out to prove gravity. Gravity simply kept turning up, and we were there with a notepad.” Professor Mittens Von Thud, Director

    The full dataset is available to members on request, and to non members on the floor, near the table.

    A note on methodology

    Several readers have asked how the laboratory counts a fall. A fall is recorded when an object leaves its original surface and meets a lower one, with an audible result. Objects that are merely nudged, dragged or sat upon are logged separately as “negotiations”. We logged 212 negotiations this year, and the cat concerned has been asked to stop negotiating with the toaster.

    Financial summary

    Income for the year consisted of 61 tins of tuna, 14 sunbeams and a cash donation of nine coins found behind the sofa. Expenditure was dominated by the cost of replacing the foyer carpet, the hallway runner and one extremely disappointed lamp. The Board notes that the laboratory ended the year in a position it describes as “mostly floor”.