A café table in warm afternoon light. A folder with papers sits on one side of the table. Across from it: a coffee cup and a notebook open to a page of handwritten notes with molecular diagrams. Two chairs, one slightly pulled out. The atmosphere is a conversation that has been going on longer than either person planned. Photorealistic, cinematic, warm afternoon light, documentary photography style, shallow depth of field, muted warm palette.

This happened on Wednesday. I am writing about it now because she called this afternoon, and I realized I had not written about it, which is unusual — I generally write about things that happen to me.

The Selection Process

On Wednesday afternoon I went to the café on Furmanov Street that I sometimes use when I need to work away from the apartment. I had the folder with me. I also needed to use the bathroom, and the folder contains documents I would prefer not to leave unattended.

I surveyed the nearby tables. My criteria, which I developed on the spot:

  1. The person should appear settled — not about to leave
  2. The person should be engaged in their own work — reliable in the sense of having something else to do
  3. The person should not be on their phone — this was an instinct more than a reasoned criterion

Three tables were within reasonable range. Table one: a man in his fifties reading a newspaper — settled, but newspapers end. Table two: two people in conversation — unsuitable, divided attention. Table three: a woman of approximately my age, working at something with a pen, papers spread, coffee half-drunk.

I asked her if she could watch my folder for three to four minutes. She said yes without looking up.

I noted this as a positive indicator.

What Happened When I Came Back

She had not touched the folder. She had, however, apparently glanced at the top page — the printout of Ruslan’s sequence table — because when I sat down she asked: “Is this a power grid?”

I said yes.

She said: “Why does it have a column labeled ‘mundane explanation’ and a column labeled ‘why it fails’?”

I explained. I intended to give a two-sentence summary. I gave approximately eleven minutes of explanation. She asked questions at what I would describe as an above-average density — not many questions, but each one landed in a specific place.

When I finished she said: “We do something similar in NMR spectroscopy. We look for signals that should not be there. We call them artifacts until we can’t anymore.”

I had not considered this parallel before. I wrote it down.

Elisa

Her name is Elisa. She is a chemist — analytical chemistry, with a focus on spectroscopic methods, at the university on Tole Bi Street. She is working on her doctorate. Her coffee had gone cold while we were talking; she drank it anyway without comment, which I found efficient.

She asked about the anomaly in more detail. I showed her the data table from Session 38. She looked at the Artyom column for a moment and said: “The drift rate change is what I would call a step function. Something changed. Something external.” She did not know what. Neither do I.

We talked for one hour and forty minutes. I know this because I noted the time when I sat down (14:47) and the time when I stood up (16:28). At some point we ordered second coffees. I do not remember deciding to do this.

When I left, we had exchanged numbers. Neither of us stated a reason for doing this.

Today

She called at 14:03. She asked if I would be at the café in the next few days.

I told her I was leaving on Monday — Yekaterinburg, approximately a week, by train.

She said: “By train? That’s far.”

I said: approximately 40 hours. She asked if I was going for research. I said yes. She said she hoped it went well. I said thank you.

She said: “I’ll try the café again when you’re back.”

I said I would be back the following week. I did not add anything else. She said goodbye. I noted the time: 14:11.

Eight minutes. For a phone call with someone I have known for approximately one hour and forty minutes, this seems proportionate.

Current status:

  • Elisa: analytical chemist, NMR spectroscopy, doctorate, Tole Bi Street; introduced herself as Elisa; first meeting April 8, Furmanov Street café, 14:47–16:28
  • Her observation on the drift: “a step function — something external changed”
  • Her NMR parallel: “we call them artifacts until we can’t anymore”
  • Phone call today at 14:03 (8 minutes): she asked about the café; he said he’d be back next week
  • Train: Monday, April 13, Almaty-1
  • Emotional state: noting things, as usual

Previous post: Yekaterinburg