I just tossed in 'quanta' as a quick "what comes to mind" thing for me.
I later looked it up to be sure I was thinking right and it does seem to
apply (or could possibly anyhow). Quanta is particle energy as in
photons, ions, etc. (as I see it) and so was thinking of this in terms
of effective area in the case of photon map density. Not exactly
quantity per se, just a "measure" or sort of intensity within a volume.
Same could be said if 'spread' were used I believe, since it is the
concentration which counts.
Thinking along the lines of light I would probably say 'receptor',
'volume', 'quanta' instead of 'gather', 'radius', 'density'.
I would have said retina, as in the eye light-receiving surface, in
place of receptor (nerve terminal for recieving/sending) but it doesn't
sound right to me.


GrimDude wrote:
> 
> Actually, without opening my Physic's book I think quanta is the best
> suggestion.
> 
> I can see now I'll be scanning more text books tonight.
> 
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message

Obviously, yours was the first post I saw, and it struck me as very
appropriate. I haven't read anything on particles in sometime, though. None
of it stuck. :)

Well, okay, some of it stuck.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Bob Hughes wrote in message <370### [at] aolcom>...
>I just tossed in 'quanta' as a quick "what comes to mind" thing for me.
>I later looked it up to be sure I was thinking right and it does seem to
>apply (or could possibly anyhow). Quanta is particle energy as in
>photons, ions, etc. (as I see it) and so was thinking of this in terms
>of effective area in the case of photon map density. Not exactly
>quantity per se, just a "measure" or sort of intensity within a volume.
>Same could be said if 'spread' were used I believe, since it is the
>concentration which counts.
>Thinking along the lines of light I would probably say 'receptor',
>'volume', 'quanta' instead of 'gather', 'radius', 'density'.
>I would have said retina, as in the eye light-receiving surface, in
>place of receptor (nerve terminal for recieving/sending) but it doesn't
>sound right to me.
>

Post a reply to this message

Nathan,

  I posted that I liked the keyword quanta, but I thought I would pass along
a few other ideas. :)

  The following are listed in no particular order. If I have their meaning
wrong it is due to ignorance and age. It's been at least five years since I
read anything of Quantum Mechanics, Properties of Light, etc.

discrete (discretion) - makes more sense given the nature of the variable
saturation  - hey, self-evident
Planck - Not precise, but appropriate nonetheless
energy - kind of like discrete (more energy = more space)
intensity - appropriate given your formula in place (probably most
appropriate)

  Forgive me. I spent a sleepless night and this just wouldn't leave my
thoughts.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> Nathan,
> 
>   I posted that I liked the keyword quanta, but I thought I would pass along
> a few other ideas. :)
> 
>   The following are listed in no particular order. If I have their meaning
> wrong it is due to ignorance and age. It's been at least five years since I
> read anything of Quantum Mechanics, Properties of Light, etc.
> 
> discrete (discretion) - makes more sense given the nature of the variable
> saturation  - hey, self-evident
> Planck - Not precise, but appropriate nonetheless
> energy - kind of like discrete (more energy = more space)
> intensity - appropriate given your formula in place (probably most
> appropriate)
> 
>   Forgive me. I spent a sleepless night and this just wouldn't leave my
> thoughts.
> 
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet

 I too suggested intensity as an approprate term but I think that
I would lead to even more confusion. Too many people are going
to associate the term with the brightness level of light, and the
return of brightness from the photons, as a result of adjustemnting
this parameter. While it is true that there will be a difference
in the over all intensity of the light returned by adjusting this
it is a bit misleading as to thr why it does this. It isn't
implicit that the density or the photon pattern is increased
or decread by paramter as well as other terms might.

Saturation is good if not a bit lengthy, discreate a bit too vague,
energy too misleading, and no way am I going to walk (with) the
planck.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <37228B83.B403B110@pacbell.net>...
> I too suggested intensity as an approprate term but I think that
>I would lead to even more confusion.

You lead me to confusion! :)

>Saturation is good if not a bit lengthy, discreate a bit too vague,
>energy too misleading, and no way am I going to walk (with) the
>planck.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler


Planck wouldn't let me walk with him either. ;^)

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:

>   I posted that I liked the keyword quanta, but I thought I would pass along
> a few other ideas. :)

I guess you wrote about replacements for "density"?
In this case, I'd prefer "separation".

> Planck - Not precise, but appropriate nonetheless
> energy - kind of like discrete (more energy = more space)
> intensity - appropriate given your formula in place (probably most
> appropriate)

I'm unhappy with all words that somehow remind of quantum
theory (including "photons" itself) -- what the patch does,
is to compute rays from the light source.
This might mislead newbies, and lead to name clashes in version
17.4 of 2023, which will take into account real quantum optical
effects :-)

Ralf

Post a reply to this message

> which will take into account real quantum optical
> effects :-)

ooo, can hardly wait :)

Rick

Post a reply to this message

>I'm unhappy with all words that somehow remind of quantum
>theory (including "photons" itself) -- what the patch does,
>is to compute rays from the light source.
>This might mislead newbies, and lead to name clashes in version
>17.4 of 2023, which will take into account real quantum optical
>effects :-)
>


That being the case we would have no choice but adopt "intensity" now.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

'distribution' is good

Nathan Kopp wrote:

> I personally don't like the way I'm using the 'density' keyword to specify
> photon density.  Usually, when you say density, you want to give a
> items-per-area(or volume) value, not a length value.  So... what would be a
> better keyword?  Would 'spacing' be good? (since you are giving the spacing
> between photons)  I do not want to switch the value to a real density, because
> right now photon 'density' and gather 'radius' are directly related (linearly),
> making it easy to test with a low number of photons and switch to a large
> number with predictable results (my 'phd' variable, for those who've looked at
> my source).
>
> So... is 'spacing' good?  Any other ideas?
>
> -Nathan

Post a reply to this message

In article <382F7EBE.D174A959@carmen.murdoch.edu.au> , 
mne### [at] carmenmurdocheduau  wrote:

> 'distribution' is good
>
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
>> I personally don't like the way I'm using the 'density' keyword to specify
>> photon density.  Usually, when you say density, you want to give a
>> items-per-area(or volume) value, not a length value.  So... what would be a
>> better keyword?  Would 'spacing' be good? (since you are giving the spacing
>> between photons)  I do not want to switch the value to a real density,
>> because right now photon 'density' and gather 'radius' are directly related
>> (linearly), making it easy to test with a low number of photons and switch to
>> a large number with predictable results (my 'phd' variable, for those who've
>> looked at my source).
>>
>> So... is 'spacing' good?  Any other ideas?
>>
>> -Nathan

Please notice that the news.povray.org server keeps messages for a very long
time - the message you replied to is from April 4th, 1999 :-)
You may want to set you newsreader to only show/download a specific number
of recent messages (i.e. 300 or 500) or set it to sort messages by date.


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message