Invisible escribió:
> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 
> would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, 
> plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)

There aren't morphs for all possible combinations. Nowhere near that.

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote?
>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 would 
>> be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, plus 15! 
>> morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
> 
> Why 15! ?
> 
> For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only X*(X-1)/2 
> and not X! ?

Hmm. Your knowledge of combinatorics clearly exceeds mine 
considerably... :-}

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Rune escribió:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote?
>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 would 
>> be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, plus 15! 
>> morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
> 
> Why 15! ?
> 
> For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only X*(X-1)/2 
> and not X! ?

Note that morphs cannot be played backwards and make sense. A->B and 
B->A videos are different, so both are needed if you wanted all possible 
combinations.

Post a reply to this message

>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 
>> would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, 
>> plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
> 
> There aren't morphs for all possible combinations. Nowhere near that.

My point is that there seem to be several morphs for each loop, meaning 
that the number of morphs dawfs the number of actual loops...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Note that morphs cannot be played backwards and make sense.

Yes they can. But MPEG-2 doesn't make that real easy...

> A->B and 
> B->A videos are different, so both are needed if you wanted all possible 
> combinations.

They *can* be different, but no mathematical law that says they must be. 
(However, ES seems to implement it this way.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
 > > Note that morphs cannot be played backwards and make sense.
 > Yes they can. But MPEG-2 doesn't make that real easy...

I know MPEG doesn't make it easy, but they wouldn't make sense anyway- 
Try it. Make a video of A, A, B->A backwards, B, B. See if the morph 
looks OK.

>> A->B and B->A videos are different, so both are needed if you wanted 
>> all possible combinations.
> 
> They *can* be different, but no mathematical law that says they must be. 
> (However, ES seems to implement it this way.)

In the way ES works, the loop is "rotating". The morph is interpolating 
sheep A to sheep B and *also* rotating. If you play it backwards, it 
would be rotating backwards, and the sudden jump in "direction" is 
really noticeable.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez escribió:
> Try it. Make a video of A, A, B->A backwards, B, B. See if the morph 
> looks OK.

Actually, don't. I'll try to do it for you.

Post a reply to this message

>> They *can* be different, but no mathematical law that says they must 
>> be. (However, ES seems to implement it this way.)
> 
> In the way ES works, the loop is "rotating". The morph is interpolating 
> sheep A to sheep B and *also* rotating. If you play it backwards, it 
> would be rotating backwards, and the sudden jump in "direction" is 
> really noticeable.

I see. So there's a discontinuity in the 1st derivative then? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> I used to, but stopped because the MPEG video showing at fullscreen 
> (plus the fact that you may end up rendering frames for them) needs some 
> CPU time.

<I'm old>

I can remember when decoding MPEG-1 in realtime required specialised 
hardware - and encoding required a very high-end computer system!

And today, my PC is decoding MPEG-2 in realtime using idle CPU cycles... 
How times have changed!

</I'm old>


-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> I see. So there's a discontinuity in the 1st derivative then? ;-)
> 

On the What?

o_0

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible escribió:
>> I see. So there's a discontinuity in the 1st derivative then? ;-)
>>
> 
> On the What?
> 
> o_0

Speed is the first derivating of position with respect to time.

In other words, the consecutive frames match, but the movement does not.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez escribió:
>> Try it. Make a video of A, A, B->A backwards, B, B. See if the morph 
>> looks OK.
> 
> Actually, don't. I'll try to do it for you.

Isn't as noticeable as I expected (maybe it's because of the morph I 
picked) but definitely there is a jump.

http://www.wikifortio.com/798356/test.mpg.zip (10MB)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I can remember when decoding MPEG-1 in realtime required specialised 
> hardware - and encoding required a very high-end computer system!

Bah. I was out of grad school and people were still building and selling 
hardware JPEG cards, let alone MPEG. :-)

The 6 minutes of mpeg we had to demo the system took 14 weeks to encode 
at a service beureau.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote?
>>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 
>>> would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, 
>>> plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
>>
>> Why 15! ?
>>
>> For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only 
>> X*(X-1)/2 and not X! ?
>
> Hmm. Your knowledge of combinatorics clearly exceeds mine considerably... 
> :-}

Sounds odd, given that I don't understand most of the math you normally post 
about here...

Anyway, since both forward and backwards morphs are needed, as well as the 
loops themselves, that would be exactly X^2 animations if all loops should 
be connected to all other loops (X loops and X*(X-1) transitions between 
them).

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

>> I can remember when decoding MPEG-1 in realtime required specialised 
>> hardware - and encoding required a very high-end computer system!
> 
> Bah. I was out of grad school and people were still building and selling 
> hardware JPEG cards, let alone MPEG. :-)

Ooo... LOL!

> The 6 minutes of mpeg we had to demo the system took 14 weeks to encode 
> at a service beureau.

ADVANCED!!

[Hmm, POV-Ray service beureau, anyone?]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 
>> would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, 
>> plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
> 
> There aren't morphs for all possible combinations. Nowhere near that.

For what it's worth... I just checked the stats page. Flock 202 (the 
current flock) contains 74 loops and 457 edges.

Weirdly, 74 loops *sounds* like a lot, but doesn't *look* like a lot 
when you see them all at once:

http://sheepserver.net/v2d6/cgi/status.cgi

Also surprising, most of the votes are counted in single figures. I 
would have expected them to run into tens of thousands, but apparently 
not. I'm not sure whether this means each one gets approximately 50% up 
and 50% down votes, or there are only about 10 people voting worldwide...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> [Hmm, POV-Ray service beureau, anyone?]
> 

I have one.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> or there are only about 10 people voting worldwide...
> 

Are *you* voting? :)

Post a reply to this message

>> or there are only about 10 people voting worldwide...
> 
> Are *you* voting? :)

Yes. Quite a lot.

Obviously, I wasn't expecting my few votes to make a difference among 
the many millions of other votes... but now I'm not so sure. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Well, it seems [with some difficulty] that it is possible to reconfigure 
my ADSL router to allow inbound connections. I also adjusted the upload 
and download limits on ES to 200 KB each way (was 100).

So far, the most noticable effect is that my outbound has gone from 
about 3 KB to 20 KB.

Also, I notice with some puzzlement that in the evenings my download 
rate is between 9 KB and 20 KB, but in the mornings its 90 or so. 
(Actually, this morning it hit 120 KB. I guess those changed settings 
make a difference...)

I also notice virtually no rendering taking place. I saw a comment 
somewhere in the forums about "I'm keeping the flock quiet in 
anticipation of ES 2.6.7 and high def rendering..." Interesting.

And finally... why does the "number of sheep on this computer" go down 
from time to time?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Well, today I got home to find that my PC has downloaded 630 sheep. And 
yet, there are only 450 sheep on the machine.

*sigh*

So I increased the cache size, and that seemed to fix the problem. 
However, now some of my favourit sheep are gone. And I can't figure out 
how to get them back. :-( [Most puzzlingly, I can't find them on the 
sheep website either...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Well, today I got home to find that my PC has downloaded 630 sheep. And 
> yet, there are only 450 sheep on the machine.
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> So I increased the cache size, and that seemed to fix the problem. 
> However, now some of my favourit sheep are gone. And I can't figure out 
> how to get them back. :-( [Most puzzlingly, I can't find them on the 
> sheep website either...]
> 

The screensaver deletes sheep to keep the cache size within the limit 
you set. Factors to choose which to delete are: older, and less voted. 
The server also deletes videos from the website (it doesn't exactly have 
infinite disk space). Same factors used in choosing.

The preview image and the "genome" are kept on the server for *all* 
sheep, even year-old ones. So try harder and you may find it. If the 
video was already deleted, I could help you re-render it :)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 schrieb:
> Well, today I got home to find that my PC has downloaded 630 sheep. And 
> yet, there are only 450 sheep on the machine.
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> So I increased the cache size, and that seemed to fix the problem. 
> However, now some of my favourit sheep are gone. And I can't figure out 
> how to get them back. :-( [Most puzzlingly, I can't find them on the 
> sheep website either...]
> 
Caused by this thread I downloaded electric sheep. Now I'm curious how 
you get the numbers (at least how many sheeps stay on your local 
machine). I'm missing all those statistics terribly. How many sheeps are 
there, how many edges, how many loops... How many frames (or lines of 
them) has my dreaming cpu rendered...?

So - where do you get at least the count of local sheeps?

thanks
kalle

Post a reply to this message

> Caused by this thread I downloaded electric sheep. Now I'm curious how 
> you get the numbers (at least how many sheeps stay on your local 
> machine). I'm missing all those statistics terribly. How many sheeps are 
> there, how many edges, how many loops... How many frames (or lines of 
> them) has my dreaming cpu rendered...?
> 
> So - where do you get at least the count of local sheeps?

While the screensaver is running fullscreen, press "S" to toggle stats 
on/off.

For your next challenge: Figure out what all these things *mean*. :-S

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> 
> So - where do you get at least the count of local sheeps?

only idea so far: counting the mpegs in win/system32/electric sheep 
cache/ (or similar)

something better?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Also surprising, most of the votes are counted in single figures. I
> would have expected them to run into tens of thousands, but apparently
> not. I'm not sure whether this means each one gets approximately 50% up
> and 50% down votes, or there are only about 10 people voting worldwide...
> 

It's a pretty screen saver, but how many people are going to sit and
vote on each one that goes by? Maybe they vote on just the one that was
displayed before grabbing the mouse and going back to checking email.

Post a reply to this message

"KalleK" wrote:
> Caused by this thread I downloaded electric sheep.

I did too, but I don't miss stats. Instead, I'm rather disappointed that the 
screensaver is not continuous at all times as I had expected, but often 
jumps from one loop to another without a proper morph between. It's totally 
ruining the fluid experience.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> It's a pretty screen saver, but how many people are going to sit and
> vote on each one that goes by? Maybe they vote on just the one that was
> displayed before grabbing the mouse and going back to checking email.

Mmm, apparently I'm weird... heh.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Caused by this thread I downloaded electric sheep.
> 
> I did too, but I don't miss stats. Instead, I'm rather disappointed that the 
> screensaver is not continuous at all times as I had expected, but often 
> jumps from one loop to another without a proper morph between. It's totally 
> ruining the fluid experience.

Depends on how many of the morph sequences it's downloaded so far, but 
yeah, that is kind of annoying.

(The problem I'm having here is that it keeps playing the same sequence 
endlessly because those are the only ones with morphs available. I have 
MPEG files on my harddrive that it never plays because there's no morph 
to it...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> While the screensaver is running fullscreen, press "S" to toggle stats 
> on/off.
> 
hmm. didn't work for me, but thanks anyway. I decided to uninstall this 
cpueater (and hddeater with standard cachesettings).

kalle

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Do andriods dream of electric sheep?
> 
> Does anybody reading this use Electric Sheep? Is it any good?
> 
> I had a go with it last night. I got it to display one looping 
> animation, but that's all I could get it to do. Hmm.
> 

So, it prerenders a bunch of stills, and then creates MPGs transitioning 
between them?

No, thanks.  Aside from the fact that I set my monitor to turn itself 
off when I'm not using it, I recommend that people use Folding @Home to 
waste their spare CPU cycles :)

Speaking of which, there's a POV-Ray team here: 
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=34383

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> So, it prerenders a bunch of stills, and then creates MPGs transitioning 
> between them?

Pretty much, yes.

> No, thanks.  Aside from the fact that I set my monitor to turn itself 
> off when I'm not using it, I recommend that people use Folding @Home to 
> waste their spare CPU cycles :)

I'd actually prefer to run it as a stand-alone application rather than a 
screen saver, but hey.

I guess I'm the sort of low-intelligence person who is easier fascinated 
by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I 
used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch 
rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:57:54 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>I guess I'm the sort of low-intelligence person who is easier fascinated 
>by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I 
>used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch 
>rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.

When I worked offshore a lot of us indulged in wave counting. And in the early
days before the gas was exported or re-injected it was burned off. Hundreds of
cubic meters of gas per minute going up the flare. You could become mesmerised
by it at night. 


Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:57:54 +0000 schrieb Invisible:

> by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I
> used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch
> rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.

Oh no, not at all! Fire is one of the most fascinating things to watch, 
you can spend all the time closely watching and you'll never notice the 
animation looping (just kidding!). The same with rivers etc... I also 
enjoy watching the waves at the shore.

Post a reply to this message

>> by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I
>> used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch
>> rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.
> 
> Oh no, not at all! Fire is one of the most fascinating things to watch, 
> you can spend all the time closely watching and you'll never notice the 
> animation looping (just kidding!).

Mmm, I guess it counts as a kind of complex reaction-diffusion system...

> The same with rivers etc... I also enjoy watching the waves at the shore.

Not so much waves, but where water runs across sand, it rapidly erodes 
complex "river systems" into the perfect surface. I find this fascinating.

In fact, it seems I've developed a family reputation. Take me to a sand 
beach, and likely the first thing I do is to dig a hole in the sand. 
People wonder why I just dig a hole and then look at it.

If you dig deep enough, you find water. And if you keep removing sand 
from the middle of the hole, the turbulence of the water undercuts the 
sides. And eventually they cave in. Theoretically, if you keep digging 
in this manner, you could make a very wide, shallow hole. But usually by 
this point the tidy comes in, and you watch the fluid dynamics as the 
waves wash over the edge of the hole and fill it on. And...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>I guess I'm the sort of low-intelligence person who is easier fascinated
>>by simple visual tricks like this. I also enjoy watching fire, and I
>>used to sit and watch the washing machine. Sometimes I sit and watch
>>rain, or river turbulence... I guess I'm just stupid.
>
> When I worked offshore a lot of us indulged in wave counting.

If you're designing some offshore structure then you need to be able to 
estimate the loadings from the sea.  How do you do this?  Well you watch the 
waves for a long time and come up with a statistical model.

We did something like this in our "non-linear dynamics" course at 
university.  Basically you take the statistical model of sea motion, and use 
it to design the structure based on some criteria (eg 1% chance of breaking 
within 10 years).

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> If you're designing some offshore structure then you need to be able to 
> estimate the loadings from the sea.  How do you do this?  Well you watch 
> the waves for a long time and come up with a statistical model.
> 
> We did something like this in our "non-linear dynamics" course at 
> university.  Basically you take the statistical model of sea motion, and 
> use it to design the structure based on some criteria (eg 1% chance of 
> breaking within 10 years).

And I saw a program about "freak waves". Apparently these occur with a 
frequency vastly higher than predicted by the standard model. (Standard 
model assumes a normal distribution, which means a wave of this size 
should happen once every few millennia.) Apparently some solution to the 
Schrowonakiarlumlum wave equation predicts this, but nobody noticed 
before. And now the redesign implications are quite staggering. Or 
something...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> And I saw a program about "freak waves". Apparently these occur with a 
> frequency vastly higher than predicted by the standard model. (Standard 
> model assumes a normal distribution, which means a wave of this size 
> should happen once every few millennia.) Apparently some solution to the 
> Schrowonakiarlumlum wave equation predicts this, but nobody noticed 
> before. And now the redesign implications are quite staggering. Or 
> something...

Yeh wouldn't surprise me.  Although I'm sure, as with most structural 
engineering, once you have calculated how strong to make something you just 
multiply it by 2 to be on the safe side :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> And I saw a program about "freak waves". Apparently these occur with a 
>> frequency vastly higher than predicted by the standard model. 
>> (Standard model assumes a normal distribution, which means a wave of 
>> this size should happen once every few millennia.) Apparently some 
>> solution to the Schrowonakiarlumlum wave equation predicts this, but 
>> nobody noticed before. And now the redesign implications are quite 
>> staggering. Or something...
> 
> Yeh wouldn't surprise me.  Although I'm sure, as with most structural 
> engineering, once you have calculated how strong to make something you 
> just multiply it by 2 to be on the safe side :-)

True.

OTOH, if you've expecting a maximum wave hight of X, you design to 
withstand 2X, and then suddenly a 12X have hits... hmm, Not Good(tm).

Oh, actually...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_wave

OK, so it's actually "nonlinear Schrödinger equation". I was nearly 
right! ;-)

PS. Don't you ever hit a point where it's not possible to design for 2x 
the maximum? Or do you just decide not to build the thing at all at this 
point?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:35:40 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:

>
>If you're designing some offshore structure then you need to be able to 
>estimate the loadings from the sea.  How do you do this?  Well you watch the 
>waves for a long time and come up with a statistical model.

Actually "wave counting" was our term for idly leaning on the hand rail looking
at the pretty patterns in the sea:)

>, and use 
>it to design the structure based on some criteria (eg 1% chance of breaking 
>within 10 years).
> 
OMG! I wouldn't want to be on one of your designs :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> PS. Don't you ever hit a point where it's not possible to design for 2x 
> the maximum? Or do you just decide not to build the thing at all at this 
> point?


It depends what you're building. Fighter jet? No. Passenger airplane? 
Yes. Skyscraper? Don't build it. Space station? Go for it.


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

> It depends what you're building.

I see...

> Fighter jet? No. Passenger airplane? Yes.

Hmm. That's deep.

> Skyscraper? Don't build it. Space station? Go for it.

LOL!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> True.
>
> OTOH, if you've expecting a maximum wave hight of X, you design to 
> withstand 2X, and then suddenly a 12X have hits... hmm, Not Good(tm).

It's impossible to design anything to be 100% sure of lasting a set time 
when it's being attacked by an essentially random force.  That's why you 
have models and can choose a chance of it being broken in its lifetime, eg 
0.1% over 10 years.  Of course that means there's a 0.1% chance of a >2X 
wave coming along in 10 years, but what else can you do?

> PS. Don't you ever hit a point where it's not possible to design for 2x 
> the maximum?

It's never impossible, just sometimes too costly or not practical.  Then you 
might do some more detailed simulations to bring the 2X figure down to 1.5X 
or something with a suitable level of confidence.  Or just think up a 
different way to solve the problem.  Usually it comes down to cost though.

Post a reply to this message

>> OTOH, if you've expecting a maximum wave hight of X, you design to 
>> withstand 2X, and then suddenly a 12X have hits... hmm, Not Good(tm).
> 
> It's impossible to design anything to be 100% sure of lasting a set time 
> when it's being attacked by an essentially random force.  That's why you 
> have models and can choose a chance of it being broken in its lifetime, 
> eg 0.1% over 10 years.  Of course that means there's a 0.1% chance of a 
>  >2X wave coming along in 10 years, but what else can you do?

My point being "what happens if the model says force X is the largest 
that's ever likely to occur, but it turns out the model is wrong and 
actually force 12X is fairly common"... Presumably that's a pretty bad 
thing?

>> PS. Don't you ever hit a point where it's not possible to design for 
>> 2x the maximum?
> 
> It's never impossible, just sometimes too costly or not practical.  Then 
> you might do some more detailed simulations to bring the 2X figure down 
> to 1.5X or something with a suitable level of confidence.  Or just think 
> up a different way to solve the problem.  Usually it comes down to cost 
> though.

OK. Cool.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> My point being "what happens if the model says force X is the largest 
> that's ever likely to occur, but it turns out the model is wrong and 
> actually force 12X is fairly common"...

For most things there are "standard models" that are used, and have been 
tried and tested for decades.  You *must* use these, by law.  Of course for 
weird things that aren't covered in law, you are free to make your own 
design decisions.  If you design something to withstand X, and 12X is 
"fairly common" you're going to be in *big* trouble when people are injured.

> Presumably that's a pretty bad thing?

Yes.  You could end up responsible for lots of people dying and face the 
consequences.

It's why we have such things as "Chartered Engineers", who have demonstrated 
competence in industry and not just graduated from any old university with a 
degree in structural Engineering.  Most structural Engineering firms will 
not employ any non-chartered Engineers to do anything important.

Post a reply to this message

OMG! One of the sheep designers is... Sylvie Gallet.

She's still out there...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> My point being "what happens if the model says force X is the largest 
>> that's ever likely to occur, but it turns out the model is wrong and 
>> actually force 12X is fairly common"...
> 
> For most things there are "standard models" that are used, and have been 
> tried and tested for decades.  You *must* use these, by law.  Of course 
> for weird things that aren't covered in law, you are free to make your 
> own design decisions.  If you design something to withstand X, and 12X 
> is "fairly common" you're going to be in *big* trouble when people are 
> injured.
> 
>> Presumably that's a pretty bad thing?
> 
> Yes.  You could end up responsible for lots of people dying and face the 
> consequences.
> 
> It's why we have such things as "Chartered Engineers", who have 
> demonstrated competence in industry and not just graduated from any old 
> university with a degree in structural Engineering.  Most structural 
> Engineering firms will not employ any non-chartered Engineers to do 
> anything important.

My point was that the standard wave model says that "12X happens once 
every few millennia", but now it turns out that actually it happens 
somewhere on Earth once every few weeks - and that's kind of worrying...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> My point was that the standard wave model says that "12X happens once 
> every few millennia", but now it turns out that actually it happens 
> somewhere on Earth once every few weeks - and that's kind of worrying...

Well sure, but I haven't yet heard of all the oil rigs and other off-shore 
structures being reinforced due to fears of the model used 20 years ago 
being incorrect by 3 orders of magnitude...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:28:53 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:

>> My point was that the standard wave model says that "12X happens once 
>> every few millennia", but now it turns out that actually it happens 
>> somewhere on Earth once every few weeks - and that's kind of worrying...
>
>Well sure, but I haven't yet heard of all the oil rigs and other off-shore 
>structures being reinforced due to fears of the model used 20 years ago 
>being incorrect by 3 orders of magnitude...
> 
From my knowledge of working on oil rigs and platforms. They were designed to
survive a 100 foot wave occasionally. Occasionally became every other year but
you are forgetting that in the summer when the weather is good, maintenance is
carried out and faults are repaired.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escribió:
> I'd actually prefer to run it as a stand-alone application rather than a 
> screen saver, but hey.

http://www.geocities.com/c00l_ac/SheepWatcher.html

Post a reply to this message