 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
