 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I would have through elastic would mean the objects deformed, and
> inelastic would mean they didn't deform, but hey...
They both deform. The question is whether they spring back. If they didn't
deform, they wouldn't bounce. Think about it, visualizing it at a tiny scale.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:12:20 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Well, one of the things that always amused me was seeing cities shut
>> down down south because of a snow amount like what you got. The thing
>> is, all- weather tires on cars isn't common in the southern US AFAIK,
>> and the south tends not to have snow removal equipment. Couple that
>> with people who have never actually driven on anything worse than a
>> wet, oily road and put them on a skating rink....it can get more
>> dangerous than driving with experienced winter-weather drivers in Utah
>> on black ice.
>>
>> How much snow removal equipment is there in Milton Keynes?
>
> Well, since yesterday every single main road in the city has been
> gritted, and even some of the minor estate roads. It's still snowing
> right now, and yet there's no snow laying on any of the road surfaces
> yet except *right* outside my front door. That can't be too bad, eh?
Certainly not for you. :-)
> (Milton Keynes is arranged in a grid of roads, so saying that the main
> roads are gritted means that you can basically get between any two
> points in the city easily.)
That's interesting, because Salt Lake City is arranged on a grid as well.
> Many of the roads outside the city aren't so clear, but so far today I
> haven't seen anything that I'd remotely consider "dangerous". Now, if
> this lot melts and then freezes again over night, *then* we'll have a
> problem...
Yes, that would be a problem. I wonder if it had done that last night?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> For referense, *this* is "heavy snow":
> http://www.telenendaz.ch/documents/fond%20ecran/1024boardercross.jpg
That's not heavy snow. This is heavy snow:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wear/features/2004/12/images/weather_gallery/snow_in_canada_400x300.jpg
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> For referense, *this* is "heavy snow":
>
>> http://www.telenendaz.ch/documents/fond%20ecran/1024boardercross.jpg
>
> That's not heavy snow. This is heavy snow:
>
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wear/features/2004/12/images/weather_gallery/snow_in_canada_400x300.jpg
Hah, that's a still from 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', just before
the line "He had lots of guts!"
;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I would have through elastic would mean the objects deformed, and
>> inelastic would mean they didn't deform, but hey...
>
> They both deform. The question is whether they spring back. If they
> didn't deform, they wouldn't bounce. Think about it, visualizing it at a
> tiny scale.
Yes. I was saying, in a theoretical context, people often assume that
objects collide with no deformation, but presumably in the real world
this never actually happens...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> For referense, *this* is "heavy snow":
>
>> http://www.telenendaz.ch/documents/fond%20ecran/1024boardercross.jpg
>
> That's not heavy snow. This is heavy snow:
>
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wear/features/2004/12/images/weather_gallery/snow_in_canada_400x300.jpg
...point conceeded. Warp wins!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I wonder if you could somehow plot this on a circular graph with a
> 12-month cycle?
Anything's possible, but conclusions are left as an exercise for the reader.
(divisions are 5 degrees Celsius.)
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'mintemps.jpg' (182 KB)
Preview of image 'mintemps.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I wonder if you could somehow plot this on a circular graph with a
>> 12-month cycle?
>
> Anything's possible, but conclusions are left as an exercise for the reader.
> (divisions are 5 degrees Celsius.)
Dude, that's pretty freaking crazy! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> (divisions are 5 degrees Celsius.)
Oops, and blue is 1959, red is 2008.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yesterday my mum notified me of the "blizzard" outside. This consisted
> of approximately 3 tiny snowflakes barely visible to the naked eye.
>
To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee: "That's not a snow storm. THIS is a
snow storm!"
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2020/2318998403_8d35c71609_o.jpg
Taken on March 8, 2008, at 3pm. Notice how dark it was! It was the 6th
(and last!) snow storm of the winter, each dumping more than 30cm of snow.
The following pictures are as we dug ourselves out, the next day.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/3248690953_d3894342b9_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3249518750_dff6685631_b.jpg
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
