Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #533385 > unrolled thread

Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 22:30 +0000
    Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-15 16:34 -0600
      Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:08 -0800
        Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-16 14:22 -0600
    Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 23:00 +0000
      Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 23:15 +0000
        Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 23:25 +0000
    Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 23:45 +0000
      Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 00:00 +0000
      Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 16:12 -0800
        Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-16 00:27 +0000
          Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 16:45 -0800
            Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-16 00:54 +0000
              Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:01 -0800
              Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:16 -0800
          Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 01:29 +0000
    Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 16:48 -0800
      Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:29 -0800
        Re: Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 14:42 -0800

#533385 — Flow Scaling Problem/Riddle

Hollywood often uses scaled down models to simulate real flow
situations such as forest fires, volcanoes, ocean tempests, etc.

Can these simulations be easily detected by the human eye
as fakes?  If so, how?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#533388

On 11/15/2015 4:30 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> Hollywood often uses scaled down models to simulate real flow
> situations such as forest fires, volcanoes, ocean tempests, etc.
>
> Can these simulations be easily detected by the human eye
> as fakes?  If so, how?
>

watch the first Godzilla movie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533430

There are constants; Gravity, the size
of an atom. These constants affect
things like surface tension.
Perceptible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533589

On 11/15/2015 7:08 PM, john wrote:
> There are constants; Gravity, the size
> of an atom. These constants affect
> things like surface tension.
> Perceptible.
>

Godzilla was huge in some scenes, bad ass, and in some other scenes 
seemed like a man in a rubber suit jumping up and down in a set of 4 
foot high toy buildings.   must have been gravity, how could such a 
heavy Godzilla jump up so fast ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533398

Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> Hollywood often uses scaled down models to simulate real flow
> situations such as forest fires, volcanoes, ocean tempests, etc.
> 
> Can these simulations be easily detected by the human eye
> as fakes?  If so, how?
 
That depends on just how good the special effects guy is.

And these days it is more and more common to use CGI techniques rather
than models for background stuff.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533402

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 23:00:54 +0000, jimp wrote:

>  
> That depends on just how good the special effects guy is.
> 

No, it does not.  It depends on fundamental physics.

>
> And these days it is more and more common to use CGI techniques rather
>than models for background stuff.
>

That may be true but it is not relevant to the issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533409

Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 23:00:54 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>>  
>> That depends on just how good the special effects guy is.
>> 
> 
> No, it does not.  It depends on fundamental physics.

Yeah, right.

So the special effects in the 1933, 1976, and 2005 versions of King
Kong are all different because the fundamental physics changed?



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533411

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:30:49 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote:

> Hollywood often uses scaled down models to simulate real flow
> situations such as forest fires, volcanoes, ocean tempests, etc.
> 
> Can these simulations be easily detected by the human eye
> as fakes?  If so, how?
>

The answer has to do with turbulence.

Flows such a volcano or a billowing smoke stack are necessarily
turbulent and will manifest an "infinite" cascade of eddy currents
from the very large to the very small.

A small scale model of the above, however, will only manifest the
larger eddy currents.  The smaller eddies will be absent.  The
difference in the visible flow appearance should be quite plain
to the eye.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533413

Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:30:49 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote:
> 
>> Hollywood often uses scaled down models to simulate real flow
>> situations such as forest fires, volcanoes, ocean tempests, etc.
>> 
>> Can these simulations be easily detected by the human eye
>> as fakes?  If so, how?
>>
> 
> The answer has to do with turbulence.
> 
> Flows such a volcano or a billowing smoke stack are necessarily
> turbulent and will manifest an "infinite" cascade of eddy currents
> from the very large to the very small.
> 
> A small scale model of the above, however, will only manifest the
> larger eddy currents.  The smaller eddies will be absent.  The
> difference in the visible flow appearance should be quite plain
> to the eye.
 
I'll try that the next time I watch an old, old, movie made when 
models were still used for such effects.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533414

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 6:43:45 PM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:30:49 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote:
> 
> > Hollywood often uses scaled down models to simulate real flow
> > situations such as forest fires, volcanoes, ocean tempests, etc.
> > 
> > Can these simulations be easily detected by the human eye
> > as fakes?  If so, how?
> >
> 
> The answer has to do with turbulence.
> 
> Flows such a volcano or a billowing smoke stack are necessarily
> turbulent and will manifest an "infinite" cascade of eddy currents
> from the very large to the very small.
> 
> A small scale model of the above, however, will only manifest the
> larger eddy currents.  The smaller eddies will be absent.  The
> difference in the visible flow appearance should be quite plain
> to the eye.

Try Open Source CGI SW tool Blender for rendering physics animations.
https://www.blender.org for the executable, and the WWW has examples.

-- Mahipal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533419

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:12:03 -0800, Mahipal wrote:

> 
> Try Open Source CGI SW tool Blender for rendering physics animations.
> https://www.blender.org for the executable, and the WWW has examples.
> 

It's sickening to see all that time, money, and talent being used
to feed the giant Hollywood fantasy machines.

What's with these people?  Don't they dream enough during sleep
that they have to carry their hallucinatory fervor into their
waking hours?

Hollywood and Disneyland should be banned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533422

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 7:29:21 PM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:12:03 -0800, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Try Open Source CGI SW tool Blender for rendering physics animations.
> > https://www.blender.org for the executable, and the WWW has examples.
> > 
> It's sickening to see all that time, money, and talent being used
> to feed the giant Hollywood fantasy machines.

Look at the tool for deeper than just its skin. I played with it for a
couple of months, only to realize it's not what I needed. Still, a
very nice tool, with like 54321 buttons for clicking! He he...

> What's with these people?  Don't they dream enough during sleep
> that they have to carry their hallucinatory fervor into their
> waking hours?

One can modify/customize its functionality via Python scripts. 

> Hollywood and Disneyland should be banned.

I enjoy old flicks, mostly none of them are animations.
Today I rewatched Some Like It Hot (1959), quite entertaining.

-- Mahipal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533424

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:45:27 -0800, Mahipal wrote:

> 
> I enjoy old flicks, mostly none of them are animations.
> Today I rewatched Some Like It Hot (1959), quite entertaining.
> 

Hours are like diamonds, Mahipal, don't let them waste.

But you do let them waste, and you'll never get them back.
On your death bed you'll cry and moan and wail to retrieve
just a few from that squandered lot, but to no avail.

You are a fool, and you are within an ocean of same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533426

Better to recharge frequently and last
forever than go until you burn out

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533434

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 7:53:54 PM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:45:27 -0800, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> > I enjoy old flicks, mostly none of them are animations.
> > Today I rewatched Some Like It Hot (1959), quite entertaining.
> > 
> Hours are like diamonds, Mahipal, don't let them waste.

I was multitasking, Tony Curtis was merely playing with Marilyn Monroe
in my audio background. Besides, diamonds like dames -- blonde or
otherwise -- are a dime a dozen. Time is nothing like diamonds.

> But you do let them waste, and you'll never get them back.
> On your death bed you'll cry and moan and wail to retrieve
> just a few from that squandered lot, but to no avail.
> 
> You are a fool, and you are within an ocean of same.

Very poetic. It's quite clear to me that most, not all, other humans
would go out of their way, take the non-scenic route just to see me, a
fool in their minds, to fail. What am I going to do, disappoint them?!

-- Mahipal “IPMM: https://mahipal7638.wordpress.com”
“We search our Earth
And her limitless skies
All the while discovering
In our hearts and minds
Is where heaven lies” -- Mahipal, pronounced DanSingℎ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533438

Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 16:12:03 -0800, Mahipal wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Try Open Source CGI SW tool Blender for rendering physics animations.
>> https://www.blender.org for the executable, and the WWW has examples.
>> 
> 
> It's sickening to see all that time, money, and talent being used
> to feed the giant Hollywood fantasy machines.

Oh boo hoo; sounds like sour grapes to me.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533423

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:31:34 PM UTC-8, Fabian Russell wrote:
> Hollywood often uses scaled down models to simulate real flow
> situations such as forest fires, volcanoes, ocean tempests, etc.
> 
> Can these simulations be easily detected by the human eye
> as fakes?  If so, how?

  Reynolds number doesn't scale well. Water is usually a big giveaway. The motions of e. g. model ships are usually filmed at higher speed than normal, and played back slower to make the water splash and roil convincingly.

  Similar for fire, volcanic smoke and lava, landslides, and so on.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533619

e to eeth power; yeah

>   Reynolds number doesn't scale well. Water is usually a big giveaway. The motions of e. g. model ships are usually filmed at higher speed than normal, and played back slower to make the water splash and roil convincingly.
> 
>   Similar for fire, volcanic smoke and lava, landslides, and so on.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533645

Haha.
I am reminded of the astronauts
jumping and continuing up as the
sand off their boots falls immediately.
That always looked weird to me

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web