Recipe for Making Symetrical Holes in Water 174
scottZed writes "Danish researchers found a simple way to make curiously shaped air holes in a bucket of water. Simply rig the bucket to have a spinning plate at the bottom, and depending on the speed, you can get an ellipse, three-sided star, square, pentagon, or hexagon. The effect may help explain such shapes seen in atmospheric disturbances on Earth and other planets. One practical use: really trippy washing machines."
Re:Just a resonance? (Score:2, Informative)
- AC
Re:TFSummary says "Three-sided star..." (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Sloppy reporting. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:TFSummary says "Three-sided star..." (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Instability? (Score:4, Informative)
Chaos theory deals with systems where we can calculate effects on single objects in the system, and where these objects exhibit non-random patterns. You mentioned fractals already (although strictly speaking, that's defined as a complex system rather than a chaotic one), and population growth patterns are another.
Photos and video (Score:3, Informative)
http://dcwww.camp.dtu.dk/~tbohr/RotatingPolygon/ [camp.dtu.dk]
Re:Sloppy reporting. (Score:5, Informative)
Amen. I'm getting sick of people reading a
Popular media tends to mangle the crap out of stories in an effort to make it accessible to a wide variety of people. This is necessary for the sharing of information and the generation of public interest in scientific progress. If you're semi-intelligent and a particular story catches your eye, you should know enough to read between the lines a little bit. If you want to make any claims regarding validity, you need to find the original publications and make a slightly better assessment than a half-page web story can provide you with.
Re:Sloppy reporting. (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, this sort of thing doesn't work very well on a small portion of a system. Instead, computational fluid dynamics involves breaking the flow up into discrete elements, figuring out what each element should be doing (typically according to the equations used on larger or simpler systems), then figuring out how that effects the element next to it. Then you do the whole thing over again with new initial conditions defined by how all the elements effected each other. Then you do it once more. Then you keep doing it over and over until the difference between subsequent iterations gets small enough to make you happy (assuming you didn't screw up and it diverges). The ability to do this with a computer definitely opened new gateways for engineering with fluids, but it's still only an approximation, and there are some effects they have trouble figuring out. I don't think anyone can really appreciate the difficulty of some of the common problems like long-term or highly accurate weather or climate predictions until they've tried to solve a finite element problem involving just 4 elements (especially if you have complicating factors like heat transfer). Then you look up at the sky and multiply the difficulty by several billion or so.
A couple of my friends in school worked summer research projects with one of our physics professors looking at a related effect known as Stewartson layers (basically, the shear rate of a fluid isn't actually linear across a flow in which velocity changes with position, like we usually model it as...sometimes the flow forms in "sheets"). I don't know all the details, but like the effect in the article, this one isn't well understood.
Re:Just a resonance? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Sloppy reporting. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/irregular-v