and so it ends...

it's all over, here.  but go here instead: thatsgross.wordpress.com.  like anyone ever came here anyway.  ta da!

and so it begins...

It's been a while since I've posted on this site, and the content I am quite removed from in urgency, but not interest.  However, I feel that since it serves as a priceless base from which to propel and online chronicle of some of my fleeting ideas, I'll leave them, leave the title, and proceed headstrong.  Additionally, this is the perfect method to blog without starting a new blog, since, then, what would I do with this one--retire it?  

Where is the funeral home for online content?  Proverbially "put" that in your proverbial "pipe" and proverbially "smoke" it.

Reading 2

I'm tired...but calculus works!

Reading 1

I know I'm the only one not taking the exam, so who knows what you guys all thought of the lecture. I think it's pretty sweet.

With that, let's dive right in. One question I had was just a clarification: is the point you're trying to make with the set-up right after the time=Eulerian that material=Lagrangian? What does this have to do with covariant derivatives and total derivatives we spoke about last quarter? I have some notions, but I'd rather bring up the point of confusion so that you can tell everyone the right answer without me telling everyone a wrong one first.

Interesting question at the end of the lecture. I don't want to give away the answer to people who haven't read it yet, though.

Reading 3.6

Ah, sweet. We didn't get to talk about this in Complex Variables (MATH 136) because...I didn't go to class that day. Anyway, this is a really sweet thing to do, map your function (or space) to a function (or space) that is easy, and then you get something that is still meaningful (or now has meaning).

This is the kind of question that I hate seeing asked in a course like this where it's not the topic, but what kind of analysis can you do on vortex streets if they are not satisfying Laplace's equation on the interesting side? Do you have to do numerical simulations to find out anything or is there some neat simplification you can do to the N-V equations in order to glean interesting properties like the period, size, or velocity?

Reading 3.4-3.5

Sweet and Double Sweet.

Finally, we REALLY know what the Reynolds number is! I did not know this day would come! I now know what it would feel like to be free.

Also, boundary layers--how awesome are those? I can't get enough of this. Maybe that's because I can sit back and relax and don't have to worry about the homework, but it seems that all of you are enjoying this too. You should, it's pretty awesome.

Reading 3.2-3.3

Wow. That was sweet. I'm not sure that I have any questions past what has already been written about on the cmfd planet.

I'm just in awe about vorticity. My favorite thing was vortex rings when I was studying dynamical systems: I thought that I could narrow down their creation to be dependent on a few parameters of the vortex ring generator and then discuss their stability with regard to that parameter space. We couldn't. It was hard.

However, I never quite thought about how the vorticity was closing up on itself in a loop, rather than one long thread. If that had been one long thread, where would it have stopped? I don't know what I would have said to that question had I asked it then, but seeing the true result proved in the reading here was awesome.

Also, that shear waves exist but just are too silly to be seen was pretty neat too.

Reading 3.1

For all that talk, I kind of miss elastics already. It was really powerful to see the parabolic profile immediately (sort of) fall out of (sort of) our new equations. However, symmetries and elastic coefficients seem so far behind us, already. ;-(

Reading 2.12

This was really exciting reading, to me. I was really startled in class when Prof. Lyzenga suggested that complex wave-vectors would yield physically meaningful waves that we were missing with just our P- and S-waves. I have to admit that I was just as startled once everything worked out with the algebra.

Other than that, I consider this reading a real treat in terms of a nifty mathematical treatment of a problem of physical interest. My last thought, then, is in line with Andrew's question:

- Is there a way to exhaust the solutions to our equations for elastic medium? I have heard the terms inverse scattering and integrable thrown around with regard to systems to which we know everything...is this or some simplified version one of them? It seems that even if they are a simpler version, that they can afford the Navier-Stokes equations means that it should probably be more difficult than integrable.