Weird water effect noticed

Sure looks like what you say. I have places too that have sagged since lat year, and I wasn't even hung up. What brand of water?

WS Realistic water for this scene.    For other areas, I’ve also used Liquitex glazing medium, it bubbled some, but didn’t droop like this.  Maybe I made the pour too thick.  Oh well, just have to remember it can happen I guess.

Heh heh heh,  Great idea! 

Actually, I think that the "water" looks more realistic with the "new" ripples.

Don't feel too put out about it.  Removal of centuries-old glass in cathedrals in Europe usually reveals that the lower areas have thickened and the upper areas have thinned, indicating that the glass is flowing downhill, slowly. 

Interesting about the stained glass.  Don’t figure I’ll do anything rash. 

Glass is actually a liquid...

palallin posted:

centuries-old glass... ...reveals that the lower areas have thickened and the upper areas have thinned, indicating that the glass is flowing downhill, slowly. 

You beat me to it... this has been observed stateside too.

Great, now Lionel/MTH have another problem.  Having to replace the dripping windows in all the cabs...  🤔 🤨 

I am sorry to report it, but the "glass flows downhill" thing is a myth:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-gl...-destroyed-496190894

Avanti posted:

I am sorry to report it, but the "glass flows downhill" thing is a myth:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-gl...-destroyed-496190894

Because gizmodo says so?  Sorry:  I'll take the word of my accomplished professors on the topic rather than an internet gadfly.

I first of all question the analogical use of amber rather than glass.  Further, there is no reason to suspect that medieval glazers installed "heavy-side down" as the pieces were often cut to fit a particular shape in the frame.   Further, the panes actually bulged above the frames but maintained their thickness inside the frames; moreover, the panes were thinner at the top that the frames allowed for, all suggesting the displacement of material.

The best the researchers cited by gizmodo can say is that their work presents a "challenge." 

They--and gizmodo--will have to do much better than that before they can demonstrate a myth.

That looks pretty cool. I think you've invented a new technique!

"Apply Scenic Water, cure in place for 2 months; hang layout with desired flow direction to the bottom, cure vertically for an additional 12-14 months..."

palallin posted:

Avanti posted:

I am sorry to report it, but the "glass flows downhill" thing is a myth:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-gl...-destroyed-496190894

Because gizmodo says so?  Sorry:  I'll take the word of my accomplished professors on the topic rather than an internet gadfly.

 

https://www.cmog.org/article/does-glass-flow

http://www.thefoa.org/tech/glass.htm

https://www.scientificamerican...iction-glass-liquid/

https://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html

https://www.livescience.com/32...ass-windows-sag.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/...ral/Glass/glass.html

Good enough?

Thanks Pete! That Scientific American article was particularly helpful to me. 

I will no longer expect my church's glass windows to flow out of their frames within the next 40 billion years, at least until the outdoor temps hit a couple thousand degrees.

Ted,

My first comment would be that the whole thing looks pretty nice and very realistic.

My second comment would be why are people discussing GLASS, when the product you used to make your water likely has very little to do with glass?

cheers,

Simon

Simon Winter posted:

Ted,

My first comment would be that the whole thing looks pretty nice and very realistic.

My second comment would be why are people discussing GLASS, when the product you used to make your water likely has very little to do with glass?

cheers,

Simon

Palallin put us up to it. Not his fault though - you never know what's gonna side track us on any given day

Avanti posted:

palallin posted:

Avanti posted:

I am sorry to report it, but the "glass flows downhill" thing is a myth:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-gl...-destroyed-496190894

Because gizmodo says so?  Sorry:  I'll take the word of my accomplished professors on the topic rather than an internet gadfly.

 

 

Good enough?

Not really.

First of all, I see no sign of peer-reviewed work.  Second, most of the attempts at explaining the consistent thickness at the bottom are at least as much speculation as the flow hypothesis.  Third, some of the examples, such as Roman glassware, aren't strictly relevant to the discussion of panes.  Fourth, some of these articles merely quote or cite one another.  Finally, some of the statements made in these articles, such as the shape of the cross-section of the actual panes, are incorrect, bringing the conclusions into question.

All of the information here is an attempt to make sense of an existential observation, but none can ever have the imprimatur of proof.  Nevertheless, there is no convincing reason (as the more honest among these writers admit) to say that any "myth" has been irrefutably "disproven."

In any case, we're so far off topic that I see no benefit to prolonging the discussion in this forum.

No harm done, I’m rather enjoying the discussion.  It really all started under a broader topic of “unexplained phenomena”.  So, until someone complains to the po-lice, have at it.    Scenery and stuctures oughta be a pretty “safe space”.

 🚂🚞🚞🚞

bobdavisnpf posted:

Thanks Pete! That Scientific American article was particularly helpful to me. 

Bob,

Glad to be helpful, or at least entertaining. Sorry I couldn't provide a peer-reviewed paper that disproves an urban legend.  

I do apologize for being lured off-topic. This will be my last post on this topic. Someone else is welcome to the last word.

--pete

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  --Carl Sagan

I suspect even a peer-reviewed paper wouldn't dissuade belief in the urban myth--think climate change! Now how's that for getting off topic?

I inherited my parents HUGE and ornate bedroom mirror.  It was their wedding gift from grandparents back in 1953. 

When I reassembled it to hang, the bottom half of the mirror was noticeably and measurably  thicker than the top half, proving that the glass was indeed moving over the course of time.  Needless to say, I hung 180 degrees out to, hopefully, even it out over the next 65 years.

Ponz 

rex desilets posted:

Glass is actually a liquid...

Yep