Slashdot Mirror


Stone Skipping the Scientific Way

Quirk writes "National Geographic has a bit on the scientific analysis of stone skipping. Using a machine launching aluminum disks Lyderic Bocquet, a physics professor at the University of Lyon, and his colleagues discovered the 'magic angle' of 20 degrees as that required to maximize skipping. 'Jerdone Coleman McGhee of Wimberley, Texas, holds the current Guinness Book of World Records title for a 1992 toss that yielded an impressive 38 bounces across the Blanco River in central Texas'"

209 comments

  1. Next up: by paul248 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Loogie Hocking.

    1. Re:Next up: by l810c · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I had a friend that used to see how high he could hock loogies into the air and then catch them with his mouth.

      It grossed me out then and 20+ years later it still grosses me out. Just thought I'd share :)

  2. Well, now we know by falconed · · Score: 3, Funny

    what they'll be doing at the next foo camp ;)

    --
    USE='clever' emerge -u sig
    1. Re:Well, now we know by mroch · · Score: 1

      No, it'll have to be at bar camp

  3. Just wondering . . . by millisa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am horrible at skipping stones, but the best I ever got was on lake oneida up in NY right before it froze over (I think it was like 10 skips; yeah, I suck). I wonder how much the other type of degrees (temperature) effects things . . . physics/chem geek want to wax eloquent?

    1. Re:Just wondering . . . by paul248 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hear it's a lot easier after the lake freezes over.

    2. Re:Just wondering . . . by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      ...but the best I ever got was on lake oneida up in NY right before it froze over

      Surely, once the lake had frozen the number of skips would have been large? Aren't ice/stone impacts pretty elastic (assuming no chips or instantaneous melting)?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    3. Re:Just wondering . . . by Senator_B · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the water would have been most dense (in its liquid form) right before it freezes. It would make sense that this would lead to easier bouncing, but I haven't read the article yet. It could be explained there.

    4. Re:Just wondering . . . by uberdave · · Score: 3, Informative
    5. Re:Just wondering . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or snow, or imperfections made by wind on the water, or warping for other reasons.

      Even if it worked that would be cheating :)

    6. Re:Just wondering . . . by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Funny

      or snow, or imperfections made by wind on the water, or warping for other reasons.

      Yes, yes, yes, but if we just assume a spherical Lake Oneida in free space, then...

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    7. Re:Just wondering . . . by bobsalt · · Score: 1

      wow! talk about a blast from the past...you saying that reminds me of my childhood from the 70's. The image of the pond next to our house with a so much crap sitting out on it that we had thrown out there. and then the way the ice would melt around all the shit we left out there...

    8. Re:Just wondering . . . by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Dude, I grew up in Carmel! Spent many an evening looking down on Oneida from the hill my house was on (Leaside Rd). Spent many a day skipping stones on Lake Gilead, not terribly far away (as the crow flies). My record: 23 :P Though, that was in Goshen, VA.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    9. Re:Just wondering . . . by rilister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Empirical science rules - I was explaining to a friend who'd never skipped stones how to hold and throw them, from, I guess, 18 years of experience.

      And if I picture how I hold the stone, I'll bet it's pretty much exactly 20degrees, with as much spin as possible. Probably what my old da' showed me. The human brain amazes me.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    10. Re:Just wondering . . . by peragrin · · Score: 1
      the oneida lake he is refering to can be seen on any map of NY. It is the big one right dead center of the State. Roughly 3 miles wide, and 20 miles long. IF a winter is cold enough (and most are) the whole thing freezes over to the point where snowmoblier's have a good time. Of course it is -1 there at the moment but that doesn't count does it??

      My best skip is 15 hops, on a summer day, in the Thousand Islands.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Just wondering . . . by istartedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if the lake is small, and the ice is thin, it makes some interesting noises. I usually look forward to doing this once or twice a winter on Lake Accotink, which is actually a former reservoir. The noises are kindof like a cross between the guy-wire hitting sound used to make Star Wars laser noises and the "plip" from those old coffee commercials. YMMV.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    12. Re:Just wondering . . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      mmm ... but does it become more viscous, leading to increased drag?

      Perhaps we will never know. About stones.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Just wondering . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's this C thing?

      P.S. Ah'm a nermerken.

    14. Re:Just wondering . . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      with as much spin as possible.
      Too much spin causes assymetric lift, and hence your stone flips over.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. mass versus skip number by potpie · · Score: 5, Funny

    What we should REALLY be trying to figure out is how to skip more massive stones. That's the next step.

    This one time, me and some people were skipping stones *hardcore* style. We got the biggest flat rocks we could lift and tried to spin them. Usually they just glided, but sometimes they would skip fairly high.

    Of course, once the government got hold of this technology, they would put it to use bombing Iraq.

    --
    Esoteric reference.
    1. Re:mass versus skip number by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or use it to take out a dam or something...

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    2. Re:mass versus skip number by inode_buddha · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, I *have* skipped bricks on the Niagara river (living a few minutes from the Falls). To answer the previous poster about what the variables might be, just IMHO:

      1. Angle of attack
      2. area of rock surface
      3. rate of spin
      4. velocity
      5. flatness of surface

      Somehow these all interract; for example, its difficult for me to skip a stone below a certain weight/area.

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:mass versus skip number by lgbarker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some serious skipping was done during World War II. From http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons4.html ".... In dropping bombs, the bombardier should allow for at least a 60 ft.. bounce and skip ..."

    4. Re:mass versus skip number by shaitand · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who knows, they might even use it to land a rover on mars.

    5. Re:mass versus skip number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we should REALLY be trying to figure out is how to skip more massive stones.

      No, because then GWB would invade, looking for "Weapons of Mass Skipping".

    6. Re:mass versus skip number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once I when I was like 12-14 I bet my Grandma 5 bucks that I could skip a massive concrete chunk that I could barely pick up.

      I flung it with both hands while spinning, nearly fell into the lake myself. But it skipped. Once.

      Went sort of kaplunk, bounced up out of the water and landed back with a bigger splash. I was proud of myself.

      Never got the 5 bucks though. >:| Damn cheapskate grandmas.

    7. Re:mass versus skip number by Ack_OZ · · Score: 1
    8. Re:mass versus skip number by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a lot of military research on skipping bombs, see PBS

    9. Re:mass versus skip number by dunee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, once the government got hold of this technology, they would put it to use bombing Iraq.

      Actually, that's been already done. Not in this war, and surprisingly, it did not involve Iraq (though bonus points will be awarded for proving there is a link after all).

      The bombing method the Dambusters used during WW2 employed a similar principle of skipping stones.

    10. Re:mass versus skip number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who do not realize, he refers to the Dam Busters from world war 2, immortalized in THE DAM BUSTERS (duh), which is exactly what they did... skip bombs across the water to blow up dams. Great movie, if not exactly true (what war movie is).

    11. Re:mass versus skip number by Dylan2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wish I had Mod points, cause that was funny. For all mods who didn't understand or who are reading at +2 please click and read about the British scientist who created a bomb which skiped along the water surface, impacted the wall of a dam, rolled down to the wall's base and then exploded, destroying an important German manufacturing area in WWII.

      Great film, but also some awesome science.

      --
      Build your own website - full service homepage system your m
    12. Re:mass versus skip number by jmb_no · · Score: 1

      The brits did something like this during the second world war (google for "bouncing bomb").

      One rather short story here:

      http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2001/moorcr af t/The%20Bouncing%20Bomb.htm

      The Discovery Channel aired an interesting program about this (I think it was called "Dambusters"). One of the problems they had to solve was avoiding damage to the plane from the bombs first splash.

    13. Re:mass versus skip number by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      Great film, but also some awesome science.

      And a film you don't often see on the tube without some editing. A frequently-appearing character in it is the squadron commander's black Labrador, whose name didn't cause any problem in a wartime British film but would not go over well on USAn TV today..

      rj

    14. Re:mass versus skip number by xmedar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was Barnes Wallace who invented the Bouncing Bomb used against the German dams, though as the film makes clear he borrowed it from Horatio Nelson who used to bounce cannonballs off the water to get a more devestating impact against a target, as is made clear in the film, Barnes was a complete ubergeek, which is best summed up by an exchange in which a military man sat behind a desk asks him how he intends to get hold of a Wellington bomber to test his theory to which he replies "I'll tell them I designed it".

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    15. Re:mass versus skip number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love google....

    16. Re:mass versus skip number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love Google...

  5. Personally by maelstrom · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think this is much more about bored scientists.

    --
    The more you know, the less you understand.
    1. Re:Personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It may be offtopic but its also interesting!

      Mod this guy up.

  6. Umm why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do a scientific analysis of something when you ignore the #1 variable: The Stone.

    1. Re:Umm why? by momerath2003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pay attention, and RTFA:

      Using the machine, which launches aluminum discs across a pool of water, the researchers arrived at the "magic angle" of 20 degrees.

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    2. Re:Umm why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...consider a spherical cow...

    3. Re:Umm why? by use_compress · · Score: 1

      From my experience, you would want things that are denser than aluminum to be used to skip stones-- they retain more energy as they skip through the water.

    4. Re:Umm why? by yintercept · · Score: 2, Funny

      Assume a perfectly round stone on a flat earth...

    5. Re:Umm why? by IM6100 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently it was a low budget operation. To do it right, they should have been shaped marble stones. Precision machined, anb with flatness measured on a granite surface plate, of course, to keep the people obsessed with making measurements happy.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    6. Re:Umm why? by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      Humm...

      Sounds like the punch line from a variant of an old physics joke. The punch line that I'm familiar with is

      "First, assume a spherical chicken."

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    7. Re:Umm why? by xpccx · · Score: 1

      It seems rather obvious that the AC did RTFA. As you even pointed out, they used aluminum discs, not stones. There's no mention of how well their discs approximate a stone in weight/shape etc.

    8. Re:Umm why? by Atrahasis · · Score: 1

      Or, they could have just used the same stone each time.

    9. Re:Umm why? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      [Colonel Sanders pops out of his grave and goes, "WTF?!" - then goes back to spinning]

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    10. Re:Umm why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would they recover the stone?

    11. Re:Umm why? by Atrahasis · · Score: 1

      Well, they could perform the experiment in a pool rather than a lake.

  7. wow ! by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Title of the article : 'Stone Skipping Gets Scientific'

    Can the one who asked for this please step forward, so we can publicly shoot him, and don't let any more money be spent on 'skipping stones'.

    If we _do_ plan on wasting money, then at least do a 'Icecream Eating Gets Scientific' : Im first in line to some testing for that !

    1. Re:wow ! by itsari · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole point of scienctific research is to find new technologies and (maybe) a use for them. You never know how this research could effect the world. Wakeboarding and surfing come to mind, as well as applications with the slashdown of spacecraft. Who knows?

    2. Re:wow ! by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in 20 years, instead of flying across the atlantic or the pacific, they might just stick you into an oversized skeet and you'll skip across it.

      Actualy, wouldn't be a bad idea. Pretty much no fuel expediture other than the initial toss. The only trouble is the landing....

      --
      stuff
    3. Re:wow ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actualy, wouldn't be a bad idea. Pretty much no fuel expediture other than the initial toss. The only trouble is the landing....
      And being extremely dizzy on landing (hic) ... but then as a BA piliot I'm used to that...
  8. Did NSF fund this? by spanklin · · Score: 1

    If so, I can see this being cited sometime down the road by a politician as a bad use of tax funds, a la studying the effects of cow emissions on global warming. Personally, I'd still rather see my tax dollars go to perfecting stone skipping instead of some congressman's son's highway construction company.

    1. Re:Did NSF fund this? by KrispyKringle · · Score: 2, Informative

      I doubt it. It was done by some French scientists. So I doubt your congressman should care.

    2. Re:Did NSF fund this? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Then clearly it is a good thing since it takes funding away from blowing up South Pacific islands in the name of science.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    3. Re:Did NSF fund this? by echucker · · Score: 1

      OK... So this should be called Freedom Skipping then! ;-)

  9. oh poo by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

    I suppose this kind of research fall under 'basic science'?

  10. once again by the-build-chicken · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...good to see tax payer/student dollars at work

    1. Re:once again by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1

      Or as they say on fark, ``still no cure for cancer.''

    2. Re:once again by perplexo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I agree to a certain extent... But isn't it the goal of science to learn more about the laws that govern the environment/world/planet/universe/what-have-you that surrounds us?

      Yes, it's kind of trivial. But there's some value in every bit of knowledge humans gain, no matter how small.

    3. Re:once again by johannesg · · Score: 1

      How do you suppose NASA ever decided on the correct reentry angle for spacecraft? That's right...

    4. Re:once again by arth1 · · Score: 1
      ...good to see tax payer/student dollars at work

      This is *exactly* the kind of science that your tax dollars are best spent on. Many if not most major discoveries arise out of scientific playfulness, and are not as often accompanied by a cry of "Eureka!" as "this is funny..."

      Studies like "higher crop yields through controlling water salinity" might give a few people some more dollars, but is highly unlikely to lead to any major scientific discovery. I'd rather see playful experiments like this and the occasional big scientific discovery or breakthrough, even if ninety-nine out of a hundred experiments are of little or no value.

      That said, this experiment should be possible to do on a computer, and even come up with some good formulas that can be used to pinpoint the exact degree, based on factors like density, gravity, friction (air as well as water), wetting, gyroscopic forces (spin) and other factors. I'm sure it has LOTS of practical applications, including both military (dam busters) and industrial (food processing -- perhaps you can *skip* instead of *dip*), or even minimise the impact when landing Beagle 3.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    5. Re:once again by istartedi · · Score: 1

      And to further elaborate on this, a space-plane based on this technique was in the early planning stages in the 60s. Based on what they learned from the X-15 and other projects, it was designed to achieve suborbital flight by skipping off the atmosphere. Google for the unfortunately named "dynasoar" and/or "dynamic soaring". AFAIK, the only relic that survives is a small model in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum in downtown DC. The Dynasoar program was canceled because expendable boosters were the best way to beat the Russians...

      ...sigh... probably the most expensive and long-term cost intensive "quick hack to make a deadline" ever. Instead of building up a knowledge base associated with reusable vehicles, we played around with expendable, then went back to reusable in "one big step" instead of the incremental changes that should have occured. Disaster both ways. No manned US expendable program, and a US reusable program that tried to do too much all at once.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  11. To all the Minnesota geeks by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Informative
    and others who visit, if you are into stone skipping, Lake Superior is the place to go.

    Zillions of years of waves busting up the tough rocks has polished them all smooth and flat. This makes for some of the best skipping stones ever. We're talking about an endless supply here.

    Some of the piles I've seen reach 3 to 4 feet in height and run for hundreds of yards down the beach; all made up of beautiful rocks. If you're lucky you can find some other nifty stuff like beach glass or driftwood. And not so nifty stuff, like dead fish and RIAA jackets.

    1. Re:To all the Minnesota geeks by ndinsil · · Score: 1

      Also it should be pointed out the lake itself is scheduled to be smooth at 5:00 - 5:15 am February 17th this year, so reserve your spot on the shore early!

      Seriously, it's the only lake I've heard of that can be regularly surfed.

    2. Re:To all the Minnesota geeks by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 1

      Look like that lake of yours is gonna feel the Slashdot effect.

      Of course, it's a big enough server (surfer?) so it should be able to handle it.

      --
      Yup...
  12. Well that's all fine and dandy... by PoitNarf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that a human can skip one 38 times, but there is no mention on how many times the machine they built was able to do it. Just watch, this is gonna lead to some wacky robotics competition where teams try to construct different robotic launchers to see which can skip more times or longer distance.

    --

    "0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
    1. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by l810c · · Score: 1
      I was feeling jipped at the end of the article too.

      In the near future, Bocquet said he and his colleagues hope to attempt the world record with their machine, testing the equations and theory of what's required to achieve the maximum number of bounces.

      Come on! In the near future?!? How many damn skips did the freakin' robot get? They mention the record twice in the article. The least they coudl have done is said 'the robot is getting 18-20 Skips right now, but once we tune it up we hope to have s shot at the record'

    2. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by Darken_Everseek · · Score: 1

      Nah, the article said they'd already come up with the optimum angle and velocity .. using uniform disks, it's wouldn't take long for a contest to degenerate into an exercise in probability.

    3. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live near a river (100 yards away) and grew up here. Personally the 38 skip record sounds weird to me since you can skip a small one many more times than that with the near flat angle of entry & make the skips about 1" apart. I've never counted but I would estimate over 50 from the continuous stream of splashes as it skims the water.

      Now here is the kicker. If it's on a river the water isn't perfectly flat. I wonder if their "magic angle" took wave size into account? You really have to get a higher angle to keep it from diving into waves if necessary. No I didn't RTFA. It was /.ed.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    4. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      If they're right.

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    5. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      Just watch, this is gonna lead to some wacky robotics competition where teams try to construct different robotic launchers to see which can skip more times or longer distance.


      ...And then those robot disc launcher will be made into backpack units that can behead an enemy combatant at 500 yards.

    6. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was feeling jipped at the end of the article too.


      Glad I wasn't the only one... I was literally searching for a link to the next page for like a minute or so...

      Having been bombarded with (reruns of) the dambusters episodes on NGC lately, I was kinda interested in more of this.
    7. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Just wait until all those guys who build pumpkin guns get involved in this!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by XNormal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now here is the kicker. If it's on a river the water isn't perfectly flat.

      It depends on the amplitude of the waves. On each skip a random angle added or subtracted from the ideal 20 degrees. If this minimum of energy loss per skip around 20 degrees is relatively symmetrical you should still get the optimum at 20 degrees. For really high wave amplitudes you might hit the water at an angle that is too sharp and not skip at all so in those cases a shallower angle may be preferred.

      Personally the 38 skip record sounds weird to me... ... I've never counted...

      Consider the possibilty that your estimate is incorrect. Even 25 skips looks like "a lot".

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    9. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Consider the possibilty that your estimate is incorrect. Even 25 skips looks like "a lot".

      Not if you count little tiny skips. I've also seen what he is talking about. A small stone will sometimes skip on the water like a rubber ball bouncing to a finish. You know how if you drop a rubber ball at the end it's bouncing so fast you can hear the pitch of the bounces more than you can count them. Skipped stones can do the same thing on very still water.

    10. Re:Well that's all fine and dandy... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Launchers? No no no... we'll be skipping the robots next. Perhaps we can develop self-powered skipping robots that, once initially thrown, will continue indefinitely. They may even be steerable. How that's for a competition?

  13. Just what I expected... by Code-Ex · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...geeks bringing a stone skipping machine to tweak and experiment with while they go camping with their Wi-Fi gear. Can't we have a normal camping trip? =)

    1. Re:Just what I expected... by rekkanoryo · · Score: 1

      What's the fun in normal? We are geeks, after all.

  14. Awwww by NiTr|c · · Score: 3, Funny

    My innocent childhood hobby has been ruined with the introduction of science and actual calculations! Not to mention that I've only ever been able to get like five skips. *runs to hide*

    --
    Try actually thinking for yourself. It's quite refreshing.
  15. All about salt water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You centrally located people haven't experienced stone skipping until you have been to the ocean. Easy to get 15-20 skips in a calm inlet. Dense salt water makes it that much easier.

    I'm sure at the dead sea you could really make 'em go.

    1. Re:All about salt water by ahecht · · Score: 1

      I tried it, but I was only able to get 3 or 4 skips (although the fact that it was 115 degrees out and I was suffering from heatstroke might've had something to do with it).

  16. World Record is Wrong by use_compress · · Score: 1

    I have witnessed a guy in MINNEHAHA SPRINGS, WVA skip a stone over fifty times. It was on a man made lake with a bank that contained many large peices of slate which were ideal for skipping. When watching him skiped, I noticed that he threw the stones with a slight curve.

    1. Re: World Record is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the world record is right as far as guinness is concerned, for nearly all of their records a guinness judge was onhand

    2. Re: World Record is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 words: bull shit.

    3. Re: World Record is Wrong by fiftyfly · · Score: 1
      I have witnessed a guy in MINNEHAHA SPRINGS, WVA skip a stone over fifty times. It was on a man made lake with a bank that contained many large peices of slate which were ideal for skipping. When watching him skiped, I noticed that he threw the stones with a slight curve.

      Hmmm, just out of curiosity how do you know 'over fifty time'? I mean, thinking about it, given a 'skip time' of, say, 3 seconds that a bounce every 0.06 seconds. Even a rather optomistic 15 seconds gives a skip every 3 tenths. How on earth did you count them?

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    4. Re: World Record is Wrong by use_compress · · Score: 1

      We had seen one of his videotapes and could reasonably guess that it the stone skipped over fifty times. In these kind of skips, the stone will skip something like 12 times in what looks kind of like a skid, after each skid, the stone files up again and repeats the skidding process. This happened five times to the stone, with each skid shorter than the last. In other words, all of the skips do not take nearly the same amount of time, some are extremely short and fast while other are more familiar, longer skips.

    5. Re: World Record is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for nearly all of their records a guinness judge was onhand

      actually, i believe it's for nearly all their records the judge had a guinness in hand.

  17. careful, those edges could be sharp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sliced my finger open skipping slate pieces
    across the water once. I had a half dozen nice
    slices in it because they were so sharp, it didn't
    really hurt right away, and I was trying to get a
    nice fast spin on them to skip more.

    ouch.

  18. Know of Trebuchet for skipping massive discs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would come in handy to trim the dorsal fins off of all those mean, nasty 'killer' whales savagely tearing cute cuddley seal lion pups to death!

  19. Proving yet again.... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that some people have entirely too much time on their hands. :)

    1. Re:Proving yet again.... by CodeMunch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't entirely uselsss. "skipping stones" was the tech behind the bouncing bombs in WWII that the Allies used to destroy German dams to deprive their industry of water. A couple weeks ago there was a great documentary about it on t.v. but i can't find a link - wuz on discovery or history channel i think - might have been one of those "dangerous jobs" shows. The bombs would bounce across the water & timed so that they would sink when they got up close to the dam and then detonate deep under water against the structure. Unfortunately, my words do not do the program justice.

  20. No pictures, movie by young_hacker_1991 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I was disappointed by the lack of pictures in the article, so I went hunting at one of the researchers' sites. Couldn't find the stone skipping machine, but I found a cool movie of a skipping stone. My dad and I used to do this stuff up in Michigan, it's nice to learn the physics behind it!

  21. A well researched problem already? by wrmrxxx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article suggests that this is the first time this type of problem has been scientifically studied. As far as I know this kind of problem has been very thoroughly studied for aerospace purposes: a planet's atmosphere is the pond, and a spacecraft is the stone. A google search for 'skip trajectory' shows up lots of serious research.

    1. Re:A well researched problem already? by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      And what's the optimal spin for a spaceship? Don't the astronauts get dizzy?

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    2. Re:A well researched problem already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skipping stones is childsplay. Try it from an airplane with a bomb. Now thats impressive.

    3. Re:A well researched problem already? by antin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surely they had to do similar research during WW-II when they used the bouncing bomb to blow up the dams? That would date back 60 years or so now.

      For anyone who doesn't know what I am talking about, I highly recommend the movie 'The Dam Busters' (although I cannot vouch for its accuracy).

    4. Re:A well researched problem already? by jim3e8 · · Score: 1

      This article indicates the research that went into the creation of the Dam Buster skipping bombs is still classified by the British military.

  22. Original Paper by otisaardvark · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0210015

    Warning: not for the faint-hearted!

    1. Re:Original Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Warning: not for the faint-hearted!


      That warning isn't nearly enough! If you'd said:

      If you read this article then your brainbuffer will overflow so fast that you will howl with lupine rage, then go on a bloodthirsty cannibalfest in $Local_Primary_School
      you might be getting a teensy bit closer to the point!

    2. Re:Original Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!!! Yeah, just a bit hard!!

    3. Re:Original Paper by lfourrier · · Score: 1

      from the paper:
      The purpose of this paper is to propose a simplified
      description of the bouncing process of a stone on water,

    4. Re:Original Paper by physman · · Score: 0

      Another more recent copy of the paper re-done by the american teachers institute

      The Paper

      --
      Murphy's Law of Research: Enough research will tend to support your theory.
    5. Re:Original Paper by linzeal · · Score: 1

      It's not too bad if you have had a few years of Physics. Open up mathematica or matlab and start playing with the equations. That's what I do when I want to understand a paper. It may take longer than some of the people that I know that can read them like a magazine article but most people can't anyways. Start talking QED or something and than you get into the messy stuff, even if you have the equations and a partial understanding.

  23. Stone initial conditions? by mod_parent_down · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The article mentions varying the initial conditions of release angle, velocity, angular velocity, but never talks about using different shapes of stones (discs).

    Any disc golfer or ultimate frisbee player can tell you that changing the shape or weight of your disc can very significantly affect its dynamics. It could be that they've only found the ideal release conditions for the particular disc they were testing with.

    1. Re:Stone initial conditions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely. For example when they used bombs (big drums) as "stones" in WW2 against dams in Germany, I'm pretty sure National Geographic Channel was talking about something like 7 degrees.

  24. Re:Obligatory British toilet humour... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't get it

  25. One Dozen Choice Skippers by l810c · · Score: 1

    Sell em on Ebay

    1. Re:One Dozen Choice Skippers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you could throw in a free dead fish with every stone purchased.

      * Note the distinct lack of comment about the RIAA jackets

    2. Re:One Dozen Choice Skippers by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Yeah, you could throw in a free dead fish with every stone purchased.
      I would have thought the shipping charges would be a bit steep on 14lb of rocks.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  26. Go to the source by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a news article in the science journal which has the original report.

    1. Re:Go to the source by whovian · · Score: 1
      I *knew* I"d seen that before. But it turns out there was another article before the one cited in this 2004 paper:


      Bocquet L. 2003. The physics of stone skipping. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
      71,50-155.

      The motion of a stone skimming over a water surface is considered. A simplified description of the collisional process of the stone with water is proposed. The maximum number of bounces is estimated by considering both the slowing down of the stone and its angular stability. The conditions for a successful throw are discussed.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  27. Don't the stones flip? by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember a Scientific American article from years ago that determined, via slow-motion photography, that each time the stone hits, it flips over. Anyone else heard of this?

    Tim

    1. Re:Don't the stones flip? by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      Me and mates used to play 'skipping dare'. One person choses a stone and says "I can skip this, you can't". The other person either rises to the challenge and tries to skip it (just one will do), or declines, and hopes the first person fails. A point goes to whoever was right. Anyway, I once picked up an enormous discus (10-15kg I guess), and my mates declined, thinking I'd not be able to even throw the fucker. However, putting my all into it I launched the bugger, giving it some spin too, and it slapped the surface of the water, and bounced right up again. Hoorah, I'd won. However, it the proceded to do a second bounce. Now this thing was so _huge_ that there's no way in hell that it flipping over wouldn't be seen. It was funny, it was almost in slow motion. We were all completely sure after that that we understood what made stones bounce -- the perfect skim has no flip, we have concluded.

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    2. Re:Don't the stones flip? by dlakelan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The stone is usually spinning around an axis that is more or less vertical. The angular momentum of the stone makes it much more difficult to flip over via forces exerted by the water interface. In order to have it flip over, the axis of the spin now has to become horizontal requiring a tremendous torque.

      A stone fired at a lake with no initial spin might easily tumble in the manner you're describing, but probably wouldn't skip nearly as well.

      --
      ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
  28. I was going to read the article... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...but I decided to skip it.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    1. Re:I was going to read the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've skipped it 6 times already. Beat that!

  29. Re:Obligatory British toilet humour... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't get it

    'Tossing' in UK parlance is the same as jacking off. 'Jizz' is pretty self-explanatory. And Barnes-Wallace was the inventor of the bouncing bomb, which was used during WWII to destroy dams in the Ruhr valley of Germany.

  30. This is what science is all about! by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is what science is all about. Mars? Please. Nanotubes? Come on! Stealth? Get real. Now stone skipping, that's worth at least a Master's dissertation... This has the possibility to advance toy technology YEARS!

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:This is what science is all about! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This has the possibility to advance toy technology YEARS!

      Each single human being spends more than 5 years of his life (as a child), toying. It's a very important area.

  31. Oh great... by graveyardduckx · · Score: 2, Funny

    Only in GW Bush's homestate would National Geographic stoop this low. Next they'll be flinging cow pies.

    1. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the article you would know that the scientists are in France. Only the record was set in Texas. I don't think National Geographic was at that event, they just mentioned it.

    2. Re:Oh great... by graveyardduckx · · Score: 1

      This is /. who reads articles?

    3. Re:Oh great... by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      What do you mean next? We already fling cow paddies here in Texas :p.

  32. old news by alex_ant · · Score: 5, Informative

    the allies figured this out in ww2. Nazi dam bombing

  33. bah by maxdamage · · Score: 0

    It never ceases to amaze me the amount of things people can come up with and do for no apparent reason...

  34. Re:20 degrees the best angle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For fuck's sake, how is the parent offtopic? Corny, maybe, but not offtopic. Mod it up!

  35. skipping massive objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't remember the details, but the History channel had a show on about a British aviation (WWII) engineer who was in charge of developing a plane and payload to destroy damns. The plane, flying low, would drop the payload 100's of feet before the damn. Skipping a dozen or more times, bounce off the target, roll back towards the base, due to inertia , and explode.

    Very interesting, he had to find the best shape, weight, and attack angle.

    1. Re:skipping massive objects by rilister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the 'aviation engineer' in question is Barnes Wallace. The 'Bouncing Bomb' was used in the successful attacks to flood the industrial Ruhr Valley in Germany, by destroying the reservoir dams. He chose 220mph, rather than 25mph. I guess the stalling speed of a Lancaster bomber is a little high for that.

      I've skipped stones (at a precise 20degrees) at Ladybower reservoir in Derbyshire, UK, where the practise flights were made - like many WW2 bombing operations, there was no attention to 'collateral damage':

      Guardian Unlimited
      Two dams out of the three targeted - the Mohne and Eder - were breached. Thirteen hundred civilians were killed, including nearly 500 slave labourers from the Ukraine - mostly women. Local towns were flooded, trains washed off their tracks and six electricity stations put out of action.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
  36. Potential for this research by adept256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can this be applied to real-world applications? Are they going to redesign jet-skis with this information? Or surfboards or body-boards?

    Those are a few things this research could possibly apply to, can anyone give me examples of others?

    --

    I ran a benchmark on my quantum computer, now I can't find it anywhere!
  37. You mean like dambusters? by adept256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The massive spinning bombs that were designed to bounce along the water before sinking and exploding in front of a dam? That technology was developed and used successfully in world war II by the english.

    --

    I ran a benchmark on my quantum computer, now I can't find it anywhere!
  38. Ig Nobel Award! by rossz · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this will be a nomination, if not a winner for the prestigious Ig Nobel awards.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  39. Could be funded by DARPA! by FelixCat · · Score: 1

    Just think of the applications, like say Skipping Bombs!

  40. Re:20 degrees the best angle? by AoT · · Score: 1

    yes, but how many degrees of freedom are there in a degree of separation?

  41. Dam Busting Bombs by _aa_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recall watching a documentary about Barnes Wallis, a British scientist who during WWII invented and "perfected" a dam busting bomb. A rather large (multi ton) spinning cylinder full of explosives that would be dropped from a plane at remarkably low altitude over water directly at a dam at high speed, resulting in the bomb's skipping, like a stone, until it would collide with the dam. The bomb would then sink, but it's spinning motion would keep it tight to the dam until it exploded.

    Wallis' research involved countless stone skipping tests, that inevitably resulted in the discovery of the perfect angle.

    The bombs themselves enjoyed marginal success, succesfully destroying 1 of 3 objectives, if I'm not mistaken.

    http://simscience.org/cracks/dambusters.html - Interesting videos and more information.

    1. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      succesfully destroying 1 of 3 objectives

      Uh.. the page you linked to says:

      "Their targets were the Mohne, Eder, and Sorpe Dams on the Ruhr in Germany. They successfully breached the Mohne and Eder Dams."

      That's 2 of 3 objectives, a 66% success rate.

    2. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by Styx · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      /Styx
    3. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't "bunker busting" bombs be better, since they are dropped from higher altitute, gain a lot of momentum on the way down, and deeply split the reinforced concrete with less explosives? My mom does research into waves in solids, and often investigates "damn problems", and her opinion is that both conventional wisdom and the safety factor will overcome a lot of increased pressure at depth.

    4. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      succesfully destroying 1 of 3 objectives

      i was going to mention Wallis - was that a documentary or the 1954 movie? anyway, according to this they got 2 out of 3 dams, pretty good considering they had to fly a huge bomber 30 feet above a lake at a certain speed, and release the thing at just the right distance over enemy territory while under fire.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    5. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by EvanED · · Score: 1

      It'd probably be hard to get an accurate hit.

    6. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just would: it was.

    7. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by _aa_ · · Score: 1

      The thing I saw was a documentary specifically about Wallis on either the Science Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The History Channel, or perhaps it was Nova on PBS.

    8. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by SteveAstro · · Score: 1

      Wallis was one of the finest aero engineers of the last century.

      I think he got trapped in the intellectual exercise of destroying the dams, with a sophisticated weapon, developed in only 6 months from the order.

      During the raid itself, something like 2/3 of the crews didn't return, and that persuaded him not to use the weapon again.

      Later in the war, Wallis developed the "TallBoy" and "grand slam" bunker piercing bombs, which would be reinvemted after the war.

      Anyone visiting Northern France (La Coupole, Wizernes, near St. Omer) can see the effect of Tallboy bombs on a concrete V2 bunker, now used as a museum in parts.

      After the was Wallis went on to develop the British TSR2 fighter bomber, the first swing-wing Mach fighter, cancelled under mysterious circumstances in the late 1960s

      Steve

    9. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by fldvm · · Score: 1

      Very interesting (and for the time high tech) approach. But why not just bomb the dam from the other side?

    10. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by _aa_ · · Score: 1

      IANAE but I would assume because that side of the dam is for all practical purposes indestructible. A dam is like a sideways arch, the more pressure you apply to it the stronger it gets. It's already holding up perhaps millions of tons of water. Compared to all that potential energy a bomb blast is just a drop in the bucket. In addition to that, this side of the dam is protected to the very top by water. In order to weaken the structural integrity of the dam, you would want your explosion to be a near the bottom as possible.

    11. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      The dam busting bombs were dropped on the water side of the dam (opposite of what you seem to be suggesting). They were designed to roll down the water side and explode at a certain depth under the water. The water acted to direct the explosive force of the bomb into the dam and cause enough damage (from the very large bomb) to break the dam as long as it was in contact with the water side surface of the dam when it exploded.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    12. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by _aa_ · · Score: 1

      My mistake, thanks for the correction.

    13. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      I think they used a sight that involved lining up the cross hairs with 2 towers that were either side of the dams which would indicate that they were the right distance away to drop, and on the water they used two angled lights that intersected on the surface at the right height.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    14. Re:Dam Busting Bombs by EvanED · · Score: 1

      My point is there is probably a significant amount more leeway for error when dropping one of those skipping bombs as opposed to just dead targeting.

  42. Re:I could see it. . . by Bastian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean, the trailing edge is the edge that will hit the water first if you're talking a 20 degree angle, and if the stone skipped, the center of force would have to be behind the stone's center of gravity (otherwise it would sink).

    If it skips soon enough, it could be far enough behind the center of gravity to cause the stone to flip. But I doubt it happens all the time, because I can't see getting it to flip the same speed every time. If it doesn't flip by about 180%, the stone would soon hit at a bad angle and sink. The chances of even getting three or four skips in a row would probably be ridiculously small, but I can get at least that many skips fairly consistently.

  43. Re:Obligatory British toilet humour... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still unfunny at best, and I'm a Brit who knows what tossing is and who Barnes-Wallace was.

    Life goes on.

  44. I coulda gotten laid by GerbilSocks · · Score: 0

    If I only knew about this at camp, I coulda impressed the girls and gotten myself laid. DAMN!

  45. Skipping stones? That's easy... by stangbat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Getting a golf ball to skip...now that takes talent. Yeah, that's it. Talent...

  46. Re:Obligatory British toilet humour... by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    Barnes-Wallace

    i wonder how many yanks even know who Barnes Wallis was. Frankly I enjoyed Dam Busters.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  47. Dam Busters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This research has already been done using scientific methodology to develop the infamous Dam Busters bouncing bombs.

    The inventor (can't remember his name)used a catapult to determine the angles required to make a cylinder- the bomb - , spinning with back spin on its horizontal axis to skip over the surface of the water in order to hit the dam wall and sink at its base.

    Check out the BBC doco. It's also an excellent example of the human cost of warfare.

  48. skipping cannonballs by tamarik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We recently sailed out to Ft Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas. We read where the soldiers would heat cannonballs to red hot and shoot them at enemy ships. They even made an oven with 4 magazines in it for the job. They used layers of wet and dry padding between the poweder and ball in the cannons. My pics don't say what size balls but they were one of 12, 18, or 32 lbs.

    These balls would skip along the saltwater and bury themselves in the ships at waterline level where the seamen couldn't get to them. The balls would then burn through the boats hull, hopefully starting a fire.

    See, there were even geeks back then with a lot of time and resources on their hands. This must have taken a lot of practice.

    Also visited Fort Pulaski outside of Savannah GA. These 2 forts were designed to be very similiar in so many aspects. But there is no mention here of this kind of ball skipping. Where Ft Jefferson is surrounded by water, though, Ft Pulaski only has it near in a 45degree arc, and that's more than a 1/4 mile away. The ships channel is out of cannonball range these days; maybe it wasn't back then.

  49. Lake Superior slashdotted by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Funny


    Mysterious Rock Movements
    January 12, 2003
    Lake Superior, Minnesota

    Scientists and local authorities are struggling to explain the sudden rise in the level of lake Superior. After long investigation the rise was attributed to a big pile of mostly flat rocks that somehow made their way into a pile a few meters from the shore. There was also a smaller pile of not-so-flat rocks much closer to the shore.

    Invstigators attempting to trace the people behind this strange event have only a few puzzling clues to guide them. The whole beach appears to bave been trampled by hundreds of thousands of people. The only clues to their presence is all those strange conical pieces of tin-foil with the base roughly the size of a human head. There were also a number of RIAA jackets nailed to tree stumps and impaled with darts.

    Darl McBride, strangely showed up and shoved the following quote down our throats: "I'm not sure who is behind this, but I'm certain we own the intellectual property. We can't tell you quite what the property is or how it was violated, but please send us $699"

  50. Milk bottles by TooTechy · · Score: 1

    A few years ago (1997?) in the UK on a beach on the east coast near Harwich I was skipping stones with friends on a small estuary (river entering the sea) where the pebbles were numerous and the water calm. Amongst the pebbles I found the remainder of a modern standard glass milk bottle. All that remained was the round base of the bottle which I discovered was the perfect skipping "stone". The stone skipped at least 34 times before the skips were too small.

  51. whats the definition of a skip? by gobblez · · Score: 0

    i'd always get like 3 normal skips, then like 10 really quick ones that barely leave the water, if that. do those count?

  52. Machines do it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, here is another thing I put on the list of things that machines do better than people.

  53. Has anyone nominated this for an IgNobel? by Walter+Wart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every year the folks who put out The Annals of Improbable Research , formerly The Journal of Irreproducible Results, formerly The Worm Runner's Digest hands out ten IgNobel Prizes for scientific achievements "which can not or should not be repeated". It's sort of a Feast of Misrule for science.

    If they can give an Ig for the first MRI images showing conclusively how men and women's bits fit together during coitus and a scientific study on the optimal way to dunk a biscuit in coffee, then by G-d this deserves one too!

    --
    The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
  54. Dr Barnes Wallis by redwolfoz · · Score: 1

    The inventor of the bouncing bomb, from the movie The Dambusters for those with no sense of hostory, was Dr Barnes Wallis. His idea was based on the stories of ship bouncing cannonballs across the water.

    --
    and the werewolves came...
    and they ate him...
    and they drank his beer...
  55. Aluminum disks? by IM6100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but when I've skipped stones, half of the challange is finding the right flat stones. This whole experiment takes the fun out of it and turns it into a joyless exercise.

    I'd certainly hope this isn't going to lead to 'skipping stones' at the Olympics, or a standard skipping stone, produced by AMF and Wilson. Can't something just be fun without the jocks getting involved?

    --
    A Good Intro to NetBS
  56. missing something by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems to me that they're missing several somethings that are fairly important (other than the physics of the stone): the velocity and spin of the stone (to say nothing of the water surface's dynamics).

    That said, my personal record was achieved when I was 12 at a cub/boy scount camp. It was in a little river/creek (maybe 10 feet across, no deeper than 1' in most parts, with lots of smallish smooth disc-shaped stones perfect for skipping). My group was out hiking, and we had a competition. Everyone else was picking more roughly-shaped stones off the shore, and not venturing into the water.

    Having grown up watching my uncles skip stones on their lake since I was very young, I probably knew a thing or two about stone skipping that the others didn't, simply by example. At any rate, I took a step or two out into the water, and grabbed the smoothest stone I could find.

    This was all after the scout master said the person with the most skips gets a candy bar. IIRC, I was the last to have my turn at winning the candy bar. Everyone started bitching about how I was cheating because I didn't take the rock from the shoreline. (bah!) I got into the water, and got as close as I could to the water, and threw the stone upstream like a frisby.

    The end result: 23 skips, at least half an hour of people trying to come close to half as many skips, and a candy bar for me back at camp. And a dozen pissed off cub scouts for 4 more days. :P

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:missing something by Peyna · · Score: 1

      RTFA, they included velocity and spin in their study as well.

      --
      What?
  57. That must be - by ir0b0t · · Score: 1

    - the angle I drop just about anything I don't want to end up under the couch.

    --
    I'm laughing at clouds.
  58. eh, what do you expect... by orthancstone · · Score: 1

    some people on /. seem to think doctoral candidates should be releasing Nobel winning work to get their degree...

  59. Why rocks? aquatic dwarf tossing (skipping) by GringoGoiano · · Score: 1

    for best results the dwarf should be stoned. (not a very sensitive comment, sorry)

  60. 20 degrees. I'll remember that, by 1ini · · Score: 1

    so next time we play Worms I can show my 1337 skipping skills to my buddies. We used to have a competition for the most skipping worm using baseball bats.

  61. Bouncing Bombs by clymere · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This actually has a useful application. In WWII there were several dams in Germany used to give power to Germany's war industries. Britain decided they needed to destroy them...problem was that they were heavily guarded, protected by nets...basically, it would be impossible to destroy them with any convential weapon of the time. Their solution: A bouncing bomb. A special apparatus in the plane spun a cylindrical bomb(technically a mine) which was launhed from the plane at a specific distance and height(60 ft!) from the dam. It skipped across the water like a stone, past the dam's defenses, and rolled down the edge of the dam, detonating at a pre-determined depth underwater. Plenty more here: http://www.dambusters.org.uk/wallis.htm

    --
    once you go slack, you never go back
    1. Re:Bouncing Bombs by herrvinny · · Score: 1

      It's called skip bombing and was used to trash Japanese warships as well.

  62. me too by prockcore · · Score: 3, Funny

    I skip the Stones whenever they're in town.

    I'm not paying $150 a ticket to see a zombie like Keith Richards.

  63. My reaction. by curne · · Score: 1

    Personally, I was hoping to see diagrams, calculations of inertia, stone-against-water friction formulas, chaos theories, stuff like that. I mean, 20 degrees...? Is that all there is to it?!??!!

    --
    All interpreted languages are abstractions over Lisp
  64. Re:Lake Superior sPlashdotted by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    that's it.. the P

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  65. Re:Skipping stones? That's easy... by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 1

    Getting a golf ball to skip...now that takes talent. Yeah, that's it. Talent...
    There's a little 9-hole course near Boulder CO (Haystack Mtn Golf) with a lake on one fairway. Actually, the lake is the fairway. It's an easy 9-iron shot from teebox, over lake, onto green.
    Once, I topped the tee shot horribly, but imparted enough topspin that the ball skipped three times on the water and hopped out the other side
    ... where it promptly nailed the only tree in sight and bounced back into the middle of the lake.

  66. Next camping trip ! by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

    I'll have to take one of those machines with me the next time I go camping by the lake - maybe I can link it to my WiFi enabled laptop and remotely skip stones from the comfort of my tent...

  67. They actually did this experiment by k98sven · · Score: 1

    While researching the 'dambuster' bombs, they actually did quite the same thing, built a machine to sling discs to find the 'magic angle'.

    So this isn't the first time it's been done.

    1. Re:They actually did this experiment by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When you skim a stone, the axis of rotation is normally (approximately) vertical and the disk is, well, a disk, i.e the diameter is large relative to the thickness. The bouncing bomb spun around a horizontal axis, perpedicular to the flight of the bomber, and was fairly fat - roughly beer keg shaped. But apart from that, yeah, totally the same.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  68. Why can't they figure out how to win the lottery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skipping stones ain't gonna pay the bills.

  69. You know.. by NegativeK · · Score: 1

    My parents complain about skipping Stones.. I just told them to buy a new CD, but nooooo.

    --
    This statement is false.
  70. Re:Obligatory British toilet humour... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About as many who give a shit about england.

    yeah, thats a big 0 right there.

  71. sad really by stewwy · · Score: 2, Funny

    and no one is going to believe it,(and I can't prove it) but I once managed 42 (answer to everything if you read douglas adams) on the River Mersey, mind you this was in the '70's and the river was more polluted then

  72. Are they sure it isn't 19 degrees, 28 minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That's the Kelvin limit angle. The angle the wake waves make from a boat.

  73. And that's dam good odds ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Two objectives were destroyed, one damaged.

    And that's dam good odds for a military operation.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  74. Re:OH MY GOSH!11~ I DID IT!!!!@#@# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eh, let him have his fun... it doesnt cost you anything if he does, and it doesnt gain you anything if he doesn't. unless you like to see people suffer. or don't like to see other people happy.

  75. Also the golfing bet. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Heard about a sucker bet one pro golfer used to make - that he could drive a ball for a mile or more, provided he could choose the course, time, and season for the shot.

    The course he selected was in or near Chicago, having a tee on a cliff overlooking Lake Michigan. The season chosen was mid winter - on a day and time when the ice would be solid but still flat and the wind strong and from the west. (It's not called "The Windy City" for nothing.)

    He'd tee off backward, shooting the ball out onto the lake ice, where, driven by the wind, it would bounce away for miles and then keep rolling for as far as it could be observed.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  76. the best skipping places by MonkeysKickAss · · Score: 0

    I have skipped many rocks at beaches of lakes, ponds, and oceans and found out that one of the best places to skip rocks is on the ocean because you get both more distance and more skips because htere are more waves and the waves are what help you when skipping rock

    --
    MonkeysKickAss
  77. the author was ridiculed on a french radio show by dario_moreno · · Score: 1

    the author was ridiculed on a french radio show by the name of "les grosses tetes". Since he was dealing with pros, he could not escape from the jokes ; a right-wing paper (Le Figaro) also nailed him for wasting taxpayers' money. Not many people realize that it's quite rare to find a scientist who actually publishes new research from time to time, and not standard crap ("we have worked on nanowhatever and not found anything worth mentioning but still publish it in order to get a pay rise")
    to increase his publication record.

    --
    Google passes Turing test : see my journal
  78. Re:Obligatory British toilet humour... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're either a kraut, in which case you lost, a yank, in which case what fucking kept you (again), or a frog, in which case you're a cheese eating surrender monkey.

  79. launching aluminum disks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Because beaches are, like *so* covered in those. A fucking ton, they are.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."