“Sean becomes a tropical storm”

My mother, who has been tracking the 2011 hurricane season very closely in anticipation of my eponymous storm, seemed a bit disappointed to learn that Sean will likely not achieve hurricane strength. I have mixed feelings, myself. As much as I would love to devastate eastern coastlines (particularly south and central Florida), there are, reportedly, actual human beings living there, presumably capable of experiencing suffering and loss, and I guess, in the final analysis, admittedly, I would rather not hurt anyone.

In 1983, Hurricane Alicia (Wikipedia) smashed into Texas, causing almost $6 billion in damage in adjusted dollars, making it among the most damaging (or “bad ass”) hurricanes in our state’s history. Mom, whose name is Alecia, was, I think, hoping I could also experience the pleasure of having one’s name on everyone’s lips as an unstoppable force of nature. Looks like that will have to wait until The Omega Device is complete.

But it won’t be long now, mother. Not long at all.

My Gömböc model, and controversy surrounding same

A couple of years back a commenter on one of my Shapeways models suggested I should attempt to reverse-engineer the Gömböc (Wikipedia). I was interested in the challenge and undertook to do so. Like most of my projects, it proved to be vastly more work than I anticipated, and after several iterations of my model I became preoccupied with other matters. Recently I was e-mailed by an interested reader who wondered what became of that effort, and I went back and found my latest model and offered to e-mail it to him if he was interested. He agreed, and I decided that I might as well just post the model on Thingiverse and make it available to anybody else who might want to see it in the future.

The process of reverse-engineering began by using AutoDesk Photo Scene Editor on a series of 360-degree images of the original Gömböc published on the Gömböc website. This software lets you define common reference points on an object between images taken from different angles, and extrapolates the shape of the object using the resulting vector field. It yielded a crude Gömböc model which I then used as the basis for an eyeballed CSG model.

It isn’t perfect, and it probably won’t actually work as a Gömböc, either, because the original shape is reported to be very sensitive to dimensional tolerances. But I spent quite a bit of time and energy on this and thought somebody might use it as a starting point for improvements. Or better yet, that it would persuade the Gömböc discoverers that it is time to finally publish the details of the commercial Gömböc’s shape in the open literature.

In fact, shortly after posting the model, I received an e-mail from Prof. Gábor Domokos, one of the Gömböc’s co-creators. Prof. Domokos politely took issue with some of the statements I originally made in the model’s description. My original statement has been modified in response to his comments. It may change again if our discussion continues.

To the best of my ability to research the question and understand what I’ve read, the Gömböc discoverers, though advancing the claim that the shape popularized and commercialized as the Gömböc is a meaningful scientific discovery, have not actually published that shape for purposes of peer review. Two years ago when I undertook this project, I exhausted the available published resources on the subject, including all the authors’ papers on the Gömböc and related topics and the Hungarian IP filings that protect the Gömböc shape for commercial purposes in Hungary.

Since that time the Gömböc shape has received a U.S. design patent (#D614077). The patent document includes line art that constitutes the best and most specific public description of the commercial Gömböc shape that I have seen. It still does not satisfy the standards of scientific peer review as I understand them.

Domokos and Péter Várkonyi claim to have produced a shape that has unique mathematical properties, but they have not told the world exactly what that shape is, so their claim for this particular shape cannot be verified. They will, however, sell you an expensive CNC-machined copy of that shape.

I am no mathematician, and though I believe their published works establish to the standards of that community that mono-monostatic bodies exist, I am not satisfied that their claim of that property in the shape publicized and commercialized as the Gömböc is supported by sufficient evidence. Unless they publish exact parameters of the commercialized Gömböc shape in the open literature, their claim that it is really mono-monostatic cannot be verified by other researchers, and hence must remain open to doubt.

Prof. Domokos has politely requested that I remove the posted 3D model. I have respectfully declined to do so, as I do not believe it violates any of their established legal rights, and I believe it may have actual value for researchers interested in the Gömböc and mono-monostatic bodies in general.

Why it’s OK to design, make, sell, buy, own, and/or use a brush that looks like a mushroom

In case that question has been keeping you up at night, as it has me.

Quite seriously, now, because this is literally a matter of life and death for your entire family: I find this object interesting from an aesthetic perspective.

At first glance, of course, it’s easy to lump brushes that look like mushrooms together with tape dispensers that look like elephants, fireplace lighters that look like giant matchsticks, pocket knives that look like spaceships, and similar “looks-like” product designs that are at best “cute” and at worst anti-functional or even dangerous. In the past, I have referred to such products as “pseudomorphs,” mostly because “stuff what looks like other stuff, what it ain’t” is unwieldy and not as impressive. But that’s basically the idea. I dislike decoration for its own sake, especially in utilitarian objects, and find going out of the way to make a tool look like some object from nature, for instance, to be especially frivolous.

However, this “mushroom brush” is an interesting exception, a rare example of functional pseudomorphism. Consider: As any mycophile will tell you, fresh mushrooms (especially exotic varieties) should not be washed, in order to best preserve their flavors. To remove dirt and other debris before preparation, brushing is the preferred method, and to keep things hygienic one should dedicate a brush to the purpose. You do not, after all, want to clean mushrooms with the same brush you use to scrub dishes or clean under your fingernails.

And to avoid confusing your mushroom brush with these other, lesser, nastier brushes, it should be distinctive, somehow. You could label it, of course, perhaps with the words “mushroom brush,” but then you’re reduced to written language, which only works when everyone is literate in the same one. But what about children, illiterate adults, and/or the French? What about your potential mushroom-brush customers in all those other, lesser, nastier countries of the non-English-speaking world? You can add a bunch of labels in a bunch of languages to every brush, or you can sell a bunch of differently-labelled brushes in a bunch of differently-labelled countries, or you can do away with using words altogether and just make the brush, itself, look like a mushroom, and thus unambiguously identify its function.

In other words, mushroom brushes that look like mushrooms are functionally superior to those that do not. Even a mushroom brush that is labelled with a picture of a mushroom is not as good, because, while that picture-label could conceivably be overlooked by a person in a hurry to find a brush to clean the toilet (as one so often is), no one is going to attempt to use a brush that actually looks like a mushroom without noticing the fact.

Whew. I think I might be able to sleep, now.

And if, tomorrow morning, when I reach for my mushroom-shaped mushroom brush to tenderly waft away the clinging flakes of loam from my daily pound of breakfast morels, I should take the tiniest bit of childish pleasure in the fact that my brush looks like something what-it-ain’t, well…I guess that might be OK, too.