More freaky science: Colors never before seen

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

https://techxplore.com/news/2017-03-filters-tetrachromatic-vision-humans.html

Humans have three types of cone cells in the back of the
eye to differentiate color. Some react to blue, some to
green and some to red. The cones do their work by responding
to the difference in wavelength of the incoming light. Such
vision is known as trichromatic. In this new effort, the
researchers have found a way of fooling the brain into
seeing as if there were a fourth type of cone, by wearing
glasses with two types of filters. The result is tetrachromatic
vision.

Which seems to be different from the google hit I got for colors never seen:

http://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stunning-colors.html

Red-Green & Blue-Yellow: The Stunning Colors You Can't See

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
https://techxplore.com/news/2017-03-filters-tetrachromatic-vision-humans.html
Humans have three types of cone cells in the back of the
eye to differentiate color. Some react to blue, some to
green and some to red. The cones do their work by responding
to the difference in wavelength of the incoming light. Such
vision is known as trichromatic. In this new effort, the
researchers have found a way of fooling the brain into
seeing as if there were a fourth type of cone, by wearing
glasses with two types of filters. The result is tetrachromatic
vision.
http://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stunning-colors.html
Red-Green & Blue-Yellow: The Stunning Colors You Can't See

In a BBC radio documentary this month whose title
I've forgotten, the presenter was trying out
a device - possibly an undershirt - that, if I
understood correctly, converts sounds into
patterns of touch on your skin. Although I
think she could hear anyway...

In a different programme, earlier, I think,
were the man who has a device that buzzes when he
faces north, giving him north-sense, and a woman
who gets physical alerts of earthquakes...
but from anywhere on the planet, so, not
immediately practical. And not good if you
want to sleep, I would think.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
https://techxplore.com/news/2017-03-filters-tetrachromatic-vision-humans.html
Humans have three types of cone cells in the back of the
eye to differentiate color. Some react to blue, some to
green and some to red. The cones do their work by responding
to the difference in wavelength of the incoming light. Such
vision is known as trichromatic. In this new effort, the
researchers have found a way of fooling the brain into
seeing as if there were a fourth type of cone, by wearing
glasses with two types of filters. The result is tetrachromatic
vision.

That's not what I think of as tetrachromatic vision.

To me that means a whole 'nother set of receptors sensitive to a patch of the spectrum most humans are completely blind to, like some of the IR or UV.

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
http://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stunning-colors.html
Red-Green & Blue-Yellow: The Stunning Colors You Can't See

That's also not multichromaticity (Is that a word? I meant more than ordinary trichromaticity), it just "takes advantage of" the peculiarities of the post-processing out retinas do before telling the brain what's in front of our eyes.

Post by Robert Carnegie
In a BBC radio documentary this month whose title
I've forgotten, the presenter was trying out
a device - possibly an undershirt - that, if I
understood correctly, converts sounds into
patterns of touch on your skin. Although I
think she could hear anyway...

I vaguely remember another gadget that digitized images and used that to actuate a matrix of little buzzer thingies on the tongue. It sorta worked but didn't go anywhere.

Post by Robert Carnegie
In a different programme, earlier, I think,
were the man who has a device that buzzes when he
faces north, giving him north-sense, and a woman
who gets physical alerts of earthquakes...
but from anywhere on the planet, so, not
immediately practical. And not good if you
want to sleep, I would think.

Yeah, some people just can't wait to become "post humans".

Then there's "seeing through your ears":

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/book-excerpt-body-builders/?google_editors_picks=true

If it really works as it seems to it could be a huge breakthrough. Not just for the blind either- I can imagine military and maybe mining uses if seeing people can learn to use it too.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

Post by ***@bid.nes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
https://techxplore.com/news/2017-03-filters-tetrachromatic-vision-humans.html
Humans have three types of cone cells in the back of the
eye to differentiate color. Some react to blue, some to
green and some to red. The cones do their work by responding
to the difference in wavelength of the incoming light. Such
vision is known as trichromatic. In this new effort, the
researchers have found a way of fooling the brain into
seeing as if there were a fourth type of cone, by wearing
glasses with two types of filters. The result is tetrachromatic
vision.

That's not what I think of as tetrachromatic vision.
To me that means a whole 'nother set of receptors sensitive to a patch of the spectrum most humans are completely blind to, like some of the IR or UV.

Wishful thinking. Normal (2-3% of women) tetrachromatic vision gets an
extra cone cell type sensitive to a frequency between the red and green
cones, so it increases chromatic discrimination around there.

No IR or UV extension.

Cheers - Jaimie

[m***@sky.com]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
https://techxplore.com/news/2017-03-filters-tetrachromatic-vision-humans.html
Humans have three types of cone cells in the back of the
eye to differentiate color. Some react to blue, some to
green and some to red. The cones do their work by responding
to the difference in wavelength of the incoming light. Such
vision is known as trichromatic. In this new effort, the
researchers have found a way of fooling the brain into
seeing as if there were a fourth type of cone, by wearing
glasses with two types of filters. The result is tetrachromatic
vision.

Given genetic engineering, you could do much better by importing ideas from birds - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision

Each cone of a bird or reptile contains a coloured oil droplet; these no longer exist in mammals. The droplets, which contain high concentrations of carotenoids, are placed so that light passes through them before reaching the visual pigment. They act as filters, removing some wavelengths and narrowing the absorption spectra of the pigments. This reduces the response overlap between pigments and increases the number of colours that a bird can discern.[20] Six types of cone oil droplets have been identified; five of these have carotenoid mixtures that absorb at different wavelengths and intensities, and the sixth type has no pigments.[25] The cone pigments with the lowest maximal absorption peak, including those that are UV-sensitive, possess the 'clear' or 'transparent' type of oil droplets with little spectral tuning effect.[26]

The colours and distributions of retinal oil droplets vary considerably among species, and is more dependent on the ecological niche utilised (hunter, fisher, herbivore) than genetic relationships. As examples, diurnal hunters like the barn swallow and birds of prey have few coloured droplets, whereas the surface fishing common tern has a large number of red and yellow droplets in the dorsal retina. The evidence suggests that oil droplets respond to natural selection faster than the cone's visual pigments.[23] Even within the range of wavelengths that are visible to humans, passerine birds can detect colour differences that humans do not register.
(end quote)

There should be an interesting story in the experiences of somebody who has much more detailed perception of colors than standard Homo Sapiens. Color TVs and monitors would provide only pale approximations of the original pictures, and some colors we see as matching or going together would show as obvious boundaries of different colors or garish clashes. For actual utility, the easiest win might be glasses like google glasses which provided as an overlay the image from a small Infra-Red camera.

[David Mitchell]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
https://techxplore.com/news/2017-03-filters-tetrachromatic-vision-humans.html
Humans have three types of cone cells in the back of the
eye to differentiate color. Some react to blue, some to
green and some to red. The cones do their work by responding
to the difference in wavelength of the incoming light. Such
vision is known as trichromatic. In this new effort, the
researchers have found a way of fooling the brain into
seeing as if there were a fourth type of cone, by wearing
glasses with two types of filters. The result is tetrachromatic
vision.
http://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stunning-colors.html
Red-Green & Blue-Yellow: The Stunning Colors You Can't See

In a BBC radio documentary this month whose title
I've forgotten, the presenter was trying out
a device - possibly an undershirt - that, if I
understood correctly, converts sounds into
patterns of touch on your skin. Although I
think she could hear anyway...

There are quite a few people who have had magnets implanted under the
skin of a fingertip. They can feel magnetic fields.

If I could find someone who would do it, in this country, I'd have one
too, I think.

Post by Robert Carnegie
In a different programme, earlier, I think,
were the man who has a device that buzzes when he
faces north, giving him north-sense, and a woman
who gets physical alerts of earthquakes...
but from anywhere on the planet, so, not
immediately practical. And not good if you
want to sleep, I would think.

When I was a teenager, I discovered, whilst at school one afternoon,
that when I held my hand with the fingers vertical and bend the middle
finger at right angles, it trembled.

I joked that it was my seismometer, and there must be an earthquake
happening.

When I got home that evening, I discovered that there actually had been
an earthquake, in China, at precisely that time.

Gave me pause...

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by David Mitchell

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
https://techxplore.com/news/2017-03-filters-tetrachromatic-vision-humans.html
Humans have three types of cone cells in the back of the
eye to differentiate color. Some react to blue, some to
green and some to red. The cones do their work by responding
to the difference in wavelength of the incoming light. Such
vision is known as trichromatic. In this new effort, the
researchers have found a way of fooling the brain into
seeing as if there were a fourth type of cone, by wearing
glasses with two types of filters. The result is tetrachromatic
vision.
http://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stunning-colors.html
Red-Green & Blue-Yellow: The Stunning Colors You Can't See

In a BBC radio documentary this month whose title
I've forgotten, the presenter was trying out
a device - possibly an undershirt - that, if I
understood correctly, converts sounds into
patterns of touch on your skin. Although I
think she could hear anyway...

There are quite a few people who have had magnets implanted under the
skin of a fingertip. They can feel magnetic fields.

But can't rent video cassettes. (Today, less
important.)

On the other hand, you could hear a loudspeaker
by touching it... as well as hearing it anyway.
Unless you can't.

[Quadibloc]

I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!

So this idea has appeared in fiction.

I thought it was rather an incredible idea. Of course one might encounter a
particular mix of hue, brightness, and saturation, among the infinite
possibilities, that one had not previously encountered, but how would you
tell? The idea of a hue not near those one had previously seen seems strange.

Yet, there are possibilities. One could imagine a very young person who had
never seen, say, lavender, or violet before, if, for some reason, her parents
never bought her a good set of pencil crayons. And what about one's first
encounter with something colored with fluorescent dyes?

John Savard

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

"The Colour out of Space", H.P. Lovecraft

[Moriarty]

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

"The Colour out of Space", H.P. Lovecraft

As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds, Quaddie is actually thinking of "Five Get Into a Fix", in which the intrepid adventurers foil a plot to mine a mysterious metal in the mountains of Wales.

-Moriarty

[Quadibloc]

Post by Moriarty
As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds, Quaddie is
actually thinking of "Five Get Into a Fix", in which the intrepid
adventurers foil a plot to mine a mysterious metal in the mountains of
Wales.

Ah, so not the antigravity ray in Mountain of Adventure - I did remember
that it was the glow of ingots of metal correctly!

So Enid Blyton used this idea at least twice...

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Moriarty
As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds, Quaddie is
actually thinking of "Five Get Into a Fix", in which the intrepid
adventurers foil a plot to mine a mysterious metal in the mountains of
Wales.

Ah, so not the antigravity ray in Mountain of Adventure - I did remember
that it was the glow of ingots of metal correctly!
So Enid Blyton used this idea at least twice...
John Savard

I hope that's fluorescence because if you can
see radioactivity with the naked eye you're already
dying. Exceptional musical talent might help.

[Moriarty]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Moriarty
As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds, Quaddie is
actually thinking of "Five Get Into a Fix", in which the intrepid
adventurers foil a plot to mine a mysterious metal in the mountains of
Wales.

Ah, so not the antigravity ray in Mountain of Adventure - I did remember
that it was the glow of ingots of metal correctly!

This response and Greg Goss' reply elsethread make me think you could well have been recalling the Mountain of Adventure. The Five book I brought up definitely had the strange colour - referred to as a "shimmering" in-book. The dialogue was something like this:

Julian: I say, what colour was it old girl?

Anne: I don't know, Ju. It was a colour I've never seen before, a sort of shimmering.

Post by Quadibloc
So Enid Blyton used this idea at least twice...

Yes. Enid Blyton: at the cutting edge of Science Fiction...

-Moriarty

[John Dallman]

As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds ...

"Hello clouds, hello sky, hello pile of severed human heads."

From _Teddy Bear's Picnic_, Kim Newman and Eugene Byrne.

John

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by John Dallman

As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds ...

"Hello clouds, hello sky, hello pile of severed human heads."

Yes, but that's taking off on Searle and Willans' Molesworth, is
it not?

(Perhaps they were taking off on Blyton, whom I've never read.)

Post by John Dallman
From _Teddy Bear's Picnic_, Kim Newman and Eugene Byrne.

[John Dallman]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by John Dallman
"Hello clouds, hello sky, hello pile of severed human heads."

Yes, but that's taking off on Searle and Willans' Molesworth, is
it not?

Yes. It just suggested itself to me in response to Blyton/Lovecraft.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(Perhaps they were taking off on Blyton, whom I've never read.)

Not significantly.

John

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by John Dallman

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by John Dallman
"Hello clouds, hello sky, hello pile of severed human heads."

Yes, but that's taking off on Searle and Willans' Molesworth, is
it not?

Yes. It just suggested itself to me in response to Blyton/Lovecraft.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(Perhaps they were taking off on Blyton, whom I've never read.)

Not significantly.
John

I definitely recognized is as a Molesworth reference, not Enid
Bloody Blyton. I could br wrong: EBB was prolific.

pt

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by John Dallman

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by John Dallman
"Hello clouds, hello sky, hello pile of severed human heads."

Yes, but that's taking off on Searle and Willans' Molesworth, is
it not?

Yes. It just suggested itself to me in response to Blyton/Lovecraft.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(Perhaps they were taking off on Blyton, whom I've never read.)

Not significantly.
John

I definitely recognized is as a Molesworth reference, not Enid
Bloody Blyton. I could br wrong: EBB was prolific.
pt

When she was little my sister made my father read her "Noddy" books because
she knew he hated them so much.

50 years later, I decided they couldn't be *that* bad and bought a couple
to see, and -- the *only* reason to have Noddy books around would be to
torment one side or the other of the reading arrangement..

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Moriarty

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

"The Colour out of Space", H.P. Lovecraft

As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds,

"The Too-Faraway Tree"
"The Mountains of Madness, Also, Adventure"
"Noddy Goes to R'lyeh"

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Moriarty

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton,
in which the heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are
preparing their plot, and she sees glowing ingots of the strange
metal they are making... glowing in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

"The Colour out of Space", H.P. Lovecraft

As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds,

"The Too-Faraway Tree"
"The Mountains of Madness, Also, Adventure"
"Noddy Goes to R'lyeh"

"Five Meet a Shoggoth"

pt

[Greg Goss]

Post by Moriarty

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

"The Colour out of Space", H.P. Lovecraft

As interesting as an Enid Blyton / HPL crossover sounds, Quaddie is actually thinking of "Five Get Into a Fix", in which the intrepid adventurers foil a plot to mine a mysterious metal in the mountains of Wales.

That's interesting. Blyton also used the "color he had never seen
before" in the antigravity experiments in The Mountain of Adventure.
That book is mostly one guy gets into a fix, and the other three get
sidelined.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!

That was the anti-gravity beam being tested in the Mountain of
Adventure.

[Jerry Brown]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 18:49:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

Probably one of the colours on the left hand side of this chart:
Loading Image...

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jerry Brown
http://img.memecdn.com/true-story_o_123177.jpg

Amusing chart. But it seems to be missing the color blue; all the colors
identified as "blue" on it are really blue-green.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jerry Brown
http://img.memecdn.com/true-story_o_123177.jpg

Amusing chart. But it seems to be missing the color blue; all the colors
identified as "blue" on it are really blue-green.

I'd either call those colors a bluish shade of green, or even just green.

Here are some other versions of that chart:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-babble/201504/when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye

http://www.thedoghousediaries.com/1406
... at least in this chart, "Sky" qualifies as blue for me.

In my web search, I also happened on *this* page...

http://time.com/65901/how-men-and-women-differ-when-drawing-up-the-perfect-body

John Savard

[Greg Goss]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jerry Brown
http://img.memecdn.com/true-story_o_123177.jpg

Amusing chart. But it seems to be missing the color blue; all the colors
identified as "blue" on it are really blue-green.

I'd either call those colors a bluish shade of green, or even just green.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-babble/201504/when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye

When I first met my first wife, she was driving a RED Corolla. At
least to guys it was red. To women, it was brown. Since the interior
trim was tan, obviously the Toyota designer was a woman.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:28:49 -0600, Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Greg Goss
When I first met my first wife, she was driving a RED Corolla. At
least to guys it was red. To women, it was brown. Since the interior
trim was tan, obviously the Toyota designer was a woman.

A boss of mine had, maybe still has, a car that can appear
different colours. Depending on the light, it can be brownish gold,
silverish, or beigy. I refer to it as being "stealth beige". The
paint coat is metallic paint.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Greg Goss]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jerry Brown
http://img.memecdn.com/true-story_o_123177.jpg

Amusing chart. But it seems to be missing the color blue; all the colors
identified as "blue" on it are really blue-green.

"orchid" seems to be a better blue than any of the blues labeled as
such. But on a cheap LCD, I'm not sure if color details mean as much.
I know that I can pick out "which color swatch doesn't match" by
moving my laptop screen up or down.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Jerry Brown
http://img.memecdn.com/true-story_o_123177.jpg

The number of "major colors" as I perceive them has changed over my
lifetime. From that list, Purple and Orange were composites
(red/yellow and red/blue) and pink was pastel red. Over time, orange
and pink have become major colors to my perception, while purple is
still just a shorthand word for reddish blue.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jerry Brown
http://img.memecdn.com/true-story_o_123177.jpg

This inspired me to do some Google searching for information about the names of
colors.

One thing I was looking for was a watercolor set I remembered seeing as a child
which had an enormous number of colors in it. These days, that particular
watercolor set is no longer available, the sets one typically finds on sale have
fewer colors.

Finally, through intense searching with Google image search, I found what I was
thinking of. The set in question is shown on this web site:

http://www.marthasvintageattic.com/toys/vintage-watercolor-tin-paint-box-ship-england-page-london/

The image here is of insufficient resolution... but I also found two different
eBay sales of such a set which had images large enough that I could *read the
names of the colors*.

Here they are, all 108 of them -

vermilion
raw sienna
yellow
Prussian blue
flesh
white
green bile
deep grey
light chrome
Vandyke brown
vegetable green
buff

sap green
carmine
gamboge
rust brown
purple
new yellow
indian red
yellow ochre
leaf green
Venetian red
Payne's grey
burnt sienna

light red
Cassel earth
violet
moss green
roman ochre
neutral tint
cobalt blue
black
brown ochre
mauve
lemon yellow
silk green

sepia
rose madder
light blue
cerise
blue violet
pink madder
emerald green
orange
sky blue
olive green
scarlet
light brown

---

velvet black
nut brown
deep green
scarlet lake
.
Parisian blue
Indian yellow
ivory
lamp black
.
dark violet
magenta
deep blue
purple lake

new blue
rose
deep yellow
brown oxide
.
heliotrope
raw umber
Victoria blue
battleship grey
.
light green
Antwerp blue
yellow lake
pink

cream
burnt umber
sea green
purple brown
.
canary yellow
elephant grey
new green
azure blue
.
Chinese white
umber
Hooker's green
Naples yellow

dark chrome
viridian green
electric blue
red
light grey
cerulean blue
grey
crimson lake
turquoise blue
yellow oxide
primrose
ivory black

chocolate brown
natural sienna
maroon
green
dark ochre
brown pink
orange lake
ultramarine
red violet
indigo
acid green
red oxide

The dashes separate the top four rows of pans from the bottom five rows, where
there is the space for storing the paintbrush.

The periods indicate the middle four colors in the three top rows of the bottom
part. Those colors are the ones omitted, with the arrangement of the rest of the
colors being identical (except for the bottom row, which I couldn't see in the
image I found) in a slightly smaller 96-color set of watercolors, presumably by
the same manufacturer.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

The sets said "Made in England", but I finally came across a result that named
their manufacturer, a firm called "Page of London".

John Savard

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jerry Brown
http://img.memecdn.com/true-story_o_123177.jpg

This inspired me to do some Google searching for information about the names of
colors.

Congratulations, maybe next time you could do a search for on topic?

[J. Clarke]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jerry Brown
http://img.memecdn.com/true-story_o_123177.jpg

This inspired me to do some Google searching for information about the names of
colors.
One thing I was looking for was a watercolor set I remembered seeing as a child
which had an enormous number of colors in it. These days, that particular
watercolor set is no longer available, the sets one typically finds on sale have
fewer colors.
Finally, through intense searching with Google image search, I found what I was
http://www.marthasvintageattic.com/toys/vintage-watercolor-tin-paint-box-ship-england-page-london/
The image here is of insufficient resolution... but I also found two different
eBay sales of such a set which had images large enough that I could *read the
names of the colors*.
Here they are, all 108 of them -
vermilion
raw sienna
yellow
Prussian blue
flesh
white
green bile
deep grey
light chrome
Vandyke brown
vegetable green
buff
sap green
carmine
gamboge
rust brown
purple
new yellow
indian red
yellow ochre
leaf green
Venetian red
Payne's grey
burnt sienna
light red
Cassel earth
violet
moss green
roman ochre
neutral tint
cobalt blue
black
brown ochre
mauve
lemon yellow
silk green
sepia
rose madder
light blue
cerise
blue violet
pink madder
emerald green
orange
sky blue
olive green
scarlet
light brown
---
velvet black
nut brown
deep green
scarlet lake
.
Parisian blue
Indian yellow
ivory
lamp black
.
dark violet
magenta
deep blue
purple lake
new blue
rose
deep yellow
brown oxide
.
heliotrope
raw umber
Victoria blue
battleship grey
.
light green
Antwerp blue
yellow lake
pink
cream
burnt umber
sea green
purple brown
.
canary yellow
elephant grey
new green
azure blue
.
Chinese white
umber
Hooker's green
Naples yellow
dark chrome
viridian green
electric blue
red
light grey
cerulean blue
grey
crimson lake
turquoise blue
yellow oxide
primrose
ivory black
chocolate brown
natural sienna
maroon
green
dark ochre
brown pink
orange lake
ultramarine
red violet
indigo
acid green
red oxide
The dashes separate the top four rows of pans from the bottom five rows, where
there is the space for storing the paintbrush.
The periods indicate the middle four colors in the three top rows of the bottom
part. Those colors are the ones omitted, with the arrangement of the rest of the
colors being identical (except for the bottom row, which I couldn't see in the
image I found) in a slightly smaller 96-color set of watercolors, presumably by
the same manufacturer.

I remember having one of those sets as a child. I wish I had had someone
in my life to show me what to do with it other than make a mess.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc
Here they are, all 108 of them -
vermilion
raw sienna
yellow
Prussian blue
flesh
white
green bile

At first I thought the color was "Green rice", and then I came to "Green bile" as more likely. But since then, in my searches on the subject, I have learned that Green Bice is the name of an artist's pigment:

https://www.naturalpigments.com/green-bice-4-oz.html

noted as an artificial copper carbonate green; however, another source says it
is blue bice mixed with yellow orpiment.

John Savard

[David DeLaney]

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

Also see (heh) octarine and infragreen. As well as the Colour Out Of Space.

Dave

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

Also see (heh) octarine and infragreen. As well as the Colour Out Of Space.
Dave

Infrayellow, surely?

[David DeLaney]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

Also see (heh) octarine and infragreen. As well as the Colour Out Of Space.

Infrayellow, surely?

Nope. Basidium is infragreen, and only visible with special filters on yer
telescope.

Dave, the flight was wonderful

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

Also see (heh) octarine and infragreen. As well as the Colour Out Of Space.

Infrayellow, surely?

Nope. Basidium is infragreen, and only visible with special filters on yer
telescope.
Dave, the flight was wonderful

Ah, D'oh!

[Juho Julkunen]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

Also see (heh) octarine and infragreen. As well as the Colour Out Of Space.

Barsoom makes use of eighth and ninth rays of light unknown or
unrecognized here on Jasoom.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Juho Julkunen
Barsoom makes use of eighth and ninth rays of light unknown or
unrecognized here on Jasoom.

And while one might have thought they could be infrared and ultraviolet,
or some unknown invisible forms of energy, at one point John Carter
speaks of indescribable and beautiful colors coming from the gem used as
a prism to produce those rays.

John Savard

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Juho Julkunen
Barsoom makes use of eighth and ninth rays of light unknown or
unrecognized here on Jasoom.

And while one might have thought they could be infrared and ultraviolet,
or some unknown invisible forms of energy, at one point John Carter
speaks of indescribable and beautiful colors coming from the gem used as
a prism to produce those rays.

I recall having read that people who've had their cataract-ridden
lenses removed and not replaced can see ultraviolet.

(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Juho Julkunen
Barsoom makes use of eighth and ninth rays of light unknown or
unrecognized here on Jasoom.

And while one might have thought they could be infrared and
ultraviolet, or some unknown invisible forms of energy, at one point
John Carter speaks of indescribable and beautiful colors coming from
the gem used as a prism to produce those rays.

I recall having read that people who've had their cataract-ridden
lenses removed and not replaced can see ultraviolet.
(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

'Whitish blue' according to William Stark:
http://starklab.slu.edu/Seminar.htm
'scroll down to 'Abstract #10'.
I expect your replacement lens blocks UV.

Monet's color balance on his famous 'water lily' series
changed after he had cataract surgery - they became bluer.

pt

[Greg Goss]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I recall having read that people who've had their cataract-ridden
lenses removed and not replaced can see ultraviolet.
(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

I've seen it usually expressed as the lens blocking the deep blues as
it ages -- turning brown. So removing it gives you BACK the ordinary
violet.

When I had my cataracts removed, they did one eye, waited two months
and then did the other one. I didn't perceive any colour differences
between the two eyes in the interim. But my cataracts were
crystalizing, rather than clouding. I was seeing multiple images of
bright on dark (eg streetlights) rather than just fuzzy. So my
cataracts may have been removed at a younger age than those described
for this.

I've always seen "black lights" as just another shade of violet. I
don't know if that means I see further into the violet than other
people, or if black lights aren't black for anyone.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I recall having read that people who've had their cataract-ridden
lenses removed and not replaced can see ultraviolet.
(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

I've seen it usually expressed as the lens blocking the deep blues as
it ages -- turning brown. So removing it gives you BACK the ordinary
violet.

Different effect.

Post by Greg Goss
When I had my cataracts removed, they did one eye, waited two months
and then did the other one. I didn't perceive any colour differences
between the two eyes in the interim. But my cataracts were
crystalizing, rather than clouding. I was seeing multiple images of
bright on dark (eg streetlights) rather than just fuzzy. So my
cataracts may have been removed at a younger age than those described
for this.
I've always seen "black lights" as just another shade of violet. I
don't know if that means I see further into the violet than other
people, or if black lights aren't black for anyone.

Black lights unless they're very high quality
let some violet through. Somebody who has had
hte surgery in question sees a black light as
glowing brightly.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Juho Julkunen
Barsoom makes use of eighth and ninth rays of light unknown or
unrecognized here on Jasoom.

And while one might have thought they could be infrared and ultraviolet,
or some unknown invisible forms of energy, at one point John Carter
speaks of indescribable and beautiful colors coming from the gem used as
a prism to produce those rays.

I recall having read that people who've had their cataract-ridden
lenses removed and not replaced can see ultraviolet.
(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

Did you spring for the accommodating lens? If
so you might be seeing UV and not knowing it--
apparently the material used in the
accommodating lenses is transparent to UV.

<https://www.extremetech.com/computing/118557-
the-eyes-have-it-seeing-ultraviolet-exploring-
color>

Time to start saving up to get the good stuff
when I have mine done . . .

[Quadibloc]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I recall having read that people who've had their cataract-ridden
lenses removed and not replaced can see ultraviolet.

Yes, I saw that mentioned in Arthur C. Clarke's "Profiles of the
Future".

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

I suspect it's just a particularly vivid bluish-purple, slightly beyond violet.

At least, that's what looking at a CIE chromaticity diagram would
suggest... just as infrared would be just a particularly vivid reddish-purple, slightly beyond magenta.

http://www.efg2.com/Lab/Graphics/Colors/Chromaticity.htm
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/general/color-chart.htm
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/CVonline/LOCAL_COPIES/OWENS/LECT14/lecture12.html

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

I suspect it's just a particularly vivid bluish-purple, slightly beyond violet.
At least, that's what looking at a CIE chromaticity diagram would
suggest... just as infrared would be just a particularly vivid reddish-purple, slightly beyond magenta.
http://www.efg2.com/Lab/Graphics/Colors/Chromaticity.htm
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/general/color-chart.htm
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/CVonline/LOCAL_COPIES/OWENS/LECT14/lecture12.html

To amplify: this is why I'm highly skeptical of the notion of a
"color never before seen". Our eyes - unless one *is* a tetrachromat
- have just three kinds of color receptors. So while there might be
novel forms of radiation that could present themselves visibly to
our eyes, our eyes aren't _capable_ of sending a message to the
brain that an image contains a color... that isn't a mixture of the
three possible color stimuli.

One could have an impossibly vivid hue, but that's about it.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

I suspect it's just a particularly vivid bluish-purple, slightly beyond violet.
At least, that's what looking at a CIE chromaticity diagram would
suggest... just as infrared would be just a particularly vivid reddish-purple, slightly beyond magenta.
http://www.efg2.com/Lab/Graphics/Colors/Chromaticity.htm
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/general/color-chart.htm
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/CVonline/LOCAL_COPIES/OWENS/LECT14/lecture12.html

To amplify: this is why I'm highly skeptical of the notion of a
"color never before seen". Our eyes - unless one *is* a tetrachromat
- have just three kinds of color receptors. So while there might be
novel forms of radiation that could present themselves visibly to
our eyes, our eyes aren't _capable_ of sending a message to the
brain that an image contains a color... that isn't a mixture of the
three possible color stimuli.
One could have an impossibly vivid hue, but that's about it.
John Savard

Apart from not all colour combinations appearing
in nature, a different form of radiation... well,
I see the argument that the eye can, or should,
only report blueness, for instance, between 0 and
100% of the regardless-or-colour light present.
(Disregarding also that blue photons have more
energy than red ones.)

In Terry Pratchett's Discworld, where physics is
literally governed by narrative and is different
from ours in many respects, _The Colour of Magic_
(volume one) describes the eighth colour that
only born wizards can see (with special octagonal
retina cells - by the way, the number of superstition
on Discworld is... seven plus one), whereas
_The Light Fantastic_ refers to a darker-than-darkness
anti-light, commented as "a rather disappointing
purple colour". Call it black-body radiation
at a negative temperature - this probably isn't
any more convincing to you than to me, but give
me points for trying ;-)

[David DeLaney]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(I've had only one cataract removed so far and it got a
replacement. So I still don't know what UV looks like.)

I suspect it's just a particularly vivid bluish-purple, slightly beyond violet.

Well, with lenses still in, it can also be seen as a sort of fuzzy-for-some-
reason grey color.

(In college physics lab, my partner and I discovered that while I could see
the 4th hydrogen line, he could not, but that he could see some lines in the
deep end of red that weren't there for me. ... I haven't double-checked lately,
too busy losing teeth.)

Dave

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:39:59 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney
In college physics lab, my partner and I discovered that while I could see
the 4th hydrogen line, he could not, but that he could see some lines in the
deep end of red that weren't there for me.

Despite being a fairly regular tester of my own ears to find out how I
degrade them from going to music events, it never occurred to me to test
my eyes frequency response. I had been given to understand that the
receptors' freq reponse are standard across humans (pace the
tetrachromics who get the extra peak of sensitivity).

I shall discuss with my eyeball doctor on my next visit, if I remember -
it won't be for six months now, I've just seen him.

Cheers - Jaimie

[David DeLaney]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
I shall discuss with my eyeball doctor on my next visit, if I remember -
it won't be for six months now, I've just seen him.

or ... HAVE you??2?

Dave, dramatic music sting

[1***@compuserve.com]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:39:59 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney
In college physics lab, my partner and I discovered that while I could see
the 4th hydrogen line, he could not, but that he could see some lines in the
deep end of red that weren't there for me.

Despite being a fairly regular tester of my own ears to find out how I
degrade them from going to music events, it never occurred to me to test
my eyes frequency response. I had been given to understand that the
receptors' freq reponse are standard across humans (pace the
tetrachromics who get the extra peak of sensitivity).

I can remember as a child looking at streetlights through our car's windshield and seeing a double-image: the offset image was a deep beautiful blue-violet color.

I no longer see that, but besides my eyes being much older, my windshield is much thinner glass than back in the day, and might be a different kind of glass entirely, and the streetlight bulbs themselves are very likely a different technology. But maybe, just maybe, they used to be mercury vapor lamps and I was seeing an ultraviolet line sufficiently dispersed by the glass to show as a separate (though still overlapping) image.

Or maybe it was just the mercury H-line at 405 nm, which I could probably still see if I had the right lamp. But oooh! Wikipedia claims they can now make LEDs that emit light at a wavelength all the way up into the ultra-violet. I want a violet one, just at the limit of visibility! It would be so cool.

JimboCat

[[e-mail]]

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:39:59 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney
In college physics lab, my partner and I discovered that while I could see
the 4th hydrogen line, he could not, but that he could see some lines in
the deep end of red that weren't there for me.

Despite being a fairly regular tester of my own ears to find out how I
degrade them from going to music events, it never occurred to me to test
my eyes frequency response. I had been given to understand that the
receptors' freq reponse are standard across humans (pace the
tetrachromics who get the extra peak of sensitivity).

I can remember as a child looking at streetlights through our car's windshield
and seeing a double-image: the offset image was a deep beautiful blue-violet
color.

Yeah, I could see that too, before I got my first pair of glasses (at age five).

Afterward my father got a different car and I couldn't see it through the windshield any more but I could through an open window at the edge of my glasses.

The dispersion of my current plastic lenses is much different, not as extreme as that of my old glass glasses.

Post by 1***@compuserve.com
I no longer see that, but besides my eyes being much older, my windshield is
much thinner glass than back in the day, and might be a different kind of
glass entirely,

How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken glass.

Post by 1***@compuserve.com
and the streetlight bulbs themselves are very likely a different technology.
But maybe, just maybe, they used to be mercury vapor lamps and I was seeing
an ultraviolet line sufficiently dispersed by the glass to show as a separate
(though still overlapping) image.
Or maybe it was just the mercury H-line at 405 nm, which I could probably
still see if I had the right lamp.

Good luck finding an old-fangled Hg apor streetlamp.

Post by 1***@compuserve.com
But oooh! Wikipedia claims they can now make LEDs that emit light at a
wavelength all the way up into the ultra-violet. I want a violet one, just
at the limit of visibility! It would be so cool.

Take a look at the impulse-buy racks at the checkout stands at your local Ace hardware store. The on near my home has 3-AA-cell flashlights with white LEDs, UVLEDs, and a red laser for under five bucks.

Not sure what the wavelength of the UV LEDs is but they make my UV-sensitive rocks glow just like the UV fluorescent lamp I have for that purpose does.


Mark L. Fergerson

[1***@compuserve.com]

Post by ***@bid.nes

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 22:39:59 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney
In college physics lab, my partner and I discovered that while I could see
the 4th hydrogen line, he could not, but that he could see some lines in
the deep end of red that weren't there for me.

Despite being a fairly regular tester of my own ears to find out how I
degrade them from going to music events, it never occurred to me to test
my eyes frequency response. I had been given to understand that the
receptors' freq reponse are standard across humans (pace the
tetrachromics who get the extra peak of sensitivity).

I can remember as a child looking at streetlights through our car's windshield
and seeing a double-image: the offset image was a deep beautiful blue-violet
color.

Yeah, I could see that too, before I got my first pair of glasses (at age five).

Thanks for validating my memory!

Post by ***@bid.nes
Afterward my father got a different car and I couldn't see it through the windshield any more but I could through an open window at the edge of my glasses.
The dispersion of my current plastic lenses is much different, not as extreme as that of my old glass glasses.

Post by 1***@compuserve.com
I no longer see that, but besides my eyes being much older, my windshield is
much thinner glass than back in the day, and might be a different kind of
glass entirely,

How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker. Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and more fuel-efficient.

Post by ***@bid.nes

Post by 1***@compuserve.com
and the streetlight bulbs themselves are very likely a different technology.
But maybe, just maybe, they used to be mercury vapor lamps and I was seeing
an ultraviolet line sufficiently dispersed by the glass to show as a separate
(though still overlapping) image.
Or maybe it was just the mercury H-line at 405 nm, which I could probably
still see if I had the right lamp.

Good luck finding an old-fangled Hg apor streetlamp.

I bet they still make Hg vapor lamps for specialized purposes.

Post by ***@bid.nes

Post by 1***@compuserve.com
But oooh! Wikipedia claims they can now make LEDs that emit light at a
wavelength all the way up into the ultra-violet. I want a violet one, just
at the limit of visibility! It would be so cool.

Take a look at the impulse-buy racks at the checkout stands at your local Ace hardware store. The on near my home has 3-AA-cell flashlights with white LEDs, UVLEDs, and a red laser for under five bucks.
Not sure what the wavelength of the UV LEDs is but they make my UV-sensitive rocks glow just like the UV fluorescent lamp I have for that purpose does.

I'll keep an eye out for them!

Jimbo "Do not look into laser with remaining eye" Cat

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes

Post by 1***@compuserve.com
and the streetlight bulbs themselves are very likely a different technology.
But maybe, just maybe, they used to be mercury vapor lamps and I was seeing
an ultraviolet line sufficiently dispersed by the glass to show as a separate
(though still overlapping) image.
Or maybe it was just the mercury H-line at 405 nm, which I could probably
still see if I had the right lamp.

Good luck finding an old-fangled Hg apor streetlamp.

I bet they still make Hg vapor lamps for specialized purposes.

There are still a gazillion Hg vapor lamps in rural areas of
flyover country - most farms have at least one.

Bulbs: https://www.amazon.com/Philips-319657-H39KB-175-Mercury-Vapor/dp/B002CYVKP6

Fixtures may be harder to come by, although there is likely NOS
available (I've one in still in the box in the attic).

[Greg Goss]

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker. Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

Since then, the web ads for a local windshield place says that you
need to have a replacement done by a professional because the
windshield needs to be glued in properly so that it will direct the
passenger-side airbag properly in a crash.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

Post by Greg Goss
Since then, the web ads for a local windshield place says that you
need to have a replacement done by a professional because the
windshield needs to be glued in properly so that it will direct the
passenger-side airbag properly in a crash.

Well, yeah. They want you to buy their services. Sounds like bullsh*t
to me.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

Post by Greg Goss
Since then, the web ads for a local windshield place says that you
need to have a replacement done by a professional because the
windshield needs to be glued in properly so that it will direct the
passenger-side airbag properly in a crash.

Well, yeah. They want you to buy their services. Sounds like bullsh*t
to me.

I keep seeing "years ago cars had steel a-pillars to support the roof".
Well WTF are the A-pillars in modern cars made out of, cotton candy? The
ones in mine certainly look like steel.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.

Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as a
structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea how far
behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so can't say if it's
particularly correct across the board.

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss
Since then, the web ads for a local windshield place says that you
need to have a replacement done by a professional because the
windshield needs to be glued in properly so that it will direct the
passenger-side airbag properly in a crash.

Well, yeah. They want you to buy their services. Sounds like bullsh*t
to me.

That specific reason is definitely bullshit, since well designed airbag
deployment paths do not depend on the windscreen still being in place.

Cheers - Jaimie

[J. Clarke]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as a
structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea how far
behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so can't say if it's
particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a stressed member
would pass the crash test required in order to be legal for sale in he US.

Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as a
structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea how far
behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so can't say if it's
particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a stressed member
would pass the crash test required in order to be legal for sale in he US.
Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

I'm no expert but I believe there are crash tests
elsewhere, although not necessarily equal.

And I assume this is quite strong glass, and it
isn't /just/ glass. If it breaks in the crash
test, well, there isn't a requirement to crash
the car and then restart the engine and keep
driving - although that would be convenient.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as a
structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea how far
behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so can't say if it's
particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a stressed member
would pass the crash test required in order to be legal for sale in he US.
Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

I'm no expert but I believe there are crash tests
elsewhere, although not necessarily equal.
And I assume this is quite strong glass, and it
isn't /just/ glass. If it breaks in the crash
test, well, there isn't a requirement to crash
the car and then restart the engine and keep
driving - although that would be convenient.

If it isn't "just glass" then what _is_ it? Some kind of magic glass
infused with force fields by Montgomery Scott and Geordi LaForge? It's two
layers of non-tempered glass with a layer of flexible plastic in between.

And if it breaks in the crash test then how does it provide any strength?
Metal continues to absorb energy after it starts bending, glass shatters
and after that it has no further energy absorbing capability until it is
compressed down to a point where the shards start shattering. If a car is
compressed that far nobody is getting out of it except possibly James Bond.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as a
structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea how far
behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so can't say if it's
particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a stressed member
would pass the crash test required in order to be legal for sale in he US.
Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

I'm no expert but I believe there are crash tests
elsewhere, although not necessarily equal.
And I assume this is quite strong glass, and it
isn't /just/ glass. If it breaks in the crash
test, well, there isn't a requirement to crash
the car and then restart the engine and keep
driving - although that would be convenient.

If it isn't "just glass" then what _is_ it? Some kind of magic glass
infused with force fields by Montgomery Scott and Geordi LaForge? It's two
layers of non-tempered glass with a layer of flexible plastic in between.
And if it breaks in the crash test then how does it provide any strength?
Metal continues to absorb energy after it starts bending, glass shatters
and after that it has no further energy absorbing capability until it is
compressed down to a point where the shards start shattering. If a car is
compressed that far nobody is getting out of it except possibly James Bond.

Glass is strong until it breaks. That's sufficient.

Wikipedia has all of this, including - marked dubious -
the thing about air bags. I would guess that an
actual concern is a deformed window obstructing the
air bag expansion, although also the air bag basically
is a cushion placed between the seat occupant and
the windshield - so relying on the windshield
staying in place, for the bag to function as a
cushion.

And, yeah, it has "plastic" in it. I thought
I heard there were about twenty distinct layers
in a windshield, but maybe I misheard a recipe
for lasagna.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as a
structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea how far
behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so can't say if it's
particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a stressed member
would pass the crash test required in order to be legal for sale in he US.
Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

I'm no expert but I believe there are crash tests
elsewhere, although not necessarily equal.
And I assume this is quite strong glass, and it
isn't /just/ glass. If it breaks in the crash
test, well, there isn't a requirement to crash
the car and then restart the engine and keep
driving - although that would be convenient.

If it isn't "just glass" then what _is_ it? Some kind of magic glass
infused with force fields by Montgomery Scott and Geordi LaForge? It's two
layers of non-tempered glass with a layer of flexible plastic in between.
And if it breaks in the crash test then how does it provide any strength?
Metal continues to absorb energy after it starts bending, glass shatters
and after that it has no further energy absorbing capability until it is
compressed down to a point where the shards start shattering. If a car is
compressed that far nobody is getting out of it except possibly James Bond.

Glass is strong until it breaks. That's sufficient.

It is? So it's perfectly all right with you that after the glass breaks
and the car according to you loses significant structural integrity, it
then collapses and kills you?

Post by Robert Carnegie
Wikipedia has all of this, including - marked dubious -
the thing about air bags.

Wikipedia has many things. Some of them are true. It is not an an
authoritative source. I can change it if I want to. Maybe someone else
will disagree with my change and change it back, maybe they won't. It is
useful for such questions as "who is this Kardashian person and should I
care". It is entertaining for historical and technical questions and
sometimes provides a useful overview of an unfamiliar a topic. But it is
not ever, EVER to be trusted for anything important.

However all references to the windshield being structural seem to be marked
"citation needed"--somebody who cares enough to edit the page doesn't
accept them any more than I do.

Post by Robert Carnegie
I would guess that an
actual concern is a deformed window obstructing the
air bag expansion, although also the air bag basically
is a cushion placed between the seat occupant and
the windshield - so relying on the windshield
staying in place, for the bag to function as a
cushion.

If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between the
passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the windshield is seldom
fatal--it breaks.

Post by Robert Carnegie
And, yeah, it has "plastic" in it. I thought
I heard there were about twenty distinct layers
in a windshield, but maybe I misheard a recipe
for lasagna.

Very likely.

[Greg Goss]

Post by J. Clarke
It is? So it's perfectly all right with you that after the glass breaks
and the car according to you loses significant structural integrity, it
then collapses and kills you?

If it gets to that point and there's still energy to be absorbed, then
the ongoing collapse absorbs energy and prevents the deceleration from
killing you. Nobody's saying it goes "poof" and there's no frame
anymore.

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between the
passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the windshield is seldom
fatal--it breaks.

Right. But the cushion also holds the passenger in place while the
kinetic energy is dissipated slowly enough to survive. For that, the
cushion needs to stay in place. A bag of air isn't going to hold the
passenger in place if there's nothing behind it.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by J. Clarke
It is? So it's perfectly all right with you that after the glass breaks
and the car according to you loses significant structural integrity, it
then collapses and kills you?

If it gets to that point and there's still energy to be absorbed, then
the ongoing collapse absorbs energy and prevents the deceleration from
killing you. Nobody's saying it goes "poof" and there's no frame
anymore.

If the frame can absorb the energy the contribution of a piece of glass is
going to be minor. If the frame can't absorb the energy then the
miniuscule amount of energy that glass can absorb isn't going to make a
difference.

I have watched a teen-aged girl intentionally smash the windshield out of a
car with her knee. I have not seen one smash the entire front end with her
knee. Do you think that something a teen-aged girl can easily break with
no injury to herself is going to protect you in a crash?

Post by Greg Goss

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between the
passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the windshield is seldom
fatal--it breaks.

Right. But the cushion also holds the passenger in place while the
kinetic energy is dissipated slowly enough to survive. For that, the
cushion needs to stay in place. A bag of air isn't going to hold the
passenger in place if there's nothing behind it.

IF there's nothing for the passenger to hit then there is no need to hold
the passenger in place.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between the
passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the windshield is seldom
fatal--it breaks.

They're designed to be weak when smacked from the inside partly for that
reason.

Post by Greg Goss
Right. But the cushion also holds the passenger in place while the
kinetic energy is dissipated slowly enough to survive. For that, the
cushion needs to stay in place. A bag of air isn't going to hold the
passenger in place if there's nothing behind it.

Airbags don't work like balloons or inflatable pool cushions, they
explode/absorb a human impact/collapse in under a second and do all
their work at that moment of the crash. They'll happily break your nose
and glasses and eardrums if needed to stop you smashing your head on
things. They're also tethered to the location they explode from,
securely enough to do that protection.

Cheers - Jaimie

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Greg Goss

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between the
passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the windshield is seldom
fatal--it breaks.

They're designed to be weak when smacked from the inside partly for that
reason.

Post by Greg Goss
Right. But the cushion also holds the passenger in place while the
kinetic energy is dissipated slowly enough to survive. For that, the
cushion needs to stay in place. A bag of air isn't going to hold the
passenger in place if there's nothing behind it.

Airbags don't work like balloons or inflatable pool cushions, they
explode/absorb a human impact/collapse in under a second and do all
their work at that moment of the crash. They'll happily break your nose
and glasses and eardrums if needed to stop you smashing your head on
things. They're also tethered to the location they explode from,
securely enough to do that protection.
Cheers - Jaimie

I've read a bit more: it seems that after all,
the thing with air bags and windshields is that
the passenger bag was, or is, or might be built
to be fired towards the windshield, not the
passenger, who gets it on the rebound from
the windshield. As for how fast - I'll look
for videos. In a crash in a TV comedy show,
the air bags remain inflated long enough for
the audience to appreciate and laugh at the joke.
In real life, the first impact is not necessarily
the end of the incident.

The U.S. roof crush resistance standard - for
car with windshield in place - in successive
versions, is called FMVSS 216. Glass companies
talk about the importance of the properly fitted
windshield, which doesn't prove it but that
doesn't justify not having one. Some safety
campaigners say that the 2012 standard is
unsatisfactory specifically because the windshield
resists force squashing the car in a test, but
not in an actual roll-over crash: there's also
concern about the direction in which force is
applied in the test.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

On Sunday, 9 April 2017 19:45:35 UTC+1, Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Greg Goss

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion
between the passenger and the windshield. In any case
hitting the windshield is seldom fatal--it breaks.

They're designed to be weak when smacked from the inside partly
for that reason.

Post by Greg Goss
Right. But the cushion also holds the passenger in place
while the kinetic energy is dissipated slowly enough to
survive. For that, the cushion needs to stay in place. A bag
of air isn't going to hold the passenger in place if there's
nothing behind it.

Airbags don't work like balloons or inflatable pool cushions,
they explode/absorb a human impact/collapse in under a second
and do all their work at that moment of the crash. They'll
happily break your nose and glasses and eardrums if needed to
stop you smashing your head on things. They're also tethered to
the location they explode from, securely enough to do that
protection.
Cheers - Jaimie

I've read a bit more: it seems that after all,
the thing with air bags and windshields is that
the passenger bag was, or is, or might be built
to be fired towards the windshield, not the
passenger, who gets it on the rebound from
the windshield. As for how fast - I'll look
for videos. In a crash in a TV comedy show,
the air bags remain inflated long enough for
the audience to appreciate and laugh at the joke.
In real life, the first impact is not necessarily
the end of the incident.

I've had two airbags go off in my fact. In both cases, it was so
fast I had to deduce what happened after the fact, from the
deflated airbag in my lap. This is intentional, so that you are not
blinded by the infalted airbag while the car might still be in
motion. This is, of course, the driver's side airbag, but the
passenger side isn't that much different.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Greg Goss

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between the
passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the windshield is seldom
fatal--it breaks.

They're designed to be weak when smacked from the inside partly for that
reason.

Post by Greg Goss
Right. But the cushion also holds the passenger in place while the
kinetic energy is dissipated slowly enough to survive. For that, the
cushion needs to stay in place. A bag of air isn't going to hold the
passenger in place if there's nothing behind it.

Airbags don't work like balloons or inflatable pool cushions, they
explode/absorb a human impact/collapse in under a second and do all
their work at that moment of the crash. They'll happily break your nose
and glasses and eardrums if needed to stop you smashing your head on
things. They're also tethered to the location they explode from,
securely enough to do that protection.
Cheers - Jaimie

I've read a bit more: it seems that after all,
the thing with air bags and windshields is that
the passenger bag was, or is, or might be built
to be fired towards the windshield, not the
passenger, who gets it on the rebound from
the windshield. As for how fast - I'll look
for videos. In a crash in a TV comedy show,
the air bags remain inflated long enough for
the audience to appreciate and laugh at the joke.
In real life, the first impact is not necessarily
the end of the incident.
The U.S. roof crush resistance standard - for
car with windshield in place - in successive
versions, is called FMVSS 216. Glass companies
talk about the importance of the properly fitted
windshield, which doesn't prove it but that
doesn't justify not having one. Some safety
campaigners say that the 2012 standard is
unsatisfactory specifically because the windshield
resists force squashing the car in a test, but
not in an actual roll-over crash: there's also
concern about the direction in which force is
applied in the test.

I'm pretty sure that by the time the windshield frame has been crushed
127mm, the windshield has ceased to have any meaningful structural
integrity. It doesn't actually contain any requirement with regard to the
windshield.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between
the passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the
windshield is seldom fatal--it breaks.

You've clearly never gone face first into a windwhield in a
collision. My sister did, once, at maybe 25 mph. That wasn't fatal,
but at twice that speed it easily could have.

And if you aren't sopped by the windshield, you'll _keep going_. I
know you're a drooling retard, but reflect for a moment on the
consequences of that in a collision.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between
the passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the
windshield is seldom fatal--it breaks.

You've clearly never gone face first into a windwhield in a
collision. My sister did, once, at maybe 25 mph. That wasn't fatal,
but at twice that speed it easily could have.
And if you aren't sopped by the windshield, you'll _keep going_. I
know you're a drooling retard, but reflect for a moment on the
consequences of that in a collision.

Surely seatbelts prevent that kind of thing.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by J. Clarke
If there's no windshield there's no need for a cushion between
the passenger and the windshield. In any case hitting the
windshield is seldom fatal--it breaks.

You've clearly never gone face first into a windwhield in a
collision. My sister did, once, at maybe 25 mph. That wasn't
fatal, but at twice that speed it easily could have.
And if you aren't sopped by the windshield, you'll _keep
going_. I know you're a drooling retard, but reflect for a
moment on the consequences of that in a collision.

Surely seatbelts prevent that kind of thing.

If they were 100% effective, we wouldn't have air bags. (And only
with shoulder harnass.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
However all references to the windshield being structural seem to be marked
"citation needed"--somebody who cares enough to edit the page doesn't
accept them any more than I do.

A web search on the topic turned out innumerable ads by
companies that replace windshields on cars stating that the
windshield now provides up to 45% of the structural strength of
the car in certain kinds of accidents.

That is, 45% of the structural strength of the car in holding
the roof up; I'm sure the car's strength in keeping the front
and rear bumpers apart comes from other sources.

Of course, that's a biased source. But I did also turn up a
brochure in PDF format from 3M saying that starting in the
1980s, when car manufacturers searched for ways to save weight
in cars, they started using the windshield for structural
strength.

So while no roof meaning that the doors won't open is a bit
unusual, that the roof itself rests on the windshields in front
and back, not just on the metal frame of the car, doesn't sound
too unreasonable when they're shaving off every ounce for
better gas mileage.

John Savard

[Greg Goss]

Post by Quadibloc
So while no roof meaning that the doors won't open is a bit
unusual, that the roof itself rests on the windshields in front
and back, not just on the metal frame of the car, doesn't sound
too unreasonable when they're shaving off every ounce for
better gas mileage.

The argument started between a Suburban owner and a Metro
(Swift/Firefly/Sprint/Forsa) owner. One of those car designers cared
much more about shaving every ounce than the other car designer.

I'm sure that the Metro owner's manual had the bit about precautions
to take when towing without a windshield.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields
over the last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich
that traps broken glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if
windshields back then had the plastic layer, but I am sure
they were much thicker. Thinner windshields is one of the
ways they have made cars lighter and more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the
structural bracing. That if the windshield is broken and
you expect to repair the car you should have it towed by a
specialist to avoid bending the rest of the car. (I tend to
drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I think that point
was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove
it 20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC
Suburban, which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as
a structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea
how far behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so
can't say if it's particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a
stressed member would pass the crash test required in order to be
legal for sale in he US.
Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

I'm no expert but I believe there are crash tests
elsewhere, although not necessarily equal.
And I assume this is quite strong glass, and it
isn't /just/ glass. If it breaks in the crash
test, well, there isn't a requirement to crash
the car and then restart the engine and keep
driving - although that would be convenient.

If it isn't "just glass" then what _is_ it? Some kind of magic glass
infused with force fields by Montgomery Scott and Geordi LaForge?
It's two layers of non-tempered glass with a layer of flexible
plastic in between.
And if it breaks in the crash test then how does it provide any
strength? Metal continues to absorb energy after it starts bending,
glass shatters and after that it has no further energy absorbing
capability until it is compressed down to a point where the shards
start shattering. If a car is compressed that far nobody is getting
out of it except possibly James Bond.

Glass is strong until it breaks. That's sufficient.

Windshields are pretty tough. Even if they shatter, they
provide quite a bit of resistance before that happens, which
will reduce the chance of roof collapse during the initial impact,

These days, windshields are composed of a 3 layer sandwich, with
two layers of tempered glass with a clear plastic layer between.

Post by Robert Carnegie
Wikipedia has all of this, including - marked dubious -
the thing about air bags. I would guess that an
actual concern is a deformed window obstructing the
air bag expansion, although also the air bag basically
is a cushion placed between the seat occupant and
the windshield - so relying on the windshield
staying in place, for the bag to function as a
cushion.
And, yeah, it has "plastic" in it. I thought
I heard there were about twenty distinct layers
in a windshield, but maybe I misheard a recipe
for lasagna.

Just 3, to the best of my knowledge, though there
are some oddities, such as a tin oxide layer or
embedded wires to provide quick clearing of frost
or fog.

Side windows are unlaminated tempered glass, and
will shatter into tiny fragments if hit right.

pt

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields
over the last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich
that traps broken glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if
windshields back then had the plastic layer, but I am sure
they were much thicker. Thinner windshields is one of the
ways they have made cars lighter and more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the
structural bracing. That if the windshield is broken and
you expect to repair the car you should have it towed by a
specialist to avoid bending the rest of the car. (I tend to
drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I think that point
was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove
it 20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC
Suburban, which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as
a structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea
how far behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so
can't say if it's particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a
stressed member would pass the crash test required in order to be
legal for sale in he US.
Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

I'm no expert but I believe there are crash tests
elsewhere, although not necessarily equal.
And I assume this is quite strong glass, and it
isn't /just/ glass. If it breaks in the crash
test, well, there isn't a requirement to crash
the car and then restart the engine and keep
driving - although that would be convenient.

If it isn't "just glass" then what _is_ it? Some kind of magic glass
infused with force fields by Montgomery Scott and Geordi LaForge?
It's two layers of non-tempered glass with a layer of flexible
plastic in between.
And if it breaks in the crash test then how does it provide any
strength? Metal continues to absorb energy after it starts bending,
glass shatters and after that it has no further energy absorbing
capability until it is compressed down to a point where the shards
start shattering. If a car is compressed that far nobody is getting
out of it except possibly James Bond.

Glass is strong until it breaks. That's sufficient.

Windshields are pretty tough. Even if they shatter, they
provide quite a bit of resistance before that happens, which
will reduce the chance of roof collapse during the initial impact,
These days, windshields are composed of a 3 layer sandwich, with
two layers of tempered glass with a clear plastic layer between.

That's why I was surprised by the story upthread about the girl kicking
out a windscreen. I would have thought she would have just kicked a hole
in it, with the rest of the windscreen hanging together.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields
over the last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich
that traps broken glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if
windshields back then had the plastic layer, but I am sure
they were much thicker. Thinner windshields is one of the
ways they have made cars lighter and more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the
structural bracing. That if the windshield is broken and
you expect to repair the car you should have it towed by a
specialist to avoid bending the rest of the car. (I tend to
drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I think that point
was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove
it 20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC
Suburban, which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as
a structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea
how far behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so
can't say if it's particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a
stressed member would pass the crash test required in order to be
legal for sale in he US.
Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

I'm no expert but I believe there are crash tests
elsewhere, although not necessarily equal.
And I assume this is quite strong glass, and it
isn't /just/ glass. If it breaks in the crash
test, well, there isn't a requirement to crash
the car and then restart the engine and keep
driving - although that would be convenient.

If it isn't "just glass" then what _is_ it? Some kind of magic glass
infused with force fields by Montgomery Scott and Geordi LaForge?
It's two layers of non-tempered glass with a layer of flexible
plastic in between.
And if it breaks in the crash test then how does it provide any
strength? Metal continues to absorb energy after it starts bending,
glass shatters and after that it has no further energy absorbing
capability until it is compressed down to a point where the shards
start shattering. If a car is compressed that far nobody is getting
out of it except possibly James Bond.

Glass is strong until it breaks. That's sufficient.

Windshields are pretty tough. Even if they shatter, they
provide quite a bit of resistance before that happens, which
will reduce the chance of roof collapse during the initial impact,
These days, windshields are composed of a 3 layer sandwich, with
two layers of tempered glass with a clear plastic layer between.

That's why I was surprised by the story upthread about the girl kicking
out a windscreen. I would have thought she would have just kicked a hole
in it, with the rest of the windscreen hanging together.

She had to knee it several times before she got the whole thing smashed up
enough to be easily removable.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields
over the last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich
that traps broken glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if
windshields back then had the plastic layer, but I am sure
they were much thicker. Thinner windshields is one of the
ways they have made cars lighter and more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the
structural bracing. That if the windshield is broken and
you expect to repair the car you should have it towed by a
specialist to avoid bending the rest of the car. (I tend to
drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I think that point
was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove
it 20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC
Suburban, which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as
a structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea
how far behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so
can't say if it's particularly correct across the board.

I would be very surprised if anything that used glass as a
stressed member would pass the crash test required in order to be
legal for sale in he US.
Maybe that's why FIAT and the like gave up on the US market.

I'm no expert but I believe there are crash tests
elsewhere, although not necessarily equal.
And I assume this is quite strong glass, and it
isn't /just/ glass. If it breaks in the crash
test, well, there isn't a requirement to crash
the car and then restart the engine and keep
driving - although that would be convenient.

If it isn't "just glass" then what _is_ it? Some kind of magic glass
infused with force fields by Montgomery Scott and Geordi LaForge?
It's two layers of non-tempered glass with a layer of flexible
plastic in between.
And if it breaks in the crash test then how does it provide any
strength? Metal continues to absorb energy after it starts bending,
glass shatters and after that it has no further energy absorbing
capability until it is compressed down to a point where the shards
start shattering. If a car is compressed that far nobody is getting
out of it except possibly James Bond.

Glass is strong until it breaks. That's sufficient.

Windshields are pretty tough. Even if they shatter, they
provide quite a bit of resistance before that happens, which
will reduce the chance of roof collapse during the initial impact,
These days, windshields are composed of a 3 layer sandwich, with
two layers of tempered glass with a clear plastic layer between.

That's why I was surprised by the story upthread about the girl kicking
out a windscreen. I would have thought she would have just kicked a hole
in it, with the rest of the windscreen hanging together.

She had to knee it several times before she got the whole thing smashed up
enough to be easily removable.

Right. I remember driving for nearly a year with a tiny hole in my
windscreen that was, fortunately, outside the the main area I wanted to
see through. It gradually spread until I had to have a new one installed.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Robert Carnegie
Glass is strong until it breaks. That's sufficient.
Wikipedia has all of this, including - marked dubious -
the thing about air bags. I would guess that an
actual concern is a deformed window obstructing the
air bag expansion, although also the air bag basically
is a cushion placed between the seat occupant and
the windshield - so relying on the windshield
staying in place, for the bag to function as a
cushion.

I think that in the race between the shock wave and the airbag
trigger, that the airbag wins and starts expanding before the
windshield can deform enough to block it.

In my visualization of this claim, the windshield provides the
backstop so that the airbag is a cushion between the passenger and ...
something. Most car dashes are essentially horizontal with the
passenger airbag coming out of the TOP of it. Without some kind of
backstop, a lightweight cushion won't accomplish anything.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 4/9/2017 6:14 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
<snip discussion of do airbags need intact windshields>

Post by Robert Carnegie
And, yeah, it has "plastic" in it. I thought
I heard there were about twenty distinct layers
in a windshield, but maybe I misheard a recipe
for lasagna.

Remind me to never come to your place for dinner on Italian night. :P

[Stephen Harker]

Post by Robert Carnegie
And, yeah, it has "plastic" in it. I thought
I heard there were about twenty distinct layers
in a windshield, but maybe I misheard a recipe
for lasagna.

Thanks for the tip on the constituents of lasagna, I will add it to the
reasons I given for avoiding it. It may explain the taste!

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:05:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by J. Clarke
If it isn't "just glass" then what _is_ it? Some kind of magic glass
infused with force fields by Montgomery Scott and Geordi LaForge? It's two
layers of non-tempered glass with a layer of flexible plastic in between.

Well, if you want to bring Star Trek into it, then perahps it is
transparent aluminum:
<http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Transparent_aluminum>

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 00:05:53 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over
the last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps
broken glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter
and more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending
the rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser
cars. I think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993
Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

That's got a truck chassis to bear the stresses, so sure.
Modern car-sized cars do indeed use the front and rear glass as a
structural member, at least outside the USA. I have no idea how far
behind your design methods are (apart from Tesla), so can't say if
it's particularly correct across the board.

It's got little to do with being behind, and a lot to do with some US
cars being long and heavy, or (pickups) being designed for heavy
loads, and being open to modification.

Amateur mechanics (especially young men with beater first cars)
sometimes cut the roof off a car to make their very own custom
convertible.

This actually worked/works if you have a car with a body on a frame.

If you try it on a car with a unibody frame, at very least, the doors
will no longer open, since without the bracing of the roof and rear
window, the center of the car sags.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MechanicAdvice/comments/2op2u9/can_i_just_cut_th
e_roof_off_some_beater_car_for_a/

pt

[Greg Goss]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

Yeah, the Suburban is a totally different engineering concept than the
microcars. I think that the truck-style SUVs still build a frame and
sit the car on top of that. For the microcars, they use the body AS
the frame. If you have a frame, then this theory about the structural
windshield is not relevant.

I said that I drove a Metro (Swift/Forsa/Firefly/Sprint). Because of
losing the roof (and windshield) for bracing, the convertible version
was massively heavier than the regular Metro. (from a quarter
Suburban to a third of a Suburban?)

[J. Clarke]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Greg Goss

Post by 1***@compuserve.com

Post by ***@bid.nes
How long ago was that? The biggest change in windshields over the
last many decades was the plastic-film sandwich that traps broken
glass.

I'm 59 now, so about 50 years ago. I don't know if windshields back
then had the plastic layer, but I am sure they were much thicker.
Thinner windshields is one of the ways they have made cars lighter and
more fuel-efficient.

I've been told that the windshield is now part of the structural
bracing. That if the windshield is broken and you expect to repair
the car you should have it towed by a specialist to avoid bending the
rest of the car. (I tend to drive very lightweight gas-miser cars. I
think that point was in my owner's manual for my 1993 Metro.)

I had my winshield destroyed by an errant tree branch at about
60 MPH a while back, and no such care was required - I drove it
20 miles home and to the repair shop. But this was a GMC Suburban,
which is not an ordinary car.

Yeah, the Suburban is a totally different engineering concept than the
microcars. I think that the truck-style SUVs still build a frame and
sit the car on top of that. For the microcars, they use the body AS
the frame. If you have a frame, then this theory about the structural
windshield is not relevant.

My 5295 pound Lincoln doesn't have a separate frame. Neither does my 4056
pound Jeep.

Unibody construction has nothing to do with "microcars". It may be that
structural integrity was sacrificed in some ultra lightweight models to
save weight but this is a function of weight saving, not unibody design.

Post by Greg Goss
I said that I drove a Metro (Swift/Forsa/Firefly/Sprint). Because of
losing the roof (and windshield) for bracing, the convertible version
was massively heavier than the regular Metro. (from a quarter
Suburban to a third of a Suburban?)

Why? Doesn't your convertible have a windshield?

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Greg Goss
I said that I drove a Metro (Swift/Forsa/Firefly/Sprint). Because of
losing the roof (and windshield) for bracing, the convertible version
was massively heavier than the regular Metro. (from a quarter
Suburban to a third of a Suburban?)

Why? Doesn't your convertible have a windshield?

I think the idea is that the windshield only helps to supply bracing through
the fact that it is connected to the roof, and the rear windshield, and so on.

John Savard

[Jack Bohn]

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

There was a story (I thought in the Magazine of F&SF) about a fellow following another explorer in seeking a "fourth primary." (Which I thought was the title, but isfdb.org doesn't list it, and their yearly indexes doesn't give a title I recognize as the story, although a few generic enough to might be it.) This might actually be a method for the end of the story to work -- spoilers rot13:

Vg jnf va gur vevfrf bs gur crbcyr jub pncgherq bhe ureb. Jryy, vs abfr-gb-abfr jvgu fhpu...

[Quadibloc]

Post by Jack Bohn
There was a story (I thought in the Magazine of F&SF) about a fellow
following another explorer in seeking a "fourth primary."

This may have no real connection to it, but it may have been inspired by
what you saw...

I got a result for "The Private Files of Dr. Seltsam" where one Filipos
and his assistant Malakas search for the fourth primary color in and
around Utrecht... it seems to be part of a musical fantasy.

John Savard

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Jack Bohn
There was a story (I thought in the Magazine of F&SF) about a fellow
following another explorer in seeking a "fourth primary."

This may have no real connection to it, but it may have been inspired by
what you saw...
I got a result for "The Private Files of Dr. Seltsam" where one Filipos
and his assistant Malakas search for the fourth primary color in and
around Utrecht... it seems to be part of a musical fantasy.

There's always the "additional spectra" that Campbell put into
the outline he gave Heinlein to write, for _Fifth Column._ Bosh
physics so far as I know, but as Heinlein remarked, he needed the
money.

[Jack Bohn]

Post by Jack Bohn

Post by Quadibloc
I remember reading a children's novel, possibly by Enid Blyton, in which the
heroine wanders into the cave where the bad guys are preparing their plot,
and she sees glowing ingots of the strange metal they are making... glowing
in a color she never saw before!
So this idea has appeared in fiction.

Vg jnf va gur vevfrf bs gur crbcyr jub pncgherq bhe ureb. Jryy, vs abfr-gb-abfr jvgu fhpu...

"Blind Windows" by Garry Kilworth.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
https://techxplore.com/news/2017-03-filters-tetrachromatic-vision-humans.html
Humans have three types of cone cells in the back of the
eye to differentiate color. Some react to blue, some to
green and some to red. The cones do their work by responding
to the difference in wavelength of the incoming light. Such
vision is known as trichromatic. In this new effort, the
researchers have found a way of fooling the brain into
seeing as if there were a fourth type of cone, by wearing
glasses with two types of filters. The result is tetrachromatic
vision.
http://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stunning-colors.html
Red-Green & Blue-Yellow: The Stunning Colors You Can't See

There are some women that have a slightly different blue gene on one X
than on the other, and are therefore tetrachromatic. It's hard for
them to say if they see anything differently than we do.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:01:15 -0600, Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Greg Goss
There are some women that have a slightly different blue gene on one X
than on the other, and are therefore tetrachromatic. It's hard for
them to say if they see anything differently than we do.

Is it merely that they do not know what we see any more than we
know what they see, or is it something else?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Greg Goss]

Post by Gene Wirchenko
[snip]

Post by Greg Goss
There are some women that have a slightly different blue gene on one X
than on the other, and are therefore tetrachromatic. It's hard for
them to say if they see anything differently than we do.

Is it merely that they do not know what we see any more than we
know what they see, or is it something else?

The first.

[r***@gmail.com]

There was an Asimov story, I think in _The Early Asimov_, where
Martians (I think) could see another primary color. The story had
them use a brain helmet to give an Earthman the ability to sense
it, temporarily ...

[David Mitchell]

Post by r***@gmail.com
There was an Asimov story, I think in _The Early Asimov_, where
Martians (I think) could see another primary color. The story had
them use a brain helmet to give an Earthman the ability to sense
it, temporarily ...

I think that was actually the ability to "see" either magnetic or
electric fields, rather than a different portion of the em spectrum.