The story certainly deserved recognition. I was quite frankly surprised that someone had written a story that involved the Civil War, and then I was floored to discover that you had given it such an authentic treatment. The language, setting, and pace were spot on to that war (not surprising in hindsight, given your mention that you're a Civil War scholar).
Your writing style brought it all together very nicely, and I'm glad you didn't cop out and save the lad's life after such a quickly fatal wound. It worked better with Celestia's comments to Fluttershy about the nature of our race. Thanks for writing it!
I'd like to thank you for your Fave of The Youth in the Garden. The fact that you did means that my attempt to commemorate a life and a battle worked to some small degree.
>>8499484994 You're most welcome! The story absolutely deserved it! I always appreciate it when an author can give some emotional depth to the characters, and your Post Nuptials delivered in spades. The premise itself is one that gets surprisingly little consideration, despite how much the season finale has been dissected and re-envisioned by so many people. That accusation scene in Canterlot Wedding would've left some emotional scarring on all ponies involved, each in a somewhat different way, and I'm glad that you gave it the treatment you did. The Mane 6, Celestia, and Shining Armor would've needed the closure.
In any event, I'm also following your sequel, and I look forward to seeing where you go with it.
>>7376573765 Yeah! She looks like she was sad, but she's begun being happy, and is finishing crying.
Ooh, the Bhopal Disaster looks terrible =( I guess that is a pretty good example of why there are rules...
Heh, yeah, I was joking =) I'm sure you'll do a great job and will end up saving them a substantial amount of money! who know's; maybe you'll have a stroke of genius and will end up saving them billions =D Oh man, that's great then! Enjoying you're worki is paramount to perfection in my mind!
Wow, CFD does seem pretty awesome! I never knew that games used a similar model!
I tried sending you a message. Hopefully it's you. I mean, it seems unlikely that another chemcial engineer shares both your name and state XD
Also, sorry if I didn't ask any pertinent questions; my brain is fried from talking to a future professor of mine for hours on end XD
>>7362173621 As promised, a Cliff's-Notes version of CFD:
Let's start off with moving fluids (liquids, gases, anything that behaves that way). There are equations that can tell you perfectly how those fluids will behave, no matter how weird (cornstarch and water, anyone?) they are. However, and here's the catch, those equations only work on a differential scale. In other words, their terms are all derivatives, so they can only talk about infinitessimally small bits of fluid. Not that useful for real-world stuff, right? Well, we might not be able to describe our real-world fluids exactly, but if we cheat a little bit we can get pretty doggone close. This is where CFD comes in. Like other finite-element analysis methods, CFD takes the system (the body of fluid and other stuff) we're looking at and creates an approximation of it. Here's how:
Alright, analogy time. When a digital camera takes a picture of the real world, it makes a grid of pixels that, taken together, look more or less like whatever it was you were taking a picture of. You're missing some of the finer details that the real world has, but if your camera's resolution is high enough you've got all the details you care about, and you can easily tell what it was you were looking at. Similarly, the first step in doing a CFD simulation of a real-world fluid system is to make a "pixelated" version of the system. We turn the body of fluid and everything that it's bumping up against into a bunch of boxes or other funny-shaped volumes. We usually go for smaller boxes around bits where interesting stuff is happening, much like how you care more about your camera's resolution when you get to parts in your photo where the fine details matter more to you.
Next, we take our pesky differential fluid equations and we approximate them. We remove all the terms that we don't think will matter (sometimes we can take out terms that talk about how much the fluid can be compressed or what its vorticity is like) and we turn all the remaining differential (derivative-like) terms into delta-like terms (e.g. instead of dy/dx we end up with (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)). If we've got integration terms, we turn those into sums. This gives us equations that the computer will find a piece of cake. We can do this because in our pixelated model we assume that inside each of those cells the fluid properties are pretty much uniform (like how every bit inside a single pixel of our picture is exactly the same color, even though the real world bits that pixel came from weren't quite all the same color - they were just close enough it didn't matter).
Once we've done that and set up what is supposed to be happening out at the borders of our little simulated world, we have our computer solve our approximated equations within each of our pixelated cells. However, since these equations for the pixel cells each depend on what's going on in neighboring cells, we have to re-solve our equations through several (sometimes a few thousand or more) iterations before we've settled on the final solution that tells us how our simulated fluid is behaving in its simulated world.
An interesting note here: the computer animation industry uses a watered-down version of this method for doing all the simulations for water and the like that you see in the movies. The reason it looks so real is because it's based on this method for simulating real-world fluids. Neat, huh?
>>7362173621 On the verge of being cheered up? Huh. Guess my screen resolution didn't clue me in on that. I may have almost nothing in common with Pinkie, but I still think she's a wonderful character.
Wary of your age? Not really. Not given the way you've already been presenting yourself here. You write politely and intelligently. It kinda clued me in a little bit on what kind of person you were before the question of age ever came up.
No, I don't mind at all if you quote me on that. Matter of fact, I don't care if it's a quote at all. On the subject of screwups, probably the best example of a big-scale chemical engineer screwup was the Bhopal Disaster (look it up, but don't expect to be happy about it when you're done). This is why we engineers and scientists have so many rules. I never want to see anything like that repeated ever again.
Billions of dollars?! Whoa, there! Give me a chance! I just barely started three weeks ago! But I do love this job. The nature of the work is right up my alley, and the people I work with are terrific!
CFD is pretty awesome, I will agree! I'll try sending you a more complete description of how it works later today (I wrote a 10-page paper on it a few months ago, so I ought to know a thing or two about it )
Well, on Facebook I'm Eric Manwill. You can try looking me up there if you like. And no, I can't say I've ever had a psychopath try to check me out online. Of course, I never go places where those kinds of folks lurk online anyhow.
Re: writing, I'm a lot the same way. I write the same way that I speak. It sometimes confuses people since, because I'm so fond of words and language, I often end up using words they've never heard before. Oh well. C'est la vie.
I'm going to head into work now in just a minute here. Talk to you later, Doctor.
>>7354173541 I got the feeling that she was on the verge of being cheered up. Look! She's got a slight smile on her mouth =) Or maybe that's just my screen resolution =3 Or wishful thinking XD
Glad to hear it! Though many.... well, unfortunately, most of the people I know my age are.... well, idiots. And it's not that they're just not smart; they're impolite, they're irrational, they're shallow, and they're ignorant without wanting to learn... So I don't know if I'd hold it against you if ya were, I guess, more wary of me being like that XD
Oh, well, thanks! I do hope that I'll be able to find something in at least one of those fields =) I mean, something that I love, at least.
Hmm, you make good points about the rules. I suppose that most of them are there for a good reason. I especially liked the line: "because we have the capacity to screw up in ways and on scales that normal people can't." (copied Twilight cause she's adorable XD ) You should really write that down. I know I will XD You mind if I quote you with that occasionally?
Anyway, I'll reserve my opinions on the rules for later. I may have jumped to conclusions a bit (possible due to my young-adult impulsiveness and rebelliousness) without having all, or, well, almost any information.
Bah, enough personal exposition! Back to science! =P
Oh, that's pretty awesome! =D You chemical engineers really DO seem like you do it all! So how's it going there? Have you eliminated billions of dollars worth of wasted energy? =P Also; do you enjoy it? This particular job, I mean? Have you ever worked anywhere else that's interesting?
Oh man, those Computational Fluid Dynamic simulation things look awesome! =O Oh, and I'm sure they're an amazing tool as well. XD Really though, how does it work? Do you just make a virtual model of what you want and then enter it into the computer? I mean, that seems to be the only way, really XD Oooh, can you scan stuff into it somehow?! That'd be awesome! =D
We may just end up crashing it XD Well, no! I don't have a problem chatting on facebook! I'm certainly not a serial-killer and/or psychopath, and though I can't personally attest for you, I'd like to think you aren't either, lol! XD Heck, we may just want to switch to something else anyway. I mean, it'd be cool to be friends with a chemical engineer on facebook =3
I mean, do internet psycho's even go after "old" people like us? =P
Ooh, I need to get on facebook and clear all of my courtesy friends XD
P.S. Sorry, I go on tangents sometimes. It's because I pretty much type how I speak, or think, most of the time. Generally it helps; people tell me my writing is engaging/heartfelt, but then it also opens the door for my Pinkie Pie brain XD Well, it cracks the door open a sliver, but I do my best to reign it in =P
P.P.S (Is that even legitimately a thing??) Sorry about all the random stuff again. Rambling. Shutting up.
Reset Password
Resend Verification Email
Biography 
Following emanwe (2)
emanwe Is Following (7)
Latest Stories 
Cancel
Send
Huzzah! You are wearing a hat as well!
.... If only it were a fez...
>>135044
The story certainly deserved recognition. I was quite frankly surprised that someone had written a story that involved the Civil War, and then I was floored to discover that you had given it such an authentic treatment. The language, setting, and pace were spot on to that war (not surprising in hindsight, given your mention that you're a Civil War scholar).
Your writing style brought it all together very nicely, and I'm glad you didn't cop out and save the lad's life after such a quickly fatal wound. It worked better with Celestia's comments to Fluttershy about the nature of our race. Thanks for writing it!
I'd like to thank you for your Fave of The Youth in the Garden. The fact that you did means that my attempt to commemorate a life and a battle worked to some small degree.
And now, thanks for the favorite on Families!
>>84994 You're most welcome! The story absolutely deserved it! I always appreciate it when an author can give some emotional depth to the characters, and your Post Nuptials delivered in spades. The premise itself is one that gets surprisingly little consideration, despite how much the season finale has been dissected and re-envisioned by so many people. That accusation scene in Canterlot Wedding would've left some emotional scarring on all ponies involved, each in a somewhat different way, and I'm glad that you gave it the treatment you did. The Mane 6, Celestia, and Shining Armor would've needed the closure.
In any event, I'm also following your sequel, and I look forward to seeing where you go with it.
Thanks for the favorite on Post Nuptials!
>>73765 Yeah! She looks like she was sad, but she's begun being happy, and is finishing crying.
Ooh, the Bhopal Disaster looks terrible =( I guess that is a pretty good example of why there are rules...
Heh, yeah, I was joking =) I'm sure you'll do a great job and will end up saving them a substantial amount of money! who know's; maybe you'll have a stroke of genius and will end up saving them billions =D Oh man, that's great then! Enjoying you're worki is paramount to perfection in my mind!
Wow, CFD does seem pretty awesome! I never knew that games used a similar model!
I tried sending you a message. Hopefully it's you. I mean, it seems unlikely that another chemcial engineer shares both your name and state XD
Also, sorry if I didn't ask any pertinent questions; my brain is fried from talking to a future professor of mine for hours on end XD
>>73621 As promised, a Cliff's-Notes version of CFD:
Let's start off with moving fluids (liquids, gases, anything that behaves that way). There are equations that can tell you perfectly how those fluids will behave, no matter how weird (cornstarch and water, anyone?) they are. However, and here's the catch, those equations only work on a differential scale. In other words, their terms are all derivatives, so they can only talk about infinitessimally small bits of fluid. Not that useful for real-world stuff, right?
Well, we might not be able to describe our real-world fluids exactly, but if we cheat a little bit we can get pretty doggone close. 
This is where CFD comes in. Like other finite-element analysis methods, CFD takes the system (the body of fluid and other stuff) we're looking at and creates an approximation of it. Here's how:
Alright, analogy time. When a digital camera takes a picture of the real world, it makes a grid of pixels that, taken together, look more or less like whatever it was you were taking a picture of. You're missing some of the finer details that the real world has, but if your camera's resolution is high enough you've got all the details you care about, and you can easily tell what it was you were looking at. Similarly, the first step in doing a CFD simulation of a real-world fluid system is to make a "pixelated" version of the system. We turn the body of fluid and everything that it's bumping up against into a bunch of boxes or other funny-shaped volumes. We usually go for smaller boxes around bits where interesting stuff is happening, much like how you care more about your camera's resolution when you get to parts in your photo where the fine details matter more to you.
Next, we take our pesky differential fluid equations and we approximate them. We remove all the terms that we don't think will matter (sometimes we can take out terms that talk about how much the fluid can be compressed or what its vorticity is like) and we turn all the remaining differential (derivative-like) terms into delta-like terms (e.g. instead of dy/dx we end up with (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)). If we've got integration terms, we turn those into sums. This gives us equations that the computer will find a piece of cake.
We can do this because in our pixelated model we assume that inside each of those cells the fluid properties are pretty much uniform (like how every bit inside a single pixel of our picture is exactly the same color, even though the real world bits that pixel came from weren't quite all the same color - they were just close enough it didn't matter).
Once we've done that and set up what is supposed to be happening out at the borders of our little simulated world, we have our computer solve our approximated equations within each of our pixelated cells. However, since these equations for the pixel cells each depend on what's going on in neighboring cells, we have to re-solve our equations through several (sometimes a few thousand or more) iterations before we've settled on the final solution that tells us how our simulated fluid is behaving in its simulated world.
An interesting note here: the computer animation industry uses a watered-down version of this method for doing all the simulations for water and the like that you see in the movies. The reason it looks so real is because it's based on this method for simulating real-world fluids. Neat, huh?
>>73621 On the verge of being cheered up? Huh. Guess my screen resolution didn't clue me in on that.
I may have almost nothing in common with Pinkie, but I still think she's a wonderful character.
Wary of your age? Not really. Not given the way you've already been presenting yourself here. You write politely and intelligently.
It kinda clued me in a little bit on what kind of person you were before the question of age ever came up.
No, I don't mind at all if you quote me on that. Matter of fact, I don't care if it's a quote at all. On the subject of screwups, probably the best example of a big-scale chemical engineer screwup was the Bhopal Disaster (look it up, but don't expect to be happy about it when you're done). This is why we engineers and scientists have so many rules. I never want to see anything like that repeated ever again.
Billions of dollars?!
Whoa, there! Give me a chance! I just barely started three weeks ago! 
But I do love this job. The nature of the work is right up my alley, and the people I work with are terrific! 
CFD is pretty awesome, I will agree! I'll try sending you a more complete description of how it works later today (I wrote a 10-page paper on it a few months ago, so I ought to know a thing or two about it
)
Well, on Facebook I'm Eric Manwill. You can try looking me up there if you like. And no, I can't say I've ever had a psychopath try to check me out online. Of course, I never go places where those kinds of folks lurk online anyhow.
Re: writing, I'm a lot the same way. I write the same way that I speak. It sometimes confuses people since, because I'm so fond of words and language, I often end up using words they've never heard before.
Oh well. C'est la vie.
I'm going to head into work now in just a minute here. Talk to you later, Doctor.
>>73541 I got the feeling that she was on the verge of being cheered up. Look! She's got a slight smile on her mouth =) Or maybe that's just my screen resolution =3 Or wishful thinking XD
Glad to hear it! Though many.... well, unfortunately, most of the people I know my age are.... well, idiots. And it's not that they're just not smart; they're impolite, they're irrational, they're shallow, and they're ignorant without wanting to learn... So I don't know if I'd hold it against you if ya were, I guess, more wary of me being like that XD
Oh, well, thanks! I do hope that I'll be able to find something in at least one of those fields =) I mean, something that I love, at least.
Hmm, you make good points about the rules. I suppose that most of them are there for a good reason. I especially liked the line: "because we have the capacity to screw up in ways and on scales that normal people can't."
(copied Twilight cause she's adorable XD ) You should really write that down. I know I will XD You mind if I quote you with that occasionally?
Anyway, I'll reserve my opinions on the rules for later. I may have jumped to conclusions a bit (possible due to my young-adult impulsiveness and rebelliousness) without having all, or, well, almost any information.
Bah, enough personal exposition! Back to science! =P
Oh, that's pretty awesome! =D You chemical engineers really DO seem like you do it all! So how's it going there? Have you eliminated billions of dollars worth of wasted energy? =P Also; do you enjoy it? This particular job, I mean? Have you ever worked anywhere else that's interesting?
Oh man, those Computational Fluid Dynamic simulation things look awesome! =O Oh, and I'm sure they're an amazing tool as well. XD Really though, how does it work? Do you just make a virtual model of what you want and then enter it into the computer? I mean, that seems to be the only way, really XD Oooh, can you scan stuff into it somehow?! That'd be awesome! =D
I mean, do internet psycho's even go after "old" people like us? =P
Ooh, I need to get on facebook and clear all of my courtesy friends XD
P.S. Sorry, I go on tangents sometimes. It's because I pretty much type how I speak, or think, most of the time. Generally it helps; people tell me my writing is engaging/heartfelt, but then it also opens the door for my Pinkie Pie brain XD Well, it cracks the door open a sliver, but I do my best to reign it in =P
P.P.S (Is that even legitimately a thing??) Sorry about all the random stuff again. Rambling. Shutting up.