Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Newtons cradle animation book.gif

Image:Newtons cradle animation book.gif - featured

•  Info created by Dominique Toussaint - uploaded by Dominique Toussaint - nominated by norro
•  Support norro 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Nice animation best job! --Luc Viatour 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment Looks a bit unnatural for me - if I good remember center balls wiggle a bit during hit? --WarX 16:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you reduce this machine to the physical basics and assume an elastic collision (in fact, steal is not 100% elastic), the three center balls don't move. norro 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course yes, but then: what shows this animation: principles from course of general physics or real life? (assumption about elastic collision is not enough to have no wiggles - it must be ideally central too)--WarX 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - I love this animation even if it is not perfect (seems that a couple of frames are missing just before the hit). The detail of Newton's "Principia" under the apparatus is a touch of sophistication. Alvesgaspar 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem to be a problem in fullsize. Perhaps a bug of the mediawiki software. norro 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sadly, the Principia Mathematica underneath, though very cool, detracts from the usability of this picture. And As Luc Viatour and Alvesgaspar said, there something is a little unnatural-- perhaps the few missing frames that Alvesgaspar suggested. But too bad. Stephen.job 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support it could move a bit smoother but still it is great --AngMoKio 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support K!roman | ☺‼↑♫♥☻ 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - very nice. Jkelly 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support True, it looks a bit artificial, but it is certainly very well made.--SvonHalenbach 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think the center balls should move a tiny amount to look more realistic. Also the two end balls seem to magically snap themselves in place. /Daniel78 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support The best animation I remember seeing here at commons. I don't mind the non-moving middle balls; the animation shows the principle at work (that's why I like the Principia Mathematica underneath). --Tsui 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose it appears as if the stationary ball moves before the opposite ball hits the column, and then the opposite ball snaps into position quicker than it was initially moving. Though it's well rendered, the animation just isn't natural. – flamurai 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me this is just optical illusion. For me it depends on how my look move along the balls, if I folow the hitting ball, its ok. If I look at one end and than switch, it looks as you described. I suppose if it was a film, it would look the same. --Wikimol 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack flamurai. — Lycaon 07:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very nice animation ! It seems to me that there might be one missing frame when all balls are in equilibrium position. No-w-ay 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --Thermos 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support. --Wikimol 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support : Hypnotic ! Many optical illusions. Very good work. Stephane8888 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --Ziga 20:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support / tsca @ 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Oonagh 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tbc 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
•  Support -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 15 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 15:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)