6-18-2007 #797 Spite

[techmaster-glitch]

But longer hairs will contribute to a higher FpCC since they occupy more than one CC.  If it was just a follicle count, it would use follicles per square centimeter.

Ah, got it. I missed the cubic part.

[Caswin]

*Looks*

...is Mab's tail really fluffier than Nutmeg's?  Her husband's, maybe, but Nutmeg's tail is pretty darn floofy...

[Kenji]

I demand a fluffiness comparison! :o

We'll need an official fluffer to keep them in top shape.


I volunteer for the job.

[superluser]

So here's a question.  Did Nutmeg accidentally make herself queen for life?

If no fae in the kingdom may have a tail fluffier than the queen's, then that means that Nutmeg has to give the throne to someone who has a fluffier tail, but since no fae in the kingdom can have a fluffier tail, she cannot cede the throne.  Ever.

Also, I de-fluff...



...for no man.

[Aridas]

No, because that just means whoever becomes king and queen next is the new standard.

[thegayhare]

amd nutmeg either jions Mab in exile or Defluffs

and you may defluff for no man but would you do it for acut girl?

[Eibborn]

One thing that I don't get is that the last strip implied that Mab made a law that contradicted a previous law, but in this one she said she made the gem wearing law, wouldn't that have been cancelled when the system reset? I don't know maybe I'm missed some thing.

After half a moment's thought, perhaps it resets so that the law that caused it all to be deleted is the new 'first' instead of that millennium's law being completely nuked.

Just WILD SPECULATION

[Fuyudenki]

But longer hairs will contribute to a higher FpCC since they occupy more than one CC.  If it was just a follicle count, it would use follicles per square centimeter.

Wouldn't it actually be the other way around, since you've now got one folicle occupying more than one cubic centimeter?  That alone results in a lower FpCC count, not a higher one, since now, instead of having one FpCC, you've got half of one FpCC.

Think we're going to need some more advanced math here.  Perhaps the softness dotted with length, crossed with the inverse of the curvature the hair(curly hair is not fluffy.  Poofy, maybe, but not fluffy.), times the Follicles per Square Centimeter.  This would be SdotLx(1/C)*FpSC.  Shortened to FpSC.

[Zorro]

*Looks*

...is Mab's tail really fluffier than Nutmeg's?  Her husband's, maybe, but Nutmeg's tail is pretty darn floofy...

Is this fluffy enough? 

[Azraelle]

But longer hairs will contribute to a higher FpCC since they occupy more than one CC.  If it was just a follicle count, it would use follicles per square centimeter.

Wouldn't it actually be the other way around, since you've now got one folicle occupying more than one cubic centimeter?  That alone results in a lower FpCC count, not a higher one, since now, instead of having one FpCC, you've got half of one FpCC.

Think we're going to need some more advanced math here.  Perhaps the softness dotted with length, crossed with the inverse of the curvature the hair(curly hair is not fluffy.  Poofy, maybe, but not fluffy.), times the Follicles per Square Centimeter.  This would be SdotLx(1/C)*FpSC.  Shortened to FpSC.

Okay I think I got it, and it's a lot simpler than all this.  Fluffiness (Y) equals Dry Volume of Tail (V1) minus Volume of Tail when Wet (V2) since we all know that a fluffy furry creature loses most of its fluff when wet - this quantity would then be multiplied by the Universal Fluff Constant (F).  So the final formula would simply be Y = (V1 - V2) x F, and would therefore be measured simply as a volume.

Since creatures that have no fur would have the same volume to their tail both wet and dry, their Y = 0.

[kazzellin]

Actually, I don't think we've ever *seen* the area where Azlan's forehead gem would be, have we? I think his hair usually covers it up... *checks the "patches" arc to be sure* Yup; definitely his hair and not the bandana.  If Azlan has a gem, his hair conveniently hides it.

[Aleolus]

But longer hairs will contribute to a higher FpCC since they occupy more than one CC.  If it was just a follicle count, it would use follicles per square centimeter.

Ah, but the follicle is only the place where the hair grows from, eg, it is the point in your scalp it emerges from.  Therefore follicles per square centimeter and follicles per cubic centimeter would be exactly the same measure, since the follicles are all considered to be within a two-dimentional space.

[kaskar]

  So it seems the case that she just want's to be known as Fluffy ...

[Netrogo]

Actually, I don't think we've ever *seen* the area where Azlan's forehead gem would be, have we? I think his hair usually covers it up... *checks the "patches" arc to be sure* Yup; definitely his hair and not the bandana.  If Azlan has a gem, his hair conveniently hides it.

I don't think he has one. Remember the laws of the Fae kingdom are IN the Fae kingdom and Azlan lives outside of the Fae kingdom.

[AndersW]

A good view of Mab's tail is in comic 695

[Fuyudenki]

Okay I think I got it, and it's a lot simpler than all this.  Fluffiness (Y) equals Dry Volume of Tail (V1) minus Volume of Tail when Wet (V2) since we all know that a fluffy furry creature loses most of its fluff when wet - this quantity would then be multiplied by the Universal Fluff Constant (F).  So the final formula would simply be Y = (V1 - V2) x F, and would therefore be measured simply as a volume.

Since creatures that have no fur would have the same volume to their tail both wet and dry, their Y = 0.

OK, I've spent too much time out of Chemistry class, are SI units for volume Liters, or Cubic Centimeters?

Actually, I think a better measure would be Y=(V1/V2)*F.  This has the advantage Y>0, even for something like a Sponge, which has a greater wet volume when dry(Y<1), and eliminates the size differential.  Mere subtraction allows a giant gryphen(you would not believe how many times I fiddled with the spelling on that word!) to have a fluffier tail than Mab, which is simply not right.

[Ralanost]

A good view of Mab's tail is in comic 695

Dear lord that is a monster tail!  One could get lost in it...

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

OK, I've spent too much time out of Chemistry class, are SI units for volume Liters, or Cubic Centimeters?

Both, sortof. One cm^3 = 1 ml.

[Angel]

...Somehow, I expected something more ... I dunno ... plotty.

Not that I'm disappointed.  

[Vidar]

But longer hairs will contribute to a higher FpCC since they occupy more than one CC.  If it was just a follicle count, it would use follicles per square centimeter.

Ah, got it. I missed the cubic part.

Nope, all wrong.

The formula is as follows:  Fluffines (in floofs) =  Follicles per square cm * surface of skin in square cm * (avarage number of hairs / follicle) * avarage hair length.

*Looks*

...is Mab's tail really fluffier than Nutmeg's?  Her husband's, maybe, but Nutmeg's tail is pretty darn floofy...

Is this fluffy enough? 

*stares and can't keep eyes from screen*
*pool of drool starts collecting near keyboard...*
*FZZT!*  *twitch-twitch*

[bill]

wtf is that shit

[Naldru]

Nope, all wrong.

The formula is as follows:  Fluffines (in floofs) =  Follicles per square cm * surface of skin in square cm * (avarage number of hairs / follicle) * avarage hair length.

A measurement of fluffiness would actually have to take the stiffness of the hairs into account as well as muscular contraction at the hair root that causes the hair to stand out.  If the hairs were as stiff as porcupine quills, it wouldn't be very fluffy.  If the hairs had no rigidity, they would droop like a cat who has just come in from a monsoon.

There actually is a great deal of computer graphics research going into characteristics of hair.  However, a lot of the research is highly proprietary and secretive.  However, one of the problems that you will find is that different people use the word fluffiness for different attributes.  If you enter the words hair, computer, and simulation into Google, you will see a large number of references.

By the way, if you compare the number of hairs per square unit of skin and the lengths of the hairs, human beings actually compare relatively well with animals that are considered furry.  However, the hairs have extremely small diameters and differ in some other properties.

[Manawolf]

wtf is that shit

::Smacks for vulgarness::

Watch and be happy!

[Netami]

wtf is that shit

[Manawolf]

That's enough from you, flamebait.

[Zedd]

It somewhat reminds me of Onis yet the tail is fluffy

[Kryptic]

You know, in this floofyness calculation, I think you'd also have to take in follicle shape (resulting in curly hair), as well as undercoat/overcoat ratio.

Poodles are really "fluffy", but that's in large part due to the curly nature of the hair. And a dog like a Siberian Husky wouldn't be nearly as floofy without it's undercoat...

[Kenji]

Or we could just get someone magical, oh perhaps a fae, to make a sign that magically tells you who is fluffiest.

[bill]

That's not very scientific.

[Kenji]

Then let Jyrras supervise.