Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Physicists Discover Universal "Wet-Dog Shake" Rule

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the thank-you-science dept.

Idle 97

Dog owners can sleep easy tonight because physicists have discovered how rapidly a wet dog should oscillate its body to dry its fur. Presumably, dogs already know. From the article: "Today we have an answer thanks to the pioneering work of Andrew Dickerson at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and a few buddies. But more than that, their work generates an interesting new conundrum about the nature of shaken fur dynamics. Dickerson and co filmed a number of dogs shaking their fur and used the images to measure the period of oscillation of the dogs' skin. For a labrador retriever, this turns out to be 4.3 Hz."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Tragedy (3, Funny)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | about 4 years ago | (#33974660)

Let's hope this doesn't catch on in Japan. We don't need Dog shaking machines to complement their dog washing machines.

Re:Tragedy (5, Funny)

severoon (536737) | about 4 years ago | (#33975732)

Awesome! Now there's enough research in this field to get funding for that baby shaking study I've been wanting to do...

Re:Tragedy (2, Funny)

bluie- (1172769) | about 4 years ago | (#33977302)

sigh. you beat me to it.

Re:Tragedy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33979264)

There _was_ an app for that.

One of mankind's biggest questions... (2, Insightful)

SilasMortimer (1612867) | about 4 years ago | (#33974678)

...finally solved. The world is saved!

Re:One of mankind's biggest questions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33974884)

You'll change your tune when the Dog-People of planet WoofbarK-9 come to take over our planet.

Re:One of mankind's biggest questions... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 4 years ago | (#33975010)

That's the neat thing about science, every little bit helps.

Re:One of mankind's biggest questions... (4, Funny)

JonStewartMill (1463117) | about 4 years ago | (#33976340)

My question was never "how does a dog shake so as to dry his fur?" but rather "WHY must my dog walk up next to me immediately before doing so?"

Re:One of mankind's biggest questions... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33978914)

My question was, "Can you stop a dog from shaking once it started?"

I had to give my dog baths all the time when I was a kid. Of course the first thing he would do is shake him self off once he was out of the bath. One time, out of curiosity, I stopped him mid-shake by holding the back part of his body (since the shake from head to tail). I held him for about a minute and then let him go. He finished his shake starting from the point he was at before I stopped him in the middle. Over the course of the next few months, it tried increasing lengths of time but no matter how long I held him, he would finish the shake starting at the point where I stopped him. The last time I did it, I held him for 30 minutes. That still did not stop him. Got bored after that.

Re:One of mankind's biggest questions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33980908)

Cool story bro!

Re:One of mankind's biggest questions... (1)

JonStewartMill (1463117) | about 4 years ago | (#33981350)

I find if I grab my dog at the shoulders and hold him still right as he's beginning his shake, I can stop it in much the same way you can stifle a sneeze. Not exactly a Stupid Pet Trick(TM) , but it comes in handy sometimes.

Re:One of mankind's biggest questions... (1)

wavedeform (561378) | about 4 years ago | (#33983896)

We have two dogs, one of which almost always goes about fifteen feet away from us before shaking. She's really smart in a lot of ways. The other dog is really friendly and endearing, at least.

Ig Noble... (4, Insightful)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#33974718)

Here we come!!!

Re:Ig Noble... (1)

WhiteDragon (4556) | about 4 years ago | (#33974870)

Ig Noble... Here we come!!!

I agree, this is almost a shoe-in to win an Ig Nobel!

Re:Ig Noble... (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 4 years ago | (#33989754)

Ig Noble... Here we come!!!

I agree, this is almost a shoe-in to win an Ig Nobel!

Spelling mistake, or light-brown brogue reference?

Re:Ig Noble... (1)

WhiteDragon (4556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34014162)

Ig Noble... Here we come!!!

I agree, this is almost a shoe-in to win an Ig Nobel!

Spelling mistake, or light-brown brogue reference?

no, it really is spelled Ig Nobel [improbable.com]

Re:Ig Noble... (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34017930)

Ig Noble... Here we come!!!

I agree, this is almost a shoe-in to win an Ig Nobel!

Spelling mistake, or light-brown brogue reference?

no, it really is spelled Ig Nobel [improbable.com]

Errr, "Woosh"?

I've been laughing to the Igs for years. I'm making reference to the inspirational shoe-bomber, Richard Reed, who's non-exploding training shoes have since inspired a catalogue of imitators to throw footware at the rich, famous, evil and/ or retarded (or in the case of Dubya, all four with one shoe).

Re:Ig Noble... (1)

srodden (949473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34033266)

Woosh indeed :-) Tread lightly around this one. He doesn't realise how many steps are required for an unintentional pun.

Good Luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33975040)

They missed the 2010 deadline and no one is going to remember this next October.

Re:Good Luck (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 4 years ago | (#33976770)

PUBLIC HEALTH PRIZE: Manuel Barbeito, Charles Mathews, and Larry Taylor of the Industrial Health and Safety Office, Fort Detrick, Maryland, USA, for determining by experiment that microbes cling to bearded scientists. REFERENCE: "Microbiological Laboratory Hazard of Bearded Men," Manuel S. Barbeito, Charles T. Mathews, and Larry A. Taylor, Applied Microbiology, vol. 15, no. 4, July 1967, pp. 899–906. WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Manuel S. Barbeito was unable to travel, due to health reasons. A representative read his acceptance speech for him.

Let me repeat a small relevant section of the above [improbable.com] : Applied Microbiology, vol. 15, no. 4, July 1967, pp. 899–906.

I think these dog guys will be ok on the date count.

Before sarcasm is toted around here... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33974750)

The formula is significant for us in the ad/entertainment industry who relies on algorithms to animate such motions. It sure beats trying to manually animating each fur (impossible), or coming up with a workaround that only approximates reality through trial and error. This will significantly reduce render times.

The same could be said about fluid dynamics a decade ago - now we can create whole above/underwater environments within the computer - saving time and cost of flooding entire soundstages.

Re:Before sarcasm is toted around here... (2, Informative)

tacktick (1866274) | about 4 years ago | (#33975282)

Or you could just film a real dog or two that is similar to what you are animating. The "researchers" didnt even come up with a good formula for predicting it based on dog size. Probably because it varies for different breeds and what doggie chow he eats.

Re:Before sarcasm is toted around here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33977512)

Instead of dog, try a lion, or a more dangerous animal. Furthermore, animals are unpredictable no matter how much you train them and are a liability on the set. Plus, when they shit on the set, it sucks cleaning up and it takes a lot of time. Do you want to be the producer responsible of putting Angelina Jolie next to a lion?

This is basic research, like figuring out how to how to beam an electron from point A to point B. Sure, you could just grab the object (which holds the electron) and put it on point B yourself, but that's not the point. If all you can think is, "great, they animated dog fur," then I have to say you have very limited creativity.

Re:Before sarcasm is toted around here... (1)

Stregano (1285764) | about 4 years ago | (#33977842)

Mo-Cap the dog!

Re:Before sarcasm is toted around here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33975298)

Awesome, so when I download a torrent of "Bolt 2: Electric Boogaloo", I can sleep soundly knowing that there less work was involved for me not to support. Pretty soon it'll be almost cheap enough to be worth the 90 minutes of my life I never get back.

Re:Before sarcasm is toted around here... (2, Funny)

spammeister (586331) | about 4 years ago | (#33976262)

I read that at first as "...us in the adult entertainment industry...".

Must be a particularily (weird) subset of that industry for shaking wet dogs...

Re:Before sarcasm is toted around here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33976414)

Except I remember seeing Allan McKay's tutorial on how he created the VFX for dogs shaking off blood in the first Resident Evil movie using just 3ds max and Particle Flow. At a certain angular velocity threshold, particles are emitted at a tangent to the original motion path. It's not hugely computationally expensive, given the particle effects used in more recent times.

Animation of the fur itself, though, is an entirely different issue.

Sadly, the video in which he describes this process doesn't seem to be freely available anymore.

Re:Before sarcasm is toted around here... (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 4 years ago | (#33983570)

It might actually also be really damn useful to the textiles industry. If you can work out a formula that said "For a piece of cloth like this, you need to shake at (say) at x frequency for y minutes to dry", you could make drycleaning a much easier process. Theres a LOT of applications for this.

"Wet-Dog Shake" (3, Funny)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 4 years ago | (#33974766)

We have Classic Poop, New Poop, Cherry Poop, Diet Poop, Salty Lemonade, and our new Wet Dog Shake!

Re:"Wet-Dog Shake" (1)

Jaqenn (996058) | about 4 years ago | (#33974944)

Kudos to you for the Invader Zim reference.

Re:"Wet-Dog Shake" (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | about 4 years ago | (#33975124)

Begone, Specter of Defeat!

Re:"Wet-Dog Shake" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33978378)

It's "Gangsta Specter of Defeat", thank you.

Conundrum about the nature of shaken fur dynamics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33974770)

Physicists have proposed a new research lab with a linear accelerator for dogs which should clear up any remaining confusion given enough collisions.

Re:Conundrum about the nature of shaken fur dynami (2, Funny)

bughunter (10093) | about 4 years ago | (#33975026)

This would be the complement to the Super Monkey Collider [theonion.com] , no?

Not yet... (3, Informative)

Ecuador (740021) | about 4 years ago | (#33974790)

Ok, FTFA, it seems that the researchers did a very simplistic model and then found some videos so that they can measure what the animals actually do and noticed that they did not fit their model. So, nothing to see here until someone really sits down and models the wet dog oscillations with accuracy and tell us what the optimal frequency is (so that we can teach our dog if it is not that good with drying of course!).

Re:Not yet... (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33975056)

And we wonder why science facilities always panic when governments announce austerity measures are on the cards...

Re:Not yet... (4, Funny)

powerlord (28156) | about 4 years ago | (#33975190)

Ok, FTFA, it seems that the researchers did a very simplistic model and then found some videos so that they can measure what the animals actually do and noticed that they did not fit their model. So, nothing to see here until someone really sits down and models the wet dog oscillations with accuracy and tell us what the optimal frequency is (so that we can teach our dog if it is not that good with drying of course!).

Nah, there are easier ways to get dry. My dog quickly moved from the "shake myself dry method" to the "the rug and furniture are my towel method".

She's found this to be truly superior although some preliminary research showing a combined "shake myself dry" followed by "the rug and furniture are my towel" method may be her best option.

When I told her to get off the couch she just grinned and said "I'm a bitch, deal with it."

Re:Not yet... (2, Funny)

ffreeloader (1105115) | about 4 years ago | (#33975392)

My dog, at three months old, has adopted that same method, only he looks at me and says, deal with it, I'm a 3 pound bastard so you just try and stop me. He then runs all around the house like a maniac another couple of times rubbing against everything made of fabric.... I think it's probably his favorite thing to do. He looks and acts like he's having more fun than a barrel of monkeys. I don't think I could stop him with anything less than a .45.

Re:Not yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33977568)

There's only 1 way to test your hypothesis....

Re:Not yet... (1)

ffreeloader (1105115) | about 4 years ago | (#33980092)

There's only 1 way to test your hypothesis....

LOL. That assumes I want to stop him.

He's having so much fun running around like a maniac that his joy is contagious. He makes me smile. His happiness at being alive makes me happy.

Re:Not yet... (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | about 4 years ago | (#33981094)

After giving my dog baths for several years now, I'm convinced that her running around manic after a bath is not joy at being alive - it's joy at being out of the bath. However, at a bit heavier than three pounds, I can't afford to start giving her any room to argue the point if she wants to be somewhere I don't want her to be.

Re:Not yet... (1)

ffreeloader (1105115) | about 4 years ago | (#33981870)

I should point out that Bear, my pup, only shakes and then runs around like a maniac after I've toweled him to a point of being mostly dry, and that he loves getting wrapped up in a towel to keep him warm and get the majority of the water out of his fur.

He does very similar things when he's playing with my wife and I too when he's really hyper. He'll run in circles around me, the living room, through the kitchen and back, just as hard as he can go, with his tail wagging like crazy and a look of pure bliss on his face.

He really hated getting a bath at first, but he's much less bothered by it now. He's getting to the point he stands still for it and doesn't whine anymore. He's even stopped fighting when we brush the knots out of his coat after his bath.

Re:Not yet... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | about 4 years ago | (#33977594)

I tried replacing the "the rug and furniture are my towel method" with the "insert into the microwave method"
and did not turn out too well, I was wanting to save money on towels and now instead I am saving money on dog food.

Re:Not yet... (1)

SlideRuleGuy (987445) | about 4 years ago | (#33980168)

Seems like there would be a _minimum_ shaking velocity of the fur itself, just to dislodge the water. Anything faster than that would also work, but expend more energy.

You also have to take into account the fact that with each oscillation, the dog's trunk reaches some maximum stretch limit, at which time muscles in the reverse direction kick in and make them go the other way. But the maximum velocity would be reached somewhere near the middle of an oscillation.

Wouldn't you model this more like a spring or pendulum, where maximum velocity occurs near the middle of the cycle?

Wait...I'm taking this way too seriously.

Why? (3, Interesting)

Quantus347 (1220456) | about 4 years ago | (#33974826)

What possible application could this research be for? In what way does this benefit mankind, expand out understanding of the universe, or improve the Human Condition. And perhaps the most important question, what moron paid for this? Please tell me it wasn't taxpayer money, because then technically I am one of the morons, and I don't very much appreciate it!

Re:Why? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 4 years ago | (#33974984)

I could see it possibly being useful for animation if they can come up with an accurate model for shaking water off of fur and other materials.

Re:Why? (0, Troll)

ffreeloader (1105115) | about 4 years ago | (#33975212)

What possible application could this research be for? In what way does this benefit mankind, expand out understanding of the universe, or improve the Human Condition. And perhaps the most important question, what moron paid for this? Please tell me it wasn't taxpayer money, because then technically I am one of the morons, and I don't very much appreciate it!

The application of the study? To prove how easy it is to waste government money. It's another form of welfare.

In what way does this study benefit mankind? It shows how well socialism works in that it takes money belonging to you and I and gives it to someone who has done nothing to earn it without our permission.

What moron paid for this? You and I did, just like everything else that socialism says it gives away for free.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33976904)

What a retard you are. Sometimes it's sad to share similar genes to people like you.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

ChrisMaple (607946) | about 4 years ago | (#33977602)

It's obvious why a thief posts as anonymous coward.

Re:Why? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33976950)

This was done by HuLab, run by Professor Hu at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

http://www.me.gatech.edu/hu/Research/lab.html [gatech.edu]

It's a research group at a University who focuses on performing simple, cheap, tabletop experiments. It's run by one of the professors at the University and most of the physicists appear to actually be students. Andrew Dickerson is a Grad student whose specialty in the lab is "Animal Cleaning", so it stands to reason that he might have become interested in wet dogs shaking and taken a few videos in the course of his work, and maybe theorized a formula or two.

So, the answer is, possibly - some of your taxpayer dollars might have been spent. Assuming you live in Georgia, of course. G. I. T. receives about 1/4 of its funding from the State of Georgia. They don't appear to receive any federal funding.

But, in their defense, it was "perform an interesting experiment in the lab" or "reproduce an experiment someone else has already done in a lab", because students need lab time to gain experience, and they need to publish papers to earn academic credibility. The overall materials cost appears to have been camera (which can be used for further experiments and may have already been in the lab) and some student time.

It sounds like Prof Hu might just be saving your tax money in the long run, though, by having his students focus on inexpensive (if somewhat frivolous) experiments in the course of their education.

But I'm sure you could write a letter telling them that HuLab is a waste of taxpayer money, and that the students should be focusing on reproducing classical experiments like re-measuring the boiling point of water and other useful pursuits.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

bamwham (1211702) | about 4 years ago | (#33975428)

While I'm not an expert, I speculate that potential applications would include: using a similar model to study cilial action in human lungs or gut; developing of advanced fabrics which shed water more efficiently; developing algorithms for robotics (I'm thinking in particular military applications) to dry themselves in the wild. The beauty of science to me is that someone answers what appears to be a relatively innocuous and useless question and often can't tell where it might lead. We (often) can't just dive in and answer the most difficult question first, we start with a simple model of a related phenomena and then build up to the real (and useful) examples. I like this problem here, because in practice it does seem that biological systems have spent the eons developing the best solutions to complicated problems (basically through trial and error) so they have a model whose solution agrees with the one found by the biological system. I see it as a win, science has advanced, even if it was only a micro-step.

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33976116)

> Please tell me it wasn't taxpayer money

They borrowed against their igNobel winnings.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

bkaul01 (619795) | about 4 years ago | (#33979152)

What possible application could this research be for?

If they're scientists rather than engineers, the obvious answer is, "Who cares?" ... Perhaps the most distinguishing aspect of "science" is that it's a search for knowledge for its own sake, not tied to a practical application. Engineering research is generally tied to something practical. Scientific research need not be. That's not to say that scientists never take up research that has practical application, just that the mindset of a scientist is that the practical application isn't the ultimate goal: the knowledge itself is. If you're curious about dog-fur-shaking, research it. That's science.

That said, the dynamics of water droplets on fibrous materials probably aren't well understood, given that there are open questions about the dynamics of liquid films on some solid surfaces [1], and there are numerous applications that could be imagined there - filters, absorptive mats, perhaps new methods of creating sprays using some sort of shaking synthetic fibers, etc. If we only studied the questions for which the technological benefit was directly obvious, we'd still be in the pre-industrial era. I don't know if this particular study was well-designed or will provide useful information, but any knowledge has potential to prove valuable, often in areas not directly related to the question that was being studied initially. These studies may sound silly when explained superficially, but that doesn't mean they're worthless.

[1]The breakup and atomization of the shear-driven fuel film on an intake valve at cold start in a PFI gasoline engine, for example, depends on whether the film will separate from the valve surface when it reaches the corner, or flow around the corner and down the side. This is a relatively simple problem, geometrically, but the interplay of surface tension, viscosity, inertia, and the boundary with the air flow is something that current models really didn't handle at all until a year or two ago - the experimental side of the project is something that a couple of the MS students in my research group were working on while I was in grad school. Something as complicated as how the effect of the frequency of the oscillations of the underlying layer to which fibers are attached affects the behavior of droplets clinging to those fibers is more complex, and thus I would guess it's most likely not understood well at all at the level of being able to explain and model it in detail.

Wet dogs vs. wet t-shirts (5, Funny)

PatPending (953482) | about 4 years ago | (#33974848)

Leave it to a bunch of nerds to focus on wet dogs. I for one would rather focus on wet t-shirts: what is the period of oscillation of those boobs?

Re:Wet dogs vs. wet t-shirts (4, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | about 4 years ago | (#33975498)

It's just a mass on a spring, so I assume sqrt(k/m) is a pretty good approximation. We'll need a pretty good sample size to determine k to a reasonable level of precision though. I'll work on collecting data, can you write up the grant proposal?

Re:Wet dogs vs. wet t-shirts (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 4 years ago | (#33978904)

It's just a mass on a spring...

That statement generally implies a weightless spring with motion of the weight along the spring axis. You have a very interesting concept of breast oscillations...

Re:Wet dogs vs. wet t-shirts (2, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | about 4 years ago | (#33979684)

Sorry for the confusion. I was assuming they were spherical breasts in a vacuum.

Re:Wet dogs vs. wet t-shirts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33982612)

Radiating milk isotropically?

Re:Wet dogs vs. wet t-shirts (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33976556)

Leave it to a bunch of nerds to focus on wet dogs. I for one would rather focus on wet t-shirts: what is the period of oscillation of those boobs?

I'll be in my bunk pondering that.

Re:Wet dogs vs. wet t-shirts (1)

Spyder (15137) | about 4 years ago | (#33977274)

They started that study at the same time, but they're still gathering data. I think it might take a while.....

Re:Wet dogs vs. wet t-shirts (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33980742)

Well, I do know the angle of my dangle is the inverse of the heat of my meat. And the heat of my meat is in square of by the jiggle of the boob

(AoD/HomM) * (JotB) sqr

That's shaken, not stirred... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33974860)

The perfect dog martini...

I swear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33974978)

...that's a cutline to a Far Side cartoon.

If it's not, it should be.

A shit... (2, Insightful)

AdamsGuitar (1171413) | about 4 years ago | (#33974996)

Who gives one?

Re:A shit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33976210)

I'm taking a dump as I write. Hooray for WC netbooks.

lol @ captcha: nobody

That's how sorted. Now, about when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33975156)

What I really want to know is the set of environmental cues that trigger this action. How long after emerging wet into an otherwise dry environment does the dog take action to achieve some degree of moistness equilibrium? Is (as I suspect) proximity to other pack members a triggering factor?

Now we know... (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | about 4 years ago | (#33975194)

...who will win the IgNobel Prize for Physics next year.

Dog shake variation (1)

dogsbreath (730413) | about 4 years ago | (#33975402)

We have two dogs: a sparsely haired Chinese Crested and a rather fuzzy Bichon cross. They are about the same Sd (dog shake diameter) but we have been bothered for a long time by the dissonance created by the subtle difference in their Fd (dog shake frequency). The resulting low frequency rumble has attracted what we thought were "Graboids" but in reality were just large, obnoxious, pocket gophers. Time to reach for the Rodenator.

Thanks to this article, we have successfully brought them into tune with each other by adding some velcro'd shag carpet (red) to the Crested and by judiciously trimming the Bichon. However, we still have some annoying phase shift issues when they start shaking at different times.

Maybe, mabe not... (3, Insightful)

jpbelang (79439) | about 4 years ago | (#33975450)

I don't know how seriously the scientist took this research.

But I do remember that Richard Feynman wrote a paper on the wobbling movement of a spinning plate. He did this because he was depressed and had scientific writer's block. And nobody would deny the importance of his later work.

Science is science. If what they find is correct in the scientific sense, it really doesn't bother me too much.

I'd be worried if scientists started really competing for the Ig Nobel prizes. But I doubt that they ever will :-).

Re:Maybe, mabe not... (2, Interesting)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33977122)

This is a graduate student doing some "tabletop science" in the lab. His specialty in the lab is "Animal Cleaning" http://www.me.gatech.edu/hu/Research/lab.html [gatech.edu] . I doubt he's trying for anything except his thesis.

I'd say he did a pretty good job building a preliminary predictive model and testing against that model and refining it. And it stands to reason that animals shaking water out of their fur might be of interest to him, since he probably bathes animals on a pretty regular basis and observes the behavior a lot. Building lab time researching something that interests you sounds pretty good to me.

It'll probably never cure cancer or give us faster-than-light drives, but most graduate student lab work is done with little expectation of changing the boundaries of science as we know it.

Re:Maybe, mabe not... (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | about 4 years ago | (#33977764)

In fact, I believe one of this year's Nobel physics laureates, Andre Geim, who won for his work related to graphene (the graphite-sheet-like carbon form that's all the research rage right now) has also previously received an IgNobel award.

Specifically for levitating a frog using magnetic fields.

Research can have some humor in it, and sometimes mixing the trivial with the serious helps get you through an otherwise boring day.

Re:Maybe, mabe not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33978458)

I do know there was research on lizards running through sand at georgia tech, which had applications on robot movement.besides helping us understand fluids more, maybe there will be a dog robot that will need to dry itself?

In addition to smelling wet dog fur... (2, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 4 years ago | (#33975548)

I smell pork.

Re:In addition to smelling wet dog fur... (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33980708)

Yeah, how dos feel over there in no thinking required land? Warm and comfortable, no doubt.

Dry? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 4 years ago | (#33975570)

Claiming that a dog dries his fur by shaking is a bit of a stretch. They shake off excess water, but you're still left with a rather wet dog.

Perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33975574)

I've also found this to be the perfect masturbation frequency.

Pioneering work indeed (1)

nadamucho (1063238) | about 4 years ago | (#33975928)

I hope the Nobel committee has been notified! Now all that they need it to make the doggy-sweater with piezoelectric fibers and we can reduce our fossil fuel dependence. Note to self: invest in IAMS

but what about soapy dogs? (1)

tresstatus (260408) | about 4 years ago | (#33975982)

the speed that my dog shakes seems directly related to how much soap is on him when i bath him and whether or not i'm wearing my glasses....

I take it that the theory assumes... (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33975990)

...a spherical dog of uniform density?

Off by one, and a decimal point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33976018)

Douglas Adams has had it all this time. Only it's 4.3, not 42. Perhaps a typo?

Grant application in process. (3, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33976090)

Now that they have solved this pressing problem, the researchers have moved on to filling out grant application for their next project: the Large Doberman Collider.

What an odd assumption they make (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33976442)

Why would they assume the dog would shake perfectly? As long as it's good enough, evolution doesn't care.

Shake your booty... (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | about 4 years ago | (#33976962)

And does it matter at what rate a girl jiggles her body?

'Nuff said.

Ig Porno awards, here i comes! (Cums?)

Re:Shake your booty... (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 4 years ago | (#33989784)

Ig Porno awards, here i comes! (Cums?)

Where? (The igPorno awards, not your cum. That, I assume, is in your omphalos, where it should be. )

Ig Nobel Nomination (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33977032)

This one is a shoe-in to win.

K9 oscillator (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33977240)

Great, Let the dog shake a bit faster put an antenna on him and put him on the air! Dog Radio Rules

Applicable to beach girls. (1)

formfeed (703859) | about 4 years ago | (#33977802)

Long haired Blondes coming out of the pool have a similar method of drying their hair.
They could have just studied this.

-But then again, for physicists wet dogs are probably easier to acquire.
Never mind then.

/. short-sightedness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33978644)

I bet these guys got the same kind "what's-the-point-of-this" shit:
robot dog. [youtube.com]

Or the person who studied the motion & propulsion of jellyfish....end up winning the MacArthur grant for this year.
(John O. Dabiri of Princeton) [234next.com]

Just because you're too short-sighted to see the purpose of basic/foundational research, doesn't mean it's completely useless. The same was said about lasers.

We have to (1)

skeffstone (1299289) | about 4 years ago | (#33979110)

To all who criticize the money spent on this research: Do you really think we ever can or should stop a question from being answered? Are not scientists in their position because at some point they were curious about the world and went about getting educated in skillfully pursuing answers? I think in this case a simple question was answered and presented decently with the first empirical data. Next, they can dig out a theoretical model that fit the observed data. If they struggle finding a good theoretical match, then things get interesting.

Re:We have to (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 4 years ago | (#33980240)

OK, but can we please spend the money on more beneficial questions?
How about "Why do so many men enjoy watching Girl on Girl porn? If we could get a meaningful answer to that, men all over the world could say something like:
"Honey, don't do it for me, do it for my under stimulated Limbic system. Think of Cheri here as a therapist of sorts. Besides, I have a note from my Doctor (along with his video camera)... and there is a scientific study to back this all up."

4.3 Hz! (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 4 years ago | (#33980108)

Introducing:
TCP over Wet Dog... you can tell if it's active by the smell!

Wonderful time (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 4 years ago | (#33980114)

This is such an amazing time in history. It's such a wonderful time to be a wet dog.

But there's an even bigger mystery (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 4 years ago | (#33980460)

For a labrador retriever, this turns out to be 4.3 Hz."

Yes but where do I get a labrador for that dog to retrieve.

first principles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33982402)

I would be willing to bet that the most effective frequency would be equal to the natural frequency of the hairs if one approximates hairs as cantilever beams with a distributed load (water) as this would produce the most motion in the hairs laterally wrt the skin, which would cause centrifugal (yes) acceleration of fluid particles on such hairs.

Think of it like projecting balls from within a long tube by slinging the tube radially. If the frequency of the dog's shaking doesn't match, motion is cancelled and hairs don't move as much as they could.

THIS is exactly why I remain a slashdot loyalist! (1)

cookiej (136023) | about 4 years ago | (#33984382)

I love this place.

Bored Scientists (1)

Cecil V (1929450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34057780)

These scientists must be getting bored believing that random data will help some future discovery. My dog, Nikita, hates the water; but she loves to eat watermelon and wear her favorite large dog clothes [clothes4largedogs.com] .
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?