| Title |
Exploring the physics of sand drawings: The role of craters, furrows and piles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The European Physical Journal E, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1140/epje/i2017-11534-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jorge González-Gutiérrez, J. C. Ruiz-Suárez |
| Abstract |
Few years ago an article addressing the physics behind aaabstract paintings was published by Herczyński et al. (Phys. Today 64, 31 (2011) issue No. 6). The authors aimed to understand how artists like Jackson Pollock manipulated paints to create pieces of art where the theory of fluid dynamics had a clear and perceivable role. Scaling laws were found to explain the plasticity observed in the artists's traces that we admire in worldwide museums. Because sand drawings are not only wonderful artistic expressions but also intangible cultural heritages of humanity, we wonder if they could be analyzed in a similar fashion. Our goal is to explore the physics behind the formation of such drawings. In order to do so, we carry out experimental studies on the formation of sand cavities, furrows and piles, which individually or interconnected, give rise to artistic patterns. Moreover, in order to manipulate such three observables, some control parameters are needed. Altogether, they conform into simple exponential and power laws that collapse when a scaling is performed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 1 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 17% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 17% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 17% |
| Engineering | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,626,177
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from The European Physical Journal E
#304
of 650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,149
of 311,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The European Physical Journal E
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.