A thought about waterfalls

[Dave Harris]

I have had an idea floating around in my head for some time now about how to add "movement' to a waterfall. NO!---- it does NOT involve real water-- :cry: because we all know ( or should) that real water never looks right in a model.
I'm thinking along the lines of this: We have probably all seen various advertising signs in bars ,usually for some beer, that has a scene with a "flowing waterfall--- done with lights behind the glass with the waterfall on it--- some I've looked at involved a moving " translucent ribbon" of color that as it moved let different amounts of light shine thru the shading giving a very realistic effect of actual motion to the sign.
I would think that some similar trick could be done on a waterfall on a layout --- or even perhaps to a stream or river.
What do you guys think --- plausible ?

 

[Dave Harris]

Just to clarify this, I better add that I am not suggesting painting a WF on glass ---we make WF's quite often out of clear sillicone gel . I was thinking along the lines of putting something behind that in a similar fashion to the beer signs.

 

[Jim Krause]

Sound's like a doable concept. Keep us posted.

 

[Dave Harris]

I didn't say I was going to do -- at least for quite some time. I am just hoping for a brainstorming session. Of course it would be fantastic if someone who was about to add a WF would try it! bounce7

 

[60103]

We used to be able to get lamps with a picture of Niagara Falls on them. Lamp was a cylinder and there was another cylinder inside that rotated to give the idea that the Falls was flowing. Probably shadows on the inside, powered by light bulb heat and a propeller.

 

[Dave Harris]

We used to be able to get lamps with a picture of Niagara Falls on them. Lamp was a cylinder and there was another cylinder inside that rotated to give the idea that the Falls was flowing. Probably shadows on the inside, powered by light bulb heat and a propeller.

Thats pretty much the idea I had, something along those lines any way -- it could revolve either laterally or vertical behind the silicone falls. Probably one would want a bit wider WF than we usually build . Often they are a very narrow stream.

 

[nachoman]

in the back of my brain I remember reading an article where someone buried fiber optic bundles in the water and illuminated the other end using a bulb with a rotating drum around it. The drum had holes in it. The idea was to make the water sparkle.

kevin

 

[Dave Harris]

in the back of my brain I remember reading an article where someone buried fiber optic bundles in the water and illuminated the other end using a bulb with a rotating drum around it. The drum had holes in it. The idea was to make the water sparkle.

kevin

I can see how that would work.
I spent some time attempting to find something flexible to simulate water that I could put a moving "paddle" , for lack of a better description, under to move back & forth to make waves or ripples washing onto a beach. Had some luck with jello as a medium just to see how it looked -- didn't look bad but the jello obviously was not suitable in practice. Never got around to trying thin clear silicone, I don't think it would be "jiggly" enough.

 

[sumpter250]

The problem with a back lighted waterfall, is, light. The fall would have a tendency to "stand out", rather than "be part of the scenery". Still, it's a concept that could use a little playing with.
Then, there's the same basic problem as with train motion.....scale speed. Water, falls at the standard gravitational rate of acceleration..32 feet/sec/sec. The rate of motion, needed for the scene to appear real would have to be 32 scale feet/sec/sec.
I don't have the facilities to try this, but, how about a video of a waterfall, edited so that only the motion is left, displayed on an LCD screen, behind the modeled fall.


You asked for "brainstorming".....my brain has been in a storm for more years than I care to remember. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: