Talk:Westinghouse Sign/Archives/2012

More?

More will follow on this. Gonna have more facts and figures, and some math related to the imagined combinations. Hopefully some pictures. And whatnot. PurpleChez 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude

Wanting to give some frame of reference for 10¹³⁸, I found references (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) saying that the number of atoms in the Earth is estimated at roughly 10⁵⁰. I then went in search of similar estimates for the solar system, galaxy, universe, etc. I found one reporting that the number of atoms in the universe was estimated at something like 10⁵⁷. Now...if the Earth is but a speck in the Milky Way galaxy, and if the Milky Way is only one of millions and billions in this amazing and expanding universe, I assume that the number of atoms in the universe MUST be more than 10,000,000 times the number in ol' Spaceship Earth. So I'll try to corroborate some figures. PurpleChez 12:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Found some more reasonable figures elsewhere. Hail Google. PurpleChez 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Patterns

I once stood on Mount Washington, and watched the sign for close to an hour. I believe that the number of different combinations is rather smaller than what the article indicates, and I believe that the rules that generated the patterns are somewhat more complex than you realize.

First of all, the sign had a number of different modes. The one shown in the animation in the article is what most people will remember; the sign spent most of its time lighting one element at a time. But it had a number of other modes as well. For example, once all of the elements were lit, then the nine complete circle-W's might be extinguished all at once, or one-by one. If one by one, they might be extinguished in several different orders (e.g., left to right, or in pairs from the two ends working toward the middle.)

In another mode, the different elements would light for different circle-Ws. E.g., the bottom arc of one unit would light, then the first dot of another, then the second dot of a third, and so on. In yet another mode, the sign would do what I would think of as a "dance routine", quickly alternating between several different configurations, with many elements being turned on and off at the same time. Most of the other modes (apart from the main mode, shown in your animation) had things changing at a much faster pace.

One thing that I clearly remember was that there always was an underlying cycle involving the ten elements of the logo. This cycle is shown in your animation; bottom arc, dots (left to right), strokes (left to right), bar, and then top-arc. The cycle could be started/finished on any element (i.e., it could start with the first stroke, and end with the last dot), but even in the different modes that I described above (not counting the "dance" mode), the elements always would be lit and/or extinguished in that same cyclic order. This was shown best in the mode that would run through the cycle just showing a single element of each unit. (i.e., all of the bottom arcs would be lit at once, then all of the bottom arcs would go out at once while all of the first dots were lit, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.98.163 (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That the sign performed only a very limited number of sequences is confirmed by the individuals who actually programmed the controllers. As for the animation, as the caption says, it doesn't necessarily represent any sequence that the sign actually performed. Yes, the common perception was that each sequence was different and that the total number was incomprehensible, but the men who built and operated the sign confirm that it was only capable of 20-30 sequences, which it repeated over and over and over for many years. PurpleChez (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why is there a section on the combinations of lighting order for this sign? is this talked about anywhere but here? we could have this kind of mathematical section for any article which discusses a set that can be arbitrarily ordered. this section would make newcomers to math think there was something special about this sign mathematically, which i dont believe there is. if its not documented elsewhere, even if its just a mathematical calculation (ie it doesnt require any real thought, just plug in numbers), then its original research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The math is presented because a large part of the "urban legend" surrounding the sign had to do with the (supposedly) huge number of possible sequences. I personally recall hanging out with engineers at Carnegie Mellon University on nights where a major diversion was arguments about the number, how to calculate it, etc. I have read that this was actually a common experience among Pittsburghers while the sign was standing. I will look for confirmation of this. PurpleChez (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, thats good enough for me, as im not heavily invested in this article. but someone else could easily remove this at any time, so refs are really needed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions! 67.154.254.115 (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)