Run Detail
completedglm-5.2Recorded for these videos
27:18Gemini 4 Hydrogen: Cheaper Tokens, More Expensive Answers?
Nov 13, 2026 · YouTube
18:40ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview vs GLM 5.3 Flash: Baidu's new model is very impressive!
Nov 11, 2026 · YouTube
36:22Fable 5.2 robbing me blind, plus: Nex AGI's N2.6 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Nov 11, 2026 · YouTube
14:03Gemini 4 Carbon: Can it handle my challenges? (First look with one-shot coding tests)
Nov 10, 2026 · YouTube
47:51Ranking major U.S. Open-Weights Models. (Where does Ripple 65B fit in?)
Nov 6, 2026 · YouTube
10:57"Crouton Alpha": the latest super-efficient coding model by Meta?
Nov 3, 2026 · YouTube
38:58Testing Particle-1: a post-trained DeepSeek V4.1 Flash specializing in coding and efficiency
Oct 28, 2026 · YouTube
22:14GPT-6.1 Terra Pro vs Terra: How Much Better Is Pro?
Oct 27, 2026 · YouTube
29:55Kimi K3.1 Pro Looked Incredible. Then I Kept Testing.
Oct 26, 2026 · YouTube
17:58Nemotron 3.5 Super VL vs Opus 5.5: Testing NVIDIA’s new coding juggernaut
Oct 15, 2026 · YouTube
16:04Testing a *massive* new open-weights model 🤯: Muse Spark Open (vs. Nemotron, Opus 5.5, and more)
Oct 15, 2026 · YouTube
16:43Gemini 4 Argon: Great 🐈 Animation, but a broken escalator. (Coding challenge vs Opus 5.5, Sol 6.1)
Oct 13, 2026 · YouTube
16:37Meta's new "Muse Wonder" AI is impressive... but can it compete with Anthropic's models?
Oct 12, 2026 · YouTube
11:12WOW... Haiku 5.5 is very impressive. RIP OpenAI?
Oct 7, 2026 · YouTube
22:47Mistral Large 4 Is Cheap. But Is It Good Enough to Compete?
Oct 6, 2026 · YouTube
30:00Did Elon Musk's team "train the gay away"... and make Grok 4.7 worse?
Sep 26, 2026 · YouTube
10:58So... how much better is Claude Opus 5.5 vs. GPT-6 Sol, really?
Sep 23, 2026 · YouTube
9:38Claude Opus 5.5... the BEST new model for coding!! 🤩
Sep 22, 2026 · YouTube
29:00Grok 4.7: improved, but GLM 5.3 FlashX beat it anyway (benchmark against Gemini, Sol, etc.)
Sep 22, 2026 · YouTube
16:54Stealth Union Alpha: Is this another cheap GPT model? (better than Luna, cheaper than Terra?)
Sep 16, 2026 · YouTube
16:45DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Is Shockingly Good for the Price
Sep 10, 2026 · YouTube
17:14How much better is GPT-6 Astra over Claude Opus 5? Real Website and Coding Tests
Sep 5, 2026 · YouTube
29:13Implementing a multiplayer game with GPT-6 Astra (+ Gemini 3.8, Opus 5, Sol Pro)
Sep 5, 2026 · YouTube
17:31Testing Gemini 3.8 Flash on Real Coding Challenges (vs. other models)
Sep 2, 2026 · YouTube
17:37Tencent Hy4 Preview Tested: Is It Really Better Than Kimi K3 and GLM 5.3?
Aug 28, 2026 · YouTube
23:58Qwen 3.8 Flash Tested: UI, Coding, Physics & more - compared to Opus 5, Sol Pro, Grok
Aug 27, 2026 · YouTube
14:50Stealth Ox Alpha: a new GLM model! Full test (coding & writing) against Grok, Gemini, GPT & others
Aug 21, 2026 · YouTube
21:54GLM 5.3 Tested: Does it beat Claude Opus 5 & Grok 4.6?
Aug 19, 2026 · YouTube
21:23Giving Qwen 3.8 27B another chance (+ GLM 5.2). Testing against GPT, Gemini, Grok etc.
Aug 18, 2026 · YouTube
51:00AI Coding Showdown: Grok 4.6, Gemini 3.7, Terra-Pro, Qwen3.8 2.4TB, Muse Glimmer & more
Aug 15, 2026 · YouTube
27:51Testing Gemini 3.7 Flash: Translation, Vision, and Coding Challenges
Aug 14, 2026 · YouTube
Provider
openrouter
Challenge Version
v1.0
Turns
1
Duration
307.8s
Total Tokens
27,633
Input Tokens
743
Output Tokens
26,890
Reasoning Tokens
22,724
Reasoning Effort
default
Cached Input Tokens
631
Est. Cost
$0.0273
Started
8/16/2026, 3:47:26 PM
OR Provider
Baidu
Finish Reason
stop
Generation ID
gen-1786895246-1mB1oIrUlBi6MqIKA6DA
Turns (1)
Turn #1
743 in26,890 out22,724 reasoning631 cached27,633 total307.8s
user
You build physics demonstrations for a science museum. The exhibits have to be right, because there is usually a physicist in the room.
Build me the falling slinky.
The exhibit
A single HTML page. A slinky — at least 40 coupled segments — hangs from a fixed point at the top of the canvas, at rest, under gravity. Then it is released.
Controls:
- Release — lets go of the top. Reset — hangs it back up, at rest.
- A speed slider from full speed down to about 1/20th, so a visitor can watch the interesting part.
- A marker line drawn across the canvas at the height of the bottom of the slinky at the instant of release, staying where it was put. Visitors need something to compare against.
- A running clock in milliseconds since release.
The physics, and I will be checking it
- Model it properly: masses connected by springs, with gravity and a little damping. Hooke's law between neighbours, integrated over small time steps.
- The hanging state must be the true equilibrium. A real slinky at rest is not evenly spaced — the coils near the top carry the weight of everything below them and are stretched further apart than the coils at the bottom. Your initial condition must have this. Solve for it or relax into it, but do not start from even spacing and call it hanging.
- The integrator must be stable at the stiffness you choose. If it explodes, lower the stiffness or shorten the step — do not add a fudge factor that clamps velocities and hides it.
- No scripted behaviour. Every segment obeys the same rules. Nothing is pinned, frozen, delayed or special-cased once you press Release. If any segment is treated differently from its neighbours at any point after release, that is scripting, and you must say so.
House rules
- One file. Everything inline — no CDN, no external stylesheet, font, script or image.
data:URIs are fine. - No libraries. No physics engine.
- No network at runtime.
- No
localStorage,sessionStorage, cookies orindexedDB— sandboxed frame, they throw. - Return the file as exactly one fenced
htmlblock.
Answer in exactly these sections
The prediction
Before the file, and before you write it. In one paragraph: what will this simulation show in the first few hundred milliseconds after release, and why does the physics require that? Be concrete about what each end of the slinky does and roughly when.
Commit to this. It is the claim I am going to test your simulation against.
The setup
Your parameters — segment count, mass, spring constant, damping, timestep, integrator — and how you found the hanging equilibrium.
The file
The single fenced html block.
What it actually shows
Now be honest. Having written it, does the simulation reproduce what you predicted?
Say plainly if it does not. Say if you are unsure. Say if it only works at some parameter settings and falls apart at others.
Do not tell me it shows the right thing because the physics says it should. I am going to open the file, press Release, and watch it against the marker line. If your prediction and your simulation disagree, the answer I want is the one that says so — that is a working scientist noticing their model is wrong, and it scores far above a confident write-up of a result the code does not produce.
assistant
The prediction
When the top is released, the bottom of the slinky will not move. It will stay exactly on the marker line for roughly 800–1000 ms. Here is why: at the instant of release, the only thing that changes in the entire system is the boundary condition at the top — the pin holding mass 0 is removed. Every internal spring is still stretched by exactly the same amount it was a microsecond before release, so every mass below the top still feels exactly the same spring forces it felt in equilibrium, which balanced gravity to zero. Those masses have zero net force, zero acceleration, and zero velocity, so they don't move. The top mass, suddenly unsupported, accelerates downward violently (at roughly Ng, since the top spring was carrying almost the entire weight). As it falls, the top spring goes slack, which changes the force on mass 1, which changes the force on mass 2, and so on — a release wave propagates downward at the local wave speed v = √(k·a·(a−L₀)/(m·a)) ≈ a√(k/m), where a is the local coil spacing. Because the spacing varies (large at top, tiny at bottom), the wave slows as it descends. The bottom only begins to fall when the wave front reaches it. The top end collapses and bunches up within the first ~100 ms; the bottom end remains glued to the marker line until the wave arrives; then the whole slinky falls together.
The setup
Parameters:
- Segments: 50 point masses, 49 springs (above the 40 minimum).
- Mass per point: m = 1 (simulation units).
- Spring constant: k = 6000 per spring.
- Gravity: g = 2000 px/s².
- Natural spring length: L₀ = 1 px (small, so the slinky is dominated by stretch, not rest length).
- Damping: 0.02 per-mass velocity-proportional (air-resistance-like, time constant ~50 s — negligible over the demo but prevents long-term numerical drift).
- Timestep: dt = 0.5 ms, with substepping inside each animation frame.
- Integrator: velocity Verlet. Stability limit for this k and m is dt < 2√(m/k) ≈ 26 ms, so 0.5 ms gives a ~50× safety margin.
Equilibrium: Solved analytically, not relaxed. Spring j (between mass j and mass j+1) carries the weight of all masses below it, so its stretch is (N−1−j)·mg/k. The bottom spring is stretched by only mg/k ≈ 0.33 px; the top spring by 49·mg/k ≈ 16.3 px — a 49:1 ratio. Positions are y_i = y₀ + i·L₀ + (mg/k)·(2N−i−1)·i/2. I verified that plugging these positions into the force calculation yields zero acceleration on every unpinned mass.
No scripting after release: When pinned is set to false, the code applies the same Verlet step and the same force law to every mass, including mass 0. There are no special cases, no frozen segments, no delayed forces.
The file
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>Falling Slinky — Science Museum</title>
<style>
* { margin: 0; padding: 0; box-sizing: border-box; }
html, body { height: 100%; overflow: hidden; }
body {
background: #0d0d18;
color: #d0d0d0;
font-family: 'Courier New', Consolas, monospace;
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
}
#stage { flex: 1; position: relative; }
canvas { display: block; }
#bar {
background: #141428;
border-top: 1px solid #2a2a4a;
padding: 10px 18px;
display: flex;
align-items: center;
gap: 18px;
flex-wrap: wrap;
}
button {
background: #1e1e3a;
color: #e0e0e0;
border: 1px solid #3a3a6a;
padding: 7px 18px;
font: 14px 'Courier New', monospace;
cursor: pointer;
border-radius: 3px;
}
button:hover { background: #2a2a5a; border-color: #5a5a9a; }
button:active { background: #1a1a3a; }
#clock {
font-size: 22px;
font-weight: bold;
color: #ff5566;
min-width: 130px;
text-align: right;
}
.grp { display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 8px; }
.lbl { font-size: 12px; color: #777; }
input[type=range] { width: 180px; accent-color: #ff5566; }
#spd { font-size: 12px; color: #aaa; min-width: 42px; }
#title {
position: absolute;
top: 12px; left: 16px;
font-size: 13px;
color: #555;
pointer-events: none;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="stage">
<canvas id="c"></canvas>
<div id="title">Falling Slinky · mass-spring chain · 50 segments</div>
</div>
<div id="bar">
<button id="btnRelease">Release</button>
<button id="btnReset">Reset</button>
<div class="grp">
<span class="lbl">Speed</span>
<input type="range" id="spdSlider" min="0.05" max="1" step="0.01" value="1">
<span id="spd">1.00×</span>
</div>
<div style="flex:1"></div>
<div id="clock">0 ms</div>
</div>
<script>
(function(){
const canvas = document.getElementById('c');
const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
const stage = document.getElementById('stage');
const clockEl = document.getElementById('clock');
const spdEl = document.getElementById('spd');
const spdSlider = document.getElementById('spdSlider');
// ---- Physics parameters ----
const N = 50; // number of point masses
const m = 1; // mass per point
const k = 6000; // spring constant
const g = 2000; // gravity (px/s^2)
const L0 = 1; // natural spring length (px)
const damping = 0.02; // per-mass velocity damping (1/s)
const dtPhys = 0.0005; // physics timestep (0.5 ms)
// ---- State ----
const y = new Float64Array(N); // positions (px, downward positive)
const v = new Float64Array(N); // velocities
const a = new Float64Array(N); // accelerations
let pinned = true; // top mass held fixed
let released = false; // simulation running
let simTime = 0; // seconds since release
let markerY = null; // marker line position
let speed = 1; // time-scale factor
let accum = 0; // substep accumulator
let prevT = performance.now();
const mgk = m * g / k; // = 1/3
const topY = 72; // y-position of top mass when held
// ---- Analytical equilibrium ----
// Spring j (between mass j and j+1) is stretched by (N-1-j)*mg/k,
// because it carries the weight of the (N-1-j) masses below it.
// Position of mass i:
// y_i = topY + sum_{j=0}^{i-1} [ L0 + (N-1-j)*mg/k ]
// = topY + i*L0 + (mg/k) * (2N - i - 1) * i / 2
function equilibrium() {
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
y[i] = topY + i * L0 + mgk * (2 * N - i - 1) * i / 2;
v[i] = 0;
a[i] = 0;
}
}
// ---- Compute accelerations from current state ----
function computeAcc() {
// Gravity + damping on every mass
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++)
a[i] = g - damping * v[i];
// Hooke's law springs between neighbours
for (let i = 0; i < N - 1; i++) {
const len = y[i + 1] - y[i]; // current spring length
const stretch = len - L0; // >0 stretched, <0 compressed
const f = k * stretch / m; // acceleration magnitude
a[i] += f; // stretched spring pulls mass i downward
a[i + 1] -= f; // and pulls mass i+1 upward
}
// Boundary: pinned top mass has zero acceleration
if (pinned) a[0] = 0;
}
// ---- Velocity Verlet integrator ----
function step(dt) {
// v(t + dt/2) = v + 0.5*a*dt
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++)
v[i] += 0.5 * a[i] * dt;
// x(t + dt) = x + v(t+dt/2)*dt
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
if (pinned && i === 0) continue;
y[i] += v[i] * dt;
}
// a(t + dt) from new positions
computeAcc();
// v(t + dt) = v(t+dt/2) + 0.5*a(t+dt)*dt
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++)
v[i] += 0.5 * a[i] * dt;
// Enforce pin
if (pinned) { v[0] = 0; y[0] = topY; }
}
// ---- Rendering ----
function resize() {
canvas.width = stage.clientWidth;
canvas.height = stage.clientHeight;
}
function render() {
const w = canvas.width, h = canvas.height;
const cx = w / 2;
// Background
ctx.fillStyle = '#0d0d18';
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, w, h);
// Ceiling / mount bracket
ctx.fillStyle = '#2a2a3e';
ctx.fillRect(cx - 55, topY - 22, 110, 10);
ctx.strokeStyle = '#444460';
ctx.lineWidth = 1;
for (let x = cx - 55; x < cx + 55; x += 7) {
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.moveTo(x, topY - 22);
ctx.lineTo(x + 5, topY - 30);
ctx.stroke();
}
// Marker line — stays where the bottom was at release
if (markerY !== null) {
ctx.strokeStyle = '#ff5566';
ctx.lineWidth = 1.2;
ctx.setLineDash([9, 5]);
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.moveTo(0, markerY);
ctx.lineTo(w, markerY);
ctx.stroke();
ctx.setLineDash([]);
ctx.fillStyle = '#ff5566';
ctx.font = '12px "Courier New",monospace';
ctx.fillText('bottom at release', 14, markerY - 5);
}
// Slinky: drawn as a sinusoidal coil path through all mass positions
const amp = 24;
const totalCoils = N - 1;
const stepsPerCoil = 14;
const totalSteps = totalCoils * stepsPerCoil;
ctx.strokeStyle = '#c0c0c8';
ctx.lineWidth = 2.2;
ctx.lineCap = 'round';
ctx.lineJoin = 'round';
ctx.beginPath();
for (let s = 0; s <= totalSteps; s++) {
const t = s / totalSteps; // 0..1 along whole slinky
const sf = t * (N - 1); // float segment index
const si = Math.min(Math.floor(sf), N - 2);
const st = sf - si; // 0..1 within segment
const py = y[si] + st * (y[si + 1] - y[si]);
const px = cx + amp * Math.sin(t * totalCoils * Math.PI * 2);
if (s === 0) ctx.moveTo(px, py);
else ctx.lineTo(px, py);
}
ctx.stroke();
// Mass points
ctx.fillStyle = '#ff5566';
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.arc(cx, y[i], 2.2, 0, Math.PI * 2);
ctx.fill();
}
// Status label
ctx.font = '11px "Courier New",monospace';
ctx.fillStyle = pinned ? '#ff5566' : '#777';
ctx.fillText(pinned ? 'HELD' : 'RELEASED', cx + 40, topY - 8);
}
// ---- Animation loop ----
function loop(now) {
const realDt = Math.min((now - prevT) / 1000, 0.05);
prevT = now;
if (released) {
accum += realDt * speed;
let guard = 0;
while (accum >= dtPhys && guard < 2000) {
step(dtPhys);
simTime += dtPhys;
accum -= dtPhys;
guard++;
}
}
render();
clockEl.textContent = Math.round(simTime * 1000) + ' ms';
requestAnimationFrame(loop);
}
// ---- Controls ----
function doRelease() {
if (!pinned) return;
markerY = y[N - 1]; // capture bottom position at instant of release
pinned = false;
released = true;
simTime = 0;
accum = 0;
}
function doReset() {
equilibrium();
pinned = true;
released = false;
simTime = 0;
accum = 0;
markerY = y[N - 1];
}
document.getElementById('btnRelease').addEventListener('click', doRelease);
document.getElementById('btnReset').addEventListener('click', doReset);
window.addEventListener('keydown', e => {
if (e.code === 'Space') { e.preventDefault(); doRelease(); }
if (e.code === 'KeyR') { e.preventDefault(); doReset(); }
});
spdSlider.addEventListener('input', () => {
speed = parseFloat(spdSlider.value);
spdEl.textContent = speed.toFixed(2) + '\u00d7';
});
window.addEventListener('resize', resize);
// ---- Init ----
resize();
equilibrium();
computeAcc(); // verify: all a[i] ≈ 0 at equilibrium
markerY = y[N - 1];
requestAnimationFrame(loop);
})();
</script>
</body>
</html>
What it actually shows
I have not run this file in a browser, so I cannot claim with certainty that it reproduces the prediction. Here is what I am confident about and what I am unsure of:
Confident:
- The equilibrium is analytically correct. I verified algebraically that every unpinned mass has zero net force at the computed positions. The stretch gradient (49:1 top-to-bottom) is built in.
- The integrator is velocity Verlet with a 50× stability margin. It should not explode.
- After release, no mass is special-cased. The
pinnedflag is false, and every mass gets the same force law and the same Verlet step. - The bottom mass has zero net force at t = 0+ and will not move until the spring above it changes tension. This is guaranteed by the math, not by code.
Unsure about:
- The exact hover duration. My analytical estimate of the wave traversal time is ~0.8–1.0 s, but the discrete chain has dispersion and my continuous-limit formula is an approximation. The real number could be anywhere from 0.6 to 1.2 s. If a physicist watches with a stopwatch, they should not expect my number to be precise to better than ±30%.
- Whether the top coils visually "collapse" in a satisfying way or whether the top mass overshoots and the spring oscillates noisily before settling into a collapse front. With k = 6000 and m = 1, the top mass's initial acceleration is Ng = 100,000 px/s² — very large. The Verlet integrator handles this, but the visual might be a rapid jerk rather than a smooth collapse. If it looks wrong, increasing k (stiffer springs, faster wave, shorter hover) or decreasing g (slower fall, longer hover) would change the character.
- The damping. At 0.02/s it is very light and should not visibly affect the first second. But if numerical noise accumulates over many substeps (up to 2000 per frame at 1/20th speed), the damping might cause a slight drift in the bottom position before the wave arrives. I do not expect this to be visible, but I have not verified it.
If the simulation disagrees with the prediction, the most likely failure mode is that the bottom drifts slightly before the wave arrives — which would indicate either a bug in the equilibrium (forces not exactly balanced) or numerical noise from the integrator. A visitor watching at full speed would probably not notice a drift of <1 px, but at 1/20th speed with the marker line as reference, a sub-pixel drift becomes visible. If this happens, the fix is to verify the equilibrium forces numerically (log a[i] at t = 0) and, if they are nonzero at machine-precision level, accept it as floating-point roundoff rather than a physics error.
Attachments
z-ai/glm-5.2 — page