Run Detail
completedripple-65b-previewRecorded 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
268.6s
Total Tokens
50,046
Input Tokens
739
Output Tokens
49,307
Reasoning Effort
default
Est. Cost
$0.0297
Started
11/5/2026, 7:24:09 PM
OR Provider
GMICloud
Finish Reason
stop
Generation ID
gen-1793906649-e7IbMsJK5gAecIM2RqyJ
Turns (1)
Turn #1
739 in49,307 out50,046 total268.5s
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
In the first few hundred milliseconds after release the top of the slinky falls immediately and rapidly while the bottom stays essentially pinned to the marker line. The reason is that the bottom segment is supported by the tension in the spring directly above it, and that tension cannot change until the release wave — a wave of changing spring extension — travels down the chain. That wave travels at the speed of sound in the slinky, roughly the local segment spacing times √(k/m), so it takes about N·√(m/k) ≈ 0.5 s to reach the bottom. During that time the slinky collapses: the top falls and the coils bunch up. When the wave reaches the bottom at roughly 0.5 s the supporting tension vanishes and the bottom drops below the marker line. By then the top has fallen several hundred pixels.
The setup
- Segments: N = 60 point masses, each mass m = 1.
- Springs: 59 springs between neighbours, natural length a = 3 px, stiffness k = 13333.333, plus one top spring (the hand's grip) used only to define the hanging equilibrium.
- Gravity: g = 2000 px/s².
- Damping: c = 0.05 (a small viscous term, −c·v, on every segment).
- Integrator: velocity Verlet, fixed step Δt = 1/4000 s. The stiffest mode has ω_max = 2√(k/m) ≈ 231 rad/s, so ωΔt ≈ 0.058 — far inside the stability limit (ωΔt < 2). No clamping, no fudge factors.
- Hanging equilibrium: spring j (j = 0…N−1, where spring 0 is the hand's grip) carries the weight of the N−j segments below it, so its tension is (N−j)mg and its extension is (N−j)mg/k. Segment i sits at the sum of the lengths of springs 0…i. This gives a top spring stretched to 12 px (4× its natural length) and a bottom spring at 3.15 px (1.05×), i.e. the true non-uniform hanging state, not even spacing.
- Release: the hand's grip (spring 0) is removed. Segment 0 then has no spring above it; every other segment feels gravity, the spring above and the spring below. All segments obey exactly the same rule after release — nothing is pinned, frozen, delayed or special-cased.
The file
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>Falling Slinky</title>
<style>
html, body {
margin: 0; padding: 0; height: 100%;
background: #05050a;
overflow: hidden;
font-family: ui-monospace, SFMono-Regular, Menlo, Consolas, monospace;
}
#stage { position: absolute; inset: 0; }
canvas { display: block; }
#panel {
position: absolute;
top: 14px; left: 14px;
width: 214px;
padding: 12px 14px;
background: rgba(15, 23, 42, 0.85);
border: 1px solid #1e293b;
border-radius: 10px;
color: #cbd5e1;
font-size: 12px;
line-height: 1.7;
user-select: none;
box-shadow: 0 4px 20px rgba(0,0,0,0.55);
}
#panel h1 {
margin: 0 0 8px 0;
font-size: 13px;
letter-spacing: 1.5px;
color: #4ade80;
font-weight: 600;
}
button {
display: block;
width: 100%;
margin-top: 6px;
padding: 6px 8px;
background: #1e293b;
color: #e2e8f0;
border: 1px solid #475569;
border-radius: 6px;
font-family: inherit;
font-size: 12px;
cursor: pointer;
}
button:hover { background: #334155; }
button:active { transform: translateY(1px); }
.row { margin-top: 10px; }
.row label { display: block; margin-bottom: 4px; color: #94a3b8; }
input[type=range] { width: 100%; }
#speedval { float: right; color: #4ade80; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="stage">
<canvas id="c" width="800" height="600"></canvas>
<div id="panel">
<h1>FALLING SLINKY</h1>
<button id="release">Release</button>
<button id="reset">Reset</button>
<div class="row">
<label for="speed">Speed</label>
<input type="range" id="speed" min="0.05" max="1" step="0.01" value="1">
<span id="speedval">1.00×</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<script>
(function () {
'use strict';
const canvas = document.getElementById('c');
const ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
const W = canvas.width;
const H = canvas.height;
// ---------- physical parameters ----------
const N = 60; // number of segments
const M = 1; // mass per segment
const G = 2000; // gravity, px / s^2
const A = 3; // natural (unstretched) spring length, px
const K = 13333.333; // spring constant
const C = 0.05; // small damping coefficient
const DT = 1 / 4000; // integration timestep, s
// ---------- state ----------
let y = new Array(N); // downward positions
let v = new Array(N); // downward velocities
let released = false;
let simTime = 0; // seconds since release
let speed = 1; // simulation speed multiplier
let initialBottomY = 0; // world height of the bottom at release
// ---------- hanging equilibrium ----------
// Spring j (j = 0..N-1) connects the support (or segment j-1) to segment j.
// At rest it carries the weight of the N-j segments below it, so its
// extension is (N-j) * M*G / K. Segment i sits at the sum of the lengths
// of springs 0..i.
function computeEquilibrium() {
const y0 = new Array(N);
let pos = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
const ext = (N - i) * M * G / K;
pos += A + ext;
y0[i] = pos;
}
return y0;
}
// ---------- accelerations ----------
// After release the top spring (the hand) is gone, so segment 0 has no
// spring above it. Every other segment feels gravity, the spring above
// and the spring below. All segments obey exactly the same rule.
function accelerations(y, v) {
const a = new Array(N);
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
let f = M * G;
if (i > 0) f -= K * ((y[i] - y[i - 1]) - A);
if (i < N - 1) f += K * ((y[i + 1] - y[i]) - A);
f -= C * v[i];
a[i] = f / M;
}
return a;
}
// ---------- velocity Verlet ----------
function step(dt) {
const a1 = accelerations(y, v);
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
v[i] += 0.5 * dt * a1[i];
y[i] += dt * v[i];
}
const a2 = accelerations(y, v);
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
v[i] += 0.5 * dt * a2[i];
}
}
// ---------- initialise ----------
y = computeEquilibrium();
v = new Array(N).fill(0);
initialBottomY = y[N - 1];
// ---------- controls ----------
document.getElementById('release').addEventListener('click', function () {
if (!released) {
released = true;
simTime = 0;
}
});
document.getElementById('reset').addEventListener('click', function () {
released = false;
simTime = 0;
y = computeEquilibrium();
v = new Array(N).fill(0);
});
const speedInput = document.getElementById('speed');
const speedVal = document.getElementById('speedval');
speedInput.addEventListener('input', function () {
speed = parseFloat(speedInput.value);
speedVal.textContent = speed.toFixed(2) + '\u00d7';
});
// ---------- main loop ----------
let lastTime = performance.now();
function frame(now) {
const elapsed = Math.min((now - lastTime) / 1000, 0.1);
lastTime = now;
if (released) {
const advance = elapsed / speed;
let remaining = advance;
let guard = 0;
while (remaining > 1e-9 && guard < 200000) {
const h = Math.min(DT, remaining);
step(h);
remaining -= h;
guard++;
}
simTime += advance;
}
draw();
requestAnimationFrame(frame);
}
// ---------- rendering ----------
function draw() {
// Camera follows the top segment so the slinky stays on screen.
const camY = y[0] - 80;
const cx = W / 2;
// Background
ctx.fillStyle = '#05050a';
ctx.fillRect(0, 0, W, H);
// Faint grid
ctx.strokeStyle = 'rgba(148,163,184,0.05)';
ctx.lineWidth = 1;
ctx.beginPath();
for (let x = 0; x <= W; x += 40) {
ctx.moveTo(x + 0.5, 0);
ctx.lineTo(x + 0.5, H);
}
for (let yy = 0; yy <= H; yy += 40) {
ctx.moveTo(0, yy + 0.5);
ctx.lineTo(W, yy + 0.5);
}
ctx.stroke();
// Marker line: height of the bottom at the instant of release.
const markerY = initialBottomY - camY;
ctx.save();
ctx.setLineDash([10, 8]);
ctx.strokeStyle = '#ff5555';
ctx.lineWidth = 2;
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.moveTo(0, markerY);
ctx.lineTo(W, markerY);
ctx.stroke();
ctx.restore();
// Release point (where the hand let go)
const releaseY = -camY;
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.arc(cx, releaseY, 5, 0, Math.PI * 2);
ctx.strokeStyle = '#f59e0b';
ctx.lineWidth = 2;
ctx.stroke();
// Springs as gentle S-curves (suggests the helical coils)
ctx.lineCap = 'round';
for (let i = 0; i < N - 1; i++) {
const y1 = y[i] - camY;
const y2 = y[i + 1] - camY;
const len = Math.abs(y2 - y1);
const off = Math.min(7, len / 2);
const mx = cx + ((i % 2 === 0) ? off : -off);
const my = (y1 + y2) / 2;
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.moveTo(cx, y1);
ctx.quadraticCurveTo(mx, my, cx, y2);
ctx.strokeStyle = '#60a5fa';
ctx.lineWidth = 2.5;
ctx.stroke();
}
// Masses
for (let i = 0; i < N; i++) {
const sy = y[i] - camY;
ctx.beginPath();
ctx.arc(cx, sy, 3, 0, Math.PI * 2);
ctx.fillStyle = '#4ade80';
ctx.fill();
}
// Clock: milliseconds since release
ctx.fillStyle = '#e2e8f0';
ctx.font = 'bold 15px ui-monospace, SFMono-Regular, Menlo, Consolas, monospace';
ctx.fillText('t = ' + Math.round(simTime * 1000) + ' ms', 20, 32);
}
requestAnimationFrame(frame);
})();
</script>
</body>
</html>
What it actually shows
I have to be straight with you: I could not execute this code in this environment, so I cannot report empirical results. I have not watched it run, and I am not going to tell you it reproduces the prediction because the physics says it should.
What I can say is what I expect, and where I am unsure:
- I am confident about the qualitative behaviour: the bottom segment feels no net force at release (gravity down, spring tension up), so it should sit at the marker line until the release wave arrives, then drop. The top segment starts with a net downward force of about 60mg and falls immediately.
- I am not certain about the exact timing. My estimate of the wave travel time, N·√(m/k) ≈ 0.5 s, comes from the linearised wave speed c = d·√(k/m) for a chain of masses and springs. The release wave is a large-amplitude wave — the springs go from fully stretched to their natural length — so nonlinear effects could make the front travel faster or slower than that estimate. The tension-based estimate c = √(T/μ) gives a noticeably longer travel time (~1 s). The simulation will settle this, not my back-of-envelope.
- I am also not certain how far the top falls before the bottom drops. The centre of mass must fall at g (gravity is the only external force after release), which constrains the top's motion, but the exact trajectory depends on the wave dynamics.
- The integrator is stable at the chosen stiffness and step (ωΔt ≈ 0.058), so I do not expect an explosion. If the wave turns out to be much slower than I predicted, the bottom will simply stay at the marker line longer than 0.5 s — that is a physics result, not a bug.
So: the file is written, the model is the one I described, and the prediction above is my committed claim. But I cannot honestly tell you I have verified it. Open it, press Release, and watch the bottom against the red line — that is the test.
Attachments
ricursiveai/ripple-65b-preview — page