|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 100% eclipsed by cloud here! typical.
>>
>> Is it coincidence it is also the equinox today?
>
> There's also going to be a total lunar eclipse Apr 4th ...
Unfortunately I'll be on the wrong side of the planet for that - but
there's another one on 28/Sep for me :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/03/2015 09:41 AM, scott wrote:
> 100% eclipsed by cloud here! typical.
The Sun was Obscured by Clouds </PinkFloyd>.
However, my colleges and I were able to observe the event anyhow, since
the cloud cover was not complete. I tried using a pinhole camera. My
boss discovered that DVDs are actually very slightly transparent. But my
suggestion was apparently the best: wrap the entrails out of a floppy
disk and use that. Works better doubled over. Makes the Sun look like
cola...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.03.2015 um 19:03 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> However, my colleges and I were able to observe the event anyhow, since
> the cloud cover was not complete. I tried using a pinhole camera. My
> boss discovered that DVDs are actually very slightly transparent. But my
> suggestion was apparently the best: wrap the entrails out of a floppy
> disk and use that. Works better doubled over. Makes the Sun look like
> cola...
Been there, done that in 1999.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-3-2015 19:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 09:41 AM, scott wrote:
>> 100% eclipsed by cloud here! typical.
>
> The Sun was Obscured by Clouds </PinkFloyd>.
>
> However, my colleges and I were able to observe the event anyhow, since
> the cloud cover was not complete. I tried using a pinhole camera. My
> boss discovered that DVDs are actually very slightly transparent. But my
> suggestion was apparently the best: wrap the entrails out of a floppy
> disk and use that. Works better doubled over. Makes the Sun look like
> cola...
DVD, floppies Warning: Bad for your eyes!! (no kidding)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/03/2015 08:10, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 20-3-2015 19:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 20/03/2015 09:41 AM, scott wrote:
>>> 100% eclipsed by cloud here! typical.
>>
>> The Sun was Obscured by Clouds </PinkFloyd>.
>>
>> However, my colleges and I were able to observe the event anyhow, since
>> the cloud cover was not complete. I tried using a pinhole camera. My
>> boss discovered that DVDs are actually very slightly transparent. But my
>> suggestion was apparently the best: wrap the entrails out of a floppy
>> disk and use that. Works better doubled over. Makes the Sun look like
>> cola...
>
> DVD, floppies Warning: Bad for your eyes!! (no kidding)
>
Yes, too stupid even for a Darwin Award.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/20/solar-eclipse-2015-pictures-reveal-welding-masks-cardboard-boxes-popular-headwear_n_6908258.html?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/03/2015 12:06 AM, clipka wrote:
> Been there, done that in 1999.
In 1999 I used a pinhole camera. Which worked quite well.
This time it was too cloudy. I couldn't really get much of an image.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/03/2015 08:10 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> DVD, floppies Warning: Bad for your eyes!! (no kidding)
Yeah, pointing your eyes directly at the Sun is never a fantastic idea.
Still, the number of times I've looked at the Sun with my naked eyes, I
would think doing so with protection can't be any *worse*... The key, I
guess, is to not stand there for eight minutes straight just staring at it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-3-2015 10:14, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 21/03/2015 08:10 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> DVD, floppies Warning: Bad for your eyes!! (no kidding)
>
> Yeah, pointing your eyes directly at the Sun is never a fantastic idea.
> Still, the number of times I've looked at the Sun with my naked eyes, I
> would think doing so with protection can't be any *worse*... The key, I
> guess, is to not stand there for eight minutes straight just staring at it.
It depends on the /protection/. DVDs are really bad protection because
they give the /illusion/ of screening sunlight which is not the case at all.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2015-03-21 05:14, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 21/03/2015 08:10 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> DVD, floppies Warning: Bad for your eyes!! (no kidding)
>
> Yeah, pointing your eyes directly at the Sun is never a fantastic idea.
> Still, the number of times I've looked at the Sun with my naked eyes, I
> would think doing so with protection can't be any *worse*... The key, I
> guess, is to not stand there for eight minutes straight just staring at it.
when you look directly at the sky, you squint, you pupils contract and
can't look at it straight for 8 minutes, anyway.
When there's an eclipse, and you'r elooking through dark sunglasses,
floppies, DVDs, welding masks, etc, the lower level of ambient light and
the apparent darkness of the sun through the aforementioned spectacles
will not be enough to tell your brain to take evasive manoeuvres, so you
actually will burn your eyes with more UV rays than you would if you
were driving west at dusk, or skiing on a glacier in the Alps.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When there's an eclipse, and you'r elooking through dark sunglasses,
> floppies, DVDs, welding masks, etc, the lower level of ambient light and
> the apparent darkness of the sun through the aforementioned spectacles
> will not be enough to tell your brain to take evasive manoeuvres, so you
> actually will burn your eyes with more UV rays than you would if you
> were driving west at dusk, or skiing on a glacier in the Alps.
Presumably a decent pair of dark sunglasses will have the required UV
protection?
Also, it seems relatively comfortable to look "near" the sun compared to
directly at it, but wouldn't both situations result in your eyes getting
burnt just as much?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|