The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Eclipse  (Read 4903 times)

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Eclipse
« on: 01/08/2008 19:49:37 »
The 2008 solar eclipse was rather a disappointment, naturally we had complete cloud cover for 95% of the time in England but even the NASA broadcast from China was marred by clouds and it was very short barely total.


 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Eclipse
« Reply #1 on: 01/08/2008 22:22:28 »
I didn't even realise an eclipse was due
 

Offline techmind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Un-obfuscated
    • View Profile
    • techmind.org
Eclipse
« Reply #2 on: 06/08/2008 00:35:50 »
I didn't even realise an eclipse was due

I had a lie-in that morning and only read about it on the BBC website as it was almost over. They also mistakenly said the time was 10.15 GMT (when they meant BST). Even so, at about 11am, using a piece of welding glass, I took a quick peek when there was a gap in the cloud, and sure enough, a tiny fingernail nibble of the sun was missing on the lower-left perimeter. (Near Gatwick Airport, Surrey). Ironically it was more sunny earlier in the day - before I knew I was supposed to look.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Eclipse
« Reply #3 on: 06/08/2008 10:09:06 »
I didn't even realise an eclipse was due
and sure enough, a tiny fingernail nibble of the sun was missing on the lower-left perimeter.

Not really worth the effort.
 

Offline techmind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Un-obfuscated
    • View Profile
    • techmind.org
Eclipse
« Reply #4 on: 07/08/2008 01:22:52 »
I didn't even realise an eclipse was due
and sure enough, a tiny fingernail nibble of the sun was missing on the lower-left perimeter.

Not really worth the effort.

Well - if I'd have looked 45minutes earlier, I understand there would have been a rather greater nibble missing...
 

lyner

  • Guest
Eclipse
« Reply #5 on: 07/08/2008 13:30:53 »
Quote
using a piece of welding glass, I took a quick peek
It's much better to make yourself a 'pinhole camera' with a hole in a piece of hardboard.
Better still, you get a big, bright image if you project(!!!) the image from   a binocular onto a white screen. It takes a bit of lining up but it works a treat. I looked at the transit of Venus a few years ago - brilliant.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2008 15:07:13 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Eclipse
« Reply #6 on: 07/08/2008 20:28:46 »
I planned to do just that unfortunately my semidetached house is orientated in such a direction that no room can be used as a camera obscura.
when living at different address in 2004 I was able to obtain excellent pictures of the transit of Venus by this method.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Eclipse
« Reply #7 on: 07/08/2008 23:25:02 »
I got a fair picture out in the open, using the binocular method.

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Eclipse
« Reply #8 on: 07/08/2008 23:34:52 »
I think you had a bogie on your lens  :P

Seriously, though, that's a good photo. What kit did you use?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Eclipse
« Reply #9 on: 07/08/2008 23:56:02 »
A balloon and a felt tip marker?

No - it's genuine. I used a pair of small Nikon binos on a clamp stand and a sheet of white card. I took the picture with a Nikon Coolpix 5400 and tiffled the image contrast a bit with Photoshop, as you do.
It was also seen by about 60 keen young year seven Science students.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Eclipse
« Reply #10 on: 08/08/2008 00:01:58 »
I'm impressed

While I was in town today I had my customary look in Cash Converters. They had a fabublous telescope (about 6" at a guess) with stand for 110. I was tempted, but resisted.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2008 00:03:56 by DoctorBeaver »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Eclipse
« Reply #11 on: 08/08/2008 12:58:46 »
There's a threshold of quality, below which it's not worth going for an astronomical telescops. Binos take a lot of beating unless you are really going for it. I had the loan of a 'Russian Telescope' (everybody had one of them, along with the binos, camera and AK47 in their wardrobe some years ago).
It was excellent value and was a 'real' bit of kit, although crude.
Don't make an impulse buy DrB.  Had it been dropped / abused, for a start?
Read the mags first or you could be disappointed.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Eclipse
« Reply #12 on: 08/08/2008 22:43:53 »
It looked to be in perfect condition. But then I thought that I wouldn't use it that much so it would be a waste of money.
 

Offline techmind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Un-obfuscated
    • View Profile
    • techmind.org
Eclipse
« Reply #13 on: 09/08/2008 18:17:07 »
Quote
using a piece of welding glass, I took a quick peek
It's much better to make yourself a 'pinhole camera' with a hole in a piece of hardboard.
Better still, you get a big, bright image if you project(!!!) the image from   a binocular onto a white screen. It takes a bit of lining up but it works a treat. I looked at the transit of Venus a few years ago - brilliant.

I've got a nice photo from the 11th August 2000 eclipse, showing the telescope method of projection... outside Euston station.
I'll dig it out in a week or two (my computer is packed up in boxes 'cos I'm moving house -to Cambridge- at the moment).
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Eclipse
« Reply #14 on: 09/08/2008 19:33:41 »
I think you must have meant 1999!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Eclipse
« Reply #14 on: 09/08/2008 19:33:41 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums