RE: 1/10,000,000,000,000 of a second WHAT?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Called LIDAR. Ranging by light.

 

I have no experience of photographing a nuke…

 

Dr Chris

London

http://www.chrissimages.co.uk

 

From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jan Faul
Sent: 14 August 2013 16:04
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: 1/10,000,000,000,000 of a second WHAT?

 

 

It’s all doen with mirrors. LAter there is a lot of smoke.

 

On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:56 AM, jeffsaxman wrote:



I recall Doc Francis posing the question to we in his class as to how it might be possible to photograph a nuclear explosion from just a few feet away.  There were many guesses, but no answer was ever arrived at, nor provided by Doc.  I finally have my answer and can sleep at night.

 

Jeff Saxman

 

 

On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Jan Faul wrote:



 

Fifteen years ago or so I saw a contraption (I could not refer to it as a camera) at the NTS which EG&G's Harold Egerton had built to capture the first milliseconds of a nuclear explosion and it reportedly ran at a million frames per second for a few seconds. They would not discuss its technology, the shutter, or how the film got past the slit. PLus it was the size of a Toyota but even uglier than a Prius. I’m fairly certain taht the NTS is still trying to find a home for the most boring film ever taken - atom bomb ignition film. They reportedly have about a million feet of film and it is homeless (as it well should be). 

 

Jan

 

 

On Aug 14, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Andrew Davidhazy wrote:



I have seen this before. Nice talk by the way! I don't think this is exactly what it claims to be. The result is that but the procedure is possibly
a bit different methinks. What they may be doing is "range gating". Send out a pulse of light and catch the returning reflected light at slightly
different times and in this time the light they catch is that which is reflected from farther and farther locations. I think this is so but I could be
wrong. It is not like they have a camera that does what we come to believe a motion picture or video camera does in terms of recording so
many frames a second. At least I don't think so. Can anyone here enlighten me? Comments?

Andy from Rochester

________________________________________
From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randy Little [randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:51 AM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: 1/10,000,000,000,000 of a second WHAT?

http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

 


Art Faul

 

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------

Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post



.

 

 




 

 

Jeff Saxman

(804)644-0080

 

 

 

 

 


Art Faul

 

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------

Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post



.

 

 




 


[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux