What is Digg?219 Comments
- fnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"one neat thing no one has noticed yet is how, in the first picture, the ground is not yet illuminated by the light from the fireball..the picture was taken so soon after the explosion that the light had yet to travel that far..."
Heh, how come the light reached the camera 7 miles away? :)) - nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Let me get this straight......that many years ago the camera had a 10foot lens.....1,000,000,000 shutter speed.....and my many years later.... 8mp, $1000+ SLR...has only a 300mm lens...and can take only 4000th of a second......
we are getting screwed - TheOneGreatX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8a ten foot lens? That's insane.
- Frinkahedron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Holy hell.
- aconbere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7As for why it's "crawling down the wires" my guess would be that it's just that it's incinerating them. The heat conductivity of any materials they would have used for that would have been higher than airs and most likely conducting an enormous amount of heat energy.
- yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7About the remarkable author....
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Bomb.html - chiklit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6From another site: "Below are three sequence photos shot on special b&w film at about 10,600,000 frames per second during the 1945 Trinity Test when Los Alamos fired the first Atomic Bomb test. These are Edgerton images. They are three almost-sequence frames, triggered from the primary firing Trinity weapon firing mechanism. The camera had 3500-feet of pre-tensioned 35-mm film on a huge spool, and the below shots are about two or three or five frames apart (they never could really tell) at the climax speed of the camera when the test weapon went off. The camera exploded after the shots because it was going so fast, but it shot 2/3rds of a mile of film frames before it disintigrated, and Edgerton made a special heat and blast resistant magnesium-alloy housing for the film to spin off and eject laterally when the camera exploded, so they could recover the exposed film after a predicted camera failure. Edward Teller was the first one to see the frames, and he was ecstatic. Moments later, he was depressed and realized that the US was going to drop these weapons on Japan. He forever regretted his role in the development of these infernal death machines. But he ended up sticking with it into the post-WWII era and helped make even larger Hydrogen Fusion weapons."
Link: http://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/images/high_speed_photos/ - spoonmanp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5These photos are amazing. Can anyone explain the phenomenon of how the blast looks like it's crawling down the cables?
- kirakun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@degree, @yukevster
Actually it is possible theoretically for the camera to capture light from the fireball without the light reflected off the ground. It's just a simple consequence of the triangular inequality: the path from the fireball to the ground then to the camera is longer than the path from the fireball to the camera.
My apology to degree. - Chrontius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The cables are heated to incandescence, and then incandescent vapor, by the light and thermal radiation (IR mostly) of the blast. Black-painted ropes exhibit the strongest "Jacob's Ladder" response, while chains and those ropes coated in aluminum foil exhibit little if any.
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the wires are vaporizing... and conductiong heat faster then the air...
- fnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4
"The heat conductivity of any materials they would have used for that would have been higher than airs and most likely conducting an enormous amount of heat energy."
No it cant be heat conductivity because the nuclear reaction happens so quickly there is no time for heat to conduct from one part of the line to the other. It could be electrons travelling down towards ground. Unfortunately the pics arent in color, then it would have been more obvious. On the other hand, with a shutter speed of 1/1000,000,000 where are you going to find color film that sensitive?
Awesome! - valis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"looks fake, next time get a better camera"
Um ... those pictures were taken in the 1940's with 1940's technology. Deal.
I've seen the pictures before but definitely a digg. - kirakun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, according to the article, the shutter speed is 1 billionth of a second. Speed of light is only 300 million meter per second. So, in between the shutter frames, light only travelled 1/3 of a meter. So, if the difference of the two paths (fireball->ground->camera vs. fireball->camera) is greater than a 1/3 of a meter, then you'll likely get this effect.
- scheper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't see where the 1/1,000,000,000 number is coming from?
The page mentions a shutter speed of 100 microseconds, which is 100/1,000,000 or just 1/10,000th of a second - wolfkeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do not eat happy fun ball.
- GoFlyaKite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Now just imagine what the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt? I'm not saying that we were wrong for using the A Bomb on them, it did save countless American lives but just think if it was you or your family was on the receiving side of that hell storm...
We humans are sure inventive when it comes to destruction. - BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Are you talking to yourself?
- enigmaticsoul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Site has been hacked. Entire page replaced with "by Thehacker Ownz YoU ". nyud.net isn't working for me; anyone have any mirrors?
- Zanneth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2O_O Same for me, any mirror?
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Olle
"Well, the light has reached the ground by the time the camera has taken the picture. But that doesn't mean that the picture can't depict a point in time before the light has reached the ground."
Yes, but only for a very, very brief time. The light that bounces off the ground has to travel 7 miles + 20 meters, whereas the light that goes directly from the explosion to the camera has to travel 7 miles. Light takes 66 nanoseconds to travel 20 meters, so that's how much of a timespan you have to take the shot, which would be pretty difficult to time properly, I'd think. And the nuclear explosion may not be very interesting in those first 66 nanoseconds. - CLIFFosakaJAPAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Qenton...."Can anyone explain the recent numbers of atomic bomb explosion pictures? But never seen these so +digg"
I think it may have to do with Iran being in the news because of whole Nuclear Weapons Flap... - usafkisser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OR...
The 1/1000000000 second exposure has nothing to do with his "fast trigger finger" or his "ability to take a photo 1/1000000000 of a second after detonation". This is just his shutter speed. Given that, he just snapped a few shots, and the light in the pictures is scaled relative to this shutter speed. The light has already reflected off the ground. It's just that the reflection off the ground is quite dark as compared to the actual blast that's happening. With such a quick shutter speed, the amount of light that hits the film is tiny enough that you get a nicely scaled down version. The ambient light from the rest of the picture IS coming from the blast. The 10 foot lens is for zoom and focus, due to the fact that he's 7 miles away. - nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"with a shutter speed of 1/1000,000,000 where are you going to find color film that sensitive?"
You would want the least sensitive film possible.
An atomic explosion is brighter then the sun....even at an 8000th of a sec pic...you can see the sky....to filter the light out to see the detail this is seeing...you would have to go way way higher then a small 8000th - aconbere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Fnot - I'm not sure that even makes sense. Heat energy certain transmits across materials more quickly than actually pushing electrons through them. While the wave front of an electric current occurs at near the speed of light, that isn't anywhere close to the movement of electrons but simply a shuffling of them through a material.
@Yukevster - That's as much the real answer as saying "objects fall down because of gravity" It offers little or no explanation of the phenomenon. - gamekid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yukevster: "About the remarkable author....
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Bomb.html"
From the link: "In a millisecond the blast expands; lightning caused by the force of the energy travels down the guide wires The desert floor was turned to glass"
If only someone could change the story link to yours. One doesn't always think about the impact bombs have on sand. Or guide wires.
In any case, dugg. - fnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2- aconbere
The electrons aren't beeing pushed, they are travelling towards ground taking the path with highest conductivity i.e the metal wires. The potential difference is so huge anyway that even without the wire most of the electric discharge would travel through air towards ground (think of lightning). At least thats my theory :) - TheFoundry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The real answer....
" lightning caused by the force of the energy travels down the guide wires "
BTW The desert floor was turned to glass"
Well, there's a whole section of desert in Nevada that's completely Trinitite. I believe you can buy fairly large shards of it on-line for around $20.00 - lykathea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How exactly could they have taken a picture of it in the first place then?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i don't know why, but i want to eat it. it looks so foamy and yummy.
- Olle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@yukevster,
Well, the light has reached the ground by the time the camera has taken the picture. But that doesn't mean that the picture can't depict a point in time before the light has reached the ground.
It's like when you take a picture of a galaxy. The picture you get is of how the galaxy looked a long time ago. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The text at http://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/images/high_speed_photos/ is hysterical nonsense.
First of all, the three photos from the digg are not of the same blast. In the one where the tower is visible, nothing occludes the camera at ground level. In the one where the plasma has almost reached the ground, there is a vehicle or other large, rectangular block occluding the tower base. Secondly, the shot with the long stalk of the tower visible is from the Upshot-Knothole test series. Details here: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Upshotk.html
So we know these aren't Trinity shots, and as non-trinity shots, they were taken after the Japanese warshots. - Clamps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sick book i was gonna buy it but it cost way too much .... one hell of a coffee table book
- treaps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1one possibility is that the cables are creating an interesting looking diffraction front in the expanding fireball.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You forgot a comma! :`)
- Diabolus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"i don't know why, but i want to eat it. it looks so foamy and yummy."
you're probably high. - TomMusicThing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Let me get this straight......that many years ago the camera had a 10foot lens.....1,000,000,000 shutter speed.....and my many years later.... 8mp, $1000+ SLR...has only a 300mm lens...and can take only 4000th of a second......"
Would you buy a camera with a 10 foot lens? Would be kind of a pain to take on holiday. - hfswagon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Check out the book, "100 Suns." It's a large format book with only large pictures of atomic bomb blasts. Fascinating. - yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2..." the ground is not yet illuminated by the light from the fireball..the picture was taken so soon after the explosion that the light had yet to travel that far..."
By golly you're right old chap. Nicely observed"
Actually, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE! How could the light have reached the camera which is 7 miles away before hitting the ground 20 metres away..?!?
DUH! - mechtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Now just imagine what the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt? I'm not saying that we were wrong for using the A Bomb on them, it did save countless American lives but just think if it was you or your family was on the receiving side of that hell storm.."
You got me thinking of worst case death scenarios..
Vaporized by Nuclear Bomb seems like one of the least painful options.
Held captive, Tortured, then Be-headed alive with a knife on iraqi TV.. probably the worst.
War is hell. None of us gets to decide how we go out.
Cheers - gypsyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tsspike1.jpg - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That first frame looks curiously like the topographical sulptures at the bottom of this page:
http://www.bathsheba.com/sculpt/ - wolfkeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like I was roughly right about the ropes. There's a discussion here:
http://simplethinking.com/home/rapatronic_3.shtml - andrewvc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with optimus crime. I'm a photographer and this looks just like normal lighting to me. You can see the ground around the base. The reason you don't see all the ground is that most of it is too far away to be illuminated sufficiently. If there were a giant light bulb on the tower it'd probably look the same way. The increased contrast and large grain probably makes it look more unreal.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1mousse:
There are clearly two levels of graininess on the first photo, indicating short exposure of the explosion and a longer exposure of the remainder of the photo. I'm a photographer, I know this, it's obvious, it's actually blatant. You can easily see the transition between the two exposures in the photo around the explosion.
I agree with usafkisser - Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
IMO The wire is burning because the point blank EM pulse super-heated it. The EM pulse moves at the speed of light, whereas the fireball grows at the speed of the explosion. If you witnessed an EM pulse from a few miles away and you held your eyes shut and held your arms over your eyes, you'd still see the blast right through your arms and eyelids. You would see your bones through the flesh in your arms because it is THAT bright. - pebecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's a quote about the cable phenomenon from http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tumblers.html:
"The peculiar spikes are extensions of the fireball surface along ropes or cables that stretch from the shot cab (the housing for the test device at the top of the tower) to the ground. This novel phenomenon was named a "rope trick" by Dr. John Malik who investigated it. The effect had been observed in earlier tests when spikes were seen extending along cables that moored the shot towers to the ground. During Snapper Malik conducted experiments using different kinds of cables and ropes, and with different surface treatments. Consequently the spikes in this picture may be due to either mooring cables, or Malik's own test ropes.
The cause of the "rope trick" is the absorption of thermal radiation from the fireball by the rope. The fireball is still extremely hot (surface temperature around 20,000 degrees K at this point, some three and a half times hotter than the surface of the sun; at the center it may be more than ten times hotter) and radiates a tremendous amount of energy as visible light (intensity over 100 times greater than the sun) to which air is (surprise!) completely transparent. The rope is not transparent however, and the section of rope extending from the fireball surface gets rapidly heated to very high temperatures. The luminous vaporized rope rapidly expands and forms a spike-shaped extension of the fireball. Malik observed that if the rope was painted black spike formation was enhanced, and if it was painted with reflective paint or wrapped in aluminum foil no spikes were observed. " - kirakun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@degree
Please think about what you just said. If the light has not even reached the ground that is closer to the explosion, how the heck did the camera that is farther from the explosion received the light to create the photo? - idiggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I saw these pics a few years ago. I too wanted to know what caused those spikes. If I recall correctly, the fireball is preceded by a super intense blast of radiations (gamma rays?) that vaporizes the cables that maintains the tower up straight.
This is recalled from the top of my head. Ask Google. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At the speed of expansion of that fireball, even the air would be viscous. That's why it looks as if it were happening underwater.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 218 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 