Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Eclipse Reports
24 views
Skip to first unread message
M C Hamster
May 21, 2012, 2:00:01 PM5/21/12
to
I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
--
"Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
--
"Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Les Albert
May 21, 2012, 2:12:09 PM5/21/12
to
On 21 May 2012 13:00:01 -0500, M C Hamster
then became normal again just before the sun set.
>It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
Les
<davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
In the SF area 84% of the sun became eclipsed, the light got dim, and
>I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
then became normal again just before the sun set.
>It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
M C Hamster
May 21, 2012, 3:11:01 PM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:12:09 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:
I don't know that you're one of millions "delighted" by the event.
http://tinyurl.com/d2cg4kj
Though I guess you are, in fact, saying you were delighted, at least
for a time.
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/d2cg4kj
Though I guess you are, in fact, saying you were delighted, at least
for a time.
bill van
May 21, 2012, 3:17:16 PM5/21/12
to
In article <ag0lr7h5522dmgmlb...@4ax.com>,
bill
> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
The sun completely disappeared. Behind the rain clouds. All day long.
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
bill
Wally Sevits
May 21, 2012, 6:32:02 PM5/21/12
to
On 21 May 2012 13:00:01 -0500, M C Hamster
talked until after the sun set, so both of us missed it.
--
Wally Sevits
<davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
>It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
A friend of mine called just before the eclipse was to begin. We
>I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
>It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
talked until after the sun set, so both of us missed it.
--
Wally Sevits
BillT...@invalid.com
May 21, 2012, 6:41:03 PM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:17:16 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:
It was pretty kewl here in theBay Area. After Saturday's "practice"
event, I was pretty ready, but couldn't get in touch with the kids, so
I just set up the viewer (previously described) in the driveway, and
invited the occasional neighbor passing by to take a peek. One young
couple stayed for the whole event, which lasted from around 17:20 to
some time after 19:00.
We used the long-viewer most of the time, but once in a while would
take a quick peek through the #10 welder's glass, usually no more than
1-2 seconds.
As the sun dipped closer to the horizon (which in my case is quite
high, since I live on the east side at the bottom of a several hundred
foot cliff), we had to move the apparatus out into the street, ending
up on the opposite curb. As the (sparse) traffic approached us most
were quite interested, and went on to park and walk back to take their
looks throught the viewer, and the glass.
I'd started to get chummy with the young couple, and one thing led to
another and I gave my Jackie talk, and they were quite interested. The
girl had been familiar with the violin, and I eventually asked if
they'd like to see my 'cello. They would. So I got it and played the
first part of "The Swan", etc. Most observers seemed to appreciate it.
A good (impromptu) time was had by all.
Next weekend, I'm going to herd chldren at camp in Mendocino.
Bill Turlock
Remind me to tell about my fine adventure last Tuesday at the music
store.
wrote:
event, I was pretty ready, but couldn't get in touch with the kids, so
I just set up the viewer (previously described) in the driveway, and
invited the occasional neighbor passing by to take a peek. One young
couple stayed for the whole event, which lasted from around 17:20 to
some time after 19:00.
We used the long-viewer most of the time, but once in a while would
take a quick peek through the #10 welder's glass, usually no more than
1-2 seconds.
As the sun dipped closer to the horizon (which in my case is quite
high, since I live on the east side at the bottom of a several hundred
foot cliff), we had to move the apparatus out into the street, ending
up on the opposite curb. As the (sparse) traffic approached us most
were quite interested, and went on to park and walk back to take their
looks throught the viewer, and the glass.
I'd started to get chummy with the young couple, and one thing led to
another and I gave my Jackie talk, and they were quite interested. The
girl had been familiar with the violin, and I eventually asked if
they'd like to see my 'cello. They would. So I got it and played the
first part of "The Swan", etc. Most observers seemed to appreciate it.
A good (impromptu) time was had by all.
Next weekend, I'm going to herd chldren at camp in Mendocino.
Bill Turlock
Remind me to tell about my fine adventure last Tuesday at the music
store.
Snidely
May 21, 2012, 10:14:59 PM5/21/12
to
M C Hamster submitted this idea :
> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
SoCal had clear weather, and significant coverage.
I used a rather flimsy (not filmy) pinhole camera, and the magnolia and
persimmon and avocado trees all did their part.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/tootsuite/7239435866/>
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
Not quite.
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
I used a rather flimsy (not filmy) pinhole camera, and the magnolia and
persimmon and avocado trees all did their part.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/tootsuite/7239435866/>
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
BillT...@invalid.com
May 21, 2012, 10:21:41 PM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:14:59 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The 'orange tree" photo needs to go on Imgur, with a caption about the
squirrel's expression.
I had a corn cob dropped on me from a (not maize) tree once.
wrote:
squirrel's expression.
I had a corn cob dropped on me from a (not maize) tree once.
Bob E.
May 22, 2012, 12:16:58 AM5/22/12
to
On 5/21/2012 12:11 PM, M C Hamster wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:12:09 -0700, Les Albert<lalb...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21 May 2012 13:00:01 -0500, M C Hamster
>> <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>>> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>>
>> In the SF area 84% of the sun became eclipsed, the light got dim, and
>> then became normal again just before the sun set.
>>
>>> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
>>
>
> I don't know that you're one of millions "delighted" by the event.
I was delighted, without having to expend much effort. I took about a
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:12:09 -0700, Les Albert<lalb...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21 May 2012 13:00:01 -0500, M C Hamster
>> <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>>> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>>
>> In the SF area 84% of the sun became eclipsed, the light got dim, and
>> then became normal again just before the sun set.
>>
>>> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
>>
>
> I don't know that you're one of millions "delighted" by the event.
minute and a half to construct a pinhole camera with a shoe-box, piece
of foil, tape and a pin. It worked just fine, the image was small but
legible (about 3/16" dia.), and the shadows from the trees looked just
like Snidely's photo. The dimness of the light at max. obfuscation was
eery, it was quite a bit less bright out, while obviously still full
daylight...hard to describe. I wanted to put on Ozric Tentacles'
"Half-light in Thillai", but I grilled some bul-go-ki instead.
--Bob
Veronique
May 22, 2012, 12:22:44 AM5/22/12
to
On May 21, 11:00 am, M C Hamster <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net>
wrote:
shadows into eclipse moons thrown up in relief on various building
walls.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
wrote:
> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
I posted my photos to FB. The angle of the sun made all the leaf
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
shadows into eclipse moons thrown up in relief on various building
walls.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
S. Checker
May 22, 2012, 10:13:51 AM5/22/12
to
BillT...@invalid.com wrote:
> Remind me to tell about my fine adventure last Tuesday at the music
> store.
2012-05-22 15:13:40: BILL TURLOCK, PLEASE TELL ABOUT YOUR FINE
> Remind me to tell about my fine adventure last Tuesday at the music
> store.
ADVENTURE LAST TUESDAY AT THE MUSIC STORE --END--
--
I was shocked by the language of Molly McAnailly Burke's piece on
lesbian rockers, and your allowing it in a family newspaper. The
offending phrase "five writhing beauties hot for each other" should be
"five writhing beauties hot for one another," since *each other* applies
only to two.
--Sean O'Brien, Rathfarnham
Les Albert
May 22, 2012, 11:07:17 AM5/22/12
to
still daylight but a lot less bright. The odd daylight reminded me of
the description of light on an imaginary planet in many science
fiction stories. But I had a peanut butter sandwich and felt better.
Les
Snidely
May 22, 2012, 1:26:14 PM5/22/12
to
Les Albert speculated:
I was longing to have my dad's light meter out of storage. It's a lot
harder to read the information out of a digital camera, even though
it's all there.
harder to read the information out of a digital camera, even though
it's all there.
BillT...@invalid.com
May 22, 2012, 1:33:42 PM5/22/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:26:14 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I just recently found my UV light meter, but right now can't exactly
remember if I found it before or after. I didn't think to use it in
any case.
wrote:
remember if I found it before or after. I didn't think to use it in
any case.
Bob E.
May 23, 2012, 1:00:55 AM5/23/12
to
On 5/22/2012 8:07 AM, Les Albert wrote:
>
> I had that same eerie feeling about the light as you describe it,
> still daylight but a lot less bright. The odd daylight reminded me of
> the description of light on an imaginary planet in many science
> fiction stories.
I thought about this a bit, wondering what made the dimmer light sort of
>
> I had that same eerie feeling about the light as you describe it,
> still daylight but a lot less bright. The odd daylight reminded me of
> the description of light on an imaginary planet in many science
> fiction stories.
unsettling...the only thing I could think of was that at normal evening
twilight, the dimming of daylight comes with a gradation of brightness
from west to east, whereas the eclipse-dimming was just sort of the same
diminished brightness in every direction. It seems too subtle a
distinction to be that consequential, but I couldn't think of anything else.
I also thought later that I should have gone up to the top of the hill
by the reservoir near my house, so I could look out over Silicon Valley.
I have heard that there sometimes seem to be bands of increasing
darkness washing over the landscape as the shadow passes, rather than a
smooth progression from light to dark. I would have liked to have seen
that, if the effect really exists. Maybe that subtle effect is also
subliminally perceived, adding to the eerieness.
--Bob
Mark Brader
May 23, 2012, 4:18:40 AM5/23/12
to
Les Albert:
Well, in addition to that: (1) you know it's daytime and not dusk, and
(2) this is confirmed by the color of the light, which is not reddened.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I can't tell from this... whether you're
m...@vex.net | a wise man or a wise guy." --Ted Schuerzinger
> > I had that same eerie feeling about the light as you describe it,
> > still daylight but a lot less bright. The odd daylight reminded me of
> > the description of light on an imaginary planet in many science
> > fiction stories.
Bob E.:
> > still daylight but a lot less bright. The odd daylight reminded me of
> > the description of light on an imaginary planet in many science
> > fiction stories.
> I thought about this a bit, wondering what made the dimmer light sort of
> unsettling...the only thing I could think of was that at normal evening
> twilight, the dimming of daylight comes with a gradation of brightness
> from west to east, whereas the eclipse-dimming was just sort of the same
> diminished brightness in every direction. It seems too subtle a
> distinction to be that consequential, but...
> unsettling...the only thing I could think of was that at normal evening
> twilight, the dimming of daylight comes with a gradation of brightness
> from west to east, whereas the eclipse-dimming was just sort of the same
> diminished brightness in every direction. It seems too subtle a
Well, in addition to that: (1) you know it's daytime and not dusk, and
(2) this is confirmed by the color of the light, which is not reddened.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I can't tell from this... whether you're
m...@vex.net | a wise man or a wise guy." --Ted Schuerzinger
bobg
May 23, 2012, 7:17:19 AM5/23/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 2:00:01 PM UTC-4, M C Hamster wrote:
> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
> --
>
It was pretty cool.
> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
> --
>
We found a nice pulloff on Route 89 between Page AZ and Kanab UT, a few miles north of the center line. We didn't have any trees in sight, but it turns out that a straw hat makes an excellent pinhole camera array.
It was definitely the most annular annular eclipse I've seen - that was one tiny moon. At second and third contacts (beginning & end of annularity), you could kind of see (with filtered binoculars) what would've been "Bailey's Beads" in a total eclipse - the only indication during the whole thing that the moon isn't actually a perfectly circular disk, but actually has features.
It stayed pretty bright out (like I said, one tiny moon), but as others noted, the quality of the light was eerie - a little like artificial light, a little like the light during a sunshower. (But most like the light 30 seconds or so before totality in a total eclipse...)
Nobody in our car went blind, unless the effect is delayed.
Paul Ciszek
May 23, 2012, 9:56:44 AM5/23/12
to
In article <g5ednS3DqrGnjibS...@earthlink.com>,
Bob E. <bo...@halted.com> wrote:
>
>I was delighted, without having to expend much effort. I took about a
>minute and a half to construct a pinhole camera with a shoe-box, piece
>of foil, tape and a pin. It worked just fine, the image was small but
>legible (about 3/16" dia.), and the shadows from the trees looked just
>like Snidely's photo. The dimness of the light at max. obfuscation was
>eery, it was quite a bit less bright out, while obviously still full
>daylight...hard to describe. I wanted to put on Ozric Tentacles'
>"Half-light in Thillai", but I grilled some bul-go-ki instead.
My girlfriend played Johny Cash's "Ring of Fire" during annularity.
>
>I was delighted, without having to expend much effort. I took about a
>minute and a half to construct a pinhole camera with a shoe-box, piece
>of foil, tape and a pin. It worked just fine, the image was small but
>legible (about 3/16" dia.), and the shadows from the trees looked just
>like Snidely's photo. The dimness of the light at max. obfuscation was
>eery, it was quite a bit less bright out, while obviously still full
>daylight...hard to describe. I wanted to put on Ozric Tentacles'
>"Half-light in Thillai", but I grilled some bul-go-ki instead.
--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
May 23, 2012, 9:06:44 PM5/23/12
to
On 05/23/2012 06:56 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
> My girlfriend played Johny Cash's "Ring of Fire" during annularity.
Really, Paul, this is just TTTMI.
>
> My girlfriend played Johny Cash's "Ring of Fire" during annularity.
Xho
Kevin
May 23, 2012, 11:56:15 PM5/23/12
to
M C Hamster
May 23, 2012, 11:57:01 PM5/23/12
to
M C Hamster
May 24, 2012, 1:55:29 PM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 04:17:19 -0700 (PDT), bobg <byo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I do remember the thin and odd quality of light 30 seconds before
totality.
Are there *any* reports of *anyone* having damaged eyesight as a
result of looking at the sun during the eclipse?
wrote:
totality.
Are there *any* reports of *anyone* having damaged eyesight as a
result of looking at the sun during the eclipse?
bobg
May 24, 2012, 3:25:50 PM5/24/12
to
Wikipedia's page on Solar Retinopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_retinopathy) cites a study where 60% of sufferers reported a history of "sungazing." If staring at the sun, on purpose and regularly, only *damages* your vision, and generally reversibly, then I think eclipses are pretty safe.
Wearing normal sunglasses, I could glance at it for about the same fraction of a fraction of a second that I can glance at an un-eclipsed sun - that was enough to get a fleeting glimpse of a VERY bright ring. After-effects were similar in severity and duration to when a flash bulb goes off about six feet away from you.
M C Hamster
May 24, 2012, 11:47:32 PM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:25:50 -0700 (PDT), bobg <byo...@gmail.com>
I guess I need to ask if there was a level of hysteria in the media
about the dangers of going blind during the eclipse. When I was a wee
lad there was a partial eclipse in Chicago (maybe 90% or 95%, I don't
remember) and I recall much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the
dangers.
I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
2017... it's time to start making plans.
about the dangers of going blind during the eclipse. When I was a wee
lad there was a partial eclipse in Chicago (maybe 90% or 95%, I don't
remember) and I recall much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the
dangers.
I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
2017... it's time to start making plans.
Charles Bishop
May 25, 2012, 1:57:08 AM5/25/12
to
In article <ag0lr7h5522dmgmlb...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
annular eclipse would have been visible in SoCal, but I don't think I've
seen a solar eclipse before.
We left Sunday morning at ~6am, traveled up I-15 out of California,
through Nevada, Arizona and into Utah to the town of St. George. A nifty
little town which is near several national parks and the Grand Canyon. We
had planned on pressing on to a location closer to the centerline, but
happenstance had us stay in St. George. We had stopped for a break and
something to drink at a Jack-in-the-Box and got to talking with some
locals. They told us the US Park Service was having an event close by and
there would be glasses and telescopes available for use. The trip from
home to St. George was 7-8 hrs.
After a bit of wandering, we found the location near the top of a hill,
and lined up. They let us in shortly before 5:30 pm, gave us our glasses,
and we staked out a spot at one of the balconies. We neededn't have
worried since there was plenty of room.
The notice board said the eclipse would start at 5:58 pm. When it didn't,
a ranger explained that, well, math was involved and perhaps the
calculations weren't as good as they expected. It began about 6:20 and
lasted for about two hours. I was lucky and was at a telescope at
annularity. Previously I had viewed the sun and saw sunspots. There
weren't very many 3-6 maybe.
I couldn't use my camera to photograph the eclipse directly but took
photos of the landscape before and during the eclipse and I'll see how
they turn out.
It was a great experience. I'm not sure I'll become an eclipse chaser, but
I would like to see a total eclipse, just to make sure I see one. 2017
isn't that far away.
--
charles
<davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
>It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
As I mentioned, I traveled to see the annularity of the eclipse. A non
>I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
>It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
annular eclipse would have been visible in SoCal, but I don't think I've
seen a solar eclipse before.
We left Sunday morning at ~6am, traveled up I-15 out of California,
through Nevada, Arizona and into Utah to the town of St. George. A nifty
little town which is near several national parks and the Grand Canyon. We
had planned on pressing on to a location closer to the centerline, but
happenstance had us stay in St. George. We had stopped for a break and
something to drink at a Jack-in-the-Box and got to talking with some
locals. They told us the US Park Service was having an event close by and
there would be glasses and telescopes available for use. The trip from
home to St. George was 7-8 hrs.
After a bit of wandering, we found the location near the top of a hill,
and lined up. They let us in shortly before 5:30 pm, gave us our glasses,
and we staked out a spot at one of the balconies. We neededn't have
worried since there was plenty of room.
The notice board said the eclipse would start at 5:58 pm. When it didn't,
a ranger explained that, well, math was involved and perhaps the
calculations weren't as good as they expected. It began about 6:20 and
lasted for about two hours. I was lucky and was at a telescope at
annularity. Previously I had viewed the sun and saw sunspots. There
weren't very many 3-6 maybe.
I couldn't use my camera to photograph the eclipse directly but took
photos of the landscape before and during the eclipse and I'll see how
they turn out.
It was a great experience. I'm not sure I'll become an eclipse chaser, but
I would like to see a total eclipse, just to make sure I see one. 2017
isn't that far away.
--
charles
Greg Goss
May 25, 2012, 1:35:13 AM5/25/12
to
ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>annularity. Previously I had viewed the sun and saw sunspots. There
>weren't very many 3-6 maybe.
Three years or so back, I read an article claiming that the upcoming
>annularity. Previously I had viewed the sun and saw sunspots. There
>weren't very many 3-6 maybe.
sunspot cycle was going to be one of the weakest on record, and might
signify a cold period ofsetting global warming for a decade or more.
Since then, I've been unable to find overview articles on how the
current cycle compares to previous ones. I assume that there are
websites showing day by day sunspot counts, but not doing the math to
smooth out the counts and compare them to other cycles.
I think we're supposed to be at the peak about now, and yet several of
the eclipse articles lamented the low sunspot count.
So, is the current solar activity cycle abnormally low, or within what
modern history thinks of as "normal"?
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
bobg
May 25, 2012, 6:39:26 AM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 1:57:08 AM UTC-4, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <ag0lr7h5522dmgmlb...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
> <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> >have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
> >
> >It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
>
> As I mentioned, I traveled to see the annularity of the eclipse. A non
> annular eclipse would have been visible in SoCal, but I don't think I've
> seen a solar eclipse before.
If you're not sure, then you haven't seen one. They're pretty memorable.
> In article <ag0lr7h5522dmgmlb...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
> <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> >have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
> >
> >It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
>
> As I mentioned, I traveled to see the annularity of the eclipse. A non
> annular eclipse would have been visible in SoCal, but I don't think I've
> seen a solar eclipse before.
<snip>
> The notice board said the eclipse would start at 5:58 pm. When it didn't,
> a ranger explained that, well, math was involved and perhaps the
> calculations weren't as good as they expected.
The calculations are pretty freaking accurate, and have been for decades. My guess is that the notice-board writer just copied and pasted the information from some other national park that was a few hundred miles west.
There are online resources like this (http://urlshorteningservicefortwitter.com/49gyj) that could have given much better info - plugging St. George's info into that, the park would have predicted first contact at 18:22:58.7 local time, and annularity at 19:32:16.6, with a duration of 4 minutes, 13.2 seconds.
M C Hamster
May 25, 2012, 9:20:01 AM5/25/12
to
nice appetizer. You absolutely owe it to yourself to see totality.
Everyone does.
I remember being in St. George when I was a 10-year-old on a family
vacation. We stayed in a Best Western motel there. I almost kinda
sorta remember what it looked like.
Les Albert
May 25, 2012, 11:54:10 AM5/25/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:35:13 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Three years or so back, I read an article claiming that the upcoming
>sunspot cycle was going to be one of the weakest on record, and might
>signify a cold period ofsetting global warming for a decade or more.
>Since then, I've been unable to find overview articles on how the
>current cycle compares to previous ones. I assume that there are
>websites showing day by day sunspot counts, but not doing the math to
>smooth out the counts and compare them to other cycles.
>I think we're supposed to be at the peak about now, and yet several of
>the eclipse articles lamented the low sunspot count.
>So, is the current solar activity cycle abnormally low, or within what
>modern history thinks of as "normal"?
Here is a site that should provide some answers to your sunspot
>Three years or so back, I read an article claiming that the upcoming
>sunspot cycle was going to be one of the weakest on record, and might
>signify a cold period ofsetting global warming for a decade or more.
>Since then, I've been unable to find overview articles on how the
>current cycle compares to previous ones. I assume that there are
>websites showing day by day sunspot counts, but not doing the math to
>smooth out the counts and compare them to other cycles.
>I think we're supposed to be at the peak about now, and yet several of
>the eclipse articles lamented the low sunspot count.
>So, is the current solar activity cycle abnormally low, or within what
>modern history thinks of as "normal"?
questions: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
And here is the main site that has other sunspot sites you can go to:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/about/sunspots.html
Les
Mark Brader
May 25, 2012, 2:18:33 PM5/25/12
to
Charles Bishop:
ever likely to see if you stay in one place and wait for an eclipse
track to come to you.
> > The notice board said the eclipse would start at 5:58 pm. When it didn't,
> > a ranger explained that, well, math was involved and perhaps the
> > calculations weren't as good as they expected.
been that. 5:58 pm MDT is 23:58 UTC, and the location where the
first contact was at 23:58 was hundreds of miles into the Pacific.
And it couldn't be that they were thinking of a later stage of the
eclipse, because that would just move the location farther west.
It could not have been 5:58 pm CDT, which is 22:58 UTC, because at
that time the whole eclipse zone was in the western Pacific.
And it could not have been 5:58 pm PDT, which is is 00:58 UTC, because
there's no place where the eclipse started that late, and maximum eclipse
at that time was, again, way out in the Pacific.
If I have it right.
--
Mark Brader | The chief use to which we put our love of the truth is
Toronto | in persuading ourselves that what we love is true.
m...@vex.net | -- Pierre Nicole, c.1675
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> > As I mentioned, I traveled to see the annularity of the eclipse. A non
> > annular eclipse would have been visible in SoCal, but I don't think I've
> > seen a solar eclipse before.
"bobg":
> > annular eclipse would have been visible in SoCal, but I don't think I've
> > seen a solar eclipse before.
> If you're not sure, then you haven't seen one. They're pretty memorable.
Well, partial ones aren't all that memorable, and that's all you're
ever likely to see if you stay in one place and wait for an eclipse
track to come to you.
> > The notice board said the eclipse would start at 5:58 pm. When it didn't,
> > a ranger explained that, well, math was involved and perhaps the
> > calculations weren't as good as they expected.
> The calculations are pretty freaking accurate, and have been for
> decades. My guess is that the notice-board writer just copied and
> pasted the information from some other national park that was a few
> hundred miles west.
It was obviously some human error like that, but it could not have
> decades. My guess is that the notice-board writer just copied and
> pasted the information from some other national park that was a few
> hundred miles west.
been that. 5:58 pm MDT is 23:58 UTC, and the location where the
first contact was at 23:58 was hundreds of miles into the Pacific.
And it couldn't be that they were thinking of a later stage of the
eclipse, because that would just move the location farther west.
It could not have been 5:58 pm CDT, which is 22:58 UTC, because at
that time the whole eclipse zone was in the western Pacific.
And it could not have been 5:58 pm PDT, which is is 00:58 UTC, because
there's no place where the eclipse started that late, and maximum eclipse
at that time was, again, way out in the Pacific.
If I have it right.
--
Mark Brader | The chief use to which we put our love of the truth is
Toronto | in persuading ourselves that what we love is true.
m...@vex.net | -- Pierre Nicole, c.1675
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Charles Bishop
May 26, 2012, 12:00:55 AM5/26/12
to
In article <a28k0i...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
>ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>
>>annularity. Previously I had viewed the sun and saw sunspots. There
>>weren't very many 3-6 maybe.
>
>Three years or so back, I read an article claiming that the upcoming
>sunspot cycle was going to be one of the weakest on record, and might
>signify a cold period ofsetting global warming for a decade or more.
>
>Since then, I've been unable to find overview articles on how the
>current cycle compares to previous ones. I assume that there are
>websites showing day by day sunspot counts, but not doing the math to
>smooth out the counts and compare them to other cycles.
>
>I think we're supposed to be at the peak about now, and yet several of
>the eclipse articles lamented the low sunspot count.
>
>So, is the current solar activity cycle abnormally low, or within what
>modern history thinks of as "normal"?
The man I talked to at the eclipse mentioned that the level is supposed to
>ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>
>>annularity. Previously I had viewed the sun and saw sunspots. There
>>weren't very many 3-6 maybe.
>
>Three years or so back, I read an article claiming that the upcoming
>sunspot cycle was going to be one of the weakest on record, and might
>signify a cold period ofsetting global warming for a decade or more.
>
>Since then, I've been unable to find overview articles on how the
>current cycle compares to previous ones. I assume that there are
>websites showing day by day sunspot counts, but not doing the math to
>smooth out the counts and compare them to other cycles.
>
>I think we're supposed to be at the peak about now, and yet several of
>the eclipse articles lamented the low sunspot count.
>
>So, is the current solar activity cycle abnormally low, or within what
>modern history thinks of as "normal"?
be lower than usual.
Same for hurricanes this season according to an article in the LATimes.
--
chalres, moderation in all things, bishop
Charles Bishop
May 26, 2012, 2:53:30 AM5/26/12
to
In article <10f60344-96fb-4d5e...@googlegroups.com>, bobg
child and it's possible that I confused it with the lunar eclipses that
I've seen many of. I suppose I could find out if there were any solar
eclipses that were visible depending on where I was at the time.
>My guess is that the notice-board writer just copied and pasted the informa=
>tion from some other national park that was a few hundred miles west. =20
I have no doubt of this and that was what I thought of. The ranger gave
the impression that they had done the calcs there though.
>
>There are online resources like this (http://urlshorteningservicefortwitter=
>.com/49gyj) that could have given much better info - plugging St. George's =
>info into that, the park would have predicted first contact at 18:22:58.7 l=
>ocal time, and annularity at 19:32:16.6, with a duration of 4 minutes, 13.2=
> seconds.
That's the times that I remember
[snip]
--
charles
<byo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, May 25, 2012 1:57:08 AM UTC-4, Charles Bishop wrote:
>> In article <ag0lr7h5522dmgmlb...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
>> <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>=20
>On Friday, May 25, 2012 1:57:08 AM UTC-4, Charles Bishop wrote:
>> In article <ag0lr7h5522dmgmlb...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
>> <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> >I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
>> >have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>> >
>> >It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
>>=20
>> >have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>> >
>> >It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
>> As I mentioned, I traveled to see the annularity of the eclipse. A non
>> annular eclipse would have been visible in SoCal, but I don't think I've
>> seen a solar eclipse before.
>
>If you're not sure, then you haven't seen one. They're pretty memorable.
Given the state of my memory, I'm still not sure, also I might have been a
>> annular eclipse would have been visible in SoCal, but I don't think I've
>> seen a solar eclipse before.
>
>If you're not sure, then you haven't seen one. They're pretty memorable.
child and it's possible that I confused it with the lunar eclipses that
I've seen many of. I suppose I could find out if there were any solar
eclipses that were visible depending on where I was at the time.
>
><snip>
>
>> The notice board said the eclipse would start at 5:58 pm. When it didn't,
>> a ranger explained that, well, math was involved and perhaps the
>> calculations weren't as good as they expected.
>
><snip>
>
>The calculations are pretty freaking accurate, and have been for decades. =
><snip>
>
>> The notice board said the eclipse would start at 5:58 pm. When it didn't,
>> a ranger explained that, well, math was involved and perhaps the
>> calculations weren't as good as they expected.
>
><snip>
>
>My guess is that the notice-board writer just copied and pasted the informa=
>tion from some other national park that was a few hundred miles west. =20
I have no doubt of this and that was what I thought of. The ranger gave
the impression that they had done the calcs there though.
>
>There are online resources like this (http://urlshorteningservicefortwitter=
>.com/49gyj) that could have given much better info - plugging St. George's =
>info into that, the park would have predicted first contact at 18:22:58.7 l=
>ocal time, and annularity at 19:32:16.6, with a duration of 4 minutes, 13.2=
> seconds.
That's the times that I remember
[snip]
--
charles
Charles Bishop
May 26, 2012, 2:56:31 AM5/26/12
to
In article <9f1vr7l9gibtfok4p...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
>>
>>It was a great experience. I'm not sure I'll become an eclipse chaser, but
>>I would like to see a total eclipse, just to make sure I see one. 2017
>>isn't that far away.
>
>Charles, make sure you see the total eclipse in 2017. This one was a
>nice appetizer. You absolutely owe it to yourself to see totality.
>Everyone does.
>
>I remember being in St. George when I was a 10-year-old on a family
>vacation. We stayed in a Best Western motel there. I almost kinda
>sorta remember what it looked like.
It would certainly have had more of a small town feel to it then,
especially if I-15 wasn't yet built. Were you there for the national parks
close by?
I recently checked GoogleMaps view of one of my home towns and it was much
larger than I remember, but that's to be expected.
--
charles
<davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:57:08 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
>Bishop) wrote:
[snip-eclipse viewing in St. George, UT]
>On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:57:08 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
>Bishop) wrote:
>>
>>It was a great experience. I'm not sure I'll become an eclipse chaser, but
>>I would like to see a total eclipse, just to make sure I see one. 2017
>>isn't that far away.
>
>Charles, make sure you see the total eclipse in 2017. This one was a
>nice appetizer. You absolutely owe it to yourself to see totality.
>Everyone does.
>
>I remember being in St. George when I was a 10-year-old on a family
>vacation. We stayed in a Best Western motel there. I almost kinda
>sorta remember what it looked like.
especially if I-15 wasn't yet built. Were you there for the national parks
close by?
I recently checked GoogleMaps view of one of my home towns and it was much
larger than I remember, but that's to be expected.
--
charles
M C Hamster
May 26, 2012, 6:32:01 PM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 22:56:31 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
That trip was my introduction to the wide open spaces of the American
west, and was a wonderful experience.
St. George was indeed a small town. They were in the process of
building the interstate system, and frequently we would be detourned
onto two-lane roads. And the most exciting was the warnings about
dynamite, and to not have any two-way radios on in our cars (as if
people did that).
There are three Best Western hotels / motels in St. George now. This
one resembles it the most but I suppose it's not in the same location.
http://bestwesternutah.com/hotels/best-western-travel-inn (I don't
quite understand what I'm looking at there re: I-15. The satellite
photo seems to show St. George Blvd. not as an interstate highway but
just a 4 lane road... maybe it's the business route? If so, then that
may well be the same location.
>I recently checked GoogleMaps view of one of my home towns and it was much
>larger than I remember, but that's to be expected.
--
Bishop) wrote:
>In article <9f1vr7l9gibtfok4p...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
><davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:57:08 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
>>Bishop) wrote:
>
>[snip-eclipse viewing in St. George, UT]
>
>>>
>>>It was a great experience. I'm not sure I'll become an eclipse chaser, but
>>>I would like to see a total eclipse, just to make sure I see one. 2017
>>>isn't that far away.
>>
>>Charles, make sure you see the total eclipse in 2017. This one was a
>>nice appetizer. You absolutely owe it to yourself to see totality.
>>Everyone does.
>>
>>I remember being in St. George when I was a 10-year-old on a family
>>vacation. We stayed in a Best Western motel there. I almost kinda
>>sorta remember what it looked like.
>
>It would certainly have had more of a small town feel to it then,
>especially if I-15 wasn't yet built. Were you there for the national parks
>close by?
>
Yes, we went to the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Bryce Canyon on that trip.
>In article <9f1vr7l9gibtfok4p...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
><davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 May 2012 21:57:08 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
>>Bishop) wrote:
>
>[snip-eclipse viewing in St. George, UT]
>
>>>
>>>It was a great experience. I'm not sure I'll become an eclipse chaser, but
>>>I would like to see a total eclipse, just to make sure I see one. 2017
>>>isn't that far away.
>>
>>Charles, make sure you see the total eclipse in 2017. This one was a
>>nice appetizer. You absolutely owe it to yourself to see totality.
>>Everyone does.
>>
>>I remember being in St. George when I was a 10-year-old on a family
>>vacation. We stayed in a Best Western motel there. I almost kinda
>>sorta remember what it looked like.
>
>It would certainly have had more of a small town feel to it then,
>especially if I-15 wasn't yet built. Were you there for the national parks
>close by?
>
That trip was my introduction to the wide open spaces of the American
west, and was a wonderful experience.
St. George was indeed a small town. They were in the process of
building the interstate system, and frequently we would be detourned
onto two-lane roads. And the most exciting was the warnings about
dynamite, and to not have any two-way radios on in our cars (as if
people did that).
There are three Best Western hotels / motels in St. George now. This
one resembles it the most but I suppose it's not in the same location.
http://bestwesternutah.com/hotels/best-western-travel-inn (I don't
quite understand what I'm looking at there re: I-15. The satellite
photo seems to show St. George Blvd. not as an interstate highway but
just a 4 lane road... maybe it's the business route? If so, then that
may well be the same location.
>I recently checked GoogleMaps view of one of my home towns and it was much
>larger than I remember, but that's to be expected.
--
Stan
May 27, 2012, 9:30:39 PM5/27/12
to
M C Hamster wrote:
>
> I guess I need to ask if there was a level of hysteria in the media
> about the dangers of going blind during the eclipse. When I was a wee
> lad there was a partial eclipse in Chicago (maybe 90% or 95%, I don't
> remember) and I recall much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the
> dangers.
>
> I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
> to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
> have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
>
> 2017... it's time to start making plans.
Thread hijack.
>
> I guess I need to ask if there was a level of hysteria in the media
> about the dangers of going blind during the eclipse. When I was a wee
> lad there was a partial eclipse in Chicago (maybe 90% or 95%, I don't
> remember) and I recall much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the
> dangers.
>
> I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
> to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
> have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
>
> 2017... it's time to start making plans.
I am reading Haruki Murakami's The Wind Up Bird Chronicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind-Up_Bird_Chronicle
and it mentions that horses mysteriously die during the full moon or a
solar eclipse. Is this a Japanese urban legend, a universal urban
legend, fiction, or truth?
--
Stan in NJ
Lee Ayrton
May 28, 2012, 12:03:31 AM5/28/12
to
Veronique
May 28, 2012, 12:18:53 AM5/28/12
to
On May 27, 6:30 pm, Stan <sze...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am reading Haruki Murakami's The Wind Up Bird Chroniclehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind-Up_Bird_Chronicle
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
> I am reading Haruki Murakami's The Wind Up Bird Chroniclehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind-Up_Bird_Chronicle
>
> and it mentions that horses mysteriously die during the full moon or a
> solar eclipse. Is this a Japanese urban legend, a universal urban
> legend, fiction, or truth?
I have never heard of this.
> and it mentions that horses mysteriously die during the full moon or a
> solar eclipse. Is this a Japanese urban legend, a universal urban
> legend, fiction, or truth?
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Paul Ciszek
May 28, 2012, 11:39:57 AM5/28/12
to
In article <us6tr7p3q79vmghd9...@4ax.com>,
>I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
>to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
>have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
It's really quite simple. Staring at the sun with your eyes stationary
>to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
>have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
(as opposed to, say, sweeping your gaze across the sky) can burn your
retinas. Normally people don't do this, because it is uncomfortable,
duh, so it's kind of like warning people not to stick their fingers in
an electric fan. But once in a while something interesting happens to
the sun--a bite gets taken out of it, as if a dragon were trying to eat
the sun! People point this out to other people, and they stand around
*looking at the sun*. A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
During actual totality, when the sun is completely obscured, you can
dial back the eye protection and try to see the corona.
hpjeannie
May 28, 2012, 2:11:22 PM5/28/12
to
On May 22, 8:07 am, Les Albert <lalbe...@aol.com> wrote:
light - we were in Tahoe and someone there had a filter you could hold
up and look through. Very interesting, as was my whitefish Reuben.
Jeannie
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:16:58 -0700, "Bob E." <b...@halted.com> wrote:
> >On 5/21/2012 12:11 PM, M C Hamster wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:12:09 -0700, Les Albert<lalbe...@aol.com>
> >On 5/21/2012 12:11 PM, M C Hamster wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 21 May 2012 13:00:01 -0500, M C Hamster
> >>> <davol...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>> On 21 May 2012 13:00:01 -0500, M C Hamster
> >>>> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> >>>> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
> >>>> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
> >>> In the SF area 84% of the sun became eclipsed, the light got dim, and
> >>> then became normal again just before the sun set.
> >>> then became normal again just before the sun set.
> >>>> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
> >> I don't know that you're one of millions "delighted" by the event.
> >I was delighted, without having to expend much effort. I took about a
> >minute and a half to construct a pinhole camera with a shoe-box, piece
> >of foil, tape and a pin. It worked just fine, the image was small but
> >legible (about 3/16" dia.), and the shadows from the trees looked just
> >like Snidely's photo. The dimness of the light at max. obfuscation was
> >eery, it was quite a bit less bright out, while obviously still full
> >daylight...hard to describe. I wanted to put on Ozric Tentacles'
> >"Half-light in Thillai", but I grilled some bul-go-ki instead.
>
> >minute and a half to construct a pinhole camera with a shoe-box, piece
> >of foil, tape and a pin. It worked just fine, the image was small but
> >legible (about 3/16" dia.), and the shadows from the trees looked just
> >like Snidely's photo. The dimness of the light at max. obfuscation was
> >eery, it was quite a bit less bright out, while obviously still full
> >daylight...hard to describe. I wanted to put on Ozric Tentacles'
> >"Half-light in Thillai", but I grilled some bul-go-ki instead.
>
> I had that same eerie feeling about the light as you describe it,
> still daylight but a lot less bright. The odd daylight reminded me of
> the description of light on an imaginary planet in many science
> still daylight but a lot less bright. The odd daylight reminded me of
> the description of light on an imaginary planet in many science
> fiction stories. But I had a peanut butter sandwich and felt better.
I was more interested by the gradual reduction of heat than the dim
light - we were in Tahoe and someone there had a filter you could hold
up and look through. Very interesting, as was my whitefish Reuben.
Jeannie
Paul Madarasz
May 28, 2012, 6:30:50 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:11:22 -0700 (PDT), hpjeannie
<hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>I was more interested by the gradual reduction of heat than the dim
>light - we were in Tahoe and someone there had a filter you could hold
>up and look through. Very interesting, as was my whitefish Reuben.
>
>Jeannie
The whitefish Reuben does sound interesting. Was it good, though.
<hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>I was more interested by the gradual reduction of heat than the dim
>light - we were in Tahoe and someone there had a filter you could hold
>up and look through. Very interesting, as was my whitefish Reuben.
>
>Jeannie
Charles Bishop
May 28, 2012, 10:28:48 PM5/28/12
to
In article <0nl2s7togovjgderd...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
I was going to offer a couple of photos, but what with GoogleEarth and
StreetView it hardly seems worth it. I didn't get any photos of the
eclipse.
--
charles
StreetView it hardly seems worth it. I didn't get any photos of the
eclipse.
--
charles
M C Hamster
May 30, 2012, 12:38:01 AM5/30/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 15:39:57 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <us6tr7p3q79vmghd9...@4ax.com>,
>M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
>>to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
>>have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
>
>It's really quite simple. Staring at the sun with your eyes stationary
>(as opposed to, say, sweeping your gaze across the sky) can burn your
>retinas.
Are there any documented or even reported case of this happening? As
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <us6tr7p3q79vmghd9...@4ax.com>,
>M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
>>to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
>>have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
>
>It's really quite simple. Staring at the sun with your eyes stationary
>(as opposed to, say, sweeping your gaze across the sky) can burn your
>retinas.
far as I know there is not a single case of this having occurred in
the recent eclipse... nor any other eclipses.
>Normally people don't do this, because it is uncomfortable,
>duh, so it's kind of like warning people not to stick their fingers in
>an electric fan. But once in a while something interesting happens to
>the sun--a bite gets taken out of it, as if a dragon were trying to eat
>the sun! People point this out to other people, and they stand around
>*looking at the sun*.
enough to see the bite and find that interesting, but I don't think
they can stand looking at it long enough to burn their retinas.
>A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
>level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
>ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
>During actual totality, when the sun is completely obscured, you can
>dial back the eye protection and try to see the corona.
is many orders of magnitude a more spectacular experience than a
partial eclipse, including an annular one. And by "dialing back the
eye protection", that means having none whatsoever.
bobg
May 30, 2012, 6:18:30 AM5/30/12
to
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:38:01 AM UTC-4, M C Hamster wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 15:39:57 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <us6tr7p3q79vmghd9...@4ax.com>,
> >M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
> >>to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
> >>have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
> >
> >It's really quite simple. Staring at the sun with your eyes stationary
> >(as opposed to, say, sweeping your gaze across the sky) can burn your
> >retinas.
>
> Are there any documented or even reported case of this happening? As
> far as I know there is not a single case of this having occurred in
> the recent eclipse... nor any other eclipses.
>
> >Normally people don't do this, because it is uncomfortable,
> >duh, so it's kind of like warning people not to stick their fingers in
> >an electric fan. But once in a while something interesting happens to
> >the sun--a bite gets taken out of it, as if a dragon were trying to eat
> >the sun! People point this out to other people, and they stand around
> >*looking at the sun*.
>
> I'm guessing this doesn't happen. People may briefly look at it, long
> enough to see the bite and find that interesting, but I don't think
> they can stand looking at it long enough to burn their retinas.
You *can* look at the sun long enough to hurt your retinas, if you really really want to. For instance, check out this page on "How to Sungaze" - http://urlshorteningservicefortwitter.com/wfhns. I was intrigued to learn that you absorb more vitamins and minerals through your eye-holes from a sunrise than from a sunset. (Warning - do not stare directly at that website - glance at it occasionally using your peripheral vision.)
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 15:39:57 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
> Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <us6tr7p3q79vmghd9...@4ax.com>,
> >M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>I suppose if there were an annular eclipse which was extremely close
> >>to being a total eclipse, *maybe* someone could look long enough to
> >>have their eyesight damaged, but I even doubt that.
> >
> >It's really quite simple. Staring at the sun with your eyes stationary
> >(as opposed to, say, sweeping your gaze across the sky) can burn your
> >retinas.
>
> Are there any documented or even reported case of this happening? As
> far as I know there is not a single case of this having occurred in
> the recent eclipse... nor any other eclipses.
>
> >Normally people don't do this, because it is uncomfortable,
> >duh, so it's kind of like warning people not to stick their fingers in
> >an electric fan. But once in a while something interesting happens to
> >the sun--a bite gets taken out of it, as if a dragon were trying to eat
> >the sun! People point this out to other people, and they stand around
> >*looking at the sun*.
>
> I'm guessing this doesn't happen. People may briefly look at it, long
> enough to see the bite and find that interesting, but I don't think
> they can stand looking at it long enough to burn their retinas.
> >A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
> >level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
> >ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
> >During actual totality, when the sun is completely obscured, you can
> >dial back the eye protection and try to see the corona.
>
> Yes, indeedy, and that is one of the many reasons why a total eclipse
> is many orders of magnitude a more spectacular experience than a
> partial eclipse, including an annular one. And by "dialing back the
> eye protection", that means having none whatsoever.
M C Hamster
May 30, 2012, 1:10:01 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 03:18:30 -0700 (PDT), bobg <byo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:38:01 AM UTC-4, M C Hamster wrote:
>> I'm guessing this doesn't happen. People may briefly look at it, long
>> enough to see the bite and find that interesting, but I don't think
>> they can stand looking at it long enough to burn their retinas.
>
>You *can* look at the sun long enough to hurt your retinas, if you really really want to. For instance, check out this page on "How to Sungaze" - http://urlshorteningservicefortwitter.com/wfhns. I was intrigued to learn that you absorb more vitamins and minerals through your eye-holes from a sunrise than from a sunset. (Warning - do not stare directly at that website - glance at it occasionally using your peripheral vision.)
>
>
That page is just clever enough to look like it might possibly be
serious and not an Onion-like parody of new age nonsense. Well done,
I say.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:38:01 AM UTC-4, M C Hamster wrote:
>> I'm guessing this doesn't happen. People may briefly look at it, long
>> enough to see the bite and find that interesting, but I don't think
>> they can stand looking at it long enough to burn their retinas.
>
>You *can* look at the sun long enough to hurt your retinas, if you really really want to. For instance, check out this page on "How to Sungaze" - http://urlshorteningservicefortwitter.com/wfhns. I was intrigued to learn that you absorb more vitamins and minerals through your eye-holes from a sunrise than from a sunset. (Warning - do not stare directly at that website - glance at it occasionally using your peripheral vision.)
>
>
serious and not an Onion-like parody of new age nonsense. Well done,
I say.
Mark Brader
May 30, 2012, 2:27:33 PM5/30/12
to
Paul Ciszek:
brightness per unit area that causes most of the danger.
This starts to become significant when a large fraction of the disk is
eclipsed.
--
Mark Brader | Those who mourn for "USENET like it was" should
Toronto | remember the original design estimates of maximum
m...@vex.net | traffic volume: 2 articles/day. --Steven Bellovin
>>> A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
>>> level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
>>> ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
"bobg":
>>> level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
>>> ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
> Since they're just as bright as ever, they're just as uncomfortable to
> stare at as an unoccluded sun.
Wrong. It's the total brightness that causes the discomfort, but the
> stare at as an unoccluded sun.
brightness per unit area that causes most of the danger.
This starts to become significant when a large fraction of the disk is
eclipsed.
--
Mark Brader | Those who mourn for "USENET like it was" should
Toronto | remember the original design estimates of maximum
m...@vex.net | traffic volume: 2 articles/day. --Steven Bellovin
bobg
May 30, 2012, 7:56:38 PM5/30/12
to
If that's what you're saying, I respectfully disagree. I've glanced at a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded sun fairly recently, and I couldn't look at the former any longer than I could the latter. Your experience differs?
Sure, you can *force* yourself to stare at a 98% occluded sun - eventually a nice big dark blotch will cover it - nature's sunglasses! - and the discomfort will pass. And yeah, people shouldn't do that. But neither should people get themselves onto the retina donation list every time they're not quick enough getting the sun visor into position on the morning commute.
Les Albert
May 30, 2012, 8:19:20 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:56:38 -0700 (PDT), bobg <byo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You're overlooking the fact that a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded
Additionally, there is evidence that staring into the sun at any time
So that seems to knock your statement into a cocked hat because of
There is also some indication that big dark blotches in moderation
Les
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:27:33 PM UTC-4, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek:
>> >>> A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
>> >>> level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
>> >>> ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
>> "bobg":
>> > Since they're just as bright as ever, they're just as uncomfortable to
>> > stare at as an unoccluded sun.
>> Wrong. It's the total brightness that causes the discomfort, but the
>> brightness per unit area that causes most of the danger.
>> This starts to become significant when a large fraction of the disk is
>> eclipsed.
>> Paul Ciszek:
>> >>> A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
>> >>> level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
>> >>> ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
>> "bobg":
>> > Since they're just as bright as ever, they're just as uncomfortable to
>> > stare at as an unoccluded sun.
>> Wrong. It's the total brightness that causes the discomfort, but the
>> brightness per unit area that causes most of the danger.
>> This starts to become significant when a large fraction of the disk is
>> eclipsed.
>You seem to be saying that an annular eclipse is dim enough that one can stare at it comfortably, and that one has to make a con
>If that's what you're saying, I respectfully disagree. I've glanced at a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded sun fairly recently, and
>Sure, you can *force* yourself to stare at a 98% occluded sun - eventually a nice big dark blotch will cover it - nature's sunglasses! And
You're overlooking the fact that a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded
Additionally, there is evidence that staring into the sun at any time
So that seems to knock your statement into a cocked hat because of
There is also some indication that big dark blotches in moderation
Les
BillT...@invalid.com
May 30, 2012, 8:26:03 PM5/30/12
to
>You seem to be saying that an annular eclipse is dim enough that one can stare at it comfortably, and that one has to make a conscious effort not to do that in order to avoid damage.
>
>If that's what you're saying, I respectfully disagree. I've glanced at a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded sun fairly recently, and I couldn't look at the former any longer than I could the latter. Your experience differs?
>
>Sure, you can *force* yourself to stare at a 98% occluded sun - eventually a nice big dark blotch will cover it - nature's sunglasses! - and the discomfort will pass. And yeah, people shouldn't do that. But neither should people get themselves onto the retina donation list every time they're not quick enough getting the sun visor into position on the morning commute.
Thank you!
>
>If that's what you're saying, I respectfully disagree. I've glanced at a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded sun fairly recently, and I couldn't look at the former any longer than I could the latter. Your experience differs?
>
>Sure, you can *force* yourself to stare at a 98% occluded sun - eventually a nice big dark blotch will cover it - nature's sunglasses! - and the discomfort will pass. And yeah, people shouldn't do that. But neither should people get themselves onto the retina donation list every time they're not quick enough getting the sun visor into position on the morning commute.
Mark Brader
May 31, 2012, 2:07:46 AM5/31/12
to
Paul Ciszek:
> > >>> A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
> > >>> level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
> > >>> ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
"bobg":
> > > Since they're just as bright as ever, they're just as uncomfortable to
> > > stare at as an unoccluded sun.
Mark Brader:
> > >>> A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
> > >>> level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
> > >>> ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
"bobg":
> > > Since they're just as bright as ever, they're just as uncomfortable to
> > > stare at as an unoccluded sun.
> > Wrong. It's the total brightness that causes the discomfort, but the
> > brightness per unit area that causes most of the danger.
> >
> > This starts to become significant when a large fraction of the disk is
> > eclipsed.
"bobg":
> > brightness per unit area that causes most of the danger.
> >
> > This starts to become significant when a large fraction of the disk is
> > eclipsed.
> ...I respectfully disagree. I've glanced at
> a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded sun fairly recently, and I couldn't
> look at the former any longer than I could the latter. Your experience
> differs?
No, I haven't tested it. I'm passing on what I've read; it makes sense
> look at the former any longer than I could the latter. Your experience
> differs?
to me.
--
Mark Brader "Finally no number of additional epicycles can
Toronto hide the fact that We've Got a Problem Here."
m...@vex.net -- from a science book club promotion
Paul Madarasz
May 31, 2012, 10:20:39 AM5/31/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
You seem to be missing the latter part of your sentences. Newsreader
problems?
wrote, perhaps among other things:
problems?
Nick Spalding
May 31, 2012, 11:04:06 AM5/31/12
to
Paul Madarasz wrote, in <dgves7dak5o75021r...@4ax.com>
on Thu, 31 May 2012 07:20:39 -0700:
Partially eclipsed I think.
--
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 31 May 2012 07:20:39 -0700:
--
Nick Spalding
Paul Madarasz
May 31, 2012, 11:11:11 AM5/31/12
to
bobg
May 31, 2012, 12:31:25 PM5/31/12
to
Les Albert
May 31, 2012, 1:24:58 PM5/31/12
to
screen forever.
Les
Les Albert
May 31, 2012, 1:25:44 PM5/31/12
to
Nick Spalding
May 31, 2012, 1:32:27 PM5/31/12
to
Les Albert wrote, in <t8afs75iefvt1nq8f...@4ax.com>
on Thu, 31 May 2012 10:24:58 -0700:
Try pressing letter O.
--
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 31 May 2012 10:24:58 -0700:
--
Nick Spalding
M C Hamster
May 31, 2012, 1:54:01 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 01:07:46 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>Paul Ciszek:
>> > >>> A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
>> > >>> level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
>> > >>> ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
>
>"bobg":
>> > > Since they're just as bright as ever, they're just as uncomfortable to
>> > > stare at as an unoccluded sun.
>
>Mark Brader:
>> > Wrong. It's the total brightness that causes the discomfort, but the
>> > brightness per unit area that causes most of the danger.
>> >
>> > This starts to become significant when a large fraction of the disk is
>> > eclipsed.
>
>"bobg":
>> ...I respectfully disagree. I've glanced at
>> a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded sun fairly recently, and I couldn't
>> look at the former any longer than I could the latter. Your experience
>> differs?
>
>No, I haven't tested it. I'm passing on what I've read; it makes sense
>to me.
Like Bob, I have glanced up at a partial eclipse (about 95% IIRC) and
>Paul Ciszek:
>> > >>> A partial eclipse will dim the overall light
>> > >>> level, but the portions of the sun that remain are just as bright as
>> > >>> ever, and will burn your retina where they are being imaged onto it.
>
>"bobg":
>> > > Since they're just as bright as ever, they're just as uncomfortable to
>> > > stare at as an unoccluded sun.
>
>Mark Brader:
>> > Wrong. It's the total brightness that causes the discomfort, but the
>> > brightness per unit area that causes most of the danger.
>> >
>> > This starts to become significant when a large fraction of the disk is
>> > eclipsed.
>
>"bobg":
>> ...I respectfully disagree. I've glanced at
>> a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded sun fairly recently, and I couldn't
>> look at the former any longer than I could the latter. Your experience
>> differs?
>
>No, I haven't tested it. I'm passing on what I've read; it makes sense
>to me.
it was still way too bright to do anything but catch a very quick
glimpse.
But we just had an annular eclipse. Do any of our on-the-sport
observers have an opinion as to whether they think they could have
stared at it for more than a brief time, during annularity?
BillT...@invalid.com
May 31, 2012, 2:40:44 PM5/31/12
to
>>>You're overlooking the fact that a 98% occluded sun and a 0% occluded
>>>Additionally, there is evidence that staring into the sun at any time
>>>So that seems to knock your statement into a cocked hat because of
>>>There is also some indication that big dark blotches in moderation
>>>
>>>Les
>>
>>You seem to be missing the latter part of your sentences. Newsreader
>>problems?
>
>Partially eclipsed I think.
Well played!
>>>Additionally, there is evidence that staring into the sun at any time
>>>So that seems to knock your statement into a cocked hat because of
>>>There is also some indication that big dark blotches in moderation
>>>
>>>Les
>>
>>You seem to be missing the latter part of your sentences. Newsreader
>>problems?
>
>Partially eclipsed I think.
BillT...@invalid.com
May 31, 2012, 2:57:22 PM5/31/12
to
On 31 May 2012 12:54:01 -0500, M C Hamster
Just a quick glance, even though it was obscure everything in its
field except the sun.
<davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>Like Bob, I have glanced up at a partial eclipse (about 95% IIRC) and
>it was still way too bright to do anything but catch a very quick
>glimpse.
>
>But we just had an annular eclipse. Do any of our on-the-sport
>observers have an opinion as to whether they think they could have
>stared at it for more than a brief time, during annularity?
I was quite uncomfortable looking at it through a #10 welder's glass.
>
>Like Bob, I have glanced up at a partial eclipse (about 95% IIRC) and
>it was still way too bright to do anything but catch a very quick
>glimpse.
>
>But we just had an annular eclipse. Do any of our on-the-sport
>observers have an opinion as to whether they think they could have
>stared at it for more than a brief time, during annularity?
Just a quick glance, even though it was obscure everything in its
field except the sun.
Paul Madarasz
May 31, 2012, 3:24:09 PM5/31/12
to
Paul Ciszek
Jun 1, 2012, 12:09:02 PM6/1/12
to
In article <dpbfs79dmhqbvsn5l...@4ax.com>,
>Like Bob, I have glanced up at a partial eclipse (about 95% IIRC) and
>it was still way too bright to do anything but catch a very quick
>glimpse.
>
>But we just had an annular eclipse. Do any of our on-the-sport
>observers have an opinion as to whether they think they could have
>stared at it for more than a brief time, during annularity?
Looking at the annular eclipse without goggles was uncomfortable.
>it was still way too bright to do anything but catch a very quick
>glimpse.
>
>But we just had an annular eclipse. Do any of our on-the-sport
>observers have an opinion as to whether they think they could have
>stared at it for more than a brief time, during annularity?
Comfort-wise, there was still an incentive to not stare at it for long.
However, you could definately see that something was wrong with the
sun--a big black disk surrounded by a ring of fire. Had I been a
pre-scientific savage I would have been worried that we were losing
the sun for good, and pointed the eclipse out to everyone else, and
we would all have stood around staring at the sun and arguing about
whether to sacrifice a virgin or something.
Peter Ward
Jun 1, 2012, 12:42:18 PM6/1/12
to
Paul Ciszek says...
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
This is usenet. Just redefine the word to fit your argument.
- Groo
>
> In article <dpbfs79dmhqbvsn5l...@4ax.com>,
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >Like Bob, I have glanced up at a partial eclipse (about 95% IIRC) and
> >it was still way too bright to do anything but catch a very quick
> >glimpse.
> >
> >But we just had an annular eclipse. Do any of our on-the-sport
> >observers have an opinion as to whether they think they could have
> >stared at it for more than a brief time, during annularity?
>
> Looking at the annular eclipse without goggles was uncomfortable.
> Comfort-wise, there was still an incentive to not stare at it for long.
> However, you could definately see that something was wrong with the
> sun--a big black disk surrounded by a ring of fire. Had I been a
> pre-scientific savage I would have been worried that we were losing
> the sun for good, and pointed the eclipse out to everyone else, and
> we would all have stood around staring at the sun and arguing about
> whether to sacrifice a virgin or something.
Or where to find one.
> In article <dpbfs79dmhqbvsn5l...@4ax.com>,
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam-speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >Like Bob, I have glanced up at a partial eclipse (about 95% IIRC) and
> >it was still way too bright to do anything but catch a very quick
> >glimpse.
> >
> >But we just had an annular eclipse. Do any of our on-the-sport
> >observers have an opinion as to whether they think they could have
> >stared at it for more than a brief time, during annularity?
>
> Looking at the annular eclipse without goggles was uncomfortable.
> Comfort-wise, there was still an incentive to not stare at it for long.
> However, you could definately see that something was wrong with the
> sun--a big black disk surrounded by a ring of fire. Had I been a
> pre-scientific savage I would have been worried that we were losing
> the sun for good, and pointed the eclipse out to everyone else, and
> we would all have stood around staring at the sun and arguing about
> whether to sacrifice a virgin or something.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
This is usenet. Just redefine the word to fit your argument.
- Groo
Greg Goss
Jun 1, 2012, 1:22:34 PM6/1/12
to
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>we would all have stood around staring at the sun and arguing about
>whether to sacrifice a virgin or something.
Hmmm. Sacrifice. An interesting word. In our hypothetical, we have
>we would all have stood around staring at the sun and arguing about
>whether to sacrifice a virgin or something.
a virgin at hand. A half hour later, we do not have a virgin at hand.
This counts as a blood sacrifice, doesn't it?
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Mark Brader
Jun 1, 2012, 3:28:58 PM6/1/12
to
Paul Ciszek;
a virgin, do you?"
--
Mark Brader | "...what can be asserted without evidence
Toronto | can also be dismissed without evidence."
m...@vex.net | --Christopher Hitchens
>> we would all have stood around staring at the sun and arguing about
>> whether to sacrifice a virgin or something.
Greg Goss:
>> whether to sacrifice a virgin or something.
> Hmmm. Sacrifice. An interesting word. In our hypothetical, we have
> a virgin at hand. A half hour later, we do not have a virgin at hand.
> This counts as a blood sacrifice, doesn't it?
"Look at the sun! Obviously the world is ending. You don't want to die
> a virgin at hand. A half hour later, we do not have a virgin at hand.
> This counts as a blood sacrifice, doesn't it?
a virgin, do you?"
--
Mark Brader | "...what can be asserted without evidence
Toronto | can also be dismissed without evidence."
m...@vex.net | --Christopher Hitchens
Charles Bishop
Jun 2, 2012, 1:16:44 PM6/2/12
to
In article <dpbfs79dmhqbvsn5l...@4ax.com>, M C Hamster
I saw it during annularity, and it was very bright. I was uncomfortable
enough that I wouldn't have tried to stare at it.
--
charles
enough that I wouldn't have tried to stare at it.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Jun 2, 2012, 1:18:44 PM6/2/12
to
In article <plffs7ll4us5j3tnh...@4ax.com>,
I stacked the number 10 and the number 5 and did a quick glance. Since I
had the glasses, I didn't look for a long time. However, when I picked up
the #10 glass and didn't realize it was less than recommended, I looked at
the full sun for a few seconds (maybe 10) and didn't suffer for it.
--
charles
had the glasses, I didn't look for a long time. However, when I picked up
the #10 glass and didn't realize it was less than recommended, I looked at
the full sun for a few seconds (maybe 10) and didn't suffer for it.
--
charles
Snidely
Jun 27, 2012, 9:13:53 AM6/27/12
to
M C Hamster noted that:
> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
It looks like I get another chance at an annular e-klips in October
2023. Meanwhile, the post-solstice azimuth of sunrise in the Lozenge
Ellis area is 62 degrees (not Fahrenheit).
<http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/usa/los-angeles>
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
> I expected to see some reports on viewing the eclipse here, but none
> have been posted. Does this mean all our observers went blind?
>
> It was cloudy at sunset in Chicago, so there was nothing to see.
It looks like I get another chance at an annular e-klips in October
2023. Meanwhile, the post-solstice azimuth of sunrise in the Lozenge
Ellis area is 62 degrees (not Fahrenheit).
<http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/usa/los-angeles>
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
0 new messages