mylar film - eclipse viewing
Graham Bate
--
Graham Bate
A & F Consulting Engineers
http://www.af-group.demon.co.uk
Phillip Hosey
eclipse visible in the SW part of th US, I used 2 Kellog's Pop-Tart wrappers
to view the eclipse with.
Phillip
>Graham Bate wrote in message ...
Chris Marriott
Phillip Hosey wrote in message <753o6q$rci$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>I don't know if this still works, but during the May 1984 annular solor
>eclipse visible in the SW part of th US, I used 2 Kellog's Pop-Tart
wrappers
>to view the eclipse with.
You obviously don't value your eyesight terribly highly; how can you
possibly know how much of the highly damaging and invisible infra-red
radiation gets through such material?
For goodness sake, if you want to view an eclipse get a PROPER filter from a
REPUTABLE source. Your eyesight is surely worth more to you than saving a
few groats on a filter!
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK (ch...@skymap.com)
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers
Phillip Hosey
Chris Marriott wrote in message
<913668928.556.0....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>Phillip Hosey wrote in message <753o6q$rci$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>>I don't know if this still works, but during the May 1984 annular solor
>>eclipse visible in the SW part of th US, I used 2 Kellog's Pop-Tart
>wrappers
>>to view the eclipse with.
>
>
>You obviously don't value your eyesight terribly highly; how can you
>possibly know how much of the highly damaging and invisible infra-red
>radiation gets through such material?
>
>For goodness sake, if you want to view an eclipse get a PROPER filter from
a
>REPUTABLE source. Your eyesight is surely worth more to you than saving a
>few groats on a filter!
>
>Chris
Sorry, I forgot to metion not to try this. I didn't seem to suffer any ill
effects, but I certainly would not recommend this as a safe way to view sun.
I was 11 years old and ignorant back then. :)
Stephen Tonkin
>Any ideas of where this material can be obtained and its cost?
<http://www.rainbowsymphony.com/>
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | <http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk> +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
To send email, substitute "aegis1" for "nospam"
Frez
Phillip Hosey wrote in message <753o6q$rci$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>I don't know if this still works, but during the May 1984 annular solor
>eclipse visible in the SW part of th US, I used 2 Kellog's Pop-Tart
wrappers
>to view the eclipse with.
This is very bad advice that I hope absolutely nobody will take.
Carelessness like this puts you a nanosecond away from
complete blindness. USE PROFESSIONAL FILTERS ONLY!
(Sorry for shouting)
I suppose you'd use waffles for moon filters too.
.................Frez
JohnLX200
>>eclipse visible in the SW part of th US, I used 2 Kellog's Pop-Tart
>wrappers
>>to view the eclipse with.
>
>
>possibly know how much of the highly damaging and invisible infra-red
>radiation gets through such material?
>
>For goodness sake, if you want to view an eclipse get a PROPER filter from a
>REPUTABLE source. Your eyesight is surely worth more to you than saving a
>few groats on a filter!
>
>Chris
Chris,
Sky & Telescope magazine, after reciting all the legal disclaimers required,
actually tested these oddball filters such as Pop Tarts wrappers, music CDs
(which varied in solar filtering quality), and "professional" filters like
Questar, Thousand Oaks, various mylars, etc.
Some of the wacky solutions like the Pop Tarts did OK, and some were marginal
or bad, although I can't remember if they were so careful as to stack two of
them for testing. Or maybe they forgot to remove the Pop Tart itself ;-)
Obviously, it's not smart to rely upon Kellogs to not change the optical
protective properties of their breakfast snack wrappers, but plenty of people
sneak peeks at the sun against all good advice, without anything to protect
them, so which is worse?
John
S.D.C.
>Any ideas of where this material can be obtained and its cost?
Actually, you are far better off going to your local professional
photo shop. Ask for a 15 exposure roll of medium or large format B+W
film (the real stuff with silver content). Pull the roll open to
totally expose it; watch the employees eyes look at you like your some
kind of nut bar. Ask them to develop the film (but no prints :-).
That's it...perfectly safe film to view an eclipse with!
It's far more pleasant than aluminized mylar because it's opaque,
you're not looking through your reflection and the sun takes on a
slightly orange colour.
This material is also great for photography because it's cheap and
yields excellent clarity, give a nice orange coloration and because of
its opacity, there is no internal reflections that you might have with
the aluminized mylar.
Take care,
Shawn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shawn D. Connelly, (the ubiquitous) Network Engineer (CNE, MCSE)
Dipix Technologies Inc. email: sconnell at dipix.com
Notes: Replace the anti-spam "at" to "@" IMPORTANT NOTE: For assurance
that I will read your reply, please copy your public posting to
my email account. Messages in the newsgroups get lost!
Spambait (come and git'it you losers!)
admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost ro...@mailloop.com
S.D.C.
>Any ideas of where this material can be obtained and its cost?
Everyone interested in safely viewing the eclipse should read this
page from the NASA site.
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eclipse/990811/text/eye-safety.html
You'll find that B+W film is quite safe if the correct type is used
and it is developed properly.
Terry Danks
>
>Phillip Hosey wrote in message <753o6q$rci$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>>I don't know if this still works, but during the May 1984 annular solor
>>eclipse visible in the SW part of th US, I used 2 Kellog's Pop-Tart
>wrappers
>>to view the eclipse with.
>
>
>
>[snip]
>Carelessness like this puts you a nanosecond away from
>complete blindness. [snip]
Well this is overstated for sure. While I don't advocate pop tarts (IN
ANY FORM), they are likely most dangerous when consumed! <g>
Back in the wild and crazy fifties, I did a lot of looking at the sun
through simple glass smoked with a candle. Not only did I not go blind
in a "nanosecond", but my eyesight is actually still pretty darned
good . . . need bifocals though.
Don't believe Galileo went blind in a "nanosecond" either and LOOK at
what he did! (In fact I don't believe he actually EVER went COMPLETELY
bilnd.)
Plains indians supposedly stared at the sun for prolonged periods with
no protection whatsoever as part of a religious rite. Why THEY didn't
go blind I'll never know but I SURE don't recommend THAT!
I'm all for safety and many practices considered safe in the past have
been found to be potentially or actually harmful.
But this near hysteria about being stricken blind "in a nanosecond"
promulgated through the media at every eclipse is a little out of
hand.
Terry Danks
Nova Scotia
CANADA
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
Doug Bell
material in bulk for a very reasonable fee. You may also be able to
find some "eclipse viewers" which are simply a small piece of solar
filter fitted into a cardboard holder. Lots of the eclipse viewers were
made as promotional items and sold by clubs and planetariums.
The idea of anyone using pop tart wrappers, developed film or any other
unintended item for a solar filter just gives me the willies. Here's
why:
1) Why do you think that either Kellogs or Kodak have the slightest
concern as to the ability of their product to safely filter sunlight?
They can, and will, change formulations without any concern whatsoever
as to their product's ability to protect your eyesight. Of course you
will learn of this reformulation when the spots before your eyes don't
go away like they always have.
2) How informed of an answer do you think you're going to get when you
ask the photostore clerk if that roll of Tri-x actually contains silver
halide and not some other formulation? Are you sure, really sure,
that it's been developed adequately?
3) Are you sure that your substitute product is also filtering the UV
and IR? What makes you think this is true?
4) Are you sure that the substitute product's quality control is up to
the standards required for this kind of use? I find Kodak's offer to
replace any defective film sufficient for photography, but not for my
health.
If you can answer yes to all of these questions then maybe a substitute
product could work. As for me, I'm not about to play "You Bet Your
Eyesight" on a product which isn't intended for use specifically as a
solar filter, and manufactured to the standards that that usuage
requires.
Best wishes,
Doug Bell
Lincoln, Nebraska
db1...@navix.net
Graham Bate wrote:
> Any ideas of where this material can be obtained and its cost?
S.D.C.
...and you'd think that people participating in THIS newsgroup would
know better??
Throughout high school I heard rumors of those who went blind from
watching solar eclipses. No doubt, much of that was exaggerated.
However, we must make a clear distinction. There is a huge difference
between staring at a 0-95% covered sun and a 95%-99% covered sun.
When the sun is under 95% (arbitrary figure - not an exact
percentage), the pain receptors and/or common sense usually kick in.
No one, in there right mind, will stare at the sun long enough until
they feel pain. When enough of the sun is covered to actually make a
difference in terms of brightness and....well...it's just plain
obvious that there is something going on in the sky....anyhow, because
it becomes increasingly easy (and tempting) to stare at the sun
unaided, it may not seem obvious that enough harmful UV and IR are
still penetrating ones eyes.
Damage can and will occur if one stares long enough. How long? I
suspect that it varies from person to person..5.10 seconds, 20
seconds? Then one must consider the extent of the damage. Chances
are, much of this damage is unnoticeable and will be repaired quickly
in a healthy person.
Of course, staring at the sun unaided during 0-99% coverage for more
than..say..2-3 seconds is simply ridiculous!! Just stupid! Why would
anyone want to something foolish like that?
One final note: IT IS COMPLETELY SAFE TO LOOK OR STARE AT THE SUN
UNAIDED, WITH OR WITHOUT OPTICAL GEAR WHILE THE SUN IS COMPLETELY
(100%) BLOCKED BY THE MOON.
It upsets me a great deal when I learn about people mislead by the
media or well meaning people to believe that one should avoid viewing
the eclipse altogether or simply observe it from their TV set.
Listen people, this is one of natures truly great and awesome
spectacles that must be witnessed, at least, once by everyone with
their own eyes! Unless you've seen a *total* eclipse, you will not
understand what I mean.
Shawn
dan...@ns.sympatico.ca (Terry Danks) wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Tom Brown
doug...@navix.net "Doug Bell" wrote:
> You might try Tuthill. I know they used to sell their "Solar Skreen"
> material in bulk for a very reasonable fee. You may also be able to
> find some "eclipse viewers" which are simply a small piece of solar
> filter fitted into a cardboard holder. Lots of the eclipse viewers were
> made as promotional items and sold by clubs and planetariums.
>
> The idea of anyone using pop tart wrappers, developed film or any other
> unintended item for a solar filter just gives me the willies.
There are some safe filters for solar viewing which are not sold
for that purpose though. But I wouldn't recommend them as they are
usually more expensive (designed for more extreme environments).
> 1) Why do you think that either Kellogs or Kodak have the slightest
> concern as to the ability of their product to safely filter sunlight?
They don't. If you are using anything like this you have to
know what you are doing and be responsible for your own safety.
Pop tart wrappers (whatever they are) sound exceptionally risky,
the packaging is not designed for this usage.
Using a "proper" solar screen will not necessarily protect you
though if you abuse it and scratch it sufficiently badly.
(More of a risk with scopes than naked eye)
> 2) How informed of an answer do you think you're going to get when you
> ask the photostore clerk if that roll of Tri-x actually contains silver
> halide and not some other formulation? Are you sure, really sure,
> that it's been developed adequately?
If you are an amateur photographer this is not such a dangerous
approach but the proliferation of black and white films which
use organic dyes (and not silver) for the image makes it less
than ideal these days. Only a fogged *silver* image plate is OK,
and it may well take a double layer to get to safe levels.
The problem with the organic dyes is they may look dark enough
to be a comfortable light level and still let IR/UV through.
> 3) Are you sure that your substitute product is also filtering the UV
> and IR? What makes you think this is true?
That is the big problem! Few people are equipped to test this.
Remember particularly with an optical aid that even glancing at
the sun can be harmful. One or two famous historical observers
have damaged their eyesight in this way.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown <mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> __ CIS: 71651,470
Scientific Software Consultancy /^,,)__/
MitchAlsup
>material in bulk for a very reasonable fee. You may also be able to
>find some "eclipse viewers" which are simply a small piece of solar
>filter fitted into a cardboard holder. Lots of the eclipse viewers were
>made as promotional items and sold by clubs and planetariums.
Just a clarification: The Tuthill Solar Skreens use two layers of
this aluminized mylar, with the Al layers on the inside. This is to
prevent the (unavoidable) pinholes from alowing to much sunlight
through and ruining your eyes. Anyone experimenting with this
stuff should do likewise.
Mitch Alsup
Mitch...@aol.com
phi...@what.civex.com
> Any ideas of where this material can be obtained and its cost?
There is a list of resources on the Web at
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/safety2.html
If you do not have Web access, drop me an email, and I will send you a
list of sellers.
--
Phil Stripling | Sorry for the munged return
The Civilized Explorer | address, but you know what.
http://www.cieux.com/ | needs to be removed.
Jonathan Silverlight
In article <GbnAEAAo...@af-group.demon.co.uk>, Graham Bate (gra...@af-group.demon.co.uk) writes:
>Any ideas of where this material can be obtained and its cost?
Beacon Hill Telescopes (112 Mill Road, Cleethorpes, South
Humberside DN35 8JD, tel. 01472 692959) sold me a big sheet for a
few pounds.
I suspect a _lot_ of firms will be selling mylar in the next few
months & I wonder how much will actually be safe.
S.D.C.
>Any ideas of where this material can be obtained and its cost?
Actually, you are far better off going to your local professional
photo shop. Ask for a 15 exposure roll of medium or large format B+W
film (the real stuff with silver content). Pull the roll open to
totally expose it; watch the employees eyes look at you like your some
kind of nut bar. Ask them to develop the film (but no prints :-).
That's it...perfectly safe film to view an eclipse with!
It's far more pleasant than aluminized mylar because it's opaque,
you're not looking through your reflection and the sun takes on a
slightly orange colour.
This material is also great for photography because it's cheap and
yields excellent clarity, give a nice orange coloration and because of
its opacity, there is no internal reflections that you might have with
the aluminized mylar.
Take care,
Shawn
S.D.C.
Shawn
dan...@ns.sympatico.ca (Terry Danks) wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frez
>>[snip]
>>Carelessness like this puts you a nanosecond away from
>>complete blindness. [snip]
>
>Well this is overstated for sure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No it isn't. This post was worded this way for the benefit of
people, youngsters in particular, that don't have the experience
you have. Do you advocate this practice? Would you sell a
solar eclipse filter made of pop-tart wrappers or give it to
your son? I would certainly hope not. Totally only lasts a short
period of time and can be easily misjudged. Furthermore
young people have a knack for misinterpreting the facts
which could lead to someone taping a wrapper to the front
of their telescope to view the uneclipsed sun. If you want to
play with a loaded gun...fine. Please don't suggest it is okay
for else someone to...............Frez
Jonathan Silverlight
In article <367aa99c....@news.magmacom.com>, S.D.C. (gem...@hotmaildeletethis.com) writes:
>Graham Bate <gra...@af-group.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Any ideas of where this material can be obtained and its cost?
>
>page from the NASA site.
>
>http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eclipse/990811/text/eye-safety.html
>
>You'll find that B+W film is quite safe if the correct type is used
>and it is developed properly.
>
_IF_ the correct type is used. I can't remember the type but some
B+W film uses dye technology rather than old fashioned silver and
has high transmission in the UV and IR.
phi...@what.civex.com
>SNIP<
> percentage), the pain receptors and/or common sense usually kick in.
If I understand the pages linked to from the NASA pages, there are no pain
receptors in the retina. The damage to the eye occurs from infrared
completely without pain (and completely without common sense, but that's
another story). For those with further interest,
http://www.skypub.com/eclipses/s990811b.html
Sky & Telescope's Solar Eclipse Site
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eclipse/990811/rp.html
NASA's Total Solar Eclipse Pages
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/TSE1999/TSE1999.html
Eclipse Home Page by Fred Espenak
contain information on eye damage.
> No one, in there right mind, will stare at the sun long enough until
> they feel pain. When enough of the sun is covered to actually make a
> difference in terms of brightness and....
If my understanding is correct, the blocking of the sun eliminates the
infrared, which is what does the damage.
>SNIP<
> Damage can and will occur if one stares long enough. How long? I
> suspect that it varies from person to person..5.10 seconds, 20
> seconds? Then one must consider the extent of the damage. Chances
> are, much of this damage is unnoticeable and will be repaired quickly
> in a healthy person.
I have the understanding that repair is impossible. If you are looking
through a telescope at the sun during the eclpse, I would not expect it to
take even 5 seconds; however, the sites listed above are by experts who
know what they are talking about -- I don't.
>SNIP<
> One final note: IT IS COMPLETELY SAFE TO LOOK OR STARE AT THE SUN
> UNAIDED, WITH OR WITHOUT OPTICAL GEAR WHILE THE SUN IS COMPLETELY
> (100%) BLOCKED BY THE MOON.
Indeed. I have taken photos of the totality with a 400mm telephoto with no
protection. Just be _careful_ not to get caught looking when the moon
moves past the beads stage.
>SNIP<
> Listen people, this is one of natures truly great and awesome
> spectacles that must be witnessed, at least, once by everyone with
> their own eyes! Unless you've seen a *total* eclipse, you will not
> understand what I mean.
Truly awesome. Partial eclipses do not hold a canle to totality. :->
S.D.C.
First of all damn, damn, damn!! :-)
I believe I truly embarrassed myself with some glaring errors.
>> percentage), the pain receptors and/or common sense usually kick in.
>
>If I understand the pages linked to from the NASA pages, there are no pain
>receptors in the retina. The damage to the eye occurs from infrared
>completely without pain (and completely without common sense, but that's
Mea Culpa!!
You're absolutely correct. Not wanting to make excuses but what I
really meant to say was that when one observes the sun (without
protection) it is physiologically and/or more likely psychologically
painful. I don't know about others but I can't look at the sun for a
long period of time without feeling uncomfortable.
phi...@what.civex.com wrote:
>For those with further interest,
>http://www.skypub.com/eclipses/s990811b.html
> Sky & Telescope's Solar Eclipse Site
>
>http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eclipse/990811/rp.html
> NASA's Total Solar Eclipse Pages
>
>http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/TSE1999/TSE1999.html
> Eclipse Home Page by Fred Espenak
>contain information on eye damage.
>> No one, in there right mind, will stare at the sun long enough until
>> they feel pain. When enough of the sun is covered to actually make a
>> difference in terms of brightness and....
>
>If my understanding is correct, the blocking of the sun eliminates the
>infrared, which is what does the damage.
Well UV may also cause damage too....but the shear heating from IR is
the first cause of damage. I believe UV may primarily cause
mutations of the cells.
>> seconds? Then one must consider the extent of the damage. Chances
>> are, much of this damage is unnoticeable and will be repaired quickly
>> in a healthy person.
>
>I have the understanding that repair is impossible. If you are looking
>through a telescope at the sun during the eclpse, I would not expect it to
>take even 5 seconds; however, the sites listed above are by experts who
>know what they are talking about -- I don't.
Mea Culpa again!
Again, I wasn't clear.
Infrared energy may cause heat damage and the resultant damage is,
indeed, permanent. I'll point out (as you've already stated), that
damage is often not obvious until it's too late!
In cases of very minor 'damage', tissue repair and/or compensation
does occur and one might never be aware of the 'damage'; at least,
according to research that I'm aware of. In addition, I was also
referring to optical recovery. That is what I should have wrote.
>> One final note: IT IS COMPLETELY SAFE TO LOOK OR STARE AT THE SUN
>> UNAIDED, WITH OR WITHOUT OPTICAL GEAR WHILE THE SUN IS COMPLETELY
>> (100%) BLOCKED BY THE MOON.
>
>Indeed. I have taken photos of the totality with a 400mm telephoto with no
>protection. Just be _careful_ not to get caught looking when the moon
>moves past the beads stage.
In my excitement *I did* get blasted with a ray of sunshine during the
1998 eclipse while looking through the viewfinder. Yeow! I had a
bright spot in my vision for at least an hour afterwards (optic nerve
recovery).
For those split seconds and the fact that the sun's energy is passing
through the lens optical assembly...the camera's mirror, pentaprism
and finally the diffusion screen...I seriously doubt that a few
accidental split [less than] second exposures caused any form of
lasting damage to my eyes.
>> Listen people, this is one of natures truly great and awesome
>> spectacles that must be witnessed, at least, once by everyone with
>> their own eyes! Unless you've seen a *total* eclipse, you will not
>> understand what I mean.
>
>Truly awesome. Partial eclipses do not hold a candle to totality. :->
Well, 'total' annular eclipses are pretty neat too. You still
experience some of the fascinating atmospheric and lighting effects of
a total eclipse. Still, I would travel 4000 kms for a annular
eclipse....well maybe if it occurred on the horizon at sunset (in the
tropics).
Best regards,
Shawn
P.S. I'll try to be more careful in the future.
Anthony & Christopher Seal
(Phillip Hosey) wrote:
> I don't know if this still works, but during the May 1984 annular
solor
> eclipse visible in the SW part of th US, I used 2 Kellog's Pop-Tart
> wrappers
> to view the eclipse with.
You need to think about contacting some of the Solar astronomers on this
newsgroup before you do something that silly again.Using Kellog's
pop-tart wrappers does not filter out the IR light.
mylar film.I use it you can get it from good astro supplies,look in
astro magazines.NOTE:IF IT IS DAMAGED OR HAS PIN HOLES IN IT DESTROY
IT!You need to take great care of it once you have it.
Regards,
Anthony Seal.
(Amateur Solar Astronomer).
Don Pedro Jr
safety writings and research of
B. Ralph Chou, MSc, OD; Associate Professor; School of Optometry, University
of Waterloo;Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 and Registrar College of
Optometrists of Ontario
This link http://www.eclipseshades.com/safety.html should do if you can't
find the magazine with the solar filter article published earlier this year
(February S&T or Astronomy with bowling pin shaped Gamma Ray Burst on
cover?)
Packaging Mylar and exposed processed b&w film will work BUT IMHO food
wrappers and other films are way too delicate and lack the quality control
required for such critical use. The emulsion on exposed film (must be b&w
since color won't work at all) can easily be scratched or damaged.
For your eye's sake why not buy some mylar glasses from Rainbow Symphony or
Thousand Oaks? Thousand Oaks also makes premium glass filters for use on
telescopes and binoculars. If you read Dr.. Chou's explanation of the many
ways that solar radiation can damage our eyes (not just IR-UV and other
ranges!) it becomes obvious that permanent vision damage can occur
painlessly in a brief time period.
Don Pedro Jr.
Another Amateur Solar Astronomer
Anthony & Christopher Seal wrote in message ...
Warning: Don't look into the light!
Response: I can't help it. Its so Beautiful!
Result: Zap...
Don Pedro Jr
recent purchase of a Thousand Oaks T2+ glass solar filter. The purchase of
this filter introduced me to a different branch of astronomy and ensured
that my 80-millimeter refractor would no longer be limited to spotting scope
duty and limited astronomy in the daytime. Even though I had to wait well
over a month for the filter which was ordered through Scope City I am
satisfied with the product and service I received. Jeff at the Sherman
Oaks, CA branch of Scope City warned me in advance of the wait for the
filter and described his positive experiences viewing the Sun with glass
filters.
I did manage to get in one day of observing before the inevitable clouds
descended. Has anyone ever confirmed the connection between new
astronomical equipment and bad weather? During this day of viewing the Sun
I did notice that there was a lot of detail visible including sunspots and
textures. When I invited others to take a turn at the eyepiece they
expressed surprise and a certain amount of disbelief. It seems that people
possessing more knowledge about astronomy were even more certain that "you
can’t look at the Sun!" Skepticism aside no one turned down a chance to
view the Sun and all were impressed with the view.
I have subscribed to the Big Bear Solar Observatory Solar Warning e-mail
notification list at http://www.bbso.njit.edu/ and treat the safety
information published by B. Ralph Chou as gospel.
B. Ralph Chou is an associate professor in the School of Optometry at the
University of Waterloo and affiliated with the IAU Solar Eclipse Education
Committee.
http://www.tw-zone.com/cosmo/astronomy/eclipse/eclipse990811/IAU-education-c
ommittee.html
Find more information about solar filters and viewing safety at
http://www.eclipse99.com/sofilter.html
Don Pedro Jr.
Warning: Don't look into the light!
Response: I can't help it. Its so Beautiful!
Result: Zap...
Solar Astronomy - Not for wimps, or moths either for that matter.
S.D.C. wrote in message <3681438a....@news.magmacom.com>...
>Couldn't have said it better myself Terry!!
>
>...and you'd think that people participating in THIS newsgroup would
>know better??
>
>
>Throughout high school I heard rumors of those who went blind from
>watching solar eclipses. No doubt, much of that was exaggerated.
>...
Don Pedro Jr
e
ley.edu!howland.erols.net!news.idt.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.
n
et!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail