* Posts by PhilJIII

6 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Dec 2014

We suck? No, James Dyson. It is you who suck – Bosch and Siemens

PhilJIII

One horsepower, that's lifting power for 330 pounds, 100 feet in a minute.

Will a vacuum cleaner lift that much in its lifetime?

With vacuum cleaners now consuming 2000 watts ( 2.7 horsepower ) they should be sucking floorboards through the carpet.

NASA deep space scope serves up EPIC Earth snapshots

PhilJIII

Re: How small and beautiful

Resolution around 6 miles according to the article which is pretty damn good at that distance. The smallest object that can be picked up by Hubble on the moon would have to be the size of a football stadium.

It isn't just about lenses, everything, subject and cameras are moving fast.

PhilJIII

All that effort and the author calls them 'snapshots'.

Terror in the Chernobyl dead zone: Life - of a wild kind - burgeons

PhilJIII

What you are seeing are the living. Is anyone looking for what is missing? This is bad science at its worse. You see a proliferation of apparently healthy animals and draw the same conclusion across all life forms.

That there are more healthy adults of one species does not mean the same for others.

That there are more healthy adults of one species says nothing of the early death or mortality rates of ANY.

Human fetus are still very vulnerable to radiation even if adults can survive there and reproduce.

You can bet that if the Russian government felt the area was safe then there would be people there immediately. There is a lot of usable land there and no one is touching it.

China lunar mission readies for return to Earth

PhilJIII

Re: Should be pretty easy to see if it is fake or not

Most of us photo-astro-geeks are stuck on Earth but I can tell you that in this domain the word 'fake' gets a little blurry in order to sharpen the images.

The moon is a very bright object and it moves pretty damn fast relative to us. Not a big issue because you can properly expose it at 1/100th second depending on your ISO settings and atmospheric conditions. But....if you want details from the foreground on earth then you need a second photo with often a much longer exposure. Combine the two images and you have something the human eye can easily perceive.

The stars are another matter entirely. They are not bright and they are moving. Any exposure greater than a few seconds and your stars appear as lines. If you don't use long exposures then a single shot will not be enough to produce a workable image.

What many of us do is take multiple shots of the same area of space. We then use a piece of software that 'stacks' the images. This way we get stars that are not even visible to the naked eye.

This is one of the methods used on the Hubble and why those gyros are such a big deal.

Its very likely that this image is a composite and why the Earth and moon are ( more or less ) properly exposed. The only way to know for sure is to go there and see for yourself......

PhilJIII

Re: Fake

A properly exposed image of the moon usually requires speeds greater than 1/100th second.

To even start to get enough light to pick up a star you need more than 2 seconds. Anything less and you kiss good bye to the stars.

That is why those night shots of cities show where the car headlights have been but not the cars themselves.