Re: Digital Photography is expanding. When will it stop?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 31, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Friday, May 30, 2014 6:32:15 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > Just look at the image quality in
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/balloon_burst_vid/
    >
    >
    >
    > Just look at the camera which is responsible.
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck should look at http://replayxd.com/ (which also has a link
    >
    > from the above link).
    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Interesting that the gas inside the balloon was visible when the balloon shredded.
    RichA, May 31, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 1/06/2014 9:35 a.m., RichA wrote:
    > On Friday, May 30, 2014 6:32:15 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> Just look at the image quality in
    >>
    >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/balloon_burst_vid/
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Just look at the camera which is responsible.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Savageduck should look at http://replayxd.com/ (which also has a link
    >>
    >> from the above link).
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > Interesting that the gas inside the balloon was visible when the balloon shredded.
    >

    I hate to "burst your bubble", but that's probably talc (or similar)
    you're seeing - not gas.
    Me, Jun 4, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:58:55 PM UTC-4, Me wrote:
    > On 1/06/2014 9:35 a.m., RichA wrote:
    >
    > > On Friday, May 30, 2014 6:32:15 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >> Just look at the image quality in

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/balloon_burst_vid/

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Just look at the camera which is responsible.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Savageduck should look at http://replayxd.com/ (which also has a link

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> from the above link).

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> --

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Regards,

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Interesting that the gas inside the balloon was visible when the balloon shredded.

    >
    > >

    >
    > I hate to "burst your bubble", but that's probably talc (or similar)
    >
    > you're seeing - not gas.


    Makes sense.
    RichA, Jun 8, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Sunday, 8 June 2014 03:04:03 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    > On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:58:55 PM UTC-4, Me wrote:
    >
    > > On 1/06/2014 9:35 a.m., RichA wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > On Friday, May 30, 2014 6:32:15 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >> Just look at the image quality in

    >


    > > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/balloon_burst_vid/


    > > >> Just look at the camera which is responsible.


    > > >> Savageduck should look at http://replayxd.com/ (which also has a link




    > > > Interesting that the gas inside the balloon was visible when the balloon shredded.


    >
    > > I hate to "burst your bubble", but that's probably talc (or similar)


    >
    > > you're seeing - not gas.


    > Makes sense.


    I thought itn was a shock wave, I've seen it before when using sonic cannons.
    Whisky-dave, Jun 9, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 10/06/2014 10:29 a.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:54:44 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sunday, 8 June 2014 03:04:03 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    >>> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:58:55 PM UTC-4, Me wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 1/06/2014 9:35 a.m., RichA wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>>> On Friday, May 30, 2014 6:32:15 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>>>> Just look at the image quality in
    >>>

    >>
    >>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/balloon_burst_vid/

    >>
    >>>>>> Just look at the camera which is responsible.

    >>
    >>>>>> Savageduck should look at http://replayxd.com/ (which also has a link

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> Interesting that the gas inside the balloon was visible when the balloon shredded.

    >>
    >>>
    >>>> I hate to "burst your bubble", but that's probably talc (or similar)

    >>
    >>>
    >>>> you're seeing - not gas.

    >>
    >>> Makes sense.

    >>
    >> I thought itn was a shock wave, I've seen it before when using sonic cannons.

    >
    > I agree with you.
    >
    > The speed of fracture propogation in the rubber balloon is several
    > times higher than the speed of sound at the low temperature at that
    > altitude.
    >
    > Before the failure, the gas inside the balloon was at a high pressure
    > than the atmosphere outside (that's why the balloon burst).
    >
    > The balloon hasn't instantaneously failed all over but has peeled away
    > from the internal gas. The principal driving force for the balloon
    > fragments is the is the tension in the balloon and it is the curvature
    > in the balloon which has causeed the fragments to peel away.
    >
    > Even without the aid of the talc from the inside of the balloon, there
    > will be a difference beween the optical properties of the gas inside
    > the balloon and the atmosphere outside. For the very brief time that
    > it exists after the rupture of the balloon, the interface between the
    > two bodies of gas can be photographed as in a Schlieren photograph.
    > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren_photography
    > At that altitude the direct lighting of the sun is the major source of
    > illumination and it seems to have been sufficiently collimated to make
    > the interface boundary visible.
    >

    That's very eloquent, but I disagree.
    The density of the atmosphere at that altitude is very low indeed
    (approx 70 times less dense than at sea level), and the difference in
    density between inside of the balloon and outside is small - despite
    being enough to burst the very weak membrane. The balloon is made of
    very thin latex (covered in talc). In the series of time-lapse stills,
    after the rupture, the talc has enough inertia to overcome attraction to
    the shards of membrane surface as it peels away, and can be seen to form
    a gradually expanding, quite well-defined, and apparently hollow sphere,
    with initial dimension closely matched to the size of the balloon before
    it burst. If it was "gas" you could see, then it would not appear to be
    most dense at the perimeter, and should expand outward at the same rate
    as (or greater than) the shards of latex. The density of the gas inside
    the balloon after expansion is too low to even accelerate the small talc
    particles at close to the rate of expansion of the expanding gas bubble,
    though to be fair, we don't have a comparison shot taken at 1 atmosphere
    to see how the talc would behave.
    The last few frames of the time-lapse stills show very clearly an
    expanding "puff" of talc, originating from the nozzle of the balloon,
    which is where talc which has detached from the inside wall of the
    balloon - particularly as it expanded on it's ascent - will have
    concentrated.
    Me, Jun 10, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 10/06/2014 11:08 p.m., Me wrote:
    > On 10/06/2014 10:29 a.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:54:44 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sunday, 8 June 2014 03:04:03 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    >>>> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:58:55 PM UTC-4, Me wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 1/06/2014 9:35 a.m., RichA wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> On Friday, May 30, 2014 6:32:15 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> Just look at the image quality in
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/balloon_burst_vid/
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Just look at the camera which is responsible.
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Savageduck should look at http://replayxd.com/ (which also has a
    >>>>>>> link
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>> Interesting that the gas inside the balloon was visible when the
    >>>>>> balloon shredded.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I hate to "burst your bubble", but that's probably talc (or similar)
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> you're seeing - not gas.
    >>>
    >>>> Makes sense.
    >>>
    >>> I thought itn was a shock wave, I've seen it before when using sonic
    >>> cannons.

    >>
    >> I agree with you.
    >>
    >> The speed of fracture propogation in the rubber balloon is several
    >> times higher than the speed of sound at the low temperature at that
    >> altitude.
    >>
    >> Before the failure, the gas inside the balloon was at a high pressure
    >> than the atmosphere outside (that's why the balloon burst).
    >>
    >> The balloon hasn't instantaneously failed all over but has peeled away
    >> from the internal gas. The principal driving force for the balloon
    >> fragments is the is the tension in the balloon and it is the curvature
    >> in the balloon which has causeed the fragments to peel away.
    >>
    >> Even without the aid of the talc from the inside of the balloon, there
    >> will be a difference beween the optical properties of the gas inside
    >> the balloon and the atmosphere outside. For the very brief time that
    >> it exists after the rupture of the balloon, the interface between the
    >> two bodies of gas can be photographed as in a Schlieren photograph.
    >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren_photography
    >> At that altitude the direct lighting of the sun is the major source of
    >> illumination and it seems to have been sufficiently collimated to make
    >> the interface boundary visible.
    >>

    > That's very eloquent, but I disagree.
    > The density of the atmosphere at that altitude is very low indeed
    > (approx 70 times less dense than at sea level), and the difference in
    > density between inside of the balloon and outside is small - despite
    > being enough to burst the very weak membrane.


    Oh dear - my befuddled thought. It is the difference in pressure - not
    density - which bursts the balloon.
    The density of the gas inside the balloon is of course lower, and the
    pressure greater than the air outside. The refractive index of helium
    is lower than "air" when pressure is equal, however in the case of a
    balloon the pressure is not equal.

    > The balloon is made of
    > very thin latex (covered in talc). In the series of time-lapse stills,
    > after the rupture, the talc has enough inertia to overcome attraction to
    > the shards of membrane surface as it peels away, and can be seen to form
    > a gradually expanding, quite well-defined, and apparently hollow sphere,
    > with initial dimension closely matched to the size of the balloon before
    > it burst. If it was "gas" you could see, then it would not appear to be
    > most dense at the perimeter, and should expand outward at the same rate
    > as (or greater than) the shards of latex. The density of the gas inside
    > the balloon after expansion is too low to even accelerate the small talc
    > particles at close to the rate of expansion of the expanding gas bubble,
    > though to be fair, we don't have a comparison shot taken at 1 atmosphere
    > to see how the talc would behave.
    > The last few frames of the time-lapse stills show very clearly an
    > expanding "puff" of talc, originating from the nozzle of the balloon,
    > which is where talc which has detached from the inside wall of the
    > balloon - particularly as it expanded on it's ascent - will have
    > concentrated.
    >
    Me, Jun 10, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, 10 June 2014 21:48:34 UTC+1, Me wrote:
    > On 10/06/2014 11:08 p.m., Me wrote:
    >
    > > On 10/06/2014 10:29 a.m., Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:54:44 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave

    >
    > >> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> On Sunday, 8 June 2014 03:04:03 UTC+1, RichA wrote:

    >
    > >>>> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:58:55 PM UTC-4, Me wrote:

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>>> On 1/06/2014 9:35 a.m., RichA wrote:

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>>>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>>>> On Friday, May 30, 2014 6:32:15 PM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>>>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>>>>> Just look at the image quality in

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/balloon_burst_vid/

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>>>>> Just look at the camera which is responsible.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>>>>> Savageduck should look at http://replayxd.com/ (which also has a

    >
    > >>>>>>> link

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>>>> Interesting that the gas inside the balloon was visible when the

    >
    > >>>>>> balloon shredded.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>>> I hate to "burst your bubble", but that's probably talc (or similar)

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>>> you're seeing - not gas.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>>> Makes sense.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> I thought itn was a shock wave, I've seen it before when using sonic

    >
    > >>> cannons.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> I agree with you.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> The speed of fracture propogation in the rubber balloon is several

    >
    > >> times higher than the speed of sound at the low temperature at that

    >
    > >> altitude.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Before the failure, the gas inside the balloon was at a high pressure

    >
    > >> than the atmosphere outside (that's why the balloon burst).

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> The balloon hasn't instantaneously failed all over but has peeled away

    >
    > >> from the internal gas. The principal driving force for the balloon

    >
    > >> fragments is the is the tension in the balloon and it is the curvature

    >
    > >> in the balloon which has causeed the fragments to peel away.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Even without the aid of the talc from the inside of the balloon, there

    >
    > >> will be a difference beween the optical properties of the gas inside

    >
    > >> the balloon and the atmosphere outside. For the very brief time that

    >
    > >> it exists after the rupture of the balloon, the interface between the

    >
    > >> two bodies of gas can be photographed as in a Schlieren photograph.

    >
    > >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren_photography

    >
    > >> At that altitude the direct lighting of the sun is the major source of

    >
    > >> illumination and it seems to have been sufficiently collimated to make

    >
    > >> the interface boundary visible.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > > That's very eloquent, but I disagree.

    >
    > > The density of the atmosphere at that altitude is very low indeed

    >
    > > (approx 70 times less dense than at sea level), and the difference in

    >
    > > density between inside of the balloon and outside is small - despite

    >
    > > being enough to burst the very weak membrane.

    >
    >
    >
    > Oh dear - my befuddled thought. It is the difference in pressure - not
    >
    > density - which bursts the balloon.
    >
    > The density of the gas inside the balloon is of course lower, and the
    >
    > pressure greater than the air outside. The refractive index of helium
    >
    > is lower than "air" when pressure is equal, however in the case of a
    >
    > balloon the pressure is not equal.


    Which is why it bursts, obviously.

    what has the refractive index of helium got to do with it, remmebr helium is an element and air is a mixture of gases.
    Whisky-dave, Jun 11, 2014
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?QnJpYW4=?=

    Expanding Wireless Network

    =?Utf-8?B?QnJpYW4=?=, Nov 11, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    553
    Barb Bowman MVP-Windows
    Nov 11, 2005
  2. chino2

    Expanding HD On NT 4.0 - Help!

    chino2, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    603
    chino2
    Aug 3, 2003
  3. chino2

    Expanding HD On NT 4.0 - Help!

    chino2, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    535
    chino2
    Aug 3, 2003
  4. VINUM CANADA E-ZINE

    expanding wine appreciation

    VINUM CANADA E-ZINE, Aug 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    517
    VINUM CANADA E-ZINE
    Aug 5, 2005
  5. Kyler Laird

    Is DID coverage expanding?

    Kyler Laird, Oct 14, 2004, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    438
    VoIPTelco.net
    Oct 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page