Total solar eclipse 2017

[ERD50]

...

But what I was commenting upon was consciously testing your filtering apparatus.

I don't care what the package says about which agency approved my filter, I'm going to direct my attention on the sun using the filter for one second, then I'm going to shut my eyes. If I detect any lingering spot (which indicates retinal damage), I will no longer direct my attention toward the sun using that filter apparatus since I have proven to myself that the filter is not sufficiently blocking enough of the sun's energy. If that test passes, I will repeat the test, this time for 5 seconds. Again, if this test fails (i.e. I can see a spot when I close my eyes), I will not use the glasses.

I agree that if I were to use any filter product, I would want to test it first. Anything could happen - a flaw in the factory process, a substitution somewhere in the supply chain, who knows what? And your proposal is probably be fine, certainly better than accepting the product on faith, but I still have lingering doubts, and I personally cannot balance those doubts with even a 1 in 1 million chance of permanently damaging my eyesight.

During an eclipse, I think there is a different balance of UV and other wavelengths of light. So I'm not sure your test of full sunlight is totally appropriate for the conditions of an eclipse.

Yes, I know I'm going way, way, way, way out on the ledge of possibilities here, near to the point of absurdity, but again, when it comes to my eyesight, I just can't accept the risk/reward versus indirect viewing.

-ERD50

 

[FIREmenow]

I agree that if I were to use any filter product, I would want to test it first. Anything could happen - a flaw in the factory process, a substitution somewhere in the supply chain, who knows what? And your proposal is probably be fine, certainly better than accepting the product on faith, but I still have lingering doubts, and I personally cannot balance those doubts with even a 1 in 1 million chance of permanently damaging my eyesight.

During an eclipse, I think there is a different balance of UV and other wavelengths of light. So I'm not sure your test of full sunlight is totally appropriate for the conditions of an eclipse.

Yes, I know I'm going way, way, way, way out on the ledge of possibilities here, near to the point of absurdity, but again, when it comes to my eyesight, I just can't accept the risk/reward versus indirect viewing.

-ERD50

OK, you guys' argument convinced me - back to the pinhole.......

 

[Sojourner]

Near the totality path they are pretty much sold out.

Yes, this certainly seems to be the case. I went on a targeted search mission today all around Atlanta to see if I could find some. I went to 5 large retail locations (Lowe's, Walmart, Kroger, Toys R Us, and Best Buy) and each was completely sold out and not expecting any more to come in. As I was heading back home, I happened to remember seeing a little sign in front of a local hardware store last week saying "Eclipse Glasses $1.99". The sign was gone today, but I thought it might be worth a quick check. I pulled in, went up to the counter and asked if they had any in stock, and the guy smiled and said "We just got some in an hour ago!"

I confirmed by looking carefully at the packaging that these were ISO-certified for solar viewing, so I eagerly snapped up a few pairs. I briefly contemplated buying 20 pairs and selling them around my neighborhood for $10 each, but then I thought, ehh, too much trouble. Honestly, it was good enough for me that lady luck was on my side today and that I found what I was looking for.

 

[RunningBum]

I checked Amazon today and see that prices have skyrocketed. I've got 10. Unless local friends are looking for them, I'll take them along and make new friends if anyone needs them.

 

[GalaxyBoy]

During an eclipse, I think there is a different balance of UV and other wavelengths of light.

Uh, no. Placing a big rock between the sun and the earth doesn't change the characteristics of the radiation being emitted from the sun or that hitting the earth. The big concern is simply that it's natural to want to gaze or stare into the sun and see what's going on.

Quite right to take no chances though!

Counting down to totality...

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
During an eclipse, I think there is a different balance of UV and other wavelengths of light.

Uh, no. Placing a big rock between the sun and the earth doesn't change the characteristics of the radiation being emitted from the sun or that hitting the earth. The big concern is simply that it's natural to want to gaze or stare into the sun and see what's going on.

Quite right to take no chances though!

Counting down to totality...

Actually, it is true. The big rock is blocking the center of the sun ( the "photosphere"), and during an eclipse, only the ring of the "chromosphere" is visible. They are different spectrum, so there may be differences in how the filters and the eye respond to each.

The chromosphere (literally, "sphere of color") is the second of the three main layers in the Sun's atmosphere and is roughly 3,000 to 5,000 kilometers deep. The chromosphere's rosy red color is only apparent during eclipses. The Chromosphere sits just above the photosphere and below the solar transition region. The layer of the chromosphere atop the photosphere is homogeneous. A forest of hairy appearing spicules rise from the homogeneous layer some of which extend 10,000 km into the corona above.

The density of the chromosphere is only 10−4 times that of the photosphere, the layer beneath, and 10−8 times that of the atmosphere of Earth at sea level. This makes the chromosphere normally invisible and it can be seen only during a total eclipse, where its reddish color is revealed. The color hues are anywhere between pink and red.[1] However, without special equipment, the chromosphere cannot normally be seen due to the overwhelming brightness of the photosphere beneath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosphere
Flash Spectrum

-ERD50

 

[GalaxyBoy]

Don't use a filter during totality or you'll miss the big experience. But ONLY during totality. In fact, unfiltered binoculars and telescopes are preferred during the total phase. Actually, if you wear the filter during totality all you'll see is blackness.

The chromosphere is a very thin layer and isn't blinding like the photosphere. If we're lucky there might be solar prominences visible during totality. But the star (pun!) of the show is the corona, about the brightness of a full moon. Besides, the corona and the chromosphere are always there but just can't be seen because they are washed out by the many many times brighter photosphere.

Sorry if I sound argumentative. My only goal is to make sure folks don't miss out on one of the most spectacular natural phenomena.

 

[ERD50]

Don't use a filter during totality or you'll miss the big experience. But ONLY during totality. In fact, unfiltered binoculars and telescopes are preferred during the total phase. Actually, if you wear the filter during totality all you'll see is blackness.

The chromosphere is a very thin layer and isn't blinding like the photosphere. If we're lucky there might be solar prominences visible during totality. But the star (pun!) of the show is the corona, about the brightness of a full moon. Besides, the corona and the chromosphere are always there but just can't be seen because they are washed out by the many many times brighter photosphere.

Sorry if I sound argumentative. My only goal is to make sure folks don't miss out on one of the most spectacular natural phenomena.

No, not at all. I was throwing out some info I came across, people need to do their own due diligence - I'm no expert. I'm just looking to err on the far, far, far side of caution.

Yes, I did read that when in full totality, naked eye is fine. But then I read dire warnings about the little glimpses or flashes (forget what they are called), of light that shine just before and after totality. I read those can be very dangerous. The spectrum may or may not have anything to do with any danger though, just that it can be different in the different phases. And of course, UV is very damaging but not visible to us without the other spectrum along with it.


-ERD50

 

[Ronstar]

Just heard that Carbondale, Il will have 92,000 visitors for the eclipse. Glad I'm not going there.

 

[RunningBum]

Just heard that Carbondale, Il will have 92,000 visitors for the eclipse. Glad I'm not going there.

Any estimates are just wild guesses. They know how many hotel rooms are booked, and how many people have booked train/bus/plane tickets, and how many have signed up for any official events, but there's no telling how many people will try to make a day trip and do it on their own. I googled for this and see a couple estimates for 50,000, and other for 90,000. It's not like a sporting or music event where the venue limits how many can come. All of the outdoors in the totality zone is the venue. 92,000 is a pretty specific sounding number.

South Carolina is predicting between 500,000 and 2,000,000, just to show the range.

 

[Senator]

I understand not taking any risk with one's vision.

I also totally understand having the aversion effect gone during a partial eclipse, and the obvious damaging effects of unfiltered viewing of it (the content of the article).

But what I was commenting upon was consciously testing your filtering apparatus.

I don't care what the package says about which agency approved my filter, I'm going to direct my attention on the sun using the filter for one second, then I'm going to shut my eyes. If I detect any lingering spot (which indicates retinal damage), I will no longer direct my attention toward the sun using that filter apparatus since I have proven to myself that the filter is not sufficiently blocking enough of the sun's energy. If that test passes, I will repeat the test, this time for 5 seconds. Again, if this test fails (i.e. I can see a spot when I close my eyes), I will not use the glasses.

It is pretty easy to test them. Looking outside, all you should see is the sun. Look at an incandescent bulb, or an LED flashlight up close, and all you can see if the filament or led.

Most of the 'fake' glasses are safe, according to the article I read. I think ISO just wanted more licensing fees...

 

[Sojourner]

It is pretty easy to test them. Looking outside, all you should see is the sun. Look at an incandescent bulb, or an LED flashlight up close, and all you can see if the filament or led.

I tested mine earlier, and when I looked around outside (a bright, sunny afternoon), all I could see was the dim, yellow disk of the sun when looking straight at it. Just now, I checked to see if anything was visible when looking directly at the LED light on my smartphone. When I held it up about 1 foot or less from my eye, I could barely see a tiny, dim dot of light. Without the glasses, that light was utterly blinding at that distance and left an afterimage after less than 1/2 second of viewing it. So it seems like my glasses meet the sanity check, which I expected since they're ISO certified.

 

[Jerry1]

I checked Amazon today and see that prices have skyrocketed. I've got 10. Unless local friends are looking for them, I'll take them along and make new friends if anyone needs them.

I bought a pack of 10 from Amazon on Aug 3 for $25. Today the exact same 10 pack from the same supplier is $100. I'm giving a few to the family and giving the rest away to a few friends.

I bought a couple pairs of higher end goggles early in the year and will be using those. One cases a yellow/orange image and the other is green (welding goggles). We'll see which is better. Either way - been covered for months and doing my best to keep a few others from damaging their eyes.

 

[Bir48die]

So everyday we have front page articles in the Oregonian about the eclipse accompanied by an article on how horrible the traffic will be. Along with having the National Guard on call there is a general sense of madness. Salem, the state capital is shutting things down while banks and other businesses are closing. I myself will be taking the back roads with my DW and drinking at a vineyard avoiding the general mayhem.

 

[MissMolly]

I rented a lake-side cottage a year ago in preparation for this event at Land Between the Lakes, KY (in the 100% totality area). We go down Friday and will be there for a week, so hopefully can avoid most of the traffic issues. We are being joined by our kids, one son-in-law, 5 of my siblings, and one 3 1/2 yr old granddaughter. We will have a boat for skiing, kayaks a paddle boat and possibly jet skis. Can't wait! We are planning all our meals and taking all the food we need with us since it is reported that stores in the area are expected to be very short on supplies.

 

[homestead]

So everyday we have front page articles in the Oregonian about the eclipse accompanied by an article on how horrible the traffic will be. Along with having the National Guard on call there is a general sense of madness. Salem, the state capital is shutting things down while banks and other businesses are closing. I myself will be taking the back roads with my DW and drinking at a vineyard avoiding the general mayhem.

I see you are in Beaverton, I am in Hillsboro and was thinking about taking the back roads going south but the more I thought about the impending gridlock on the main roads and people trying to find a way to get out of it via back roads I decided to just stay home.

 

[travelover]

I see you are in Beaverton, I am in Hillsboro and was thinking about taking the back roads going south but the more I thought about the impending gridlock on the main roads and people trying to find a way to get out of it via back roads I decided to just stay home.

I'm just north of Portland and came to the same conclusion. Portland on a normal day is bad enough.

 

[sengsational]

I see you are in Beaverton, I am in Hillsboro and was thinking about taking the back roads going south but the more I thought about the impending gridlock on the main roads and people trying to find a way to get out of it via back roads I decided to just stay home.

Seems to me that in the days of live traffic supported satellite navigation, the fact that you are using back roads isn't as helpful as it might have been in the past. IOW, if the main roads are jammed, Google Maps directions (or other similar apps), will start routing people on those same back roads.

That being said, I don't understand the unwillingness to go, just because you might be caught in traffic. So what! Have a full tank of gas, some food and water, and what's the problem? If the traffic is completely stopped, just pull off the highway and take a hike for a few hours, whatever. I kind of doubt you'll be stuck for more than a few hours.

 

[homestead]

Seems to me that in the days of live traffic supported satellite navigation, the fact that you are using back roads isn't as helpful as it might have been in the past. IOW, if the main roads are jammed, Google Maps directions (or other similar apps), will start routing people on those same back roads.

That being said, I don't understand the unwillingness to go, just because you might be caught in traffic. So what! Have a full tank of gas, some food and water, and what's the problem? If the traffic is completely stopped, just pull off the highway and take a hike for a few hours, whatever. I kind of doubt you'll be stuck for more than a few hours.

Its only a 45 minute drive to the edge of totality but not willing to trade hours of sitting in car for 1 or 2 minutes of darkness. I drive that road every week and it mostly small farms, no place I want to go hiking. Saw the 79 eclipse here in Beaverton, conditions were cloudy so was a disappointment.
I'll watch it on youtube and watch the traffic reports on the news. I'm driving that road this Saturday morning in the eclipse area I'll see how bad the traffic is then.

 

[Jerry1]

Its only a 45 minute drive to the edge of totality but not willing to trade hours of sitting in car for 1 or 2 minutes of darkness.

And on the edge, it's less than a minute. Need to get pretty far in to get two minutes. Still, I wish I lived within 45 minutes. I will in 2024 but for this one, I have to drive at least 8 hours.

 

[RunningBum]

Curious what people think an acceptable risk for cloud cover is. Right now I'm seeing a forecast of just over 60% in Greenville, and ~40% at areas I'm looking in TN. Wondering if people think that's too much to bother with the time and hassle of driving, and if that 20% difference is significant. I know, "it depends", and even a 10% cloud cover can mess it up if that one big cloud obscures things, just wondering if anyone else is watching and making decisions like this.

 

[Ronstar]

I'm going no matter what the weather is. We've tied this in with a visit to my BIL's and he likes the brewery that we're eclipse gazing from.

That said, I'd like scattered clouds to get a little interest in the photos I'll be taking.

 

[FIREmenow]

Curious what people think an acceptable risk for cloud cover is. Right now I'm seeing a forecast of just over 60% in Greenville, and ~40% at areas I'm looking in TN. Wondering if people think that's too much to bother with the time and hassle of driving, and if that 20% difference is significant. I know, "it depends", and even a 10% cloud cover can mess it up if that one big cloud obscures things, just wondering if anyone else is watching and making decisions like this.

I am (was), but I mitigated any disappointment by making a mini-vacation out of it and have reserved an upper deck spot at a beachfront pub that has an eclipse party and bands going on. A cloudy day at a beach bar with craft beer may not be such a bad consolation (it'll still get dark). Driving into town on Sunday morning to avoid traffic (reserved hotel last year) - just hope the Uber to the pub Monday morning isn't outrageous given the event.....

 

[RunningBum]

My son doesn't have the flexibility to stay longer. If we get unlucky with clouds, I'll be disappointed but can accept it, but to go through the time and expense with a strong likelihood we'll get shut out doesn't make sense to me. If this holds up, 40% and flexibility of a car seems reasonable. 60% and on foot does not.

 

[Ronstar]

Ran into this weather forecast map.

Weather Prediction Center (WPC) Home Page