Very interesting indeed! Unfortunately I was not able to catch up with the jargon before the flux rope with a stable positive Bz component arrived, so I am not yet quite sure what that means, but I hope it turns southwards 😛
Going through charts, I see that a lot have very short time cut-offs. At most I see data from 2 days back, so I don't know if the numbers I see in the charts are special or not... Do you know if there is a way to see historical data plots of these values?
Wow! Major solar fireworks today. Charge your camera batteries and put on your finest jacket for tomorrow night as strong (G3) or perhaps even severe (G4) geomagnetic storm conditions are possible tomorrow evening (1 June) into 2 June.
I learn about an astronomical event BEFORE it happens?! Pretty exciting, I often learn about space events after they already happened 😆 Now I even get a few hours to prepare.
Is there some sensor that I can use to detect this? Will it produce some characteristic radio signal or X-ray pattern? How do I tune in?
Correct!
Wow, a really nice shot of a really nice frog!
Happy you find it useful! I added the images that went into the stack for reference just now.
Oh, wow! I didn't know about this microscopic difference between monocots and dicots. So cool!
You are a radical vegan
that was a bit confusing at first (where is the crop factor!), i have never really messed with by-x lenses
Haha, I think I have a good idea of why.... When thinking about general photography, common scenes involve many different types of objects of varying sizes and distances. In this context it makes sense to define the "field of view" of a lens in terms of the visual angle, and to think about differences between equipment in terms of a "reference" - that's where the 'crop factor' comes in, when comparing to a 35 mm film as a standard to measure relative to. It is a bit silly to ask a question such as "how many cats can fit into the image that gets projected into the camera sensor?"
When one gets into macro photography things start changing. The distances between the camera and the subjects are defined more narrowly and the size of the subjects one tries to capture is closer in size to the camera sensor's size. In macro-photography you hear about things like a "1:1" lens, meaning that the image of an object placed at a specific distance will be replicated 1:1 at the camera sensor's position. It becomes then meaningful to think about the camera sensor size in absolute sense, because a sensor will capture a scene of its own size (for 1:1). You can still think in relative terms using the crop factor, but it is not as useful to make relative comparisons anymore because the absolute scale is already giving us information that we can work with directly.
For microscopy this trend continues - the distance to the subject is well-defined and we can think in absolute terms about the magnification of the image that gets projected into camera sensor.
Then i got sidetracked on how microscope rulers are being made.
I have not looked into this! I am not sure.... I will look it up.
I reckon you have your setup calibrated.
I do have a ruler but I misplaced it and I have not used it in a while. So, not really, I wouldn't say it is "calibrated". I did take some photos of the ruler that I can use to get a good rough estimate if I can find them.
Unfortunately the universe consists of mostly empty space and the infinitely thin cut passess between sub-atomic particles, barely tickling the vacuum fluctuations
Vaccines cure autism
But a sociopath
Thanks a lot! I can understand some of what I am looking at now.
I would like to find out if there are associated phenomena that I might be able to notice using software-defined radio. Maybe some time I can chase after an aurora, but this time I am unprepared.