4 ms·

Sorry, in what way is this not a photograph? Are you saying that a video is not a sequence of photographs, that UV photons captured by a sensor don’t count beca

• adammarples 6mo ago
  Maybe they take issue with the word "glowing", which doesn't usually refer to invisible electromagnetic radiation
  • Brian_K_White 6mo ago
    I was going to say the same. It's true that the image isn't fiction or a purely fabricated "artists rendering" from data. But it's also true that "filmed" and "glowing" are unusual ways to refer to what happened. You don't usually say filmed when talking about recording uv or microwaves etc. You technically could, and probably back when film was actually how uv was recorded a few people working in the field probably did, but almost no one else does, or no one at all since decades, which means the author of the title is the one out of step, not the people reading it. They actually recorded something, and this title is misleading. Both things are true.
    • amluto 6mo ago
      When I worked in a lab that took videos with a UV camera, I still called them videos, and I would absolutely have said that I took a video of the subject (a methanol flame in this case). Essentially every color photograph you have ever seen is a composite of a red photographic, a green photograph, and a blue photograph.
• clickety_clack 6mo ago
  The headline suggests that people have seen treetops glowing and it just hasn’t been captured on video before. The actual pictures and video is of something that nobody could have seen with their eyes.
  • WarmWash 6mo ago
    You can absolutely see corona discharge like that with your eyes. If you come to my day job, and we shut off all the lights in the test room, after your eyes adjust in the dark for a minute, you'll see the soft purple glow coming from the edge our 160kV test rig. Definitely emits UV, but there is enough visible to see it for sure. It comes from the electrons exciting nitrogen in the air.[1] 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nitrogen_discharge_tube.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nitrogen_discharge_t...
    • ajkjk 6mo ago
      what's the job?
    • yetihehe 6mo ago
      > (1:If you come to my day job), and (2: we shut off all the lights) (3:in the test room), (4:after your eyes adjust in the dark for a minute), you'll see the soft purple glow coming (5:from the edge our 160kV test rig). So, 5 different things that make it glow "not coming from treetops". Parent poster wanted to see glowing treetops in a forest, where we might not be adjusted to dark for a minute. You can also see such corona discharge with benchtop tesla coils even in lighted room, but those are not trees in forest glowing from a storm.
      • MisterTea 6mo ago
        Even a smallish Tesla coil easily produces voltages north of 160kV. I built one using 4" PVC for the secondary with a wound length of maybe ~2 feet of secondary? From memory of the calculations I did at the time I think it was around 350 kV peak? Might have been higher. Threw 24 inch sparks quite easily.
    • clickety_clack 6mo ago
      I’m not saying it can’t be seen, I’m saying that you can’t prove something can be seen by showing me a photo that captures light that I can’t see.
  • 6mo ago
• chrisfosterelli 6mo ago
  I don't really blame the researchers here but this is yet another article that is happy to have a clickbait headline which any reasonable reader is going to assume will include a picture of "treetops glowing". At least personally I scanned the article for it and only found the picture at the top, which I was then frustrated to learn that's just a lab photo, and I came here wondering where the actual image is of it in the field so I found OPs comment helpful to indicate that the suggestion there would be a beautiful picture of glowing canopy somewhere is basically a result of editorializing.
• colanderman 6mo ago
  Which photograph? The one in the article is not from the paper. The paper contains no photographs of corona.