Jump to content

Ron NL

Member
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Ron NL last won the day on May 28

Ron NL had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Ron NL

  • Rank
    Minor flare

Profile Information

  • Location
    Netherlands
  • Interests
    Covid19, SolarActivity, UV-C, RadioCommunication, Electronics
  1. Ha ha ... you allways answer my questions using 10 other (new) terms that i have to study i think you are complicating it unnessecarely . 1) its simple ... (assumption) the cameras (or sensors) look at the sun from the same direction as earth. 2) (assumption) so what the cam/sensor is seeing is what could be seen from earth also. (provided nothing blocks it) 3) If you see something ...it means that what you see is directed at you ..otherwise you dont see it. 4) To see a light from a source ...you dont have to be right in front of it ... since such light could have a wide angle. Please tell me point by point what is wrong with the above
  2. Aimed at Earth ? In this article @ spaceweatherlive.com (from yesterday) https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/news/view/409/20200529-first-m-class-solar-flare-of-a-solar-cycle-25-region it says that the eruption (or better the resulting radiation) was "not aimed at Earth" meaning that it passes the earth ..it will not hit earth ...and as a result it will not cause any effects on earth. Questions: 1) So when is something aimed at earth ? ...when it is right in the centre of the sun (as seen from the earth) ? 2) I assume the pics are taken from the direction of the earth (by spacecraft) ... i assume that if it sees something that it sees those things that are visible from the direction of the earth ... in other words everything you see on those sdo pics & vids are the portions that are directed towards earth ...so how can spaceweatherlive.com say "not aimed at earth" ? they probably should say that the strongest part of it is not aimed at earth (ie: some of it will reach earth ...namely that what we see in the pics) I find it confusing ... probably because spaceweatherlive only counts absolute max radiations as valid radiation ...which is not the reality ?
  3. Earth System Laboratory (Govt) they suck ! They present UV-data as plots ...but nothing works (at least i can get a single plot to work) https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/neubrew/ProductDisplays.jsp See also a long list of UV-measurement equipment they and affiliated stations use ... which seem to suck also temperature-problems ..calibration-problems and they dont go lower then 280 nanometers ... only 1 goes down till 250 nm anything below that is simply ignored https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/neubrew/Publications.jsp#brewer Its like i already knew ...no-one in the whole world measures the UVC band that is of biological importance for us (280 - 10 nm) they are a bunch of idiots ...hobbyists that spend taxpayers money to play with equipment ..they just dont grab it. In addition i have spend 5 months 24/7 internet research ...and i have not been able to find 1 single (original) publication where they describe how they measured that UVC is indeed filtered by the ozone-layer ! ... let alone a recent one, not even a referral to where they have this knowledge ... they all simply assume it cause someone said that 100 years ago. .
  4. @Jesterface23 It's NOT something different ..its exactly what i'm saying ! They say "All UVC is filtered by the atmosphere"" ... but dont provide a link to a solid sientific research where they have this from And that is what they all do (copy & paste). Show me a real (recent) scientific research (peer-to-peer reviewed) where they say the same and where they also show how it was measured ....and no not some handwritten observation from 100 years old
  5. My point is that ... the specialists are not doing their job. 1) No-one has measured the size of covid19 yet (to determine its sensitive wavelength) 2) No-one is currently measuring levels of UVC that reach the earth ...its only assumed on old outdated info 3) No-one is measuring the full spectrum that reaches the earth.... i have not even found old measurements. And that is the end of the story ... as long as that is not done ...we are lost and just guessing so i try to find some indications myself ...which is very difficult Even with one foot in the grave ...those that could do this are not interested,if we not solve this ...you can blame it on them.
  6. The low you can see from the solar-cycle graphs you find everywhere .. it were the months Dec to March ... we are at least 1 month over the lowest point ... but its going slowly ..still see 2 polarisations ...means its still switching from one to the next cycle. Not shure if different polarisations matter for levels or effects of UV ... dont think so since they both radiate the same UV-light.
  7. @VoltarDark Yes you can add that as another effect that influences the nr of covid19 (infections/cases) So we have (at least) 2 effects that work together (against us) (1) Less UV-radiation so less virus is killed (UVC) (2) Less vitamine-D produced ..so our immunity is lower (UVB) In other words ...If both UVC and UVB are lower ...there will be even more covid19 cases compared to one of the effects alone. You could more or less add them together ..to understand that the effect doubles or at least does have a stronger effect as you might think. This was not studied but both the individual facts (1 & 2) were ...someone should do research involving these both at the same time I think we can assume that UVB follows the same curve as UVC ... since all wavelengths available at sda-nasa follow the same curve It is also established that ..that UVB-levels follow the summer/winter curve I myself can see the UVC variations from the sdo-nasa pics & videos I dont see the UVB from them cause they dont supply that ... so the only thing available to me is the reports on "total irradiance" but those measurements suck ...since they are not really standardized ...and receive a mess of all wavelengths mixed together and as i have found most of these dont even include the full spectrum. .. so a specific daily UVB measurement is needed. Best: we should measure full spectrum (no gaps) that reaches the earth ... to be fully able to study the sun's effect on life on earth.
  8. @Christopher S. 1) You are outdated ... it was already established by various publications that virus can survive up to 9 days depending on the surface it is on. on a surface means outside a host ... verify that ... before you state wrong assumptions 2) Virus do get killed by UV ...specifically UVC ...this is a long known fact. so yes that is one of the answers to destroy virus. Yes there is a relation between UV (irradiance from the sun) and the survival of Virus its is recently being described in publications ..one of those was posted in this forum just 2 days ago. 3) Ofcourse not ... UV will not affect virus that is already inside the body .. i did not say that ! since ofcourse UV does not penetrate the body. But there is a lot of virus outside ... not hosted by anything these live in the air or surfaces those will be killed by enough levels of UV. (dose) Dont under-estimate the quantities of virus that live outside ... the virus has mutated and adapted itself to survive outside ... it can only do that because it indeed has lived outside already Its Darwin ..."survival of the fittest" In addition ..the current low solar-activity ...results in lower levels of UV(C) it helps the virus to survive (outside) longer then it would at higher levels of UV(C) 4) I have explained it again ... and there's nothing murky about it
  9. . @VoltarDark ..you asked for size of Covid19 ? ..its most certainly around 120 nm so the wavelength that influences it the most will be 120 nm also (max energy transfer @ resonance) This wavelength is not completely filtered by the ozone-layer ... i estimate at times still 3 to 7 % reaches the earth and that is enough to kill viruses ... with radiation its about the Dose ... a little bit for a long time is also a lot of dose Right now its way less then those 3 % to 7 % ... because of minimal solar-activity ... so way less virus is killed. Problem -1 ... Right now no-one measures levels of UVC that reach earth-surface. Problem-2 .... No-one cares to measure the exact size of covid19 (no publications) Problem-2 ... Everyone uses "'total irradiance" ... and that does not even include UVC ! As a radio-engineer and researcher (50 years experience) .. i immidiatly grasped this whole wavelength-stuff unfortunately scientists (medics /virologists) that should research this ... have no clues about this becuase they are no radiation experts so they have to copy and paste that part from others ...without researching it themselves ("yeah lets not include UVC ... they say its filtered out") ie: some-one a long time ago said UVC is 100% filtered by the ozone-layer ... and everyone simply copies that. science is good but there's a lot wrong with it also. Source: https://viralzone.expasy.org/5216
  10. @Vancanneyt Sander I asked a simple question ... but you gave me again a complicated answer. Im an engineer/researcher in electronics and radio-waves ... and i very well understand that those sdo-nasa pics&videos are (bandpass) filtered ... and that they show intensities of only the mentioned wavelengths. I am not talking about visible light (spectrum that humans see with their eyes) you seem to think that im talking visible light ...which is not the case. I'm observing intensities at various wavelengths ... for covid19 i would want to see 120 nm cause that should be the wavelength of intererest because covid19 itself has a size of around 120 nm (resonance) Since nasa does not show that specific wavelength .. i mainly look at 160 nm and 171 nm they are close enough to serve as an (proxy) indicator for 120 nm i also see that most other wavelengths also follow the same intensity-curve anyway. 1) The (total) solar-irradiance (earth surface or space) is not not a good enough indicator to measure possible effects on life on earth simply because this is a measurement that shows the whole mix of all wavelengths (added) together. it does not show the individual wavelenghts. ie: even if the total irradance stays the same ..individual wavelenghts can vary ...without getting noticed Its like listening to 100 radio-channels at the same time ... the result is one big useless mess .. noise and cacofonia. So you should observe individual wavelengths ...and study which has an effect on what. ... tune your radio to one channel only to be able to hear what they say Just an example : total irradiance is 100% Just an example : that total irradiance is composed of lets say: 33% UVA , 33% UVB , 33% UVC Next time you measure : total irradiance is again 100% but now the composition is: 20% UVA , 50% UVB , 30% UVC As you can see ... if you only look at total irradiance you miss the details ...and you wont even know that changes have taken place. So using: "Total Irradiance" does not tell you much ... so you have to look at specific wavelengths. So that is what i've been doing ...and i notice form the pics & vids per individual wavelenght that the difference between a quiet background ... and high-level radiation areas (both in current measurements & 11 yr cycle) vary much more then your mentioned 0.09 % variation ..its 100's to 10000's times more ! So "total iradiance" ... throw that in the wastebin ... its useless for meaningful indications. Questions: 1) What wavelengths are included in "total radiance" ? (earth surface) 2) Is there a standardized (measurent) method for total irradiance ? (earth surface) i bet they dont even include anything below 280 nm ! (earth surface) "Total radiance" ... is a useless indicator ... because it does not include all wavelengths. "Total radiance" ... is a useless indicator ... because it does not show variations of individual wavelengths.
  11. @Vancanneyt Sander Let me try it again , See below nasa-pic: Do you see a radiation-intensity difference of only 0,09 % between: solar-min (1996) ... and ... solar-max (2001) ? I dont ... IT'S MANY TIMES MORE ! there's at least 100 times more bright area ! (@2001) ... that is a whole lot of %%% difference ! and those brighter areas represent levels of radiation ... so either: ... your graph is wrong ...or... the picture below is wrong ... or ... i dont understand what you are trying to tell me Picture-source: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-cycles/en/
  12. @VoltarDark Thank you ...that confirms exactly what i'm saying for many months now ! Less Solar-activity > Less UV > More Virus and the other way around: More Solar-activity > More UV > Less Virus based on what i found now it would be better to say Less Solar-radiation > Less UV > More Virus and the other way around More Solar-radiation > More UV > Less Virus Yes you can still use the rough solar-cycle (based on sunspots) to estimate longterm radiation-levels cause the longterm variations will follow the the solar-cycle. In case of Covid19 you should look at specific the levels that affect it most certainly that would be Covid19 resonance wavelength which i estimate to be around 120nm we can assume they roughly follow the levels @ 171nm and 160 nm which are shown by sdo-nasa. Better would be if they would add/change it to also include 120 nm ... not shure if they can change that remotely i suppose they use fixed (not variable wavelength) filters on board the spacecrafts Sad that it takes so long before the "real" scientists" pick this up if you use your brains you would have understood this a long time. The problem is also that most solar-research was not for the purpose of virus-research but for radiomateurs, radio-communications, electricity-grids, satellite, gps protection ...etc so all observation equipment was obviously build for that purpose only. Anyway ... the mentioned report fails to describe where and how they got their UV-levels vs Time they also still dont mention UVC (100-280 nm) ...sinply becuase some-one 10's of years ago said that no UVC reaches the earth ...and they all copy that without having researched it themselves. Who measures UVC that reaches the earth right now ? ... exactly ... NOBODY ! And where are the measurements that show covid19's most sensitive wavelength ? its probably near 120 nm (covid19''s size) ... unfortunately nobody cares to test this Once you know that wavelength ...you simply measure the levels of that wavelength that reaches the earth and voila you have a direct indication of virus-outbreak/kill (or at least the part that the sun is responsible for) Realy i have very little respect for the scientists that dont even grasp the basics of this ... to me they suck. @Vancanneyt Sander Thanks for your reply ! That is why i came to the conclusion now ... that sunspots are not of interest for short-term/realtime observation of radiance levels ... they might be usefull for longterm solar-cycle observations though. What is important is the levels of radiation that reach the earth ... obviously the nr of sunspots is not the best indicator for that. Question: For the purpose of knowing/seeing current levels of radiation from the sun: In those sdo-nasa videos & pics ... the brighter areas/spots represent levels of radiation the brighter .. or the bigger the bright areas ... the more radiation ...correct ? I'd really like your confirmation about that YES/NO ?
  13. Ok ... i got it now 😉 > For the purpose of realtime pandemic vs solar-activity research < .. ...the sunspot-counters are useless ! they are: * not sensitve enough , * not detailed enough , * to slow , * to much averaged ... or simply * bad. i'm seeing solar-activity for 3 days going up now ... on all wavelengths on all sdo nasa-videos & pics. My opinion: If you want to see the real solaractivity that influences life on earth you should look at the radiation-levels (and their spots) and not at the sunspot counters ! Radiation levels you can see here : https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dashboard/?d=HMIB;1600;1700;0193;0171;HMIBC the brighter the more radiation ... as you can see all wavelengths show the same locations. Dont tell me that is not solar-activity ! ... or ? Once again: For the purpose relating the sun to pandemics ... the radiation is what will influence earth so why not look at those directly ... skip the sunspots !!!!!! PS) We need a (better) real solar-activity counter ... one that measures and displays the intensity of (all/some) radiation-wavelengths (realtime) On a website displayed as a Counter or a graphic: Wavelengths vs Time 24h/Week/Month/Year ... etc. That is the most usefull right now.
  14. . To add to the cunfusion ... below article on space.com talks about "SUNSPOTS" ... and they use the same kind of picture in HMBI format (magnetic activity) as i did above https://www.space.com/sun-weather-overlapping-solar-cycle-active-regions.html So according to space.com ... you can see sunspots by looking at magnetic activity (spots/areas/intensities) its just another representation of them ... or at least it represents a part of it Question: if even space.com shows a (HDMI format) pic and calls it a sunspot (or a representation of it) then why is it that: i look at realtime pics of the last 2 days which clearly also show large (HBMI) sunspots that all counters on the web (including on this website here) say: NR of Sunspots = 0 ..... ??? . .
  15. @Vancanneyt Sander Suggesties .. ja En de belangrijkste is dat de moderators ..of diegene die er wat meer verstand van hebben nix zeggen ..zich afzijdig houden ...zelfs niet eens reageren als je je tot hen richt In elk ander forum doet de moderator moeite om het forum de moeite waard te houden hier blijkbaar niet ik heb het over de covid19 thread
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.