top of page

Support Group

Public·8 members
Levi Price
Levi Price

You Have Requested : Les.Magnetiques.2021.MP4.L...


The relatively small magnitude of the Starfish Prime EMP in Hawaii (about 5.6 kilovolts/metre) and the relatively small amount of damage (for example, only 1% to 3% of streetlights extinguished)[12] led some scientists to believe, in the early days of EMP research, that the problem might not be significant. Later calculations[11] showed that if the Starfish Prime warhead had been detonated over the northern continental United States, the magnitude of the EMP would have been much larger (22 to 30 kV/m) because of the greater strength of the Earth's magnetic field over the United States, as well as its different orientation at high latitudes. These calculations, combined with the accelerating reliance on EMP-sensitive microelectronics, heightened awareness that EMP could be a significant problem.[13]




You have requested : Les.Magnetiques.2021.MP4.L...



Published reports, including a 1998 IEEE article,[17] have stated that there were significant problems with ceramic insulators on overhead electrical power lines during the tests. A 2010 technical report written for Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated that "Power line insulators were damaged, resulting in a short circuit on the line and some lines detaching from the poles and falling to the ground."[19]


Longmire gives numerical values for a typical case of E1 pulse produced by a second-generation nuclear weapon such as those of Operation Fishbowl. The typical gamma rays given off by the weapon have an energy of about 2 MeV (mega electron-volts). The gamma rays transfer about half of their energy to the ejected free electrons, giving an energy of about 1 MeV.[23]


Secondary collisions cause subsequent electrons to lose energy before they reach ground level. The electrons generated by these subsequent collisions have so little energy that they do not contribute significantly to the E1 pulse.[23]


The altitude indicated above is greater than that of the International Space Station and many low Earth orbit satellites. Large weapons could have a dramatic impact on satellite operations and communications such as occurred during Operation Fishbowl. The damaging effects on orbiting satellites are usually due to factors other than EMP. In the Starfish Prime nuclear test, most damage was to the satellites' solar panels while passing through radiation belts created by the explosion.[32]


Also known as an "Enhanced-EMP", a super-electromagnetic pulse is a relatively new type of warfare in which a nuclear weapon is designed to create a far greater electromagnetic pulse in comparison to standard nuclear weapons of mass destruction.[37] These weapons capitalize on the E1 pulse component of a detonation involving gamma rays, creating an EMP yield of potentially up to 200,000 volts per meter.[38] For decades, numerous countries have experimented with the creation of such weapons, most notably China and Russia.


Plans of a device that is capable of placing a nuclear weapon into space were first introduced by the Soviet Union in 1962 when they developed a system, known as Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, to deliver nuclear weapons from above the Earth's atmosphere.[40] Compared to super-EMPs that target ground operations, proposals have been made by Russia to develop satellites supplied with similar EMP capabilities. This would call for detonations up to 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth's surface, with the potential to disrupt the electronic systems of U.S. satellites suspended in orbit around the planet, many of which are vital for deterrence and alerting the country of possible incoming missiles.[38]


If the aircraft carrying the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs had been within the intense nuclear radiation zone when the bombs exploded over those cities, then they would have suffered effects from the charge separation (radial) EMP. But this only occurs within the severe blast radius for detonations below about 33,000 feet (10 km) altitude.[citation needed]


EMPs of sufficient magnitude and length have the potential to affect the human body. Possible side effects include cellular mutations, nervous system damages, internal burns, brain damage, and temporary problems with thinking and memory.[44] However, this would be in extreme cases like being near the center of the blast and being exposed to a large amount of radiation and EMP waves.


The popular media often depict EMP effects incorrectly, causing misunderstandings among the public and even professionals, and official efforts have been made in the United States to set the record straight.[41] The United States Space Command commissioned science educator Bill Nye to narrate and produce a video called "Hollywood vs. EMP" so that inaccurate Hollywood fiction would not confuse those who must deal with real EMP events.[70] The video is not available to the general public.


Yes it works, but you have to work it.Complaints-Most of my complaints have to do with the physical handling of the film. The design encourages jitter. It tends to get stuck on splices and worn sprocket holes, so you have to babysit.-The user manual is minimal. For example, it describes how to adjust Sharpness, but how does that affect grain, bitrate and compression? The support website doesn't add much either.Tips-Scan in reverse to work around worn sprocket holes.-Scan into a tall box/bucket rather than the take-up reel, as the take-up reel tension contributes to jitter.-Scan from a box (rather than a reel) for larger/heavier reels which have more drag and contribute to jitter.-Wind film by hand to save time.


I am converting over 200+ old 8mm movies that my father took from 1960-1975. I was worried about this product because of some of the reviews on Amazon, but am over 100+ movies into digitizing, and have had virtually no problems. once or twice the film skipped the sprockets, but in nearly endless footage to date, that is a very acceptable rate. (and to be honest, some of it was probably user error on my part (failing to dust the sprocket every few reels, and assuring film is under the 2 white tabs). The output to digital is as good as the original, and for 50+ year old film, is absolutely amazing. Don't send your film out to a vendor if you have a lot to do, just buy one of these, you'll be pleasantly surprised. They do take a long time to digitize, so just be forewarned.


I have completed about 75 8mm and Super 8 film conversions to digital with this film scanner and without any scanner problems. The only little issue was the light would pick up a lot of dust and dirt from the film so it needs to be cleaned frequently. Other than that, every film to digital conversion turned out better than expected.especially since most of the processed film was 60+ years old and stored in less than ideal conditions. I would highly recommend this unit to anyone wanting to convert old 8mm and Super 8 film to digital.


We purchase the wolverine before this one. It was harder to get the film loaded, but mostly we returned it because we could not get it to reliably record a whole reel before it would repeatedly jam up.The Magnasonic by comparison is easier to load, but more importantly it can make it thru multiple 7" reels w/o jamming up. We did have to fiddle with the way that the film feeds thru the device before we got it working reliably. And the clutch on the take up reel is VERY sensitive. It does not take much before it stops taking the slack.... you better be there if that happens as the film will become a pile on the floor. It seems from all of the reviews, all of these technologies are quite touchy.Still in our case there was no comparison The Mangnasonic worked, and the Wolverine did not.


The image quality is great, and it is easy to use. But if you have lots of movies to transfer be prepared to set aside a weekend or two. A 5 min reel of the film takes about 40 min to transfer because it takes a picture of each frame. It can add up if you have 20 or more reels. With the longer reels, you can set it and forget it, but I recommend checking it repeatedly because the older films tend to break. Especially if you have homemade splicing in the reel. But it is great fun to relive your old memories and worth the time if it means watching and preserving these gems.


My configuration: 8mm film and 8gb micro SD card in an SD adaptor.Positives:- I bought a used model and had none of the reliability issues other people cited. Some of the problems may be caused by forgetting to thread the film under the metal notches in the scanning area. That being said, I haven't archived any Super8 yet. I haven't had the machine prematurely stop recording either.- The scanning area of the machine makes it possible to see the entire frame, including the area between the sprockets. This means a full 16:9 image on 8 mm film (with holes on the left corners as expected).- The scanner has a very white light. The end result is a picture with more realistic colours.- There's a frame adjustment menu that allows you to pan and zoom.- I haven't had any issues with the frame scanning area drifting.Negatives:- Take up reel is a little warped, or the axis that spins it is slightly crooked, so the reel will contact the body of the machine at every revolution. It creates a little resistance and noise, but doesn't stop the reel entirely.- I'm under the impression the scanner only has a digital zoom. I expect grain from 8mm film, but I think there's a little digital noise added in the mix.- My biggest problem is that the machine doesn't let you choose any export settings. The end result is a 1080p 20fps video file. No option for screenshots, alternate formats, or alternate speeds. 8mm was originally recorded at 16fps, so 20fps results in slightly unnaturally fast movement. I edit my videos down to 16fps after the fact to compensate.Overall: It's a good machine that could be brought to 5 stars with just a few minor tweaks.


I've had this a few months now. There are a few things that you should be aware of, but read to the end for the full assessment.1) It's great that there's an adjustment setting to perfectly centre the film image in the capture area. But, the adjustment process starts with the film advancing a few frames. After adjustment, you can't rewind the film at all before recording begins because that would move the film and throw off the centring. So, every time you adjust the centring, you lose a few frames of film from the capture. This happens at the start of every new reel, and you may also have to stop and adjust the centring a couple more times during the capturing of a given roll of film. A few frames isn't a big deal, so this is tolerable.2) When capturing larger reels, or when the film is stiff and/or warped, sometimes the motor drawing the film through the machine isn't strong enough and the film gets repeatedly stuck. This has only happened to me twice, and I've sorta gotten around it by spraying some WD40 into the source reel spindle and not snapping down the film insert door completely (using a piece of duct tape to hold it down more loosely). This one's a bit more annoying, but it's still not a deal-breaker.3) Not mentioned in the manual (I needed to contact the company about this) is the fact that the machine is not compatible with all SD cards. I think the issue was the size. It won't accept SD cards bigger than 32 GB. See photo of the one that ended up working for me.4) The video resolution is 1440x1080 (HD height, but smaller width because of the film's aspect ratio). It saves the video files at 20 frames per second, which is strange because apparently most super 8 film cameras shot at 18 frames per second. This could mean your video might look like the action is happening very slightly quicker than it would in real life, unless you are able to adjust the playback speed on your computer afterwards.Despite these issues, the quality of the transfers is generally fantastic. Since it's a frame-by-frame film scan, the quality is far better than anything you could achieve with a projector and camera setup (even if you had one of those tubes to shoot the image directly from the projector). That's mainly because you don't have to worry about the video camera continuing to record when a projector shutter is closed and dark. With this machine, the camera is only recording when the film image is entirely visible.I don't think there's any other options on the market that will achieve this level of quality at this price. While it's not perfect, I still recommend it. 041b061a72


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page