|
meteoptic-l [ät] ursa.fi
message archive
This is meteoptic-l [ät] ursa.fi message archive.
Note, your can reply the messages on this page only if your
are already subscribed the list.
» To the end of the list/message
Hello folks,
Back again, to be more accurate, I think that Mark Vornhusen´s net
page gives the best collection of what I was talking about (of a really
spcial case of "twinned bow" as Les defined):
http://www.meteoros.de/unbe/regen.htm
But on the other hand Eva Seidenfaden´s case (pictures on page:
http://www.paraselene.de/html/irregularer_regenbogen.html
might just be a true supernumerary (I just opened that page for the first
time), but its really hard to say since for example the quality of
repropuction of thosepictures on that page isn´t very good, you cannot
really tell of it.
Marko
Les Cowley wrote:
> > These 'twinned bows' (we need new nomenclature!) each
> > have the range of classical primary bow colours rather than
> > the colours of a supernumerary.
> I agree totally with Les. These twinned bow things seem something
> completely different than ordinary supernumerary´s (and
> talking about the internet pictures mentioned by Les above). The way
they
> branch seperately and the way they look on behalf of colors (same clear
> area of red etc in both bows, similar color pattern) discern them by far
> from supernumeraries.
>
> Funny thing, we don´t have this twinned bow phenomenon as its own
> case in the new literature in atmospheric optics. And in the old stuff
> mainly Minnaert presents a not-sorted-out, chaotic drawing collection
> of all kinds of rainbow "anomalies", just like later Corliss. Both
> probably have a large proportion of poor-level observations, especially
> Corliss who took uncritically almost everything "anomalous" in.
>
> But this photographed stuff is real and its exciting stuff,
particularly
> since its so similar (=a class of its own).
> Regards, Marko
|