See NASA's announcement at
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/sunearthsystem/main/News080210-cme.html

or a rather more funky view at The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/03/solar_aurora_storm/

Nothing on AuroraWatch yet though.


Tomorrow night's forecast at XCWeather is 0% cloud for me. Yippee!



Must check I've got enough film,


Mike

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 17:13:48 +0100, Mike Causer wrote:

Nothing on AuroraWatch yet though.

Looks as if something has just (around 1700 UTC) hit.

http://www.dcs.lancs.ac.uk/iono/aurorawatch/rt_activity
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_6h.html

Tomorrow night's forecast at XCWeather is 0% cloud for me. Yippee!

Unless it's a pretty strong aurora the sky doesn't get dark enough at
this time of year. Even so the 8/8ths doesn't help. B-(

Must check I've got enough film,

Film? Digits, doesn't cost anything per exposure...

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 17:13:48 +0100, Mike Causer wrote:

Nothing on AuroraWatch yet though.

Looks as if something has just (around 1700 UTC) hit.

http://www.dcs.lancs.ac.uk/iono/aurorawatch/rt_activity
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_6h.html

Tomorrow night's forecast at XCWeather is 0% cloud for me. Yippee!

Unless it's a pretty strong aurora the sky doesn't get dark enough at
this time of year. Even so the 8/8ths doesn't help. B-(

Must check I've got enough film,

Film? Digits, doesn't cost anything per exposure...

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.


Things are hotting up now...

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:57:07 +0100 (BST)
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

Must check I've got enough film,

Film? Digits, doesn't cost anything per exposure...

It's not the cost, it's the quality. My best film camera [1] has more
lenses of higher quality than any digital I can afford. And its
exposure system is /far/ superior. I know it can take excellent
auroral photos set to "auto" because it did it at the last decent
display at my location about 15 years ago. Much better than my ideas
of exposure.

So, as this could be the first decent auroral display since the arrival
of digital cameras, which "program" are you going to use? Or set it to
Auto, or take a flying guess at exposure?


It also coped very well with the most recent Transit of Venus, which I
hope to repeat in just under two years time. (No, it doesn't have a
hole burnt in the shutter curtains...)


[1] Olympus OM4, with mainly Zuiko lenses.


Mike

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:51:25 +0100, Mike Causer wrote:

Film? Digits, doesn't cost anything per exposure...

It's not the cost, it's the quality.

I'll give you that.

My best film camera [1] has more lenses of higher quality than any
digital I can afford.

Can't you get a digital body that would take your old lenes?

So, as this could be the first decent auroral display since the arrival
of digital cameras, ...

eh? I was using a digital camera at the last solar peak what 2001
ish, the following are from a little later.

http://www.howhill.com/weather/view....2003&m=10&d=29
http://www.howhill.com/weather/view....2005&m=01&d=21

I'll use the same camera tonight if it's not cloudly and if there is
anything to see. OK by modern standards it's not brilliant only 3M
pixel but it does a reasonable job. The second set look over
corrected now, they would have been done when I was using a CRT
monitor that was getting a little "tired" maybe I should look at the
orginals again sometime.

... which "program" are you going to use? Or set it to Auto, or take a
flying guess at exposure?

I'll use the settings from the last time recalled it's memory as a
starting point.

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.