|
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 VornhusenŽs 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 SeidenfadenŽs 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 isnŽt 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 supernumeraryŽs (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 donŽt 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
|