search results matching tag: fluorescence

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (52)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (2)     Comments (72)   

Why Is (Almost) All Bioluminescence in the Ocean?

newtboy says...

My guess is terrestrial animals use fluorescence more often than bioluminescence as a simpler, less energy intensive, easier to evolve way to glow. Deep sea animals aren’t exposed to very much uv light to make them fluoresce (many shallow water sea creatures do fluoresce, like most coral) so need to produce their own light. Not so with most terrestrial animals.
That could partially explain the difference in frequency.

This is why we can't have nice things

noseeem says...

Have had LEDs quit within that time frame also. Most vexing is having to replace one LED w/another while the fluorescents in the neighboring sockets are still burning. Quite honestly, in another house, the fluorescents (save a couple) have been running since they were put in >5+ yrs ago.

Also, remember the hub-bub of folks demanding incandescent over those new swirly ice-cream blubs (ire and desire trumps pragmatism). Hearing this, and 'those' people, knew the new bulb types were definitely going to be better.

Having high ceilings, lousy knees and a fear of heights - changing blubs every few years is a luxury.

Glitterbomb 3.0 vs. Porch Pirates (Mark Rober)

newtboy says...

Needs more skunk juice. Pure skunk juice mixed with permanent fluorescent paint/ink and pure capsaicin.

In fact, I fully support the countdown ending in injury. I have zero empathy for thieves, they deserve a scarlet T on their foreheads for life....especially the parents teaching their kids to steal.

Magnet Collision in Slow Motion

2 Drops Of Spilled Mercury Destroyed This Scientist's Brain

notarobot says...

Two drops. That was 1.44g of mercury exposure. That's as much as ~300 fluorescent light bulbs. A "safe" level of mercury is considered to be 1 ppm.

This is real life horror show stuff. Mercury is a deadly Neurotoxin.

*Brain. *Promote. *Related=https://videosift.com/video/How-Mercury-Causes-Neurodegeneration-Brain-Damage

I Can't Show You How Pink This Pink Is

Buttle says...

Pink is a combination of red and white light.
There are almost surely numerous combinations of various spectral colors that will look exactly like ultra-pink to our limited eyes. Fitting into the various color gamuts involved in color reproduction and perception is not very simple at all.

Whiter than white washing powders work by using fluourescence -- they transmute some of the ultraviolet light striking them into visible light. The reason this works is explainable by a color gamut, the gamut of the human eye. If we could see in the ultraviolet range that is being absorbed then the trick wouldn't be nearly as effective. There are animals, for example bees, that do see colors bluer than we can, and in fact some flowers have patterns that are visible only to them.

It is possible that fluorescence is partly responsible for ultra-pinkness. If it is, that would have been more interesting than what was presented.

I suspect, but do not know, that the CMYK or RGB color representation schemes are up to the task of encoding the colors you describe. The problem is that there is no practical process that can sense them in an image, nor any practical process that can mechanically reproduce them.

vil said:

It does not have to be about fitting into gamut, pink is a combination of blue and red light, which monitors are good at.

The problem with real world materials is that perception is not as simple as that. The combination of reflected, refracted, and even radiated (transformed wavelength) and polarized light, the micro-structure of the surface and possibly other properties can influence perception.

Like your favourite washing powder makes your whites whiter, this stuff makes pinks look pinker somehow. Its about fooling your eyes in specific conditions. You can simulate the difference between a known pink - a standard colour sample - and this awesome new pink by putting them side by side and calibrating the camera and monitor to show the new pink as pink and the reference pink as less pink, like at the end of the video, but that cant beat walking into an art gallery and seeing it with your own eyes. I mean probably, I havent seen this particular pink, but I have seen modern paintings which look nothing like their RGB or CMYK reproductions.

Ultraviolet Diving with Underwater Kinetics UV Lights

thegrimsleeper (Member Profile)

"Glowing" Sea Turtle Discovered

newtboy says...

Hey now...it clearly said BIO-FLOURESCENT, not bioluminescent....so not fake. Biofluorescence is a relatively unstudied feature of some sea life where their coloring fluoresces under certain wavelengths. It's being found all over the animal kingdom, but apparently this is the first reptile found to show it.
Yes, they are shining some light (likely black light) to cause the fluorescence.
It's unknown how this feature might help marine animals. In land plants, it's often used to attract certain insects with colors/patterns they recognize....perhaps the markings on turtles allow other turtles to recognize differing sub species for 'racial purity'?

lucky760 said:

Are they shining a black light on those things to make them glow?

*fake!

Real Time - Dr. Michael Mann on Climate Change

RFlagg says...

Because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the rest... "CO2 is good for the Earth, it helps plants" (ignoring that most plants are absorbing about as much CO2 as they can already, and ignoring the bigger problem that very little of the Earth is green, and no walls or ceilings to keep the CO2 where plants are), "compact fluorescent bulbs are stupid, they have mercury in them!" (ignoring that the mercury in them and the mercury put into the air by the power plant is less than the mercury put into the air by the power plant to power regular bulbs). And the news media paints it as a debate, having one climate change scientist debate one climate change denier (though the media still refuses to call them deniers and paints them as skeptics) and this isn't just the right wing media, almost all the media in the US presents it as a debate. They don't present the fact that a 97% consensus exists.

Then there is religion. They talk how insane it is to assume that humans, made of God could destroy God's work. That we can't damage the Earth as God made it... of course they take the idea of destruction literal, and not in the way people actually mean when they say it's destroying the Earth. They also don't care about the repercussions of future generations as "Jesus is coming soon, well before any of this will matter"... more or less an actual quote. They believe also that God has granted mankind all authority over the Earth and not that it was stewardship over the Earth, so we can and should do whatever we want.

There's also ignorance. The media, especially the right wing media, portray the idea of climate change as presented is being presented as being only 100% caused by humans, they claim that the pro climate change scientists won't acknowledge any part of it might be natural. The media is playing it as an all or nothing scenario, either humans caused it all, or caused none of it. This isn't what any scientists are saying. They are just pointing out the natural uptick vs the uptick we are seeing is explained by human burning of fossil fuels, and that's what the 97% consensus is about, the uptick we are observing vs what would be expected naturally. But not understanding, and thinking science is ignoring all possible natural causes, they deny the whole thing.

Heck, just look at the media uproar over the supposed mini ice age that is coming in 2030 or so. Of course the actual paper never mentions an ice age or climate at all, and neither did the presentation. The problem was the press release for presentation mentioned the Maunder Minimum and linked to the Wikipedia article about it, and from there the media assumed that would mean a new mini ice age, even though the mini ice age during that time was started before the Maunder Minimum. Nobody in the climate change community is really calling for a mini ice age (just like it was never widely thought in the 70s that we were heading for global cooling, it was understood even then it was warming, the cooling thing came from an article in Time if I recall correctly, not exactly a peer reviewed science journal) come the 2030's, at best we may get a very small slow down of the warming, but CO2 levels are 40% higher than during the Maunder Minimum. Anyhow the media tends to mislead the public with things that wasn't actually said. The right wing media machines especially know that their audience won't vet their sources or information and will trust them and talk about conspiracies to hide the truth. Heck most of the media never even cleared the air over climategate emails, so most of the deniers still cite the climategate emails as a valid thing, even though in context and with scientific understanding none of the climategate claims are valid, and in fact still point to global warming... (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication)

There's also the change from "global warming" to "climate change" which they don't understand to be an escalation of the term, and think instead it's toning it down.

JustSaying said:

Maybe it's just me, americans seem incapable of understanding that global warming is not up for debate but a reality that affects mankind right now. Why?

Don't Stay In School

RFlagg says...

I was thinking the same thing. We had a good deal of choice of what classes to take. I didn't take Lit, but I did do the basic English classes, where we read some Shakespeare and the like, but not to the degree the Lit students did. I didn't do any complex math classes either, I did Algebra. But then I also did Applied Business, or whatever it was called. I did Civics with the base History classes. I did Home Economics in 9th grade, not a required class, but an elective. Woodshop was another example of an elective class. Have they removed electives from schools? If not then it's this dude's own fault for not choosing the proper electives. If they are gone and all that is taught is the core, then there may be too much core.

I got to disagree with the video's premise that Math, History and the cores aren't needed. Do you need Calculus, no but you should graduate with a strong understanding of basic Algebra. History is important to, though I'm not sure the methods used are effective, route memorization of facts and dates for tests, rather than a general understanding of history and how to avoid the same mistakes. Teaching for tests period is a problem... Lit isn't important and should remain an elective, but having read some of the "classics" is important too, even if it is just a quick Cliff Notes sort of version of it (do they still have Cliff Notes?) Actually a Cliff Notes rundown of lots of the "classics" would probably be better than what most English classes do, while encouraging students to read more modern what they want fare for reports and the like. I didn't take Biology, but basic Science understanding is important, problem is it's politicized and rather than stick with the facts, too many people want to introduce at the very least doubt about the facts if not introduce ideological ideas that contradict the facts and are based on a misunderstanding of what the facts actually say... due to a messed up literal reading (well when it's convenient to take literal, other times things are dismissed as "literary" or "poetic" be it about the Earth not moving or bats being birds and on and on) of one particular bronze age book.

Also you can't teach people who to vote for... you gain understanding of the issues in History and Civics... so...

How to move away from testing is a tricky thing. You need to prove you have an understanding of how to form an Algebraic formula and to solve one. You need to prove you understand the issue(s) of the Civil War and the basic era (I'm not convinced you need to remember exact dates, know it was the 1860s), same with the other wars. What was one's nation's involvement in the World Wars and what caused those wars in the first place, and again basic era, if you don't know the exact year of the bombing of Pearl Harbor or D-Day or the dropping of the atomic bombs, okay, but a basic close approximation of the years. For English you need to prove you can write and read, and a basic understanding of literature, not details of classic books, but narrative structure etc. There should perhaps be more time spent on critical thinking and how to vet sources. You need to have a basic enough understanding of science not to dismiss things as "just a theory" which proves you don't know what theory means in science, and don't ask ridiculous questions like "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" instead you should be able to answer that. You should be able to answer properly if somebody notes that CO2 is good for plants or that compact fluorescent have mercury in them so they aren't better for the environment than older bulbs.

How does one prove these things without tests? That's the question. And it needs to be Federally standardized to a degree to ensure that you don't have lose districts teaching that the Civil War wasn't about slavery nearly at all, rather than the fact it was the primary reason, or that Evolution is "just a theory", or deny the slaughter of the Native Americans or interment of Japanese Americans. You need to insure that all students are getting the same basics, and insure they have a good range of choices for electives. It's the basics though that basically need tested for, and I personally can't figure out a way to prove a student knows say what caused the Civil War or that they know what Evolution actually is, or how to form an Algebraic formula to solve a real life problem without a test.

spawnflagger said:

Most of the stuff he mentioned (human rights, taxes, writing a check, how stock market works, etc) were taught in my high school civics class. My high school (and middle school) had other practical classes too - wood shop, metal shop, home-ec, etc.

Of course all this was pre no-child-left-behind, so who knows how shite it is now compared to then...

The Cicret Bracelet-Concept/Scam/Want

AeroMechanical says...

What they're showing certainly is ridiculous, but I'd be pretty happy with a monochrome green projection. That said, in all likelihood some sort of flexible OLED patch or wrist band would probably be practical long before this is. Probably even some sort of fluorescing tattoo.

I do like the possibilities of short throw pico projectors combined with machine vision for user interfaces though. You could take Newtboy's dual projector concept and have something the size of a couple marker pens that unrolls like a scroll, with the screen in the middle.

When it comes down to it, though, what I really want right now is something about the size of a smartphone, with minimized thickness an e-ink display and a limited feature set (phone, text, e-mail, and basic web surfing), the whole design optimized for battery life and performing just those four functions adequately. An easily replaceable battery would be nice too.

HugeJerk said:

You would need to be in a very dark environment for it to look anything like what they show. You can't project anything darker than the screen surface.

Weird Al Gets 'Tacky' With Pharrell's 'Happy'

eric3579 says...

It might seem crazy, wearing stripes and plaid
I instagram every meal I've had
All my used liquor bottles are on display
We can go to see a show but I'll make you pay

(Because I'm Tacky)
Wear my belt with suspenders and sandals with my socks
(Because I'm Tacky)
Got some new glitter ugs and lovely pink sequined crocs
(Because I'm Tacky)
Never let you forget some favor I did for you
(Because I'm Tacky)
If you're okay with that, then, you might just be tacky, too

I meet some chick, ask her this and that
Like are you pregnant girl, or just really fat? (What?)
Well, now I’m dropping names almost constantly
That's what Kanye West keeps telling me, here's why

(Because I'm Tacky)
Wear my Ed Hardy shirt with fluorescent orange pants
(Because I'm Tacky)
Got my new resume it's printed in Comic Sans
(Because I'm Tacky)
Think it’s fun threatening waiters with a bad Yelp review
(Because I'm Tacky)
If you think that's just fine, then, you're probably tacky, too

Bring me shame, can't nothing
Bring me shame, can never know why
Bring me shame, can't nothing
Bring me shame, I said
Bring me shame, can't nothing
Bring me shame, it's pointless to try
Bring me shame, can't nothing
Bring me shame, I said

(Because I'm Tacky)
43 Bumper Stickers and a "YOLO" license plate
(Because I'm Tacky)
Bring along my coupon book whenever I'm on a date
(Because I'm Tacky)
Practice my twerking moves in line at the DMV
(Because I'm Tacky)
Took the whole bowl of restaurant mints. Hey, it said they're free
(Because I'm Tacky)
I get drunk at the bank
And take off my shirt, at least
(Because I'm Tacky)
I would live-tweet a funeral, take selfies with the deceased
(Because I'm Tacky)
If I’m bitten by a zombie, I’m probably not telling you
(Because I'm Tacky)
If you don't think that's bad, guess what, then you're tacky, too

Kaylee and her Hula Hoop

Kaylee and her Hula Hoop



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon