Physical speed of Edgerton's Trinity spool?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheFerruccio
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical Speed
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the claim that 3500 feet of 35mm film was shot at an unprecedented speed of 10,600,000 frames per second to capture the Trinity explosion. Concerns are raised about the feasibility of such a speed, as it would require the film spool to travel at approximately 894,000 mph, which is deemed impossible with conventional methods. Participants express skepticism about the accuracy of the claim and the practicality of using standard film for such high-speed photography. Alternative methods, such as using a non-moving film with a rotating mirror to capture images, are suggested as more plausible solutions for high-speed imaging. The conversation highlights the need for credible sources to validate the original claim.
TheFerruccio
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
I found a website which claimed that 3500 feet of 35mm film was shooting at a maximum speed of 10600000 frames per second, to catch the first millionths of a second after the trinity explosion.

I have an issue with how in the world this was done. I know that the camera exploded and the film had to be contained, but 10600000 frames per second means it traversed ~37mm 10600000 times every second. This means that the film spool must have been traveling at 894,000 mph! This would have run through the 3500 feet of spool in .0027 seconds! Am I doing these calculations wrong, or is the website wrong, or is the "huge spool of pre-tensioned 35 mm film" not quite as I am envisioning it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This might be posting in the wrong board, so I'll try another spot. This isn't really classical physics so much as it's a general question. Feel free to delete this thread.
 
TheFerruccio said:
This might be posting in the wrong board, so I'll try another spot. This isn't really classical physics so much as it's a general question. Feel free to delete this thread.
Do you have a link to that claim? You should be aware that 35mm film was developed as a movie camera film and was only later adapted for use in small canisters for still cameras by the Germans (initially). I have no knowledge of such high-speed movie cameras (in the claim you cited), but I'd love to see some back-up.
 
Well, moving film material with 900,000mph is not possible (with reasonable methods).

One odd thing: With 10 million frames per second, every millionths of a second needs some centimeters of film. Therefore, 3500 feet are a bit long to capture "the first millionths of a second".

However, I am quite sure that they did not use the regular video camera system. For example, you could use a non-moving film, and move an image over it via a rotating mirror or similar systems. This is (relatively) easy to do if you want to film a single line (instead of a 2D image), and with multiple systems you can film several lines at the same time.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top