Post a photo, any photo
- Thread starter MonteroRed
- Start date
Help Support Winemaking Talk - Winemaking Forum:
Varis, did my pix show up for you? (I couldn't tell from your screenshot.)
Yes, they look fine on the iPhone app.
bkisel
Junior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 3,681
- Reaction score
- 1,808
On the way home from today's hike and getting spring water... Chatted with this young worker for about 15 minutes before the Pilot Car arrived to escort me through the roadwork area. Back when I lived in NYC I would have spent the 15 minutes raising my blood pressure. [i.e. 
]
]- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,213
- Reaction score
- 4,223
looks more like a beer making secret "it's the water".
bkisel
Junior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 3,681
- Reaction score
- 1,808
So in beer making the water used makes more of a difference than (then?) in wine making?
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 10,807
I thought it kinda looked more like a 'shine making secret.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,213
- Reaction score
- 4,223
Olympia Beer slogan "it's the water".
Only use water in wine for washing up.
Only use water in wine for washing up.
user 36973
owner, winemaker
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Messages
- 706
- Reaction score
- 534
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2016
- Messages
- 333
- Reaction score
- 414
On the way home from today's hike and getting spring water... Chatted with this young worker for about 15 minutes before the Pilot Car arrived to escort me through the roadwork area. Back when I lived in NYC I would have spent the 15 minutes raising my blood pressure. [i.e.
I like the worker's helper. If you have a cat sitting with you it can't be too busy.
I like to think the water does make a difference in winemaking. I have very good well water at my house most of the year. Zero chlorine and moderate on the minerals.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,103
- Reaction score
- 10,807
Rainbows are cool and all, but much like knowing how the magic trick is done, some sense of the wonderment is gone, once you realize it is just a reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. And a double rainbow is just the light getting reflected twice. I certainly wouldn't get nearly as excited as that guy did.
Sorry, if I rained on your parade or mellowed your buzz.
Sorry, if I rained on your parade or mellowed your buzz.
I saw that video years ago, and it all came rushing back to me with the post from @jgmillr1 , just couldn't resist searching it out for a revival, dude's got some serious issues...............but it's hilarious!
Nah. Pretty sure he just stumbled onto some leafy herb being grown in the back county...... 
Nah. Pretty sure he just stumbled onto some leafy herb being grown in the back county......
Or he was living out there, “tending the crop”.......
Okay, I'll bite. I agree that knowing that the rainbow is a result of reflection, refraction, and dispersion changes your perspective. Does it ruin the wonderment?
Well, let's think. What causes refraction? Yeah, yeah, it is the fact that the phase velocity of light is lower in a medium than in vacuum. Well, why is the phase velocity diminished in a medium? Hmm, obviously it is due to the interaction of the electric field with the polarized subatomic particles in matter. But why would that change the phase velocity of the light? Well, we can approximately understand it classically via an acceleration of the electrons (driven by the incident light), and a re-radiation of that light, but with a phase delay. This is a pretty dang good approximation. However, upon careful inspection this picture does not fully account for the effect. Hmm, it turns out that if we consider quantum effects, i.e., the wave-like nature of the electrons, we can account for some of those discrepancies.
But what about dispersion? Oh, that is "just" the fact that different wavelengths of light have a different index of refraction. But why? Oh, again, that is due to the interaction of the electric field with the polarized subatomic particles in matter. Classically, if you "shake" these electrons at different frequencies, the re-radiated light undergoes a slightly different phase shift depending on the frequency. Why is that? Well, classically, it is because of the retardation due to the finite mass of the electron, although classical physics doesn't really account for the origin of electron mass. Again, there are some discrepancies from the classical theory that you need to invoke simple quantum mechanics to explain. However, to explain the mass of the electron, you have to go beyond simple quantum mechanics and look at quantum electrodynamics (QED).
But wait -- your classical theory predicts that the index of refraction will be less than 1.00 at certain frequencies. That cannot be correct: that would imply that the phase velocity of the light is greater than the speed of light in a vacuum, c . Wouldn't that violate Special Relativity (and, for that matter, General Relativity)? Does quantum mechanics save you this time, too? No, the phase velocity in these situation IS indeed greater than c. But the group velocity, that is, the velocity of a "bundle" of light, is NOT greater than c. This situation does not violate relativity. A "superluminal" phase velocity does not carry any information or energy faster than c, which is all that is required to be consistent with relativity.
You mentioned reflection. Why would the light be reflected? After all, water droplets are clear, not like mirrors. Oh, some of that is due to "Fresnel reflectivity," like when you can see your own image when looking through a window, and some is due to total internal reflection. What is Fresnel reflectivity due to? Oh, that is due to two things: because light is a wave AND because of the boundary conditions that Maxwell's Equations impose on the magnetic and electric fields. Maxwell's Equations require that the perpendicular component of the B-field and the parallel component of the E-field are unchanged across an interface. It turns out that, if you look at the relevant vector fields, a propagating electromagnetic wave CANNOT satisfy this condition unless there is a reflected component of the wave. What about total internal reflection? Oh, that is when (at certain angles) a propagating electromagnetic wave CANNOT satisfy this condition AT ALL, except if 100% of the wave is reflected.
But you invoked Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics, and Special Relativity to explain these things! Why are THEY true? Umm, err, go ask your mother!
Sorry if I rained on your parade or harshed your mellow. But I think there is still plenty of room for wonderment, even if you "know" what causes a rainbow.
Last edited:
Since that video was posted back in 2010 yea possibly. Now days its easier to get a medical card for $50 and grow your own at home. The snacks are much closer when you get the munchies.
