Being able to see a lit cigerette from 2 miles away

[GTCGreg]

They wouldn't actually have to have a person draw on the cigarette. They could build a mechanical "puffer". That would even add to the show a little. They could put a small light on the machine that was just visible at 3 miles so the observers know where to look. Then turn off the locator light and see if they can see the cigarette when the machine puffs on it.

I also don't think they should try to increase their night vision sensitivity through vitamins or alternative diets unless the myth is that you can increase eyesight by these means.  Sounds like a separate myth to me.

[Cybermortis]

They could build a mechanical "puffer". That would even add to the show a little.

That seems like a total waste of time, effort and money to me, when they could just get a couple of crew members to do the puffing. There is also the small matter of having to light and load the cigarette in the first place - which would require a crew member.

They could put a small light on the machine that was just visible at 3 miles so the observers know where to look. Then turn off the locator light and see if they can see the cigarette when the machine puffs on it.

You want to make sure that the view-team really is seeing the cigarette, and not just guessing, by having them point at the cigarette's location. This was why I said there should be at least two positions where the cigarette could be at each range.

Shining a light before the cigarette is lit could affect the viewers night vision, for one thing it could leave an after image. It also warns then that something is about to happen. You don't want them to know where or when the light might appear - which is why I said that each of the positions should have screens to block out any light behind them.

Yes, you could make a machine to do the work...but to me it would seem that the best and most accurate way to test this would be with real people and real cigarettes (or at least 'real' up to a point). It would be simple, cheap and quick.

[GTCGreg]

That seems like a total waste of time, effort and money to me, when they could just get a couple of crew members to do the puffing. There is also the small matter of having to light and load the cigarette in the first place - which would require a crew member.

Oh come on. They built a machine to flip buttered toast off a table. Besides, if you showed a member of the crew smoking, there would be a mob of anti-smoking protesters outside Discovery's offices the next day picketing. Remember, we are talking about California here.

[Draco]

Gala, if you glance at the times of our posts one might notice they were close to simul. I was speaking of the physiological effects of being beneficial, not the harm being done. Of course an overdose will effect the liver and kidneys in a short period of time. But for the body to employ the use substances such as this within a week is very unlikely.

[arrw5]

 Look, this myth isn't about smoking cigarettes. It's about being able to see the end of a lit cig from 2 miles away. A myth that started in WW1. Taking a drag off of it is just a test to see if the slightly brighter light could be detected any easier. Nobody has to actually "smoke" the cig. And as far as those protesters go, this would be a science experiment. Was there any flack in the episodes where Adam and Jamie got totally smashed in the alcohol experiments?

[formermarine0341]

One major trouble would be getting the testers (I agree on the M7 crew idea) to stay out on a cloudy, no moon, and no stars night without any light sources to help mess up their night vision. And how will it be filmed? Even the LEDs from the production equipment might skew the results. How to film it, are there night vision lenses for cameras? 

If done correctly with low level lighting, there is little danger in totally screwing up night vision. By using red or green or blue/green lights in low intensity.

This has been done for years in the military. Red lensed lights have been used since before WWII, but in recent years there has been a move towards green light.

This article explains it better. http://www.kriana.com/pages/nightvision.html

From the link:

To retain your night vision, a red light has been the traditional choice since before WWII when
the military settled on red as the best choice. Recently, there has been a move to green and
blue-green light, precipitated in large part by the military's change to green, which itself has been primarily motivated by the increased use of night vision equipment. Which is really better? As it turns out, green light offers some advantages over red as a means to retain night vision capability. However, it isn't cut and dried.

Total brightness, or illumination level, of the light has a potentially more significant effect on night vision retention than does the choice of red or green. Because your eyes are more receptive to green light, we gain better visual acuity at lower light levels than when using red light. Green also allows for differentiation between colors that red does not and the magenta used on aviation charts, for example, is readily readable under green light, not always the case with red.

Both reasons contribute to the fact that pilots and many others generally seem to prefer green
over red, it simply makes it easier to see and read in the dark cockpit. The potential problem is with the actual illumination levels we use, not the color of the light. The brighter the light, the more negative impact on night vision, both in our capacity to see and in how long it takes to gain back optimum night vision. This is true regardless of whether it is red or green.

Ideally, you want to use only as bright a light, red or green, as is necessary to perform your chores and no more. However, if you have a brighter light than you actually need, a brighter green light will generally have a more negative effect than an equally bright red light. Green or
blue-green has a greater capacity to adversely affect night vision because the eyes are about 100 times more sensitive to these colors, so even moderately too bight light can have a serious deleterious effect.

Another complication is that an individual's visual acuity at low light levels varies quite a bit, so what would be perfect for one, might be too bright or too dim for another. In other words, without some means to vary intensity, odds are no light will be perfect. Bottom line is that red or green will both perform adequately, but what you really should be more concerned about is to avoid very high illumination levels, of either color, if retaining night vision acuity is your goal.

I hope this helps in some way.

[Galaktia]

My apologies Draco, I tend to see red when I read something and it seems to imply someone should put their health at risk even in a minor way. To me it is like breaking someones ribs then telling them it is good for them.
Sumimasen desh*ta.




As too the testers sitting out in a pitch black area without light with the risk of tripping over, or with light and the risk of ruining their night vision. Remember that this test does not require depth perception merely rod/cone sensativity. You could use the eye patch method from the pirate test to ENSURE that one of their eyes maintains night vision. You could have them in the truck sitting in chairs in the pitch black to have their eyes adjust. You could use night vision cameras and goggles for the other crew members.

The low and high tech methodologies are numerous even if we discount the red light effect because cigarettes produce orange light and red-cone activation might limit visability.

[Typical_08]

Might I suggest that they do not do it on a cloud covered night. This can affect ground viability. Instead just conduct the tests either before moon rise or after moon set, or both.

[CptFinBight]

Like the information posted by FormerMarine points out, red lights or blue/green lights won't be degrading to their night vision at all. All of the instruments on my sailboat are set up with red backlights for night use, and I can switch from looking at them,  and back out to sea with little perceptible degradation to my night vision.  The most damaging item on deck to my night vision are my stern and masthead lights (which are white by regulation). If they were to secure all but the most critical of lights on their equipment,  and keep them abaft of the "cig spotters" I think that they'd be able to pull it off easily enough. 

From my times sailing at night, I have observed that I can easily see cigarettes and other light sources of similar brightness at around a mile away (depending on prevailing conditions) without the binoc's, and with them I can spot them from a couple of miles away.  I have also noticed that it is far easier to see a cigarette when the smoker in question draws on the cigarette, than when it is just burning away of its own accord.

[Soriel]

Have you read the Artemis Fowl series? In book number 2, the caracters are in the arctic circle (Russia) and they can count the number of cigaretes light. If I resume  the scenery of that chapter, it looks like that:
1- It's at night;
2- They're in winter;
3- A part of the chapter is fictional ( I mean, there's a fairy kind person with an hight tech helmet, so that part is busted);
4- The guy is a fully trained high class bodygard;
5- The men's hidden in the snow are from the russian mafya (please, use balistic dummies instead of persons);
6- They're like 500;
7- The bodygard is using a sniper visor;
8- The cigarettes are dumped in the snow.

If we look at it, fairies dont exist, you will need a lot of snow, a lot of cigarettes, a sniper visor and a strategic viewpoint to do this myth. Let me help you about the snow. Next winter in Canada would be ideal (geographicaly, Canada is best suited for the myth than the US, cause it's more northen, or the Alaska). And it would be cool to see the diference betwen winter and summer, so this is a two part myth.

[arrw5]

The Normal vision entry is how far the character can see normally, the maximum distance entry is how far away the character can see large objects (like walls, structures, and barriers, but NOT other people), and the Spotting Distance is how far away other people can see the light source from. This is in yards/squares from the light source.

If you look at the values they make no sense, as you should be able to spot a torch from farther away than it can illuminate. If you are within Maximum Spotting Distance you can see the light source, but no details of who's carrying it etc. If you're within Spotting Distance you can make out details of those around the light source.

It's not perfect by any means, but it is slightly more realistic.

[arrw5]

I was standing in my backyard last night and was looking at a tree line that I'm quessing was around a mile away. I could see the tops of the trees because of a town five miles away that illuminated it. From behind. I don't have that great of vision at night because of a cateract in my left eye. I tried to focus on where the bottom of the trees would be and it was totally dark. But when I closed my left eye that was blind I still couldn't make out the bottoms of the trees. And thinking about someone standing there with a lit gig, I don't think anyone with 20/20 could see it. I'm going to have a friend of mine go out there and with radio contact, tell me when he's going to light up. And then I'll get to the bottom of this.