Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have another concern about this assumption. Since the speed of light is much faster than the speed of sound, it seems to me that this would penalize an athlete who watched the starter, for the flash of the gun. Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA ----- Original Message ----- From: <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> To: <lug at leica-users.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] False start explained well > Lawrence Zeitlin wrote: > >>>> > >>Aram writes: >> >>Here are a few links: >>http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question702.htm >>http://www.condellpark.com/kd/reactiontime.htm >>So, the anticipation of 0.10 seconds has been wired into starting blocks >>for decades, I believe. > > The second URL explains the concept of false start and reaction time > better > than anything I have ever read. Although specific to track athletes, the > data are applicable to photographers who question the relevance of > exposure > lag. Anticipation is the key to getting great pictures of spur of the > moment > events. You simply can't react fast enough. Luck helps too. > <<< > > The problem I have with the 0.10 second assumption is that it assumes a > cognitive reaction to aural stimulus. Has a reflex arc been ruled out? > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >