http://ohgizmo.disqus.com/enFri, 17 Nov 2006 17:39:09 -0000http://www.ohgizmo.com/2006/09/26/high-speed-atomic-blast-photography/#comment-1759433<p>Although the pictures are aesthetically appealing, I'd rather not have the atomic bomb be called one of the greatest gadgets.<br>I think I've somewhere seen a book published with similar pictures.</p>someoneFri, 17 Nov 2006 17:39:09 -0000http://www.ohgizmo.com/2006/09/26/high-speed-atomic-blast-photography/#comment-1759430<p><a href="http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tsspike1.jpg" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tsspike1.jpg">http://nuclearweaponarchive...</a><br><a href="http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/atom3.jpg" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/atom3.jpg">http://www.cynical-c.com/ar...</a></p>soopergoomanWed, 27 Sep 2006 02:11:33 -0000http://www.ohgizmo.com/2006/09/26/high-speed-atomic-blast-photography/#comment-1759432<p>According to the second link, the images were taken at 1/10,000'th of a second (100us, AKA 1/10th of a ms), not a nanosecond which AFAIK was not possible back in Edgerton's day. 100us is probably the right number.</p>someoneTue, 26 Sep 2006 22:35:31 -0000http://www.ohgizmo.com/2006/09/26/high-speed-atomic-blast-photography/#comment-1759431<p>just a bit larger<br><a href="http://www.nevadasurveyor.com/atomicbomb/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.nevadasurveyor.com/atomicbomb/">http://www.nevadasurveyor.c...</a></p>joeTue, 26 Sep 2006 17:03:26 -0000