Solarcan Solargraphy Camera

[FLO]

We couldn't resist this ?

The Solarcan is a highly affordable camera designed to produce extreme time exposures that capture the Sun’s path across the sky.

Minimum exposure time 1 week! 

Full instructions are printed on the side of the can. 

Just in time for Christmas ?? 

 

[Davey-T]

Does a week of sunny skies come with it ?

Dave

[FLO]

10 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Does a week of sunny skies come with it ?

I am guessing a mix of cloudy and sunny days will produce the best photos ⛅ ? 

[JamesF]

I've seen something like this done, somewhere on the web.  It looked quite fun.  It might even have been done by a member of this very forum.

James

[Panda Alvin]

Can't comment on this specific can as I have my own one. Optimal time is normally around 6 months, between the two solstice to capture the full range of sun trails.

Great item to have for people who are into artistic photography or produce one with minimal effort. 

[johninderby]

Would recommend buying this as well.  ?

[Helite]

First attempt from the back garden, need to raise the angle of the can to catch the top of the arc, 2 more going down on the solstice to try and be patient enough to catch a 6 month exposure, These onew were 3 months over the summer. Nice little project when skies are light and grey!

 

[nephilim]

I'm going to start one of these solar pinhole cameras going at the start of the year, good little project.

[Stu]

Mine has been up since June, so I’ll take it down around the end of the year and see what I’ve got!

[Whirlwind]

The problem I have with these products are that they are designed to be used once and thrown away.  Given we should be moving to more sustainability I have a general opposition to things that are designed to be thrown away after one use.  Hence all the packaging, transport, fuel costs etc are substantial for a one use item.  Now if they were designed to be reused that would be much better.

[Stu]

53 minutes ago, Whirlwind said:

The problem I have with these products are that they are designed to be used once and thrown away.  Given we should be moving to more sustainability I have a general opposition to things that are designed to be thrown away after one use.  Hence all the packaging, transport, fuel costs etc are substantial for a one use item.  Now if they were designed to be reused that would be much better.

I agree in principle, but given the tiny number used vs the vast number of drinks cans disposed of every day I think far more benefit would be gained by focusing in other areas first!

[Whirlwind]

22 hours ago, Stu said:

I agree in principle, but given the tiny number used vs the vast number of drinks cans disposed of every day I think far more benefit would be gained by focusing in other areas first!

In the politest way possible (as I'm not intending to cause offence), this argument is a "straw man fallacy".  It is relating two different issues.  The solarcan product is designed to be disposable.  Drink cans and other food cartons for wet or degradable food *have* be disposable (or recyclable) as reusing them risks food contamination / food poisoning / rapid food degradation etc.  Therefore for a lot of food products there is a need for them to be disposed/recycled to protect society (with the exception of some dry foods which you can use reusable containers for).  As such food packaging is designed to keep the food safe.  The solarcan on the other hand is designed to be disposable - it would be very easy to design it to be reusable (with only new photographic paper being needed).

Secondly the principle of exceptions is why I think that we have a very long way to become sustainable.  This one product might not seem much but then if this small product is given an exception then why not another, and another, and another, and then the large multinational companies want an exception.  Ultimately this line of thinking leads us to no change at all.

 

[Stuart1971]

5 minutes ago, Whirlwind said:

In the politest way possible (as I'm not intending to cause offence), this argument is a "straw man fallacy".  It is relating two different issues.  The solarcan product is designed to be disposable.  Drink cans and other food cartons for wet or degradable food *have* be disposable (or recyclable) as reusing them risks food contamination / food poisoning / rapid food degradation etc.  Therefore for a lot of food products there is a need for them to be disposed/recycled to protect society (with the exception of some dry foods which you can use reusable containers for).  As such food packaging is designed to keep the food safe.  The solarcan on the other hand is designed to be disposable - it would be very easy to design it to be reusable (with only new photographic paper being needed).

Secondly the principle of exceptions is why I think that we have a very long way to become sustainable.  This one product might not seem much but then if this small product is given an exception then why not another, and another, and another, and then the large multinational companies want an exception.  Ultimately this line of thinking leads us to no change at all.

 

I agree that these solar cans could easily be made re useable, but as has been said by @Stu there is only a very small number of these used, compared to drink cans, which are maybe designed to keep the drink safe, but are also designed as a disposable unit, just like the solar can, so focusing on sorting that out, will have far more of an impact than making solar cans re useable...I think you need to put your energy for change elsewhere TBH.... with respect of course.... 👍🏼😀

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, Whirlwind said:

In the politest way possible (as I'm not intending to cause offence), this argument is a "straw man fallacy".  It is relating two different issues.  The solarcan product is designed to be disposable.  Drink cans and other food cartons for wet or degradable food *have* be disposable (or recyclable) as reusing them risks food contamination / food poisoning / rapid food degradation etc.  Therefore for a lot of food products there is a need for them to be disposed/recycled to protect society (with the exception of some dry foods which you can use reusable containers for).  As such food packaging is designed to keep the food safe.  The solarcan on the other hand is designed to be disposable - it would be very easy to design it to be reusable (with only new photographic paper being needed).

Secondly the principle of exceptions is why I think that we have a very long way to become sustainable.  This one product might not seem much but then if this small product is given an exception then why not another, and another, and another, and then the large multinational companies want an exception.  Ultimately this line of thinking leads us to no change at all.

 

With the greatest of respect, this product represents an infinitesimal quantity vs the drinks can industry, and can be recycled in exactly the same way so is simply not a problem in my view. Please don’t pass judgement on my desires or thinking towards improving the environment or sustainability; you know nothing about it.

[Stuart1971]

1 minute ago, Stu said:

With the greatest of respect, this product represents an infinitesimal quantity vs the drinks can industry, and can be recycled in exactly the same way so is simply not a problem in my view. Please don’t pass judgement on my desires or thinking towards improving the environment or sustainability; you know nothing about it.

Great minds....and names... 👍🏼😀

[Helite]

On 19/12/2020 at 10:33, Whirlwind said:

The problem I have with these products are that they are designed to be used once and thrown away.  Given we should be moving to more sustainability I have a general opposition to things that are designed to be thrown away after one use.  Hence all the packaging, transport, fuel costs etc are substantial for a one use item.  Now if they were designed to be reused that would be much better.

The guy that makes them is looking at reusability and has asked buyers for their input. The packaging has already removed all plastics from what I read and he has designed a disk that can be put back over the can once opened and then reused, as said above the item and packaging are all completely recyclable. Worth putting any suggestions to the chap that makes them, I am sure he would love to hear any input.

 

[Whirlwind]

7 hours ago, Stu said:

With the greatest of respect, this product represents an infinitesimal quantity vs the drinks can industry, and can be recycled in exactly the same way so is simply not a problem in my view. Please don’t pass judgement on my desires or thinking towards improving the environment or sustainability; you know nothing about it.

That's not really what I meant and it sounds like I did cause offence, which wasn't intended.  The "straw man fallacy" arises when another tangential topic is used to justify an argument against another.  In this case whether it is acceptable to have some disposable items because other industries do it elsewhere in larger quantities (and perhaps worse).  The problem with this argument is that it pre-disposes that the principle of pollution is acceptable as long as it is in small amounts, but it is the accumulation of small amounts that could be larger overall compared to specific larger industries.  That there are food packaging issues is a real issue but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be reducing environmental impacts elsewhere even if they have relatively minor impacts (as the accumulation of the improvement on all minor items can have a big impact).

 

2 hours ago, Helite said:

The guy that makes them is looking at reusability and has asked buyers for their input. The packaging has already removed all plastics from what I read and he has designed a disk that can be put back over the can once opened and then reused, as said above the item and packaging are all completely recyclable. Worth putting any suggestions to the chap that makes them, I am sure he would love to hear any input.

 

Fair point. Plastics aren't necessarily all bad though.  It's been a bit of a myth in the last year that *all* plastics are bad.  It's more how they are disposed.  The problem is that a lot of plastics are of poor quality (cheap) or mixed types which makes recovery difficult/impossible.  However, high quality easily recoverable plastics can be better environmentally than card, metal, glass etc as these can introduce more environmental costs than we realise (for example we cut down by far more trees in the world than we grow, the weight of such packaging is higher so transport environmental costs increase, extracting new metals and glass and is very energy inefficient; card/paper can rot generating methane etc etc).  Thinking of plastics as a 'pariah' isn't really the way to go but shoudl be thought of as a tool to be used appropriately.

[Stu]

2 hours ago, Whirlwind said:

That's not really what I meant and it sounds like I did cause offence, which wasn't intended.  The "straw man fallacy" arises when another tangential topic is used to justify an argument against another.  In this case whether it is acceptable to have some disposable items because other industries do it elsewhere in larger quantities (and perhaps worse).  The problem with this argument is that it pre-disposes that the principle of pollution is acceptable as long as it is in small amounts, but it is the accumulation of small amounts that could be larger overall compared to specific larger industries.  That there are food packaging issues is a real issue but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be reducing environmental impacts elsewhere even if they have relatively minor impacts (as the accumulation of the improvement on all minor items can have a big impact).

 

Fair point. Plastics aren't necessarily all bad though.  It's been a bit of a myth in the last year that *all* plastics are bad.  It's more how they are disposed.  The problem is that a lot of plastics are of poor quality (cheap) or mixed types which makes recovery difficult/impossible.  However, high quality easily recoverable plastics can be better environmentally than card, metal, glass etc as these can introduce more environmental costs than we realise (for example we cut down by far more trees in the world than we grow, the weight of such packaging is higher so transport environmental costs increase, extracting new metals and glass and is very energy inefficient; card/paper can rot generating methane etc etc).  Thinking of plastics as a 'pariah' isn't really the way to go but shoudl be thought of as a tool to be used appropriately.

You are doing well here sir. I’m well aware what a straw man fallacy is.....

I’m afraid in this instance I just don’t get it. I’m sure only a few hundred Solar Cans are sold each year worldwide, stats I could find show that approximately 16.2 billion drinks cans are used in the U.K. each year. They simply aren’t comparable and given the fact that the Solar Can can be easily recycled I would rather see it stay as aluminium than switching to plastic but that’s just me. It would no longer be marketable in the same way if it changed to a plastic tub so it seems a bit of a pointless change as it wouldn’t gain very much in terms of recyclability.

I guess my point is that there are much bigger battles to fight which would have a much more significant impact on the problems this world faces.

[Whirlwind]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

You are doing well here sir. I’m well aware what a straw man fallacy is.....

I’m afraid in this instance I just don’t get it. I’m sure only a few hundred Solar Cans are sold each year worldwide, stats I could find show that approximately 16.2 billion drinks cans are used in the U.K. each year. They simply aren’t comparable and given the fact that the Solar Can can be easily recycled I would rather see it stay as aluminium than switching to plastic but that’s just me. It would no longer be marketable in the same way if it changed to a plastic tub so it seems a bit of a pointless change as it wouldn’t gain very much in terms of recyclability.

I guess my point is that there are much bigger battles to fight which would have a much more significant impact on the problems this world faces.

 

Yes there are plenty of battles to fight both large and small.  However, the point I am trying to make is that disposable items as a product needs to be a thing of the past.  In the same way we view drink driving - it doesn't matter if you are slightly over the limit or hugely over the limit.  Yes the latter has a much bigger risk but neither are acceptable.  I go back to an earlier point that if we, to an extent, shrug our shoulders and say it is just a few items that doesn't change our mind set as a species (and also those that don't get that exemption will cry foul).  To save the planet we need to view the same activities all in the same way.

Yes, the drink cans disposal a huge issue to deal with.  To some extent  though we can have a bigger impact in the astronomy market as it's not huge and a small number of people are much more likely to have a big difference, as the market would have to adapt if a relatively small number decided it wasn't acceptable - if that is then replicated across many small markets (model building etc) then those trickle effects can be a torrent, just like the largest rivers start from very small rivulets or springs. 

For the drinks industry you need millions to change their habits (or be driven by governments) - that is not to say that change isn't needed.