19th century Nature account of 1841 train delayed by geomagnetic storm got year wrong—due to a typo.
57 comments
> It's very odd they would assume a typo in the writing but not an error in their calculations or possibly no correlation whatsoever.
They didn't assume a typo, they concluded that a typo makes the most sense if the story is true.
The facts:
- The original story (as published) claims the event occurred on 18 October 1841 on a line that didn't exist at that time (not until 1846).
- The original story was specific about the train (a 10:05 express train) and the month and day (18 October)
- On 18 October 1848 there was an express train with that time and there was a recorded geomagnetic storm
Under the assumption the story is true, given the details that do line up and the one detail that can't line up with anything, a typographical error where one number was changed makes a lot of sense.
EDIT: @khat, if you read this, it seems you've somehow become shadowbanned. Both your comment here and your earlier comment from today are [dead]. This means admin moderation or auto-moderation was involved, these weren't [flagged][dead] which would have indicated users flagged it to death. Nothing in either looks like a reason to get shadowbanned so you may want to reach out to the mods (there's a contact link at the bottom of most pages).
Really is sad what's happened to online forums. On the other hand, now that I can't engage with reddit, I see how really awful most of its content is. I miss talking on my city sub however.
I use VPN and my email was a passmail alias, which probably didn't help.
I created a new account with passmail alias on VPN, and my CQS was immediately "LOWEST", which means I'll barely be able to be seen anywhere on the site. I created another account from a coffee shop with a fresh gmail account and was rated "MODERATE". Ick.
> On the evening of our arrival at Muka I observed what appeared like a display of Aurora Borealis, though I could hardly believe that this was possible at a point a little south of the equator.
There are such people everywhere, not just in India.
Is this really true? I’m suspicious for a few reasons:
1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
2. While there is a lot more dependence on electrical connections, there’s also many more sources of disturbance now. So I suspect some of the failure modes are tested by “normal” human activity
3. EMI is a known risk, in my previous job we actively tested and built for it. I suppose if the limits are inappropriately set , or if this sort of testing isn’t wide spread, it could still be an issue.
4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
The UK rates severe space weather as one of the most significant, most likely events on the National Risk Register: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a50d66b1228e...
And to segue into your later points, the reason it's unknown if the current standards would be sufficient is because these sort of events, and how they interact with a continent-sized electrical/ transmission systems (the grid), is a pretty complex problem. It's also one that we can't exactly test in a lab or controlled environment beforehand with a super high degree of confidence given the scale that the phenomenon takes place at (the whole planet). EMI testing that occurs for most tech products today isn't super focussed on the currents induced by a solar storm, which are low frequency/quasi-DC/much less predictable (the effects vary geographically and in time-scales/patterns that "typical" EMI/EMC does not).
Some googling lead me to a NOAA doc that says GIC's "quasi-DC ... currents flow through transmission lines and enter/exit the power grid through grounded transformer neutrals" which to me reads that simply having a neutral line isn't sufficient, but I'm not an EE and could be misunderstanding what you're saying and what this doc is speaking to.
The good news is that events like this are relatively rare, confined (generally) to certain parts of the 11-year solar cycle.
Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
https://jsis.washington.edu/news/chinas-high-altitude-electr...
I dunno... things happen that expose these risks and lead times for replacement equipment can push out to 2-3 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_County_substation_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2026/09/02/u-s-bulk-power-equipm...
If only the world worked this way. Until something happens, a lot of potential problems remain potential problems rather than getting remedied. Especially when it'll be expensive to fix.
Here are some of the risks that are currently unfeasible to mitigate:
G5:
> Widespread voltage control problems and protective system problems can occur, some grid systems may experience complete collapse or blackouts. Transformers may experience damage.
S5:
> Satellites may be rendered useless, memory impacts can cause loss of control, may cause serious noise in image data, star-trackers may be unable to locate sources; permanent damage to solar panels possible.
---
One extremely unlucky solar event can set us back for years, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to prepare for it long term. Our best predictive models give us a couple of days notice.
In a sense, we're more prepared for an asteroid collision (not by much) than a solar event.
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/top-solar...
Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- Scientists solve 1840s space weather mysteryarstechnica.comArs Technica · 0 points · 2 days ago
- Donald Duck's uncle was partly based on Wernher von Braunarstechnica.comArs Technica · 0 points · 6 days ago
- Ars Technica · 0 points · 2 days ago
- Ars Technica · 0 points · 1 day ago
- Ars Technica · 0 points · 5 days ago
- Ars Technica · 0 points · 7 days ago