Re: Plans for a Cheap Collimated UV Light Source

From: bsinger ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 11/01/05-01:52:07 PM Z
Message-id: <4367C767.7070208@sasktel.net>

Michael Koch-Schulte wrote:

>This plan appears to offer possible improvements over the eepjon plans for
>building a UV light source for alt printing, it purports to be more
>collimated. Probably has longer burn times as the distance from bulb to copy
>is greater but the offer or greater sharpness may be attractive to those who
>require it.
>
>~m
>
>http://www.thinktink.com/stack/volumes/voliii/equipment/uvlamp/uvlamp.htm
>
>
>
>
I am in the process of building a light source to print gums. The idea
that the light should be collimated seems to make sense, yet as far as I
can remember, has never been a big deal in any discussion I have read
about light sources.

Collimated light may be required when you are using UV to burn micro
processors etc. but is it required for printing gums. After all, the
simple way these plans develop collimated light is quite eloquent but
results in a loss of brightness, which I would like to avoid.

It seems to me that the answer may already exist to this question. That
is.a comparison of image resolution between sunlight and artificial UV
light sources might be the answer. Because of the great distances
involved, sun light could be considered collimated. Has any one ever
studied whether there is a difference between sunlight and the various
artificial UV light sources in terms of resolution or "sharpness" in gum
printing.
Received on Tue Nov 1 13:55:34 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/01/05-02:04:49 PM Z CST