RE: Plans for a Cheap Collimated UV Light Source

From: Loris Medici ^lt;>
Date: 11/01/05-03:37:00 PM Z
Message-id: <>

Another option is using a metal-halide / sodium-vapor lamp. I guess their
light output may be considered as semi-collimated. In my country (Turkey)
the cost for a 1000W metal-halide lamp + luminaire is about the same as
building a high output UV fluorescent lamp lightsource (unless you do the
carpentry work yourself - unfortunately I can't).


-----Original Message-----
From: bsinger []
Sent: 01 Kasım 2005 Salı 21:52
Subject: Re: Plans for a Cheap Collimated UV Light Source

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.
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 15:37:26 2005

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