RE: BL vs BLB tubes for cyanotype

From: Eric Neilsen ^lt;>
Date: 11/16/05-07:52:05 PM Z
Message-id: <000301c5eb19$83e3a090$51a0fea9@NEWDELL>

No I am not confused. The papers that I have state quite clearly Starphire,
PP&G. I also received information about their clear glass and Solarphire
glass. The Solarphire glass while it might sound interesting, is quite
opposite from what we like in alt photo, it is a glass that blocks much of
the UV light. It is true I have not gone back and requested more data from
PP&G, and the information I got from them was well before the internet made
communication so fast. I will go check out the site, but I still offer the
copies of the hard copies in my files from PP&G. Sandy I am not in a
position to do independent UV transmission readings, but If I stated it back
in...1999, it came from the pages provided to me from PP&G back in 1992. Is
it possible that todays' Starphire is not the same as glass made in 1992?
Quite possibly. Back soon...


Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy King []
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: BL vs BLB tubes for cyanotype
> Eric,
> I am puzzled by some statement you have made about Starphire. In your
> messages of today you have suggested that Starphire glass transmits a
> significant percentage of radiation below 350 nm. And you have been
> saying this for a very long time. For example, in a message to the
> alt-photo-list back in December of 1999 you wrote, and I cite the
> message:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Eric Neilsen wrote:
> OK , I found my charts. Starphire transmits 35.5 % of UV light @
> 300nm where Standard transmits .3%; @310nm 53.1% Star and .8%
> Standard; @320nm 67.9% Star and 9.1% Standard,; @330nm 79.2% Star and
> 34.4% Standard; @340 86.1% Star and 61% Standard; @350nm 89.1% and
> 77% . At 360nm and above it stays at about 91% for Starphire and 86%
> for
> Standard.
> Contrast your information with the specifications in this link,,
>, which gives the following
> figures. Unless I am missing something terribly obvious, your figures
> are very different from those at this source, which are:
> Starphire Glass
> Transmisson: (@ 5.6mm thick)
> @330 nm < 5%
> @350 50%
> @380-680 nm 90%+
> I am wondering if somewhere in your research you did not confuse
> Starphire glass with Sapphire glass? In fact, the figures you cited
> in the 1999 message for Starphire are much closer to current
> transmission figures I was able to get today on the web for Sapphire
> glass.
> Sandy
Received on Wed Nov 16 19:52:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/01/05-02:04:50 PM Z CST