4 ms·
The conclusion about the UV diffuser isn't quite right. It clearly preferentially attenuates around 365nm for example. Good article and solid conclusion though.
by Y_Y 9y ago
The conclusion about the UV diffuser isn't quite right. It clearly preferentially attenuates around 365nm for example. Good article and solid conclusion though.
- joshvm 9y agoReally the absorption measurement should have been taken using a broadband lamp (an old light bulb would do). Using a CFL, the signal to noise in the attenuation region is pretty poor to begin with. A lot of plastics (e.g. Polycarbonate) attenuate UV - you have to go out of your way to find windows that will pass it. For example: http://www.randombio.com/clear-lucite-spectra.png http://www.randombio.com/clear-lucite-spectra.png
- emeraldd 9y agoBig Clive had a reasonably comprehensive video on UV sources and some of the dangers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpRMud6EFtE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpRMud6EFtE
- SiempreViernes 9y agoYes, and it's not clear it attenuates total transmitted power significantly on other wavelengths. Just putting in a diffuser you expect more light scattering out of the rays going towards (what I presume is a) optical fibre, but most of that power just goes somewhere else, it is not absorbed.