Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

UV skin aging sun lotion VIDEO


LeCarl

Recommended Posts

Hi all, i'm new there,

 

I work in a college in Canada in Quebec (French Canada) as a technician in physic laboratory, I work with students, I make demonstrative project for kids in early schools

 

I attempt to build the setup for making video as the video on youtube ''How the sun sees you'' of Thomas Leveritt

 

I have 2-3 question that may interest you especially with your experiences!

 

I found 70% of the setup... the lens IS THE question! :blink:

The camera is a monochrome Canon 60D modified by Maxmax (I had a quote for the camera and talked to the technician there)

He sais he perform the modification for him... and he use a stack of 2 filter XNite330C and XNiteBP1

He said monochrome modified sensor suppose to be 6X more UV light than the normal camera

He also said that the 18-55mm will works (not the best), since the kit lens don't have fancy coating that block UV

 

So, about making a video with UV? I know that near all lens should works in photography, sone are better, sone are less, but longer exposure will provide UV light at the end (and finally works with good long? exposure, video is different)

The video noise ratio/iso seems very good, how it's possible? fast frame rate and good video mean good noise ratio a lot of UV light on the sensor

 

In the video I can see clearly that he use an Carl Zeiss optic, probably 50mm 1,4 planar T lens

I took print screen of the video

post-139-0-33440100-1486651275.jpg

I can't find good data about it will be great in the UV... I written to Carl Zeiss and the responsible send me the spectral sensitivity of the 50mm F2 lens (he said that the lens are near equally cut off in the UV area)

see:

post-139-0-14481900-1486652568.jpg

 

Maxmax talked me about an jenoptik 60mm UV APO 6000$ lens that can give me 2x more UV light so

 

I bought an Baader UV pass venus filter that are 350-365 nm target, and I have an 400W UV (arc?) 365nm lamp (I used spectrum analyser, and peak at this band)

 

 

I seen that some in photography use an 85mm F4 EL nikkor lens that can go down to 350nm and less (best for the buck, those lens are very cheap $!)

 

My question are a fast F1.4 lens that have 25% UV better than an F4 UV sensitive extender lens? F1.4 versus F4 mean 6-7X more light, with 25% make the zeiss 2x more fast on UV? I donT' especially search for sharpness, contrast... just make good video as the one in youtube

 

AND! in the youtube video we clearly seen a good bokeh in UV, so it's fast lens, no F4 lens can give that DOF

 

 

 

 

I got a quote too from Edmund optics about an Uv camera with a c mount 25mm f2,8 quartz lens

(or why not this lens on the canon? too much vignetting?

But, we need a computer, software, monitor... and about resolution/frame rate, video ease, we don't know??? (not an usual setup)

 

I want to keep less trial and error, testing with all those lenses are costly, I work with optics teacher, but camera lens experiences, we think UV photograph would know more

 

It will work of not??? you have recommendation?

 

Best Regards

 

Carl F.

Link to comment

You should check our sticky pages for lenses that pass UV well. The curve you supplied looks very bad! Why not get an 80mm/5.6 EL-Nikkor? They are indeed very cheap and easy to find, although one has to be careful to get a nice copy, as I discovered the hard way! Note that even differences in model number can drastically affect UV transmission, so you want to get EXACTLY what has been tested by others. Even in the EL-Nikkor line, the 80mm/5.6 is different from the other EL-Nikkors a bit. And the older metal one is better than the plastic one.

 

Edmund Optics is usually overpriced. Do not shop there because you can find the same (or similar) stuff elsewhere for less usually. Also, that C-mount lens probably WILL have vignetting on an APS-C sensor, from my experience?

Link to comment

You should check our sticky pages for lenses that pass UV well. The curve you supplied looks very bad! Why not get an 80mm/5.6 EL-Nikkor? They are indeed very cheap and easy to find, although one has to be careful to get a nice copy, as I discovered the hard way! Note that even differences in model number can drastically affect UV transmission, so you want to get EXACTLY what has been tested by others. Even in the EL-Nikkor line, the 80mm/5.6 is different from the other EL-Nikkors a bit. And the older metal one is better than the plastic one.

 

Edmund Optics is usually overpriced. Do not shop there because you can find the same (or similar) stuff elsewhere for less usually. Also, that C-mount lens probably WILL have vignetting on an APS-C sensor, from my experience?

 

Yes, I checked those EL nikkor lens too, it's very interesting! and... for the price, maybe I will try it with zeiss lens... but the bad about the EL nikkor is that is a slow lens, F5.6 it's near 8-12x less bright than an F1.4

It remain same question, are 25% transmission on a F1.4 lens are better than 70% transmission on a 5.6 lens that give 8-12x less light? (except sharpness maybe...)

 

Edmund optics 25mm are F2,8 and quartz (good idea to check, I found same for a lot less! some have other place?)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/979767-REG/ricoh_155609_c_mount_25mm_2_8_16_ultraviolet.html

 

I have a good question for an UV photograph, you can see good in live view for focus? sometime live view act as recording in the camera... so if you see good, video are probably good?

(Monochrome make 6x better UV sensitivity...)

Link to comment

I suppose the question is what you want to call "UV." If you don't pass anything less than 370nm, then you are missing a lot of the spectrum. If you want a faster lens, why don't you look for an faster UV-capable lens in the stickies? I see an F/1.8 in there, and a lot of F/2.8's.

 

I can usually get something in live view. Sometimes it's very dim and you need a UV torch.

Link to comment

It remain same question, are 25% transmission on a F1.4 lens are better than 70% transmission on a 5.6 lens that give 8-12x less light? (except sharpness maybe...)

 

This calculation is wrong. El Nikkor at F/5.6 will pass as much or more UV light and result in shorter exposure times than most of the modern F/1.4 lenses at wide open. You need to include transmission properties of the lens in your calculations!

Link to comment

I suppose the question is what you want to call "UV." If you don't pass anything less than 370nm, then you are missing a lot of the spectrum. If you want a faster lens, why don't you look for an faster UV-capable lens in the stickies? I see an F/1.8 in there, and a lot of F/2.8's.

 

I can usually get something in live view. Sometimes it's very dim and you need a UV torch.

 

I think the rest of the spectrum don't be in interest for this use, the experiment and UV source are at UV-A, spot goal in the 365nm ''narrow'' from 20 nm wide aprox and we want to make the experiment not too much dangerous to eyes for peoples

 

The baader UV venus filter we want to use is 365mn

post-139-0-14014800-1486734647.jpg

 

and our 400w UV source look like this on our spectrum analyser (spot in the 365nm I think)

post-139-0-11116200-1486734725.jpg

 

Also, I guess, most people that do UV photography are spot in the 365nm range (find filter are more easy, less costly, more common, not dangerous)

I know that Quartz lens can go down to 200nm, but... We don't want to use this, it's dangerous, and special light are extremely costly

 

In the video it's the zeiss optic that seem to be used, I don't know why???... but seems to work, not only work, it's excellent (are this really used???)

(also an exceptional good 50mm lens! maybe use it for normal photo??? )

 

... maybe more realistic, I will be in favor of a fast 2.8 UV C mount lens, because overall, it seems not that bad, I can deal with a bit of vignetting, we just have to zoom in a bit and it cost around 1000$

 

Or begin with an EL nikkor 85mm, but... 5.6??? (and I don't know about helical focus)

 

If you don't see good in live view with a EL nikkor, I don't think it will match our need to do video??? (or too much iso grain)

Link to comment

Look, do whatever you want to do. There is a nice EL-Nikkor on sale now, and yes I get live view through it if there is enough light. I would not do things based on what you thought you saw in the video. Videos can be deceptive. (The lens may not be the one you think.)

 

The EL-Nikkor I mentioned:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-80mm-F-5-6-EL-Nikkor-NPK-Enlarging-Lens-/292024180303

 

When I say the rest of the spectrum I mean just UVA. You will not even get past 370nm with that Zeiss. Forget 365. Why don't you go to the lens sticky and try to find a F/2.8? The Novoflex Noflexar is coming down in price lately?

Link to comment

c mount 25mm f2,8 quartz lens ?

Uncorrected quartz lenses for industrial use have high UV transmission across a wide bandwidth. But they are almost never corrected and thus exhibit strong chromatic aberrations because they are meant to be used with narrow-band UV-pass filters. I do not know how this might affect a video, but you should be aware of the possibility.

 

Carl Zeiss optic, probably 50mm 1,4 planar T lens ?

Newer, non-dedicated lenses typically have low UV transmission and also may suffer from chromatic aberration in the UV range. If you are using a "fast" lens such as an f/1.4 for video at the wide open f/1.4 aperture, you will have very shallow depth of field. Sometimes there is not enough depth of field to get both eyes on a person's face in focus if the face is turned. These are simply possibilities, so only an actual test of such a lens can determine whether it works well with your other gear.

 

UV Portraits or Videos - UV illumination is the key

Sunlight does not always contain enough UV light to make a UV portrait or video outdoors. It depends on season, time-of-day, geographic location and so forth. If a UV lamp or UV flash is used to supplement the UV in sunlight, then you must protect your subjects eyes by having the subject close them because that lamp or flash output is more concentrated.

 

Link for Lens Sticky: http://www.ultraviol...capable-lenses/

There are a lot of good old, used lens choices which will give you good to medium UV transmission (some even excellent). But they will all need a mount adapter for your Canon. That extension can also affect the exposure length. Look for the 35mm f/3.5 lenses or the EL-Nikkors. They tend to have enough UV transmission for your needs and are also not too expensive.

 

Search for UV Portraits on UVP with this search tag: UV Portrait

You can check to see the cameras, lenses, lighting and other gear used for these portraits. For example, one of our members is using a old Nikon 50/1.8E on a Canon 6D for some interesting and cool portraiture. That lens would also work for videos.

 

Suggestion: Rent a dedicated UV-lens such as the Coastal Optics 60/4.5 for a few days and make some portraits and videos with it. Then you will have a baseline set of UV work against which you can compare your results from non-dedicated UV lenses in order to determine which one is the best for you.

Link to comment

Thanks for the reply Andrea, I read/used it ;)

 

I have developments now (I will share my experiences, I wanted to try more before post)

 

I made the monochrome camera myself and it work extremely great! I already shown to 2 student class! I'm VERY happy of the result!

 

To me, it's100x better than expected with the original 18-55mm, outdoor in cloudy day, I can film at usual frame rate at iso 400! no grain, very clean quality output/recording

 

In classroom, I use an 3w 365nm led, it need iso 3200 BUT I will buy 10 of those and make a diffuser to not direct light in face (I project to use less iso and better light soon)

 

 

The build:

 

It took me 3 sensors to 100% succeed a perfect sensor, it's not my fault, all monochrome sensor tutorials are not clear, wrong, or can be better on final polish, I dig too much with too much agressive compound, I found research costly mono-cristalline diamond polish... cerrium oxyde, and others... it's not necessary!

The best to be used, it's a super soft finish angel hair remover farecla G10 car paint polish, you polish extremely softly JUST the green that stay after the wood scratch in 5 min, with an Qtip, all is gone... it gone not that hard!)

Also, the epoxy I used for gold wire was an clear slow laminating epoxy, but once again very fluid used is NOT a good idea, it will flow/mess everywhere in the sensor, and more fluid epoxy not cover good the wire in one shot, I had to put 3 shot before completely protect them.

I found the best is to make a batch and wait 2-3 days in refrigerator that are honey texture... I used it like this and be more patient, it look very professional and clean as genuine canon now.

 

I have done at least 30+ ir filter removal for astronomy in local, in Canada... so, I'm familiar to camera modifications, and also when I was student I done camera repair for local companies. (and repaired low paid damaged camera that I sold at 200% profit, now... it's not possible)

 

Well, the difficulty are very hard compared to simple astronomy ir filter removal that now, I do this in less than 1 or 2 hour on a t3i... with sensor parallel adjustment at 1/10000 on an inch! unusual precision!

 

I can do monochrome in a day

 

The experience:

 

First, I tried outdoor cloudy late with the 18-55mm (baader filter) it worked fine, very fine, I took my first picture selfie at tip of the arm, it was 1/200seconds iso 800 maybe?

 

After next day, I used the 50mm F1.8 canon (cheap plastic one) it works good too, it do twice the light at least. The verdict: the DOF make me the worst idea to use, yes as Andrea said, it focus on nose, but not on eyes... hears... too much thin, and cheap plastic 18-55mm make ''zoom'' more easy, sometime I go to 35-40mm...

 

Probably with all the saving, I will buy an nikkor EL 85mm, if it has 2-3-4x time the uv! it will be really good!

 

I installed magiclantern to make the camera overlay off on the HDMI output, also it permit to go up to ''software'' iso 256000+ and it has a lot of interesting options there! (I used real high iso to show windows UV and some UV sources/leak)

 

The light:

 

I tried the LED light first, it's an Chinese 365 nm 3w led, it work VERY good, so I was pleased with the result, contrast sharpness are very good, it look exactly as the video and photo!

 

The DJ sodium 400w uv are the WORST things ever... I think it not produce much UV than 2-3 led and has extreme bad non regular focus spot it's like Dalmatian dog on a wall, no usable partern (it's because the reflector is not good, have a lot of defect/dent and bulb point low on the socket, anyway, I will not give time, it's real BAD efficiency, it produce a lot of IR too!!!!)

 

I done a test with an asto modified t3i (no IR cut) and... the camera see nothing! NOTHING!!!! even with 30 seconds exposure iso 6400, this had a real bad efficiency! (it's why I was astonished about first test with a normal camera on baader filter... nothing to compare! it's 1000x more sensitive! in video mode, it's 1/37 of a second)

 

 

Future:

Polish front 18-55mm lens to remove coating?, buy an UV nikkor, more led, maybe 10x on a diffuse patern, on a plane? or with lens? or an single 20-30W UV led far on a focal point (to make like the sun)

I think the sun is the best! (I not tried on direct sun, it not shine those days)

 

...I can film flower and things in UV ;)

 

I can do this modification, it someone got interested... I think I'm soon to master this now, I learned hard way with all those tutorials, lol! (probably, I will do an 6D monochrome for astronomy soon) :P

Link to comment

The DJ sodium 400w uv are the WORST things ever... I think it not produce much UV than 2-3 led and has extreme bad non regular focus spot it's like Dalmatian dog on a wall,

 

I laughed very hard at that description!

--

 

Goodness, you ruined THREE SENSORS trying to do the monochrome conversion? Ouch!

Link to comment

Carl, thank you for the update on your activities. It is all very interesting. And I am *impressed* that you yourself have converted your camera to monochrome!! That is a delicate and tricky operation.

 

[Just for the record: We do have one fellow here in the US who is making monochrome conversions. This would be Dan Llewellyn at MaxMax.com. I mention this for future reference in case you decide you no longer want to do this yourself. Dan has written on his website that monochrome conversion makes the camera approximately 6 times more sensitive to UV light.]

 

The EL-Nikkor 85/5.6 or The EL-Nikkor 105/5.6 are both good choices for a beginning UV-capable lens. They are corrected in the higher UV range (not sure how far) and so should not give as much chromatic aberration as an uncorrected lens. The 85 transmits 50% UV at 345nm and the 105 transmits 50% at 340nm. Be sure to look for the OLD metal versions.

Link to comment

I laughed very hard at that description!

--

 

Goodness, you ruined THREE SENSORS trying to do the monochrome conversion? Ouch!

 

LOL! yeah, primary cause is because of the tutorial, not really accurate, too agressive compound, maybe it works for them but it can mess easily a sensor

Maybe my epoxy has too much flow, it's a laminating ultra clear epoxy that can be used for infusion, the first 3 had this epoxy, and... flow all under the tape and on the sensor surface, I put tape to make a dam to not go over the sensor, but microlenses are not tight dam even if you press extra firm on tape, epoxy can still flow between the microlens and the tape, (I used quality 3m green car paint tape!)

So it's not good to use an ultra fluid epoxy, now, I make it cure 2-5 days in refrigerator (-18 celcius) this make epoxy more hard than honey at room temp, but I can still use an heat gun at 200-250degres to make it flow on the sensor and be less fluid back to room temps, and also cure more fast at the end

 

Also, another truth, I had an water damaged sensor in the 3 that I wanted to mess/test first, I used/tried different soft metal to remove microlens too (test, experiment)

 

so:

first one was a scratch/epoxy test (water damaged dead sensor)

second one, epoxy mess on microlens, I had to dig too much and... finally not work

third one, epoxy mess again but less, polish less but too much as I used diamond compound, but still have issue with perfect product that can be sold/used, monochrome must be perfect

4th one, 99.9% good, now I know that I can use soft compound works great, and it's better to use semi cured epoxy (very clean job, as canon do on circuit board, glue on sensor)

next one will be 100% perfect!

 

I paid cheap sensor used in ebay(I bought all them all since 1 month ;P )

I got from local canadian part seller that sell sensor cheap, I paid less than 80$ piece (no customs, low shipping price...)

Also, I bought 2 more for mono (for friends that ARE interested and sell it to DIY maybe? pre generated sensor will make modification faster?)

Link to comment

Carl, thank you for the update on your activities. It is all very interesting. And I am *impressed* that you yourself have converted your camera to monochrome!! That is a delicate and tricky operation.

 

[Just for the record: We do have one fellow here in the US who is making monochrome conversions. This would be Dan Llewellyn at MaxMax.com. I mention this for future reference in case you decide you no longer want to do this yourself. Dan has written on his website that monochrome conversion makes the camera approximately 6 times more sensitive to UV light.]

 

The EL-Nikkor 85/5.6 or The EL-Nikkor 105/5.6 are both good choices for a beginning UV-capable lens. They are corrected in the higher UV range (not sure how far) and so should not give as much chromatic aberration as an uncorrected lens. The 85 transmits 50% UV at 345nm and the 105 transmits 50% at 340nm. Be sure to look for the OLD metal versions.

 

Thanks Andrea,

To me, it's usual to make this kind of modification, I done series of astronomy air cooled t3i back 2 years ago!

(but now Canon 6D is like 4x better, and magnesium case keep cold, now I just do camera IR cut/mirror removal mod)

see: http://www.astro-quebec.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11826

 

For selling, it's good to keep maxmax as the seller, especially in USA, he has a company, a lot of experiences and very good to talk, it's new, warranty registred product

 

For me, I can do it for canada, locals and people that are interested and for second hands not too old camera (I check for astronomy currently ;) )

I don't want to make this big (I do it myself, for fun, no taxes numbers... I keep this as a hobby, but I can deliver fast very good professional product)

I can be the second option maybe???

 

About the nikkor EL lens, it will be the 85mm because I not want to have subject too far from the screeen

 

For 6 time more sensitive, maybe on both 100% naked sensor, color vs mono, I will try this soon, but dust filtered astro camera are 100x less sensitive!

 

 

Thanks to be interested! I can give some advice too!

Link to comment

Goodness, you ruined THREE SENSORS trying to do the monochrome conversion? Ouch!

 

That's about right. I toasted two sensors out of three before I got my monochrome conversion fully working.

Link to comment

LOL! yeah, primary cause is because of the tutorial, not really accurate, too agressive compound, maybe it works for them but it can mess easily a sensor

 

Tutorials are incomplete, because whoever makes them does not want to disclose all secrets and tricks, in case he would want to make business out of it.

Link to comment

Tutorials are incomplete, because whoever makes them does not want to disclose all secrets and tricks, in case he would want to make business out of it.

 

Exactly as I think too, it's probably the first technique that ''just worked''... I took me just 1 try to make better adjustment, I doubt they use this technique anymore (too messy and make bad look for selling processionnal product)

 

BUT I think about success ''responsibility'', maybe a reason of why it's that much costly (room cleanness and professionalism... maybe, but I use a clean room too, I do camera repair... the fondamental about this, it's human made modification! )

 

it's still very hard and need precision and I can't be responsible about a mess in your sensor, but it's a good idea to try on a second hands camera first (at least with a sensor that not cost 500$++) Like a Canon t3i, nikon D3100... or in this era... the sensor cost just under 100$

 

If someone want to have a monochrome it can use my improved easier technique (or I can do for you ;) )

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
toe.freeman

hi Carl,It seems you have done a great work ,but would you please upload some video and post some pic of your device.

 

I am sure everyone is interested in your work.

 

thx

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

hi Carl,It seems you have done a great work ,but would you please upload some video and post some pic of your device.

 

I am sure everyone is interested in your work.

 

thx

 

Yes, it will be done soon I guess with job, we will produce more professional video.

 

Also, I seen that not all people want to be filmed in uv to make this public.

Furthermore, they not want to be seen by others in public on screen, not recorded! I have to motivate them, lol! :D

 

I done 2 presentation yet and it's me first that show myself/teeth... I don't smoke, but it clear that drink cafeine make teeth a bit bad (anyway nobody see usually... ;)

 

Maybe a video and I wear a mask? lol! not easy to do... :lol:

 

Now, I work on light source, sun is clearly 100x better than any uv source that I used... skin aging is clear and details extreme good

I currently use a 3W UV led without lens, is seems to produce less sharpness details, less contrast and more diffuse... light are less straight than sun, the led is too much up close I think

 

On spectrometer it seem to be exact 375nm... a bit high than the 365nm expected, it's aled that I bought fast without spec, it is supposed to be 365nm as the filter spectrum

I contacted a Chinese led company, and I want an led development kit (with all colors available) I want to produce a 3w LED rainbow from 950nm IR to deeper UV 340nm (not to be dangerous)

so... I will try with better pure 365nm led and with lens more far from source

 

Also, I will buy a powerful 3w 265nm uv sterilization led that will be for zing experiment with electroscope, safety... I will need to be careful, uv safety glasses, and make light point to the back of the scene... not on audience (it's recorded and we use projectors... it's usually far)

 

let's see what will happen, if someone have suggestions, comments, I'm good with that and appreciated ;)

Link to comment

The most important consideration is to NEVER shine any UV-LED of any type into someone's eyes because UV-LEDs produce very concentrated UV beams.

 

And you must never expose skin to 265nm shortwave UV because it damages DNA, amongst other things. I personally would avoid such shortwave UV illumination totally. It is simply too dangerous.

 

[i am obligated to post reminders like this in the interests of public safety. Thank you, everyone for reading.]

 

********

 

Carl, remember that the amount of UV in sunlight is greatest between 10am to 2pm, approximately. Also the amount of UV in sunlight increases with the season -- more UV in spring sunshine, even more in summer sunshine. So if you are shooting UV portraits or videos outdoors in sunshine, you can use an array of standard reflectors to direct it onto your subjects. Then possibly you will not need UV-flash or UV-LED against which eyes must be closed. Eyes can remain open in reflected sunlight for a short time.

Link to comment

The most important consideration is to NEVER shine any UV-LED of any type into someone's eyes because UV-LEDs produce very concentrated UV beams.

 

And you must never expose skin to 265nm shortwave UV because it damages DNA, amongst other things. I personally would avoid such shortwave UV illumination totally. It is simply too dangerous.

 

[i am obligated to post reminders like this in the interests of public safety. Thank you, everyone for reading.]

 

********

 

Carl, remember that the amount of UV in sunlight is greatest between 10am to 2pm, approximately. Also the amount of UV in sunlight increases with the season -- more UV in spring sunshine, even more in summer sunshine. So if you are shooting UV portraits or videos outdoors in sunshine, you can use an array of standard reflectors to direct it onto your subjects. Then possibly you will not need UV-flash or UV-LED against which eyes must be closed. Eyes can remain open in reflected sunlight for a short time.

 

Thanks for the advice, it's helpful, (I works with physic teacher too, but are they really know? ;) )

 

also, I will use a diffuser (paper, white cloth...) in front of the led for the 365nm uv led... as I want near same as cloudy sunlight (with iso, exposure measurement...) I will have a dimmer on power current source too

 

Sun are very powerful, I did my test personal at 16 hours in winter on cloudy day, it still works perfectly, I can do film too, even at iso 800, no clear sky needed outdoor, and it can be use late in days at it only need to have sun in sky (not too low behind building, mountains...) I not tried yet in direct sunlight

 

For the 265nm it's for zinc photoelectric effect, it's needed to be that low, I will point to rear of the room, not in public

see: http://rimstar.org/s...tric_effect.htm

It not has photographic/visual use (except I will try on minerals with geology laboratory... with uv glasses, it will work on phosphorescence I think)

If it's that dangerous, maybe we will put in a box and film it with a good webcam

Link to comment

I grow tired of warning people that 264nm UV is very dangerous.

 

You need non-vinyl gloves, lab coat, face mask to work with 264nm UV lights.

 

https://www.ehs.wash...on/uvlight.shtm

 

Unless you are a working scientist, medical technician, or part of a water sterilization group there is really nothing you should be doing with 264nm UV lights.

Link to comment

I grow tired of warning people that 264nm UV is very dangerous.

 

You need non-vinyl gloves, lab coat, face mask to work with 264nm UV lights.

 

https://www.ehs.wash...on/uvlight.shtm

 

Unless you are a working scientist, medical technician, or part of a water sterilization group there is really nothing you should be doing with 264nm UV lights.

 

Ohhhh, it's good to give advice, thanks again!! ...this convince me to keep all this in a box (at least my idea... )

We will show Zinc plate before UV no box, put box over it, open uv source, do uv radiation 2-3 minutes?, off uv source, and show no box uv radiated zinc plate

(I will put a limit switch for not make possible to put UV light ON when no box)

Link to comment

Thank you for being very careful!

Do look for some standards and guidelines in French. Canada must have worker safety guidelines on one of the government websites.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...