• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Flashlight?

Fluorescence
26 replies to this topic

#1 Namestom

    Member

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 27 February 2020 - 18:16

Any recommendations for an affordable UV flashlight? I have a 365nm pen light that was just a bit dim and not 365nm. It is 395nm.

#2 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,101 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 27 February 2020 - 18:17

Everyone here seems to use the Convoy S2+ (365nm).

#3 Andrea B.

    Desert Dancer

  • Owner-Administrator
  • 8,787 posts
  • Location: UVP Western Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Posted 27 February 2020 - 19:50

Agreed. The Convoy S2+ is a well-made torch.
Andrea G. Blum
Often found hanging out with flowers & bees.

#4 Namestom

    Member

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 01 March 2020 - 15:50

I went with the UVbeast v3. High powered, and filtered. I figure it doubles as a UV light inside and a flashlight outside. I'm very happy with it.

#5 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,782 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 01 March 2020 - 23:44

I hadn't heard of that flashlight so Google it.
First hits were of some lady holding a baby playing with it. Seriously, keep your babies away from UV light.
Fortunately, its only a 385nm to 395nm source. But still don't hold a baby when playing with UV lights.

https://youtu.be/vhzduFGrSTU

Edited by dabateman, 01 March 2020 - 23:46.


#6 Namestom

    Member

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 02 March 2020 - 00:10

View Postdabateman, on 01 March 2020 - 23:44, said:

I hadn't heard of that flashlight so Google it.
First hits were of some lady holding a baby playing with it. Seriously, keep your babies away from UV light.
Fortunately, its only a 385nm to 395nm source. But still don't hold a baby when playing with UV lights.

https://youtu.be/vhzduFGrSTU
I have their latest verson, which is 365nm, it is hands down the best. I saw the same video,I didnt get why she would have her baby
https://uvbeast.com/...l-use-usa-stock

Edited by Namestom, 02 March 2020 - 00:17.


#7 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,431 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 02 March 2020 - 02:20

View PostNamestom, on 02 March 2020 - 00:10, said:

I have their latest verson, which is 365nm, it is hands down the best. I saw the same video,I didnt get why she would have her baby
https://uvbeast.com/...l-use-usa-stock
Can you see UVIVF at 60 feet ?

#8 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,619 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 02 March 2020 - 05:53

These guys are NOT serious about UV-safety!!
https://uvbeast.com/...mful-to-my-eyes

The stated 5400 uW/cm2 is definitely above the safety limits according to
the safety standard IEC 62471, Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems.
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#9 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,167 posts

Posted 02 March 2020 - 06:42

Putting the little baby in the video really got me... :sad:
Keep the word cataracts in mind especially with UVA. The more intense the LED is then the less time it takes to fry your eye balls.
I can't find the LED brand anywhere. There are three LED's in the one Tom bought.
Using the UV torch filter will not make it safer, more like less safe, because you will not see the light when the torch is turned on, it will look black,
but your pupil will open up wide if you view it, and DO NOT THINK it is safe to look at any UV torch. It is NOT SAFE!
Don't expect the filter to be Hoya or Schott glass, Chinese glass is more like it.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of LED's and torches that claim higher output than delivered. Nichia UV LED's have become highly accepted because of their output.
You would need to directly test compare these to know just how strong they really are. It is hard to use specifications to compare with most of these UV torches.

Edited by Cadmium, 02 March 2020 - 06:51.


#10 Namestom

    Member

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 02 March 2020 - 19:42

View Postcolinbm, on 02 March 2020 - 02:20, said:

Can you see UVIVF at 60 feet ?

It says it will work from 150 feet. I would say 60 feet would be a definite, but haven't tested it.

View PostCadmium, on 02 March 2020 - 06:42, said:

Putting the little baby in the video really got me... :sad:
Keep the word cataracts in mind especially with UVA. The more intense the LED is then the less time it takes to fry your eye balls.
I can't find the LED brand anywhere. There are three LED's in the one Tom bought.
Using the UV torch filter will not make it safer, more like less safe, because you will not see the light when the torch is turned on, it will look black,
but your pupil will open up wide if you view it, and DO NOT THINK it is safe to look at any UV torch. It is NOT SAFE!
Don't expect the filter to be Hoya or Schott glass, Chinese glass is more like it.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of LED's and torches that claim higher output than delivered. Nichia UV LED's have become highly accepted because of their output.
You would need to directly test compare these to know just how strong they really are. It is hard to use specifications to compare with most of these UV torches.
This thing is definitly powerful. It makes even the most slightly flourecent material glow in its direct path. Since it is so powerful there is a spot light when using it from several feet away. I havent gotten to use it much, as i have a very smart 3 year old. If he saw this or me using it, he would make it his life misson to play with it. So better out of sight, which means very little time to test and use it.

Edited by Namestom, 02 March 2020 - 19:52.


#11 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,431 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 03 March 2020 - 01:15

@ Namestom
Well before we rush out to buy it, it would be nice to know if florescence is in fact able to be seen at 60 feet ?
Do you have the cheaper Convoy S2 to compare it too ?
Cheers
Col

#12 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,782 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 03 March 2020 - 05:53

View PostUlfW, on 02 March 2020 - 05:53, said:

These guys are NOT serious about UV-safety!!
https://uvbeast.com/...mful-to-my-eyes

The stated 5400 uW/cm2 is definitely above the safety limits according to
the safety standard IEC 62471, Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems.

I can't believe that they quoted a regulation not a guidance and even got it completely wrong!
That regulation is for testing and says that uv lamps (meaning all) need to be properly labelled and eye wear must be worn and provided.

(ii) The spectral transmittance to the eye of the protective eyewear required by paragraph ©(4)(i) of this section shall not exceed a value of 0.001 over the wavelength range of greater than 200 nanometers 320 nanometers and a value of 0.01 over the wavelength range of greater than 320 nanometers through 400 nanometers, and shall be sufficient over the wavelength greater than 400 nanometers to enable the user to see clearly enough to reset the timer.


(1) Labels for sunlamp products. Each sunlamp product shall have a label(s) which contains:

(i) A warning statement with the words "DANGER--Ultraviolet radiation. Follow instructions. Avoid overexposure. As with natural sunlight, overexposure can cause eye and skin injury and allergic reactions. Repeated exposure may cause premature aging of the skin and skin cancer. WEAR PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR; FAILURE TO MAY RESULT IN SEVERE BURNS OR LONG-TERM INJURY TO THE EYES. Medications or cosmetics may increase your sensitivity to the ultraviolet radiation. Consult physician before using sunlamp if you are using medications or have a history of skin problems or believe yourself especially sensitive to sunlight. If you do not tan in the sun, you are unlikely to tan from the use of this product."

Edited by dabateman, 03 March 2020 - 05:57.


#13 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,782 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 03 March 2020 - 06:10

The problem with regulations is that they are fought in court and approved by congress. So they are broad.
There light qualifies as a sunlamp product and by their own admission they are in violation of the law.

#14 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,619 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 03 March 2020 - 06:55

View Postdabateman, on 03 March 2020 - 06:10, said:

The problem with regulations is that they are fought in court and approved by congress. So they are broad.
There light qualifies as a sunlamp product and by their own admission they are in violation of the law.
The IEC standards are not set by congress or any national political institution.
https://en.wikipedia...ical_Commission
Their safety standards are quite well founded, based on much scientific research.

The standards are used to harmonise rules and are often to be followed regulated by national laws.
Within EU they are the foundation for the CE-marking.
I suspect that something similar is done in America.

The main problems with these standards are to know which one to use, that is applicable to the product.
Then it is to read and understand how to interpret the contents of the standard.

The people behind the UV-beast has not tried very hard to find any safety regulations and just jumped at something not suitable for their product to use in their marketing.
The correct standard to follow is the IEC 62471.
Without any measurements I can only guess, but I think the classification group suited for this lamp can be the Moderate Risk or possibly High Risk group and must be labeled according to the risk group.

It is still far from as dangerous as some lasers, but it should still be treated with sufficient respect.
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#15 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,782 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 03 March 2020 - 07:47

View PostUlfW, on 03 March 2020 - 06:55, said:


The IEC standards are not set by congress or any national political institution.
https://en.wikipedia...ical_Commission
Their safety standards are quite well founded, based on much scientific research.

The standards are used to harmonise rules and are often to be followed regulated by national laws.
Within EU they are the foundation for the CE-marking.
I suspect that something similar is done in America.

The main problems with these standards are to know which one to use, that is applicable to the product.
Then it is to read and understand how to interpret the contents of the standard.

The people behind the UV-beast has not tried very hard to find any safety regulations and just jumped at something not suitable for their product to use in their marketing.
The correct standard to follow is the IEC 62471.
Without any measurements I can only guess, but I think the classification group suited for this lamp can be the Moderate Risk or possibly High Risk group and must be labeled according to the risk group.

It is still far from as dangerous as some lasers, but it should still be treated with sufficient respect.

Sorry my comment wasn't directed at your reference.
No this seller is clearly careless and hasn't even read what they referenced.
They are missing a statement indicating that their device has not been approved or reviewed by the FDA. Also their labelling is completely inadequate.

Any good lawyer could easily sue them and win big. Added dollars for large class action lawsuit. Probably not hard to find anyone whom could claim damages due to long or short term blindness due to their product.

#16 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,619 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 03 March 2020 - 09:26

View Postdabateman, on 03 March 2020 - 07:47, said:

Sorry my comment wasn't directed at your reference. No this seller is clearly careless and hasn't even read what they referenced. They are missing a statement indicating that their device has not been approved or reviewed by the FDA. Also their labelling is completely inadequate. Any good lawyer could easily sue them and win big. Added dollars for large class action lawsuit. Probably not hard to find anyone whom could claim damages due to long or short term blindness due to their product.
Then maybe they shouldn't sell to America at all, but the device are not really legal to sell within EU either as it could not be properly CE-marked in the form it has just now.
Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#17 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,431 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 03 March 2020 - 09:39

View PostUlfW, on 03 March 2020 - 09:26, said:

Then maybe they shouldn't sell to America at all, but the device are not really legal to sell within EU either as it could not be properly CE-marked in the form it has just now.
Wouldn't the Convoy fall under your ban....?

#18 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,619 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 03 March 2020 - 11:39

Yes, the Convoy might also be above the exempt level, needing to have some warning labels.
These standards always assume worst case scenario.
Led lamps like these can be in either of four risk-classifications, where the lowest do not need any actions or warning labels:
  • Exempt
  • Low Risk
  • Medium Risk
  • High Risk
The risk-levels depend on wavelength and power density in the emitted beams.

Different risk-levels demand different types of warning labels and warning texts in the manuals.
Different risk-levels also assume different exposure times for being dangerous to that risk-level.
Those times are shorter the higher the risk-level, bur still relatively long.

Depending on the distance from the LED and reflector there are different power density.
Close to the torches the power density can be rather high.

If you shine a Convoy directly into an eye at 1cm distance even for a short time it could be quite dangerous.
At half or one meter the exposure time to reach dangerous levels is much longer.

That is why you should never mix babies with these lamps!!

The way Cadmium is labeling his filtered Convoys is excellent.

Edited by UlfW, 03 March 2020 - 11:48.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#19 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 2,782 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 03 March 2020 - 21:42

Cadmium's convoys maybe compliant. But I am not saying anything.
I haven't seen Convoys sold directly in USA. I have had to get mine from china.
I added Cadmium labels to mine when I bought his U340 2mm 20.5mm filters.


#20 Bill De Jager

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts
  • Location: Northern California, USA

Posted 05 March 2020 - 01:49

View Postdabateman, on 03 March 2020 - 21:42, said:

I haven't seen Convoys sold directly in USA. I have had to get mine from china.

Right here: https://www.fluoresc...cts-convoy.html

I just bought one and it's a nice, bright UV source.
Studying the botany and plant geography of California and western North America for almost 50 years.