Did I over do it?

[Cadmium]

Oh my, did I over do it? Is this too scary, or not scary enough?

It was fun, and I like how it looks, but you decide.

Oh, and did I misspell anything? I do that a lot, so let me know.

 

 

[dabateman]

Seems ok, I don't review labels. But looks to have most important information. May want to add that will get hot after extended use.

 

Have you tested the newer 5W LG 365nm Flashlight?

 

I am curious if better than the Nichia Led.

 

Although the cost of all UV lighting has gone through the roof.

 

In January I bought an 25W ozone bulb for $15. Good luck finding one and then paying less than $75, now. The 3W ozone ones are $5 to $10 each. I blew 2 that were $2.

 

Even the convoy flashlights were under $20. Now I only see them for $30 to $50.

 

[Cadmium]

David, You mentioned that before, and I couldn't find one. Only dead links...

Seems to be one with 1 LED and one with 3 LED's. Right?

Got a link?

 

Gearbest has the Convoy back now, I think about $22?

 

I have used a LOT of Convoy S2+, and they don't get hot for me at all. I have tested them with a FLUKE temperature MIN/MAX recorder, and they don't get hot.

https://www.ultravio...dpost__p__15458

I use them all the time, weekly, mine don't get hot.

[dabateman]

Like this one:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Convoy-S2-Grey-7135-5-365nm-5W-UV-Flashlight-Fluorescence-Pen-Torch-Lantern/383504657479?hash=item594aa8ac47:g:EXQAAOSwuNZeltUv

 

[Cadmium]

I have not tried one, have you?

There is also the C8, that was what I was talking about. Can't find one right now.

[Andrea B.]

I think the warning is good.

 

Good especially in the current pandemic where UV light of all kinds is being sold as sterilization to naive consumers who have no idea of its dangers.

 

Dangers especially to the eyes.

 

[side Note: To sterilize anything with UV-C one really needs an industrial strength set-up as well as a reminder that UV-C cannot sterilize what it cannot "see". It is far too dangerous for any consumers to play around with.]

[Andrea B.]

There is also the liability issue. If you are selling UV light, then someone could blame you for selling them a flashlight which had no warning. So you must first and foremost protect yourself.

[bobfriedman]

sweet, I want some.

[Cadmium]

Gearbest currently has two listings, but the specifications for each look the same to me, only about $1 difference, both on sale.

 

https://www.gearbest.com/led-multi-function-flashlights/pp_009459962258.html?wid=1433363

and

https://www.gearbest.com/led-multi-function-flashlights/pp_009459962258.html

[bobfriedman]

Gearbest currently has two listings, but the specifications for each look the same to me, only about $1 difference, both on sale.

 

https://www.gearbest...tml?wid=1433363

and

https://www.gearbest...9459962258.html

 

I want the "warning label". already have 5 of these lights

[Cadmium]

Bob, I know what you want, my reply was more in general pertaining to David's first comments.

I am still playing with the label(s). I may change the middle label to "wear eye protection".

One thing that is 'confusing' to me, is the line, "Do not look at light",

the problem with that line is, "what light?", there is no light coming from the torch when a U-340 2mm thick filter is installed.

Such a filter makes the torch a bit more dangerous in the sense that it is a little more deceptive when the torch is turned on.

Of course if the torch is anywhere near any surface, then it is easy to know when the torch is tuned on because light will fluoresce from things.

However, the line, "do not look at the light" doesn't really fit the situation.

Besides, people should be wearing eye protection anyway, not just avoiding looking at the light, front of the filter, or anything else.

All I am saying is, adding a filter to the torch makes the warning of 'not looking at the light' almost meaningless and confusing.

[Andy Perrin]

Cadmium, people will know what “do not look at light” means in context. Most people are not as literal as that.

[Akira]

I've also been looking at 3W or 5W UV flashlights, but shied away from them not because of their UV emittance power but because of the 18650 battery they require.

[Stefano]

Bob, I know what you want, my reply was more in general pertaining to David's first comments.

I am still playing with the label(s). I may change the middle label to "wear eye protection".

One thing that is 'confusing' to me, is the line, "Do not look at light",

the problem with that line is, "what light?", there is no light coming from the torch when a U-340 2mm thick filter is installed.

Such a filter makes the torch a bit more dangerous in the sense that it is a little more deceptive when the torch is turned on.

Of course if the torch is anywhere near any surface, then it is easy to know when the torch is tuned on because light will fluoresce from things.

However, the line, "do not look at the light" doesn't really fit the situation.

Besides, people should be wearing eye protection anyway, not just avoiding looking at the light, front of the filter, or anything else.

All I am saying is, adding a filter to the torch makes the warning of 'not looking at the light' almost meaningless and confusing.

I have to say that 365 nm light is NOT invisible if you shine it in your eyes. I use my polycarbonate goggles if I use UV torches, but it happened that I looked at the torch for brief moments (mainly involuntarily). I even tried looking at a 340 nm LED (yes, I shouldn't have done this dumb thing, don't imitate me), and I saw it.

 

What I want to say is that people who don't know they have to wear goggles can see the light. If you wear them, you can see little to no light.

[Stefano]

I've also been looking at 3W or 5W UV flashlights, but shied away from them not because of their UV emittance power but because of the 18650 battery they require.

I use an old 18650 cell my dad found at work, I think they were throwing it away. It had a capacity (printed on the outside envelope) of 2200 mAh, which is quite low compared to today's 18650 cells. It had a protection circuit on the side (it is usually installed on the positive pole).

 

Since I removed it, this is now a bare cell, and I have to be careful not to do mistakes with it. I have to be careful not to discharge it too much, so I check the voltage after using it for a while. To charge it, I set my power supply to 4.2 V, and limit the current to 1 A (this means less than 0.5 C, I avoid faster charging since I don't know the C rating of the cell and it is also an old one). I attach the alligator clips to the poles with the help of two little neodymium magnets.

 

In the future I should get a better cell and maybe buy a proper charger.

[ulf]

In the future I should get a better cell and maybe buy a proper charger.

 

I have this type of charger and it works very well.

https://www.ebay.com...wcAAOSwE3pd9HM0

It can handle different sizes and battery technologies.

 

I am very pleased with how it performs.

It was even able to recover an almost shortened 26650-cell that a flashlight with a built-in bad usb-charger function almost destroyed.

[ulf]

Steve - you might change the phrasing to "DO NOT try to see the INVISIBLE light!"

[Cadmium]

Ulf, That almost sounds religious...

But, yes, I suppose.

 

Stefano, You can't see 365nm light, but you can see visible light from a stock Convoy S2+ Nichia 365nm LED torch without any filtering.

You will see that 'visible blue' light with or without UV safety eye wear.

However, once the torch is filtered to prevent any visible light from exiting the torch, then you have invisible UV only, with/without safety eye wear.

 

Andy, You and I and many others here may know whatever, but many others may not know or understand the dangers of these intense UV LED's, and not know that the filter blocks the visible detectable light,

in fact they may not even know they have a torch turned on if it is filtered, when they 'look for the light' that they are not suppose to look at before they radiate their babies with them for sterilization.

With the virus and such, people who have no experience with these are using them in ways we would gasp at.

So to me, especially when using a torch that is filtered, the phrase, "Do not look at light" almost provokes danger, rather than warns against it.

[Cadmium]

I think the two links I listed are the same actually, but their higher page had them listed as different.

 

If I go to Gearbest, type in the search "Convoy 365nm", I get this result, and you see two separate listings with two prices:

https://www.gearbest...e/convoy-365nm/

 

However when I click on either of them I end up at the same link with the same price.

So...whatever, don't know.

Mostly I am wondering if there is some upgrade or change with the LED, I can't know for sure unless I see one.

[Stefano]

Stefano, You can't see 365nm light, but you can see visible light from a stock Convoy S2+ Nichia 365nm LED torch without any filtering.

You will see that 'visible blue' light with or without UV safety eye wear.

However, once the torch is filtered to prevent any visible light from exiting the torch, then you have invisible UV only, with/without safety eye wear.

I am actually referring to filtered torches (your Convoy S2+ with the U-340 filter and another one I have which has a similar filter (probably ZWB2)). It happened to me to look briefly at them, and I could see the LED and the reflector inside quite well. I don't encourage you to try, but it will work with your eyes too, even if you are older then me and your lenses probably don't transmit UV as well as mine. The sensitivity of the human eye to 365 nm light is very low, but not zero. If I look at your Convoy with my polycarbonate goggles on, I can still see something (a mixture of violet and red), but very dimly. That's not because the LED, the filter or my goggles are defective or out of spec, that's just the sensitivity of the human eye. I agree with you that filtered Convoys will not emit what we call visible light, but the border between visible and UV is fuzzy. The red I see with my goggles is the little amount of red/IR emitted by the LED that manages to pass through the U-340 filter, and the violet is the small amount of UV at 385-390 nm that is emitted by the LED and goes through both the filter and my goggles.

[Cadmium]

Well... maybe, if your eyes can see below 400nm, then you may see the LED.

Not so sure about the red being IR though.

Wearing your goggles should block everything below 400nm though.

Right? We could test that, but haven't we already done that somewhere on here...

Do I need to search for that test, or set up that test again with my camera, goggles and filtered Convoy?

I was going to take the day off...

Does the 365nm LED really show up through your goggles?

[Cadmium]

A couple tests I did a ways back now, may or may not be of interest or even relevance, up to you:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2614-uv-eyewear-protection-upgrade/page__view__findpost__p__19965

and

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/2614-uv-eyewear-protection-upgrade/page__view__findpost__p__20000

[Stefano]

Polycarbonate transmits something in the 390 nm range, and 365 nm LEDs have a tail up to around 400 nm. They aren’t perfectly monochromatic, although they have a pretty narrow bandwidth.

[dabateman]

Cadmium, people will know what “do not look at light” means in context. Most people are not as literal as that.

 

Oh No they definitely do not. The FDA has a full review division just for labels.

Yes there are many problems.

There are specific font and labelling specifications.

 

Cadmium you may want it to say:

"Do not look at the front of the flashlight when turned on. Eye damage may occur. Always use eye and skin protection when in use."

[dabateman]

I did catch a 5W LG one off ebay earlier this morning for cheap. Will have to see if the seller cancels the order again claiming out of stock again, like a month ago. When I got it equally cheap.

I will compare it to my good S+. One of my S+ is quite bright and intense, the other has IR leakage and is dim. Now I wonder if its bad or if one is driven at 2W and the other at 3W. Seeing that indicated in Cadmium's links.