• Ultraviolet Photography
  •  

Convoy S2+ has a challenger ( Nemo )

64 replies to this topic

#21 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,837 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 13 August 2020 - 04:09

View PostCadmium, on 13 August 2020 - 03:36, said:

Andy, Yes you can used UG11 2mm, same as U-340 2mm on the torch.
Thanks Ulf, missed that.
Ood, does the filter have a little blip around ~430nm~ ?
The 430~ blip concerns me a little... someone else was questioning that also. So I am changing the filter on mine to U-340 2mm. Rock solid visual cut-off.

No problem.
I tried to cover everything essential with the post. It contains a lot of facts and can easily cause an information overload. :smile:

The measurement was just a quick overview check to find the general transmission shape without any ambition at all of verifying the quality of the rejection.
That blip is most likely just stray daylight leaking to the spectrometer after the filter, from the environment, due to my sloppy handling.
As the filter is unmounted it was just handheld in the measurement beam.

Even if the blip were something real, it would absolutely not affect the output from the torch, as there are virtually no emission from the LED there.

Eventually I can

Edited by UlfW, 13 August 2020 - 04:11.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#22 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,250 posts

Posted 13 August 2020 - 04:25

Looks like a great torch.
Just for the fun of it, and because I have looked everywhere for a 42mm to 52mm step up ring (and even ordered a new one now),
here is my Kuri 35 M42 mount lens screwed into the 'no-name torch' (Andy is right, we need a name for this little monster, it has no name).
See how big the torch is compared to the Kuri lens?!

Attached Image: No_Name_Torch_with_Kuri_35_M42mm_on_front_1280.jpg

#23 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 13 August 2020 - 05:21

I now think the 450nm peak Colin had might be paper fluorescence. I don't see that in Ulf's graph. Or his non paper earlier plots.
42mm is super easy. I have most lenses spaced out to that for helicoids. This thing is starting to sound like a lot of fun.

Andy, I wouldn't place Ug11 in front if genuine. When filter glass is in front of a hot led and taking in that extra energy, it seems to oxides more rapidly. I can clearly see oxidation build up on ZWB1 glass I used infront of my 365nm E26 A19 bulbs. This builds up more rapidly, I have also seen it on BG39. I would not want to risk ug11 glass if genuine.

#24 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,425 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 13 August 2020 - 05:53

View PostCadmium, on 13 August 2020 - 04:25, said:

Looks like a great torch.
Just for the fun of it, and because I have looked everywhere for a 42mm to 52mm step up ring (and even ordered a new one now),
here is my Kuri 35 M42 mount lens screwed into the 'no-name torch' (Andy is right, we need a name for this little monster, it has no name).
See how big the torch is compared to the Kuri lens?!

Okay, that does it, I will name it the Nemo torch (Latin for "no name," as Jules Verne fans will know).

#25 Alaun

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 324 posts

Posted 13 August 2020 - 15:48

View Postnfoto, on 29 July 2020 - 11:07, said:

"Do not post to Norway" -- bummer. We are sidelined with nefarious countries elsewhere. :excl:

It seems, the seller uses someone in the EU to handle customs. I got mine without the usual green tags from customs and shipped from an EU address.
Maybe thats the reason behind?
Werner

#26 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 13 August 2020 - 20:56

A m42 to cmount adapter will fit inside. Then a 5mm c-mount extension can be used to slightly focus the beam. I like the look better than the one not adapted. I can also keep the green ring to know its on, as the adapter blocks its fluorescence.
It does emit a strong fluorescence signal that I could pick up on my spectrometer. It also continues to fluorescence for a long time after the light is off.

Edited by dabateman, 13 August 2020 - 20:57.


#27 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,250 posts

Posted 13 August 2020 - 23:03

Yes, That's what I meant M42.
Andy, I hadn't thought about the heat... this thing does seem to have some heat out in front of it, which any filter on the front would be subjected to.
Like I said, I have not played with this long enough to get a good idea about how hot it gets, but I might not start with the UG11, if it is real UG11 then it is twice the price of real U-340.
If it is non-real (AKA Chinese glass labeled as whatever...), then the price might be OK for testing.

Here is a size comparison:
Attached Image: Nemo_C8_S2_size_w_fish_b2_900.jpg

Edited by Cadmium, 13 August 2020 - 23:17.


#28 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,250 posts

Posted 14 August 2020 - 05:03

Stupid question. Why are the batteries so big? 3.7v, 8800mAh (the ones I got, well supposedly, who really knows).

Edited by Cadmium, 14 August 2020 - 05:04.


#29 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 14 August 2020 - 05:21

View PostCadmium, on 14 August 2020 - 05:03, said:

Stupid question. Why are the batteries so big? 3.7v, 8800mAh (the ones I got, well supposedly, who really knows).

Doesn't Ulf answer this question in his 2nd and 3rd sentence in the first post?


#30 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 15 August 2020 - 06:07

I fully charged up the batteries that came with my lights and scanned them. One thing Ulf doesn't have posted is the fluorescence that comes off the green ring. I was able to capture that.
This is the plot which shows the light off the green ring:
Attached Image: Nemo_Green_Ring.jpg

To correct what I see with my lights. When the green ring was in front of the ZWB2 filter the peak max I got was 366.752 on one light. But now that I have moved the green rings behind the ZWB2 filter and placed a M42 to C-mount ring on both lights I seem to consistently get 367.478nm for both lights. This may also be a warm up thing as I had them on for a while to play with them and look at their intensities.

One of my lights is brighter than the other. And my new Convoys which scanned at 367.115 repeatedly today were not too far off visually in intensity then these Nemo lights. I didn't capture an image with a full spectrum camera to properly compare intensity, this is just what I see in a dark room illuminating the dust off my socks.

#31 Cadmium

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,250 posts

Posted 15 August 2020 - 06:39

If you put a UV blocking filter over the torch, you will see no fluorescence, but the green O-ring will still be clearly seen, and the green glow from the O-ring will illuminate a close target.
It is up to the user if the target is far enough away to not be concerned with whatever minimal green might be added to the mix.
I used a Zeiss T* for my test.

Edited by Cadmium, 15 August 2020 - 06:41.


#32 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 15 August 2020 - 07:39

Dave, why the M42 to C-mount ?

#33 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 15 August 2020 - 11:48

View Postcolinbm, on 15 August 2020 - 07:39, said:

Dave, why the M42 to C-mount ?
It focuses the beam when used handheld.
But also allows me to use the standard c-mount to screw it in as a direct light path for microscopy and spectroscopy experiments.

#34 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,837 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 15 August 2020 - 11:57

Be careful if you really are focusing the beam, with some lens in that setup, David.
That would create quite high energy density, just like Stefano's dangerous experiments some months ago.

Edited by UlfW, 15 August 2020 - 11:57.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.

#35 colinbm

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 2,749 posts
  • Location: Australia

Posted 15 August 2020 - 12:00

Thanks Dave & Ulf

#36 Stefano

    Member

  • Members(+)
  • 2,187 posts
  • Location: Italy

Posted 15 August 2020 - 12:10

Yes, it must be said that you can't create a laser-like beam with that power density, when you do what I did you get a rapidly diverging cone, and the burning spot is maybe a 5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm cube (it isn't cube-shaped of course, just to give an idea), so very limited and located in a specific place in space. My LED was similar to the LED in the Nemo torch, but mine was rated for 10 W, this claims 15 W (has anyone measured the power consumption?), so probably you can burn paper, light a match, and have some fun like I did. I don't exactly advise anyone to do what I did, maybe don't do that in your bedroom if you really want to.

#37 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 15 August 2020 - 16:27

Thanks Ulf,
I have no interest in focusing or intensifying the beam. Collecting it into a fiber is a better word. With losses. Then spreading it over a slide or accross the width of a cuvette, may paint a better picture.

#38 Andy Perrin

    Member

  • Members+G
  • 4,425 posts
  • Location: United States

Posted 15 August 2020 - 17:00

You want to columnate it, I think? So the rays are parallel. I know ThorLabs sells lenses that do that and they have adapters for every thread imaginable.

#39 dabateman

    Da Bateman

  • Members+G
  • 3,007 posts
  • Location: Maryland

Posted 15 August 2020 - 22:04

Yes my 25mm bicx element actually works wonders for doing that and its fused silica. So it covers all wavelengths. Its in a c-mount 5mm adapter. Which is why c-mount works well for me. Then I have an adapter that I made to SMA 905 to tie into the fiber. I then have a large fused silica adapter on the end of a fiber for microscope slide illumination.bor use my cuvette holder to tie in there. The PMMA cuvettes are good enough for what I need and are disposable.
I just now really need to solve the excreted potassium detection problem fromthe cells I am looking at. PBFI is really expensive, so still hoping I can use an autofluorecence assay as my cells are stressed.
I need to think through this more clearly.

#40 UlfW

    Ulf W

  • Members+G
  • 1,837 posts
  • Location: Sweden, Malmö

Posted 17 August 2020 - 14:41

For 365nm it does not have to be fused silica.
If that is not available, BK7 works just as well.

Edited by UlfW, 17 August 2020 - 14:42.

Ulf Wilhelmson
Curious and trying to see the invisible.