Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Flashlight?


Namestom

Recommended Posts

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.
Link to comment

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.

 

 

Link to comment

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.

 

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/collections/frontpage/products/uvbeast-new-v3-365nm-black-light-uv-flashlight-filtered-ultraviolet-rechargeable-18650-high-power-and-long-range-professional-grade-beam-best-for-professional-commercial-use-usa-stock

 

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

 

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.

Link to comment

@ 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

Link to comment

These guys are NOT serious about UV-safety!!

https://uvbeast.com/apps/help-center#!is-uv-from-a-uv-flashlight-harmful-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."

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

 

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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....?

Link to comment

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:

  1. Exempt
  2. Low Risk
  3. Medium Risk
  4. 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.

Link to comment

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.

 

Link to comment
Andy Perrin
Hm, that link lists two differently-powered Convoys AND it claims the LED has been changed to a different one. It would be nice to know how to distinguish old and new Convoys and also if anything has changed from what we previously knew about the spectrum etc. Price jumped also...
Link to comment

Those use Cree or LG LED's, and supposedly a little higher power, but as yet no one here has tested the actual output compared to a Nichia for example.

Once John gets one, then we will have some idea I suppose.

Gearbest has been out of the usual Convoy S2+ Nicha 365nm UV torches, but those are still available other places for usual the $20/$23+ price.

Link to comment

 

 

Right here: https://www.fluorescents.com/products-convoy.html

 

I just bought one and it's a nice, bright UV source.

 

Ok see the yellow warning label on the light. That might just make it US compliant.

Interesting that this person owns the patent to sell this and everything else is counterfeit.

That might put a damper on someones ebay sales. But might be fought depending on if product is different, which it kind of is and whether the patent is voided. As it does seem like a silly patent.

Link to comment

Ok after just reading the patent, my personal opinion, not supported by anyone else. Is that its crap and should be invalidated in court. This has been previously published and is in the public domain.

Which ever patent examiner approved this should hange they head down in shame.

The world of microscopy has published this prior to filing in 2008.

It may also be kicked out soon as I see some current cases.

 

Here is just one paper dated 2005 from quick search to add to your court case if sued:

https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/catalog/50555

 

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...