Talk:Blacklight

Merge

I realise of course that the two subjects aren't the same (as I hope the merged article indicated), but as they're related it's surely better to have one decent article than two very short ones that are unlikely to be expanded? Redirects ensure that readers find what they're looking for. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (This message, concerning the desire to merge this page with Wood's glass, was copied from User talk:Arcadian to facilitate further discussion.)

I disagree with your prediction that these articles are "are unlikely to be expanded". However, if I'm wrong, and neither one of these articles has been expanded in the next year, then I would remove my objection to their merger. --Arcadian 12:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with merger of these two pages for the simple reason that the categories that they are in cannot be easily joined. --DV8 2XL 13:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Urine will always phosphoresce under a blacklight, won't it? At least concentrated urine will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Become

Hi just noticed you omitted a word: "become". I changed your opening sentence from "will fluoresce pink" to "will become fluorescent pink" :) .--ToasterCoster (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"UVA can also destroy vitamin A in the skin."

Vidamin A or D? 84.228.1.79 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Black light tattoos

Chameleon Tattoo pink no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:340:4200:310F:7945:C955:B99E:F458 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

merger

how was black light produced, who produced black light, when was black light made.

Wood's light and Black light seem to be two names to refer to the same thing. Should the article named Wood's light be merged into this one ? 16@r 10:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• yes! --Deglr6328 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, seems reasonable.

No. while "Wood's light" is a synonym for "black light", the article Wood's light is about something different—a medical diagnostic technique that uses a UV light to diagnose disease. This subject is distinct, and should definitely not be merged here. I am removing the merge tags. (Feel free to replace them if you still think the articles should be merged after reading this and checking the other article.)--Srleffler 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

long-wave ultraviolet

--Deglr6328 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was more referring to common use - as in, at a dance club, the tubes would be referred to UV Lights

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. --Deglr6328 03:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the point the unsigning person is trying to make is just that the article should mention that, in the U.K., an everyday name is "UV light", rather than "black light". — President Lethe 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. I've never head anyone in the UK call them black lights, but that may just be the area I live. 81.149.182.210 15:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

just put it into the article.--Deglr6328 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the note into the article. It could be phrased better, but please don't delete outright, without a discussion here. 81.137.159.61 14:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (AKA 81.149.182.210)

Health risks ?

Cancer

Isn't prolonged exposure to UV light dangerous? I heard someone saying that they wanted to purchase a blacklight but the warnings scared them off.

no one knows the extent of such an effect of being exposed to blacklights. but I would doubt it is that serious. after all, if you're not even getting a suntan from your exposure how bad could it be. --Deglr6328 18:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a section should be added to discuss this?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are citations, go for it but otherwise we'd just be speculating.--Deglr6328 07:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Prolonged anything is dangerous. 78.151.29.116 (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Blindness

I am concerned about the crystalline lens. It opacifies with ultraviolet light, risking cataracts after a life's worth of sunlight. But decorative black lights do not trigger our pupilar reflexes, just as non-UV-proof bad sunglasses. Are black lights dangerous for, say, night-club workers? --84.20.17.84 09:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe there may be some danger, and I am sure there has been research done on this. You make a good point about the lack of pupil constriction. Cumulative time spent under the lights without eye protection could yield greater exposure than what one might willingly accept outside or at a tanning salon. UV-blocking contact lenses could be worn and are probably available in a plano prescription (that is, with no prescriptive correction for those who desire only the UV filtering).

As an aside, you might be interested to know a study found unquestionable damage to the lens of the eye from exposure to microwave emissions from cellular phone antennas at very close-proximity to the eye (less than one inch for example). The damage was clearly visible in microsocopy photos of the lens. Some of the damage appeared to be reversible, and some not, if I recall correctly. The study & photos were freely retrievable over the web but I don't have the citation on this computer.

Also see my note on "Skin burns from prolonged exposure" just below.

--Parsiferon (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

≤Studies have shown that contrary to popular belief - UV, Near UV (blue & black lights) are harmful to the eyes including those used for artistic purposes. Even brief doses can cause permanent ocular damage to both the lens and retina. Children & adolescents are especially at risk as their lens are still clear (until about 20 years) therefore they have no natural filter what so ever. Night-club workers are certainly at risk and should wear yellow tinted UV protection - visibility of fluorescence will not be hindered. Other day-to-day sources of risk includes the blue light emitted by monitors, which effectively sums up the majority of the population, which should also wear UV protection.

The Harvard School of Medicine also has published works, as many others. I can track them down later.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Actinic2020 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Skin burns from prolonged exposure

I believe I did get a burn on my exposed skin (especially on sensitive skin such as lips) over the course of 4-5 hours in a large nightclub with intense blacklight throughout. I spent no time in the sun that day but felt discomfort in the club after several hours, and the next morning I clearly was burned somewhat. Perhaps their lights had defective phosphor or were not properly chosen for the application? Perhaps they mixed in some botanical or tanning bulbs by mistake? There was no visible difference among the bulbs, however, as far as I can remember. (Unfortunately we will never know for sure. The building was utterly obliterated by a hurricane.)

Can anyone comment on this please? How about a link to authoritative research on the topic, such as a Medline journal abstract. --Parsiferon (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

All the research says UVA light can't damage your skin. Getting burned at a night club with black lights doesn't give us anything to work with, even if it wasn't unpublished original research. As you said, the club could have just had a few black light bulbs burn out, ran out of replacements, and used tanning bulbs instead. So your burn was probably the fault of the irresponsible actions of the club and not the black light.166.122.10.94 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, tanning bulbs have much more visible light component, and look a lot brighter. I have UV Lighting set up in one of my bedrooms, initially because of a uranium glass collection. Lights designed for raising plants, such as "Grolux", actually have much lower UV levels, and predominantly show red and blue peaks, hence the pink glow. I have some of these set up in my bedroom too. Some people confuse these with tanning tubes. It should be noticed that the slight blurring effect that some people (I include myself) appear to notice when looking directly at a blacklight UV source may be down to the apparent weak fluorescence of the cornea, according to some reading I have done. Finally, the picture in the article is a good idea, but I didn't notice if there was reference to the fact that digital cameras appear to be slightly more sensitive than the human eye at these wavelengths. I have actually tried checking this myself by using a digital camera and also a camcorder in the room with no other lighting than the UV source, and noticed that in the recorded image, or even the viewfinder, the tube appears bright pink, as seen in the article picture, whereas in reality it is much fainter, due to the lack of sensitivity of our eyes at these wavelengths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.1.85 (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

References

How used to authenticate banknotes

The article says "Black light testing is commonly used to authenticate antiques and banknotes." My question is how? I have a black light pen for this purpose, but I'm not sure what I'm looking for. Please add your answer to the article. --DBlomgren 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a pic as an example. If your bills look different, either your euros are wrong or your lamp is different. My (well, Commons') 5000 Euro cents. --84.20.17.84 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Many banknotes have security features printed in ink which is invisible in white light, but brightly fluorescent, often in pale green under UV. In the UK, depending on the issuing bank, these may be bars, numbers, or features in the pictures themselves. The driving licence card also has "invisible" features which appear to be embossed holograms over the card.82.6.1.85 (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Lance Tyrell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.1.85 (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

places to buy

yea, i know this is completely not even a major issue, but i've looked on every search engine and cant find anything, but are there such things as 96" blacklights, and if there are, can someone please tell me where i can get some? and if they don't im curious as to why they don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.82.242.104 (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Diagram

It would be helpful to annotate the spectral diagram with the visible spectrum colors, and names of non-visible segments. -- Beland 00:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Does semen really fluoresce under a black light?

A google search will turn up many examples of anecdotal evidence that semen will fluoresce under a black light, but I have been unable to find a verifiable source that it does. This article is a scientific study trying 29 different semen samples, and they could not get it to "glow" under any circumstances. The theory is maybe semen does not glow but has been confused with other substances in the past... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/6/1342

Similarly for blood. The closest thing I've found that deals with blood and black lights said that blood becomes darker than its background (link). Admittedly, that one's an ad, but a search for "UV and blood" and "blood fluorescence" doesn't provide many results. The former returns references to a spray that makes blood fluoresce (most likely luminol), while the second returns several studies relating to fluorescence of blood with living cells, which wouldn't be the case if blood is spilled (as in a homicide). Can anyone explain? StoicalSoul (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

A Black light or UV Light is a lamp emitting electromagnetic radiation that is almost exclusively in the soft near ultraviolet range, and emits very little visible light. The black light was invented by William H. Byler, in 1935.[citation needed]

In medicine, forensics, and some other scientific fields, such a light source is referred to as a Wood's lamp.

This introduction is incorrect inasmuch as the page is entitled "Black Light" and is not entitled "Black Light Lamp".

"Black light" is a certain category of wavelengths emitted by various sources including the sun; a category defined only by length.

If the title to the article is to be changed, then the intro should still be edited due to it is misleading; possibly dangerously so given it's many medical applications. The intro defines a "black light lamp" as a singular static object while in true life the wavelengths used for various purposes are bound to be quite specific. i.e. one black light lamp does not necessarily equal another; there are various kinds.

Furthermore, no matter which solution was employed, the reference to "UV Light" needs to be excised or elaborated on due to the only place a black light bulb gets called that is in certain parts of the U.K., like mentioned in an above section of this talk page; which would be fine EXCEPT for the fact that in all scientific literture the term "UV light" refers to a category of waves that can instantly kill or permanently blind a person.

Cakes Downey (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

>"Black light" is a certain category of wavelengths emitted by various sources including the sun; a category defined only by length.
Can you provide some sources to verify this statement? I've never seen this term (“black light”) used in any scientific or technical articles to describe a UV light. As far as I can tell, it's just an informal name, and the most prevalent use of it is refering specifically to UV lamps as “black lights”.
>the fact that in all scientific literture the term "UV light" refers to a category of waves that can instantly kill or permanently blind a person.
Is it the fact? Sources, please…
P.S. But I agree that current version of the article is not so good. Older revisions had somewhat better intro. Skarebo (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, look, the way it works is you only get to change it if you know i am wrong. Unless you can cite to ME the studies that show UV-C does NOT do the things i said, then you must change it back because you are a lesser authority.

Same as u are confessing that you know nothing about why black light waves ARE in the category of black light waves. so, since you do not know, you should not delete someone else's edit.

it is especially inappropriate to leave that info up since you came here and were told it is potentially lethal and you see that it DOES have to do with topics which you know nothing about.

but I'll do this once just to prove it to you. go to the wiki article titled "ultraviolet" and see that blacklight is defined as being waves between one length and another. and then read about food and water sterilization and how it is done with UV-C, a type of ultraviolet light that falls within the category defined as being that which is also called blacklight.

ps- ALL lightwaves are defined solely by length; just like radiowaves and the enire "wave" spectrum.

Cakes Downey (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple issues/ideas about this article, and this discussion page.

First off, a "black light" is a device which produces UV light within a certain range of wavelengths. Not every UV lamp is a "black light", but the article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wood%27s_lamp on the Wood's Lamp, states that this device was invented by Robert Wood in 1903. The article on "black lights" contradicts this, with a tagged "citation needed" statement about it being invented decades later by someone else. It is different from the common, popular fluorescent-tube black lights used in entertainment fields, in that it uses a special lens - a "Wood's Lens" referenced on the Wood's Lamp article and also having it's own entry here) placed in front of an incandescent light source, which lens filters out most of the visible light and "hard" UV and passes mostly "soft" UV light (in the ranges that are not known to be dangerous, at least at the intensity these devices produce) but the Wood's lamp, the fluorescent entertainment-oriented black lights, the newish UV LEDs, and other similar devices (such as mercury-vapor lamps with filter-lenses resembling, if not actually _being_ Wood's Glass, of which I own several) all produce "soft" UV which can be described as "black light". This can, should, and must be distinguished from "hard" UV light, such as produces sunburn and skin cancer, eye damage, etc. There are very common "hard" UV lamps in use in various industries which produce diffrerent wavelengths than "black lights" - tanning beds are one example, as are "germicidal lamps" used in agricultaral and other industries because their "hard" UV light kills dangerous microorganisms. However, these "non-black light" "hard" UV sources produce dangerous wavelengths of UV that can cause blindness, skin damage, etc if a human or animal is exposed to them, much like the "hard" portion of the Sun's UV spectrum, only stronger. These are substantially different from the Wood's Lamp and the "entertainment" types, which are, in turn, very similar to each other. My mercury-vapor "Wood's Glass"-filtered blacklights illuminate tinea fungus just like a medical Wood's Lamp, for instance, although my LED "blacklights" do not, due to producing a different wavelength of UV light - but neither the Wood's Lamp, the "entertainment black light", nor the UV LEDs produce harmful wavelengths, at least as far as well-documented, peer-reviewed medical research and literature show.

I've played with blacklights for decades, and been an amateur physicist (with some interests being optics, vision, and effects of various wavelengths of EM radiation on the human body) since childhood, and have recently brushed up and studied a lot after having a tenacious and obnoxious household outbreak of tinea (ringworm, etc) and I also had the misfortune of getting hold of a germicidal "hard" UV lamp as a kid and trying to play with it as a "black light" (it sorta worked, and then my eyes sealed themselves shut with "eye-boogers" for about 12 hours, and now I don't see short-wavelength (blue, violet, etc) visible colors clearly - the reds and yellows and greens focus but the blues and visible violets diffract and create star-patterns in my eyes. I'm just glad I wasn't blinded permanently, and at 40-low-something years of age, my vision is still good enough to function reasonably with no correction, though after a corneal injury and family history of cataract development, I expect worse trouble in the coming decade. And I got a prescription for glasses/contacts but it's been low-priority since I can still see well enough to drive, operate a computer with a a high-resolution screen, etc. But after having 20/18 vision until age 30 or so, I do get frustrated sometimes.)

As an informational aside, common "halogen" household reading and work lamps come with a glass filter designed to remove harmful "hard" UV, and warnings that they must not be used without said filter. Don't ever use a halogen reading or work lamp without its glass filter in place, or you are likely to injure your vision and/or worse.

I don't know how (or have time) to figure out how to integrate/disambiguate/resolve all of this stuff here, but I wanted to put this information out for consideration by whomever does so. I've edited Wikipedia entries for accuracy before, but I'm stretched too thinly over too many things now (and suffer severe ADHD) to give it proper focus and attention and resulting unambiguous accuracy. But I wanted to present this information here in discussion so that anyone working on clarification/combination/disambiguation can add it to their study material and research in improving these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.80.12 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Invisible

A black light can make images "glow", but can it make invisible images visible (can I draw a picture on my wall that you can only see when I turn on a black light), or can it make, as questioned above, invisible stains visible? - 121.208.89.240 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedited

Richard asr (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Semen

TV always goes on how they detect semen but I could find no reference in the article. Is it untrue? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

Is there a better NON-NUDE image that could be used in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.243.110 (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to find images of scorpions wearing clothes, at least images that have a GFDL license. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I think he was talking about the Beo Beyond costume. Negativecharge (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why purple?

Why do blacklights always look purple? I understand that Wood's glass passes red and blue making purple... is that it? Is it that Wood's glass is just the least expensive UV filter? UV LEDs seem to also look purple... Is it that cone cells for red have more blue response than green ones? Maybe a better question for Talk:Violet (color)? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I bought some LEDs that claim to give off 380 nm near-ultraviolet. They look pretty bright - am I just seeing the spillover (other wavelengths), or does the eye still have useful sensitivity at 380 nm, even though the curves show the response getting pretty close to 0. The LED is definitely making some kind of UV because I can see the threads and dots light up in banknotes, but I didn't expect to see so much visible light from it. IR LEDs don't ever do this, for example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The page about Wood's glass says that is blocks almost all visible light except a little violet/blue and red, so the color must be a result of the waves mixing and stimulating the cones. Negativecharge (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I once read that purple is not a spectral color. It was defined as the visual sensation created by viewing a mixture of violet and red light. I suspect that some black light filters pass long-wavelength red light. Regards, Nikevich 21:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The purple from a fluorescent black light tube is the remnant of mercury's 404 nm spectral line that escapes the filter material. UV LEDs have a broad emission that includes significant visible purple light in the 400 nm range. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Black light bulbs don't use Wood's glass

A fun factoid this article keeps getting wrong; the dark filter material in the tubes of fluorescent and other black light bulbs is not Wood's glass 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Wood's glass, the nickel-doped glass invented by physicist Robert Williams Wood around 1903 that was the original UV filter, is not suitable for making light bulbs; it has a large temperature coefficient, is not mechanically strong, and it also reacts with moisture in the air to form a layer of hydroxide. I believe BLB black light bulbs are made with a (dichroic?) filter coating on an ordinary glass or quartz bulb. Although Wood's glass is expensive and has the above drawbacks, it apparently is a better UV filter than the alternatives used on bulbs; it has a sharper cutoff so it removes more of the visible light for a given amount of UV passed, 8 so there is less visible light to interfere with viewing fluorescence effects. Therefore it is still used in the form of separate glass filters in high end black lights for medical and scientific use.

Unfortunately, it is hard to find this out; most websites and even books get this wrong and simply call the BLB filter material "Wood's glass". If anyone can find a better source for this than the secondary sources above, I would appreciate hearing about it. I had a good source but it disappeared. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your explanation. I believe that belief that the glass is made if wood's glass is commonly held and I have added a reference from San Jose State University's page supporting it. If you know what it is made of, then its easier to search it, but with "I don't know what it is, but I know its not woods glass" wouldn't help us verify it. The links you provided are not reliable and does not really mean much, because there is no oversight over what is written, or the authors' expertise. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your skepticism; these references are not the best, but I don't think they are without credibility (this one 6 is a commercial lighting vendor's data page). And it seems plausible that there are other filter materials that lighting manufacturers have found preferable to a glass formulated in 1903 with the above weaknesses. It seems to me that these references collectively cast enough doubt on the use of Wood's glass in bulbs that the article should hold off making this claim. Many RSs simply refer to it as a "dark filter material". --Chetvorno^TALK 19:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Glowinc is only an web retailer. If it was from a manufacturer's website, I agree that it is a WP:RS. The difference is night and day. It's like asking a clerk at a store vs looking at a written material from the product's manufacturerCantaloupe2 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

3-D Effect with Glasses

This weekend I encountered an indoor mini-golf course that had lots of black light artwork and gave the patrons special glasses (I'm guessing a micro diffraction grating? But there seemed to be no rainbow-prism effect) that induced a 3D effect in some of the pictures. Anyone have sources that explain the effect? Here's a Google search showing that there seem to be a lot of these places out there. When I held the glasses out in front of me, it looked like both left & right lenses bent light toward the center of vision, but I couldn't tell whether the effect was greater for different colors. Kenahoo (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Type

Under U.S. Type, there are different tubes with different specifications given as "BL," "BLB," ("BL"), and ("BLB"). Does anyone know what the rationale and/or historic reason for the duplicate designations? How does one tell whether a tube marked BLB is one BLB versus another? Ngchen (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See the sections on Fluorescent and "Bug zapper" tubes. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blacklight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sylvania.com/BusinessProducts/MaterialsandComponents/LightingComponents/Phosphor/PhotocopyandUVEmitting
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724123140/http://www.sylvania.com/BusinessProducts/MaterialsandComponents/LightingComponents/Phosphor/FluorescentLamps/ to http://www.sylvania.com/BusinessProducts/MaterialsandComponents/LightingComponents/Phosphor/FluorescentLamps/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Blacklight Use in Entertainment

Visual ultraviolet effects are extensively used in theatre, theme parks and themed entertainment generally. These effects are commonly referred to in aggregate as "blacklight effects". This is not slang, but common industry usage. The "gold standard" supplier of many of these effects for entertainment has been Wildfire Lighting & Visual Effects (since 1989), who manufacture fixtures, lamps and paint and other stagecraft materials. See http://www.wildfirefx.com/. There are other manufacturers, such as Altman Stage Lighting, http://www.altmanlighting.com/product-category/blklights/, as well as suppliers such as Rosco, who make an extensive line of color filters, both plastic and glass, as well as their own fixtures http://www.rosco.com/. Rosco is particularly useful because they publish the transmission curves of their products. I bring this to your attention, as the coverage of this use is pretty light in the article. Given time, I may return and write something, but if this makes anyone curious in the meantime, please proceed. Oddjob84 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blacklight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130629031547/http://glow.com/glow-in-the-dark/black-light.aspx to http://glow.com/glow-in-the-dark/black-light.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.elsevier.es/revistas/0001-7310/99/469

Edited because this is very obvious promotion in a devious manner for (glow inc.com)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Detailed spectrum of a blacklight lamp

Another spectrum of a different lamp, where part of the spectrum is visible thanks to the logarithmic vertical axis. The narrow peaks can be attributed to mercury vapour, whereas the faint blue/green bands probably came from some component of the Wood's glass.

Spectral properties of the UV lamp are its crucial parameters. I suggest the article should contain a plot of a detailed blacklight lamp spectrum, as depicted in the figure here. The figure that is presently in the article lacks details due to non-logarithmic vertical scale and probably neglects emission lines of mecury vapour. Unfortunately the addition of the new image was reverted. --FDominec (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Types: LED

Article says (section 'Types', subsection 'LED'): "Ultraviolet light can be generated by some light-emitting diodes, but wavelengths shorter than 380 nm are uncommon, and the emission peaks are broad, so only the very lowest energy UV photons are emitted, within predominant not visible light."
The marked text may no longer be true (apart from the linguistic mistake), as can be seen from a simple search of 'UV led spectrum'.
random examples:

• https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/somedays-im-amazed-at-whats-hidden-out-there-uv-cobs.701059/
• http://www.nitride.co.jp/english/products/lamp.html

However, the subsection text becomes trivial without this. I am new here, so I don't know what would be the preferred way to fix this. --Rjxt8 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)