UV Reactive fog?

[djlorenz]

Hi guys.. i was thinking about this... is possible to create a UV Reactive Fog with standard foggers/hazers?

[LEDpaint]

If you don't mind getting the UV reactive dye all over everything, sure. My guess is it would probably clog your fogger's heater, also.

There is UV reactive bubble juice which would look really nice floating in the fog.
http://www.froggysfog.com/product/TB...lf-Gallon.html

[djlorenz]

mmm, interesting... do you think it works on fog?

[LEDpaint]

No, I don't think the bubble juice would work in a fogger. I was mentioning it as a cool idea for an effect.

If I was at a club and I saw all these little glowing bubbles floating within the fog, I would probably think someone dropped something in my drink.

If you really want to try getting UV fog, get some UV paint, water it down A LOT, and make sure you are using a cheap fogger that you don't mind destroying.

[djlorenz]

ahn ok

it's a strange idea of tonight... if i will have time (and a cheap fogger) i will try it

if anyone knows something... i'm here

[MikeNye]

Would it be safe for you and your audience to breathe in ?

[djlorenz]

i don't know... of course i'm looking fors something safe

[-bart-]

When experimenting with anything but regular fog-juice, be sure to wear a proper gasmask, and take care to not poison any innocent bystanders/pets.

I'm still waiting for a youtube-movie of a successful combo of petrol and a fog machine.

[LEDpaint]

Would it be safe for you and your audience to breathe in ?

Good point. God knows what sort of noxious stuff would be created by burning those chemicals.

[mixedgas]

Hi guys.. i was thinking about this... is possible to create a UV Reactive Fog with standard foggers/hazers?

no.

The density of dye required is huge. I've tried dyes that are similar to ones used in bright orange military smoke. It undergoes "cracking" when heated and stops glowing.

You would not want to breathy ANY dye vapor in air.

Not to mention the clogged nozzle.

Steve

[laser]

We did a trial years ago, with cooled smoke into bubble machine, with non toxic UV liquid.
Worked well under UV spot and of course lasers.
Bubble residue everywhere means it gets slippery..

[djlorenz]

mmm, ok.. so it works only with liquid and not with gas...
my idea is KO

[heroic]

mmm, ok.. so it works only with liquid and not with gas...
my idea is KO

Volume of one mole of gas at STP = 22.4 litres
Volume of one mole of water at STP = 18 millilitres

Unfortunately the density really works against you here.

[Stoney3K]

I can see what you're aiming at: Trying to boost the visibility of 405nm?

When you shoot 405 through a scrim washed with detergent (or onto a sheet of white printing paper), the stuff gets UV-reactive and the scrim lights up when the 405 hits it, going up a bit in wavelength. The result on the screen image is more like 473-488, bright and nearer to the cyan.

I wonder if it's even possible to do that in free air or haze. The amount of fluorescence doesn't need to be much (a scrim is also mostly white, or any other colour) but it could just be enough to give that 'edge' to the almost invisible 405nm from Blurays.

[djlorenz]

you read into my head

this is exactly what i was thinking... i found somewhere this thing of fluorescent, and i was thinking ho use this thing with my RGP chinese projector (and maybe for a new RGBV next)

for graphics this thing is nice... if you have a waterscreen or a white screen you will get 405 more bright (and maybe see something more, 405nm is very dark) but in 99% times i use lasers for lasershow...but there's nothing to do

[heroic]

I wonder if it's even possible to do that in free air or haze. The amount of fluorescence doesn't need to be much

The problem is the three orders of magnitude difference in density. Gases are roughly 1000 times less dense than liquids and solids. If a photon has a mean free path of 1mm in a liquid, it will have a mean free path of a metre in air. That's the distance you need to get the same interaction. So your comparatively "dim" fluorescence becomes imperceptibly dim.

Let's take the Tekno Bubbles example. These are UV fluorescent bubbles. I have measured their film thickness by interferometry (use a crossed polarizer and a fast camera); they are about 50 nanometres thick. Therefore it would take 50 millimetres of Tekno Bubbles vapour to have the same chance of a 405 nm photon interacting and fluorescing. This is assuming that you have, say, a dye cell filled with the vapour to the exclusion of air.

Safety issues preclude more than a few tens of ppm of fluorescent material in air that also contains a human being. Even the non-toxic ones would be coating everything in the room at higher concentrations. This means you end up with an even lower density- five or more orders of magnitude lower than in the bubble film.

Since this also means the fluorescence is spread over a much larger volume, and the bubbles are not exactly bright to begin with, the effect is not noticeable in any habitable room.

[djlorenz]

but... thinking in liquid... if i will add fluorscent (like bubbles) juice into water of a waterscreen... i think it works

[tocket]

I think you'd actually get quite a lot of visibly fluorescent particles if you put say diphenylanthracene in your hazer oil. I doubt it would work well with a water based fogger though...

If you try it, do it in a room that you don't have to clean afterwards, cause everything will start glowing blue under UV.

[aijii]

diphenylanthracene doesn't sound like something i'd want to breathe in.

but then i don't know anything about it. it just doesn't sound "nice". kinda like gonorrhea.

[tocket]

People are generally afraid of things with weird chemical names, and most of the time it's unfounded. For example 4,5-Bis(hydroxymethyl)- 2-methylpyridin- 3-ol, might not sound like something that's good for you, but it's the chemical name for one of the B-vitamins.

9,10-diphenylanthracene is, at least according to the material safety data sheet, harmless. However, it also says toxicology not thoroughly investigated, so one should of course not start spewing it out in a nightclub. That'd probably even be illegal.

[mixedgas]

Whatever you do, DON"T add DMHO to the Fog.
http://www.dhmo.org/


The athracene compound is similar to what Lionel used in electric smoke pellets for trains/

Steve

[Doc]

Whatever you do, DON"T add DMHO to the Fog.
http://www.dhmo.org/


The athracene compound is similar to what Lionel used in electric smoke pellets for trains/

Steve

Our materials guy got it straight away!

He took the data sheet from me, looked at it for a few seconds and said "DI hydra MON oxide? Water? Then started to chuckle

He is going to include the DHMO data sheet in the next O&M manual he compiles

I'll bet you it doesn't get queried.

[Stoney3K]

Whatever you do, DON"T add DMHO to the Fog.
http://www.dhmo.org/

If there's DHMO IN the fog, you're doing it wrong!

You might want to check your heater if that happens... And get a mop.

Diluting garden variety fog liquid 50/50 with more water (or any other ratio) will give you thinner fog and get the stuff out of the machine faster, but you'll drain the tank in no time. Spreading with a fan works better.

[tocket]

If there's DHMO IN the fog, you're doing it wrong!

You might want to check your heater if that happens... And get a mop.

Diluting garden variety fog liquid 50/50 with more water (or any other ratio) will give you thinner fog and get the stuff out of the machine faster, but you'll drain the tank in no time. Spreading with a fan works better.

Well, you will always get water in the fog, because the smoke fluid is hygroscopic (i.e. will draw water vapor out of the air).

Even if the water isn't there in the liquid, the tiny fog droplets will very quickly absorb water from the air.

[instinct]

Getting a little off topic.. This is kind of funny.


BAN DIHYDROGENMONOXIDE!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzLs60ZaNW4