Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: UV Reactive fog?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sydney Auckland
    Posts
    23

    Default Smoke in UV bubbles

    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..

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Desenzano (BS) - ITALY
    Posts
    250

    Default

    mmm, ok.. so it works only with liquid and not with gas...
    my idea is KO
    Lorenzo from Italy
    www.LF-entertainment.it

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    nerdtown, USA
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by djlorenz View Post
    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Posts
    921

    Default

    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Desenzano (BS) - ITALY
    Posts
    250

    Default

    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
    Lorenzo from Italy
    www.LF-entertainment.it

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    nerdtown, USA
    Posts
    1,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney3K View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Desenzano (BS) - ITALY
    Posts
    250

    Default



    but... thinking in liquid... if i will add fluorscent (like bubbles) juice into water of a waterscreen... i think it works
    Lorenzo from Italy
    www.LF-entertainment.it

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    799

    Default

    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    678

    Default

    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.
    Now proudly stocking and offering the best deals on laser-wave

    www.lasershowparts.com
    http://stores.ebay.com.au/Lasershow-Parts

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    799

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •