Interested

Dangerous toys.

When will the normal MF01 mini be available with violet anodisation ?

UV-C, this can’t be real, say it isn’t real.

Must be because of COVID 19 that Astrolux/Banggood is getting crazy now with disinfectant lamps.

Interested, hopefully will be cheaper than most uvc lamps currently, this could change rock hunting, if it’s under about $80 the would be one of the cheapest uvc light, especially if they make it in a single or quad/triple light

How can you use this? You are not supposed to see the light and breathe the ozone gas. They are used to clean rooms when there is no one inside.

freeme wrote:

You will see more UV-C flashlight in the market in the coming months from other makers too.

No we are going to see more things that claim to be UV-C. They won’t actually be UV-C.

UV-C lights can’t use traditional silica glass. They need to use quartz. Optical quartz is very expensive.

The MF01S has a 72mm bezel. Looking through a catalog (and scaling up because I didn’t find any that large for sale) the price of the glass alone might be $150.

If there is anything other than quartz then the light isn’t producing UV-C. Bare emitters are also an option that would work.

Bare UV-C emitters are more dangerous than you can imagine. If an emitter is powerful enough to project sterilizing death rays several inches to a surface then touching that emitter for a few seconds will give a bad sunburn and after a few minutes guarantee skin cancer. According to the models anyway. They might not be accurate when dealing with levels that are 1000x more intense than what we see on a sunny day. (I will check my math again and cite sources in a later edit to this post.)

So what are all of these “UVC” emitters using? Anything but UVC! A quick search on ebay shows “365nm-380nm UVC” lights for example. It is likely that the lights are using something like this. Those LEDs are 310nm. UVC is defined as the area between 100nm and 280nm. Common germicidal lamps are 254nm. 310nm is UVB.

The difference in color between 254nm and 310nm is a factor of 1.22. That is about the same proportion as the difference between the colors yellow and red.

Actual UVC LEDs are also very expensive and I haven’t seen any cheap versions that looks legit.

Quartz glass is not that expensive in China, an example: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000092520926.html?spm=2114.12010612.814... . But I guess we want to know if they do use a quartz lens, and what leds are used, partnr or link please and wavelength and radiometric power.

And of course: this will be one dangerous flashlight if really UV-C, for your eyes but also for your skin, causing burns and it is carcinogenic.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, interested as I like to live on the edge…

Interested.

how is this light supposed to be useful to an average blfer here?

Interested, depending on the final details.

Interested.

I love that banner. This kills the corona, guaranteed.

interested..I guess

This light needs a remote control in my opinion.
Set the light in position,leave the room then turn it on.
That being said,I am interested.

Interested

freeme wrote:

UV-C is dangerous stuff. This tool is not mend for everyone. 

Ryzbor wrote:

Dangerous toys. When will the normal MF01 mini be available with violet anodisation ?

 

Prototype will be sent over to local professional lab for test/ certification this week.

maukka wrote:

UV-C, this can’t be real, say it isn’t real.

 

You will see more UV-C flashlight in the market in the coming months from other makers too.

Banggood with include safety glasses for their new UV-C flashlights.

Skylight wrote:

Doesn’t UV C cause cancer in humans? Most UV-C lamps come with the advice to leave the room when turning them on. Must be because of COVID 19 that Astrolux/Banggood is getting crazy now with disinfectant lamps.

you don’t need safety glasses as UVC does not penetrate all the way to the retina, but anything like skin gets a terrible time being sterilized
good UVC LED like Klaran 50mW costs about 20$ in quantity naybe 10$, then 20$ for the quartz glass window, likely they use a plastic aluminum coated reflector
so looking just on LED and optics we hit 200$
If they go cheap with 3-5mW LEDs there is no purpose using 18 of them if 2 Klaran can do the same output

Adhara wrote:

Parametrek wrote:

… UV-C lights can’t use traditional silica glass. They need to use quartz. … … If there is anything other than quartz then the light isn’t producing UV-C.

Nonsense.

Schott for example produces several glasses in standard borosilicate formulations for just this purpose, we use them for entrance windows.

below 300nm you need quartz glass (fused silica) borosilicate will block UVC

Ask Schott how much B2O3 it contains, it has to be a glass that has almost none in it or it would block UV
such glass composition is called quartz not borosilicate

Adhara wrote:

Lexel wrote:

Adhara wrote:

Parametrek wrote:

… UV-C lights can’t use traditional silica glass. They need to use quartz. … … If there is anything other than quartz then the light isn’t producing UV-C.

Nonsense.

Schott for example produces several glasses in standard borosilicate formulations for just this purpose, we use them for entrance windows.

below 300nm you need quartz glass (fused silica) borosilicate will block UVC

Again, flat-out incorrect. E.G. Schott 8337B, a borosilicate, transmits the 200-300nm range handily, and is intended for use in scenarios where such transmittance is needed.

Interested!

yes interested

Interested

All who are interested could you say why would you like to have that lamp? Its kinda special so just curious.

MoreLumens wrote:

All who are interested could you say why would you like to have that lamp? Its kinda special so just curious.