We would love to buy those 365nm bare leds! Do you also have 385nm?
The manufacturer might be the same but the FT Uniquefire 602C has a 400nm led, the one above is 365nm.
Thanks for the picture! It would be great if you could sell this led, Hank, bare or on a (16mm) Noctigon board :-)
And the 365 is preferred over the 400 because?
I guess it depends on lots of factors, but generally anything that will activate at 400nm will be activated by a 365 light, but not vice versa. At least that has been the practical experience in another thread on the subject, whether any are actually emitting light in the claimed wavelength is another matter.
Also, the 365 provides bugger all visible light, while the 400 has lots of bright purple to look at. Many seem to think this means its brighter etc, but reality is that purple you see is pollution of what you want, non visible UV light. Its harder to see the benefits of the UV light when the area is flooded with visible purple light.
Thats my understanding of it anyway.
Someone tested the 400nm v 365nm and found paints etc that glow after being exposed fully charge in seconds with the 365 but take a while with the 400. etc…
..some good 400nm emitters are available, good 365nm emitters are scarse.
Concerning usabilty, uv-lights are used to make things fluorescence, there are a few things that light up at 365nm that do not at 400nm. 400nm is (bit annoyingly) visible as deep purple (can be fixed with yellow glasses), 365nm is invisible. 400nm leds are available in much higher output as 365nm leds, and are way more efficient. I think that summarises it.
365nm kills bacteria by damaging the DNA, lights up scorpions, water marks really well, most minerals that are activated by UV to luminesce are activated by 365nm. 365 NM UV light cures Norland 61 and most of the other glues or epoxies that set with UV light do that more completely and quickly with 365nm.
It’s the typical 3.6V. They are being driven with 7135 drivers single 18650, not 2*18650 in series which requires a buck driver with low current output.
254 nm is for killing germs (germicidal irradiation) not 365.
those are the one i am looking ,hope you bring more soon.
I find that quite a few things light up with my 365nm UV light even though they don’t light up at all with my 395nm light. The 365nm wavelength is much better at making stuff fluoresce, and doesn’t require yellow glasses to filter out the massive amount of purple noise produced by a 395nm light.
Actually 260 nm is the target for absorption by a micro organisms DNA and understandable that people would assume the only viable frequency to kill microbes. New research and products coming to market are showing that this is not the only effective frequency to use toward this purpose. The LEDs emit across a section of frequency of light with their peak emissions occurring at their target range. The lower the frequency of UV light the more ozone is produced. The mercury lamps that are used for sterilization are doped to shield against the light below 250 or 240 nm, also they are mercury. The LEDs that emit in the 260 nm are expensive but we assume that 260 nm is the magic frequency so the cost is acceptable. In reality 365 nm works costs less and is more reliable. Killing something with radiation is tricky. Three big factors, time of exposure, distance from the emitter and concentration. It won’t work in particulate fluids, or on porous surfaces like wood.
Don’t take my word on it, here is scientific data in this article from PubMed.
Sterilizing drinking water is a sidetrack here, but as with any science cite, expecially from some years ago, note it’s always worthwhile to click the ‘related articles’ and check the more recent work as well; this is a bit newer:
it does appear that the shorter the wavelength, the more effective for sterilizing water
(they compare UV leds at ” two emitted wavelengths (269 and 276 nm)” and say
“The lower wavelength was distinctly more efficient when the optical power is considered, even though the difference of wavelengths was small. The reason presumably is the greater absorption of DNA causing more efficient bacterial breakage.”
That’s just a ‘for example’ - I didn’t try a proper search (or even a Google Scholar search) to trace this question through to more current cites.
Worth a look if you’re curious.
Scottyhazzard, that study abstract fails to mention that the deinfection ability of uv-a is much lower.
Here is a UV-A vs UV-C comparison study Disinfection of water and wastewater by UV-A and UV-C irradiation
Another study using 365nm. They felt the need to add an additional antimicrobial agent here.
Interesting and educational discussion of UV’s effects on microorganisms but not too relevant to the OP’s request for sources for cheap AA battery UV lights. As he never indicated what country he is in except to say NOT in the USA we are not sure what supply sources he has access to. Basically his “inexpensive UV AA light can be handled by Amazon it looks like, readily available in USA and Europe, or eBay which also has multiple country versions.
Why not arrange a group buy for good one?
Group Buy Madness !!!
But still you should wear eye protection for the UV you can’t see.
My regular glasses already do that. 
I got the self-darkening lenses from zenni, and my 365nm UV light works quite well to make them darker. I find that the lenses aren’t dark enough or sensitive enough for me to use them as sunglasses, but it does a great job blocking stray UV light.
That’s cool. I have to see if I can find my daughters old pair, you can write on them with the UV laser. It would made a neat avatar GIF, writing my name with the laser. Or it would show too clearly how much of a geek I am.
LOL! Gotta love it! :bigsmile:
Oh nice, I have the P60 from KD in a 502b host but have been looking for an AA version that does 14500. The Tank007 is 365nm but can only do 2xAA at best and then it doesn’t increase the output with the extra AA.