Talk:Black light
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
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)
[edit] long-wave ultraviolet
It may be correct but it is also ambiguous, isn't it? How do you like near ultraviolet, just like it's called in the UV article? —Sascha. 08:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good edit! You're right that I wasn't catching that it was about the concept "While all UV waves are shorter than visible rays, some UV waves are longer than other UV ways—and we're talking about the longer ones". Now it's clearer. President Lethe 15:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UV Lights
I believe in the UK (At least), these kind of lights are reffered to as UV Lights, even though they aren't UV in the strictist sence. Conducting an unscientific straw poll, few people were famillier with the term black light. Should this be mentioned in the article?
- they emit only ultraviolet light(or close enough anyway). light below 400nm. they are indeed strictly UV bulbs. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the 315-380nm definition of UVA on the UV page (in fact, I just changed it). these designations are very loose at best any a good number of sources, most I'd say even, list the cutoff as being 400nm where visible is typically listed as cutting off. --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)
[edit] 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)
