Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

I read I shoulda posted the results of my googling -- 

However, this guy thinks most "pure" plastics transmit UV  (other sources write, if not treated to absorb, are degraded).  I may be the wet one.  

Only solution is to "steal" and test.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99272.htm


this mfg. has a 70% + transmission acrylic  [OP-4], and, therefore, only warrants it for 10k hours.

http://www.americanacrylics.com/cyroffgp.htm

bc thinks, so we have an IR absorbing and UV transmitting plastic, my, my.  Life is not simple.

p.s.  another has a high UV transmittance p. for water purification.

http://www.zeusinc.com/technicalservices/technicalbulletins/technicalinformation/uvtransmission.aspx




On 2010, Jan 05, , at 18:53, Kyle Forinash wrote:

> I am also puzzled by the "not sunglasses" disclaimer for the Avatar 
> glasses. I use to have an admittedly crude UV sensor (I don't know the 
> exact frequency sensitivity- I think UVB was included) and tested 
> probably around 100 sunglasses and glasses in a wide price range (from 
> students) and they ALL blocked UV (at least as far as this sensor could 
> detect). I came to the conclusion that any plastic or glass blocks UVB 
> (purportedly the range that damages corneas) so paying big bucks for 
> expensive "UV blocking" sunglasses was unwarranted. I'll admit this 
> isn't completely air tight since I don't know the exact sensitivity of 
> the detector (which I no longer have). Anyone have any more information 
> about this?
>
> kyle