Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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

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.

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

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.

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?