Article View: sci.electronics
Article #14807Re: Lamp intensity vs. lifetime (was Re: 486 CPU KOOLERS FOR SALE)
From: Scott Dorsey
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:36
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:36
18 lines
1493 bytes
1493 bytes
In article <1992Nov17.210740.1216@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1992Nov16.164101.20150@bnr.ca> mwandel@bnr.ca (Markus Wandel) writes: >>What about photographic floodlights? These things have expected lifetimes >>of just 2-8 hours. I thought if I ever use the lamps and bulbs that I have > >Why would you want to use those when you can now get 1.5 kilowatt >halogen floodlights? Because they produce slightly bluer light (3400'K instead of 3200' or 2800'), and they produce a much more diffuse light. Halogen lamps can be modelled pretty much as point sources, but the photofloods (especially with a large reflector) are much more diffuse. The reason for the short life on photofloods (and halogens intended for photographic use) is that they run hotter, to get a higher color temperature. Long life and industrial bulbs run cooler than standard bulbs (and often have a temperature even below 2800'K). --scott
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1egjajINN95@rave.larc.nasa.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludgeReferences:
<Bx93z4.n2B@cs.dal.ca> <1992Nov16.164101.20150@bnr.ca> <1992Nov17.210740.1216@adobe.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.photo Subject: Re: Lamp intensity vs. lifetime (was Re: 486 CPU KOOLERS FOR SALE) Date: 19 Nov 1992 17:36:19 GMT Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm Lines: 19 Message-ID: <1egjajINN95@rave.larc.nasa.gov> References: <Bx93z4.n2B@cs.dal.ca> <1992Nov16.164101.20150@bnr.ca> <1992Nov17.210740.1216@adobe.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov