🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.electronics
Article #14807

Re: Lamp intensity vs. lifetime (was Re: 486 CPU KOOLERS FOR SALE)

#14807
From: Scott Dorsey
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:36
18 lines
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!kludge
References: <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