Talk:DIYbio:Notebook/Open Gel Box 2.0/Transilluminator: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
Ron Amundson (talk | contribs) (New page: Ron Amundson: Just registered today. I did a little digging, and was wondering why one couldn't use something like [Roscolux|http://www.rosco.com/us/filters/roscolux.asp]. Granted the perf...) |
Ron Amundson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Just registered today. I did a little digging, and was wondering why one couldn't use something like [http://www.rosco.com/us/filters/roscolux.asp|Roscolux]. Granted the performance is no where near as good as a thin film bandpass filter, but in reviewing page 25 of the [http://www.google.com/patents?id=M3QMAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=blue+light+transilluminator#PPA1,M1|Clare Chemical Patent] for the dark reader, it doesnt seem like a great deal of precision is needed. A downside is Roscolux can drift over time, but with the very lower power levels in this application, it would seem to be pretty limited. Roscolux typically being a disposable used in theatre lighting is very inexpensive. Any thoughts? *'''[[User:Ron Amundson|Ron Amundson]] 21:37, 6 March 2009 (EST)''' | |||
Revision as of 19:37, 6 March 2009
Just registered today. I did a little digging, and was wondering why one couldn't use something like [1]. Granted the performance is no where near as good as a thin film bandpass filter, but in reviewing page 25 of the Chemical Patent for the dark reader, it doesnt seem like a great deal of precision is needed. A downside is Roscolux can drift over time, but with the very lower power levels in this application, it would seem to be pretty limited. Roscolux typically being a disposable used in theatre lighting is very inexpensive. Any thoughts? *Ron Amundson 21:37, 6 March 2009 (EST)
