![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I've posted this before and hope I'm not boring everyone. Using an excellent and expensive Crawford UV meter and testing a whole line-up of gliders one day there was a distinct pattern of older gliders passing UV and newer gliders not. *Eric, one of these days I'll be out at EPH the same time as you are and we can do some research on the line-up out there, but we won't get wavelength charts Now we're talking evidence instead of anecdote! Can the meter quantify the difference in transmission? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) Well, the meter reads out total UV/sq.meter and UV as a % of total light energy measured in microwatts per lumen ( –µW/ l) so if the source of UV remains constant you could get a sense of the comparable values, yes. Usually the source is daylight and it's changing from moment to moment so an exact measurement would be tricky. In reality what happens is that you stand next to a glider with the meter reading huge amounts of UV and when you put the meter under the canopy of a newer glider there is a radical drop in the reading. Because this is indicating UV as a % of available light the tinting is not a factor at all unless the tinting is reducing visible light but not blocking UV, which I have seen in some residential glazing products. Anyway, DG gliders for example have UV reduction to the point that I don't think it's a factor at all. I still get sunburned but it's while I'm rigging and not while I'm flying and I think that is going to be true for many (most) other gliders and their owners. In museums there is this blue fabric that they scatter around that fades at a given rate in the presence of UV and works as a warning, it would be nice if there was something like that for this application. Brian Brian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 13, 8:29*pm, brianDG303 wrote:
I've posted this before and hope I'm not boring everyone. Using an excellent and expensive Crawford UV meter and testing a whole line-up of gliders one day there was a distinct pattern of older gliders passing UV and newer gliders not. *Eric, one of these days I'll be out at EPH the same time as you are and we can do some research on the line-up out there, but we won't get wavelength charts Now we're talking evidence instead of anecdote! Can the meter quantify the difference in transmission? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) Well, the meter reads out total UV/sq.meter and UV as a % of total light energy measured in microwatts per lumen ( –µW/ l) so if the source of UV remains constant you could get a sense of the comparable values, yes. *Usually the source is daylight and it's changing from moment to moment so an exact measurement would be tricky. *In reality what happens is that you stand next to a glider with the meter reading huge amounts of UV and when you put the meter under the canopy of a newer glider there is a radical drop in the reading. *Because this is indicating UV as a % of available light the tinting is not a factor at all unless the tinting is reducing visible light but not blocking UV, which I have seen in some residential glazing products. *Anyway, DG gliders for example have UV reduction to the point that I don't think it's a factor at all. *I still get sunburned but it's while I'm rigging and not while I'm flying and I think that is going to be true for many (most) other gliders and their owners. *In museums there is this blue fabric that they scatter around that fades at a given rate in the presence of UV and works as a warning, it would be nice if there was something like that for this application. Brian Brian The entire document below is available at http://www.plexiglas.com/literature/pdf/81.pdf Plexiglas sheet absorbs the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet (UV) energy, but transmits most of the longer wavelengths (those near the visible region), Figure 5.The UV transmittance, unlike the visible and infrared transmittance, of colorless Plexiglas sheet varies from one formulation to another.Therefore, Plexiglas MC sheet does transmit slightly more of the longer UV wavelengths than does Plexiglas G sheet. Even after prolonged outdoor or artificial light exposure, the spectrophotometric characteristics of Plexiglas sheet in the UV and visible ranges do not change significantly. Most of the drop in UV transmittance of Plexiglas sheet takes place in the first two years after exposure to sunlight. No measurable change occurred in the spectrophotometric curves of these exposed samples between 5 and 10 years outdoors. Colorless Plexiglas sheet exhibits the same excellent resistance to discoloration when exposed for 20 years or more to constantly lit fluorescent lamps, even when the Plexiglas sheet is only two inches from the lamp. This unsurpassed UV stability gives Plexiglas sheet superb weatherability and makes it the logical choice among plastic materials for outdoor and artificial lighting applications. Other transparent plastic materials tend to yellow or develop appreciable haze levels when exposed to UV energy. The spectrophotometric curves in Figure 5 show the light transmission of colorless Plexiglas sheet formulations in the UV bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. Note that regular Plexiglas G and MC sheets block some portions of the UV spectrum, but special grades are needed when virtually all (UF-3/UF-5) or most (UF-4) of the UV wavelengths must be excluded. PLEXIGLAS ULTRAVIOLET– FILTERING FORMULATIONS Some special formulations of Plexiglas acrylic plastic have spectrophotometric characteristics that enable them to filter out almost all of the UV energy.These formulations are available in both sheet and molding resins. Plexiglas UV-filtering materials offer protection from structural damage caused by exposure to UV wavelengths shorter than 400 nanometers. However, since these materials do not appreciably filter visible light in the critical lower violet range from 400 to 500 nanometers, they will not completely prevent colors from fading or darkening. Limiting exposure to light is only one of the steps that can be taken to slow the deterioration of materials. Factors such as temperature, humidity and atmospheric contamination will also affect this process. Three Plexiglas sheet formulations that can filter UV light are available. Plexiglas UF-4 sheet absorbs most ultraviolet radiation. Plexiglas UF-3 sheet absorbs virtually all ultraviolet radiation and some of the visible light in the violet wavelength region. Plexiglas UF-5 sheet, a new, special formulation in the MC grade for framing applications, filters the maximum of harmful UV radiation. Figure 5 compares the spectrophotometric curves of these three grades with those of standard colorless Plexiglas G and Plexiglas MC sheets. Note that the spectrophotometric characteristics of the three Plexiglas UF sheet formulations are the same, regardless of the thickness of the sheet. Comparatively, the spectrophotometric characteristics of Plexiglas G and Plexiglas MC sheets change with thickness. Plexiglas UF-3 and MC UF-5 sheets are the most effective of the ultraviolet-filtering formulations of Plexiglas acrylic. Not only do these materials absorb all ultraviolet radiation (390 nanometers and below), but they also absorb part of the relatively harmful visible light in the critical violet (400-450 nanometers) region. Plexiglas UF-3 sheet does absorb some visible light, therefore it has a very faint yellow edge tint. This tint is not objectionable in most applications. Plexiglas UF-4 sheet may be used for those applications in which the slight yellow tint of the other materials is objectionable, such as unframed display cases. Plexiglas UF-4 does transmit slightly more UV energy than its counterpart, and, as a result, it is somewhat less effective in retarding fading or darkening of colors caused by visible light in the 400 to 500 nanometer range. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 06:06 20 February 2011, 2G wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:29=A0pm, brianDG303 wrote: I've posted this before and hope I'm not boring everyone. Using an excellent and expensive Crawford UV meter and testing a whol= e line-up of gliders one day there was a distinct pattern of older gliders passing UV and newer gliders not. =A0Eric, one of these days I'll be out at EPH the same time as you are and we can do some research on the line-up out there, but we won't get wavelength charts Now we're talking evidence instead of anecdote! Can the meter quantify the difference in transmission? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) “Plexiglas sheet absorbs the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet (UV) energy, but transmits most of the longer wavelengths (those near the visible region), Figure 5.The UV transmittance, unlike the visible and infrared transmittance, of colorless Plexiglas sheet varies from one formulation to another.Therefore, Plexiglas MC sheet does transmit slightly more of the longer UV wavelengths than does Plexiglas G sheet. Even after prolonged outdoor or artificial light exposure, the spectrophotometric characteristics of Plexiglas sheet in the UV and visible ranges do not change significantly. Most of the drop in UV transmittance of Plexiglas sheet takes place in the first two years after exposure to sunlight. No measurable change” “Three Plexiglas sheet formulations that can filter UV light are available. Plexiglas UF-4 sheet absorbs most ultraviolet radiation. Plexiglas UF-3 sheet absorbs virtually all ultraviolet radiation and some of the visible light in the violet wavelength region. Plexiglas UF-5 sheet, a new, special formulation in the MC grade for framing applications, filters the maximum of harmful UV radiation.” From reading this material we are led to believe that most acrylic Plexiglas does not transmit most UV light and does not degrade much itself when exposed to sunlight. Why then the high rate of UV transmission in older canopies? Was there a different formula for the acrylic that was used to make canopies in the 70s and 80s? If so, when did the formula change? Have these older canopies degraded over time due to exposure or were they always unable to filter UV? R5 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Transponder antenna radiation | [email protected] | Home Built | 7 | March 12th 07 02:39 PM |
Transponder antenna radiation | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | March 4th 07 03:13 PM |
Transponder andtenna radiation | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | March 4th 07 03:08 PM |
UV exposure | [email protected] | Soaring | 3 | October 27th 06 06:35 AM |
Radiation hazard? | Allen Thomson | Military Aviation | 10 | September 18th 04 12:44 AM |