New item: Arc4 Forensics Kit

[Ralf]

Hey Peter,

when do this forensic ARC4 pop up in a CSI Episode? )

I have the ARC AAA UV and I never managed to detect
organic floods. But if I read this thread then there
are the googles needed.
<OT>
Where can I get this googles?
</OT>

Cheers
Ralf

 

[The Yeti]

I just use a florescent black light for this. It plugs into the wall, or can use a 12 volt power supply and costs $20 at the local head shop.

My girlfriend has a repetitive cat pee situation though, and I am interested in the glasses.

 

[Guriseto]

I am a dental student. So I am wondering how tight the beam is on this flashlight and if there is the possibility of a curing arm exists, like on a dental light curing system. This would be extremely useful for dental repairs outside the clinic (it happens more often than you might think). The fibre optic arm is important for two reasons; the ability to isolate one tooth and to get the light source closer to the tooth. Intensity is crucial for dental light cured products. I would be very interested to know. This could also be supplied to hospitals for this purpose (as well as in rape kits, etc) as they often splint traumatised teeth and bone with chemical cured composites because they don't have a suitable light source to use for light curing.
Apart from that, the gadget factor on this light is very high. I want one badly.

 

[kitelights]

I'm pretty sure that the dental resins use the same wavelength that I do in windshield repair - 365nm and this would be nowhere near the intensity of that used in dentistry.

 

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
kitelights said:
this would be nowhere near the intensity of that used in dentistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? Isn't that the intended application for the Dental Luxeon?

 

[jpeg]

I believeTHIS fiber optic adapter may work for all intensive purposes. (If you don't use the ARC4 clip.)
I think it should fit the bezel, anyone want to veryfy this?

 

[B@rt]

My dentist has a luxeon based curing light, (I got to play with it after showing him my royal blue lux /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif ) and it has 2 bare luxeons side by side, no optics whatsoever.

 

[kitelights]

No, I'm not sure. When I discussed it with my dentist years ago, it was 365 nm and concentrated in a very small head. The wavelength could have changed since then. I know that a lot of changes have been made in the resins used in my business, but the wavelength has stayed the same. My thoughts on not intense enough are regarding how spread out the ARC is compared to the small intense concentrated dental curing light that I saw. I had talked to a supplier of industrial use UV lights who explained to me how very different the florescent lights are from these very high intensity kinds of commercial application (like dental). But, according to Bart, looks that has changed, too.

I guess it's time for me to check out the 365nm Luxs for my application.

 

[Spacemarine]

I have this fiber optic adapter and used it a few times with my LSH-S. It's very bad and I don't think it's worth the money. The light output is perhaps only 1 percent of the direct output from the LSH-S itself. It's usable if you want to look into a keyhole, but the light is too dark for anything bigger than that...


But my question a few posts above hasn't been answered so far: What do the UV-goggles have to do with "UV" ?

 

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
kitelights said:
My thoughts on not intense enough are regarding how spread out the ARC is compared to the small intense concentrated dental curing light that I saw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, that makes much more sense now. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Chris M.]

<font color="800080">What do the UV-goggles have to do with "UV" ?</font>

They block it out, so to the observer only fluorescing substances are visible, not the light source itsself. The correct name should really be "UV-blocking" goggles. And while the blue Luxeon LED in this variant of the Arc4 is not really true UV or near-UV, it still causes many UV-reactive substances to fluoresce, as well as also being blocked by those groovy orange goggles. Blue and orange are on opposite sides of the colour spectrum (google "colour wheel" for more information) hence a blue light will not be visible when viewed through an orange filter.

Of course, true UV or NUV would give a better contrast, but since that can`t be done with Luxeon LEDs (yet), we`ll have to settle for deep-blue.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Chengiz]

I am trying to learn as much as I can as quick as I can because this information affects how I do my job. One of the things I learned is that a fibre optic cable should be no greater than 1mm. This will result in line losses of less than %10, even for cables of long length.

So it sounds that this could be appropriate for dental work in that 1mm is small. I am not sure that a good spill light would be appropriate for dental stuff, but a more directed beam to drive right down the cable.

It sounds like SFrocks might have more information in this regard.

 

[Spacemarine]

Your explanation sounds interesting, but there are some things I quite don't understand.

<<They block it out, so to the observer only fluorescing substances are visible, not the light source itsself>>

Why does UV-Light have to be blocked out? You can't see it with your naked eye, so there is no need to block it out.

Blocking out light would only make sense if the goggles were designed to block out blue light, but the correct name in this case should be "blue-light blocking goggles" and not "UV- blocking goggles", because the UV-blocking is only a sideeffect and totally irrelevant in this case.

<<Of course, true UV or NUV would give a better contrast>>

I'm not sure of that. If a substance floureces it doesen't necessarily mean that it is UV-recative, it could also be reactive to any other wavelength. If this assumption is true, it could be that for some substances, you get better results looking at them with blue light and "blue-light-blocking" goggles than with UV or NUV light.

So the question remains:

What relevant relation do the UV-goggles and UV-light have when you use them with the blue Arc4?

 

[Guriseto]

I have found an item that would be quite similar. According to one of my lecturers this is the smallest and most advanced product on the market. http://www.mectron.com/starlight/Estar_pro.html

 

[Gransee]

The goggles say, "uv blocker" on them. Even though there is no real amount of UV involved with this LED, the goggles are usefull because they also block the blue band.

Peter

 

[Chris M.]

Peter said it. They *are* designed to block UV/NUV but the attenuation is quite broad extending into the visible blue region as well as UV - so infact it is almost the blue-blocking that is a side effect. Hence why they are still useful to use with the blue Arc4 as they should also block most of the blue light.

True UV light, which cannot be seen by the human eye, is very harmful to living tissue so to block it out would still be desirable, except you`d need a full face mask and suit to prevent severe "sunburn". For forensic uses, at least according to what I`ve seen on TV (CSI, documentaries, etc) "blacklite blue" is preferred as it is essentially harmless in small amounts and causes the best fluorescing in the kind of substances forensic scientists are interested in finding. It is also not hugely visible to the eye either so goggles are not always needed, though as the fluorescing is often quite faint, anything to enhance the contrast is useful.

I say all this just as a self-confessed nerd - I`m no expert, I just watch too much TV and am a CSI fan - and I realise most of what I see on TV is enhanced and faked to look good on screen. I bought one of these lights as primarily I am an Arc fan/collector and it looked great, but also think it could come in useful now and then. Next door`s cat has occasionally been known to sneak in here when the back door is open and has left a "mark" once or twice that is never easy to find and take care of....

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Prometheus]

hmmm...what organic spooge is on that wall?

 

[Harrkev]

[ QUOTE ]
Spacemarine said:
<<Of course, true UV or NUV would give a better contrast>>

I'm not sure of that. If a substance floureces it doesen't necessarily mean that it is UV-recative, it could also be reactive to any other wavelength. If this assumption is true, it could be that for some substances, you get better results looking at them with blue light and "blue-light-blocking" goggles than with UV or NUV light.

So the question remains:

What relevant relation do the UV-goggles and UV-light have when you use them with the blue Arc4?

[/ QUOTE ]

Flourecent object always take a shorter-wavelength light (more blue) and emit a longer-wavelength light (more red). It is a quantum thing. So, the bluer the better.

However, it IS true that some objects might need UV and emit blue. Nothing to be done about that until the UV luxeons come out, though.

 

[Spacemarine]

[ QUOTE ]
The goggles say, "uv blocker" on them. Even though there is no real amount of UV involved with this LED, the goggles are usefull because they also block the blue band.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect explanation, short and precise! Thanks!

 

[LED]

Peter, I tried to call today but you guys were busy. Just had a question; I would like a light to find (illuminate) scorpions. If this wavelength were better for organics, would this light work better than a UV in the 365 nm wavelength? This may be a new market for us bug geeks.

Thanks in advance! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

led