Mailing List Archive

Mailing List: cavers

Banner Advert

Message Display

Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 18:50:13 -0400
From: trey@ne*.co* (Trey)
To: Joel Markwell <joeldm@mi*.co*>
CC: "John R. Rose" <rose@cs*.sc*.ed*>, Jess Armantrout <armantrout@mc*.co*>,
     Scott Landon , cavers@cavers.com
Subject: Re: HID physics was Re: another stupid question..LOL
Joel, no vis ( flat particles in suspension ) is no vis, but the rest of
the low vis stuff does work better with HID. I was not reading all the
posts. It is interseting that these things will penetrate the dark water
a lot further. 

Joel Markwell wrote:
> 
> on 5/8/00 5:17 PM, Trey at trey@ne*.co* wrote:
> 
> > Joel, these things just have a higher frequency, shorter wavelenth so
> > they penetrate further through water, as could be expected from any
> > light at that end of the spectrum.  The result is that you can "see"
> > further in its beam, and the particulate does not backscatter so badly
> > as with lower frequencies and longer wavelengths.
> >
> > As Dr Rose and the Trout suggest, this is why we use them in Leon Sinks
> > and Weenikulla.
> >
> > HID is basicly ultra violet.
> 
> Trey,
> 
> And as I was asking Trout et al, the point is not that they will allow one
> to see in zero-vis conditions, as has been suggested, but that they improve
> vis in low-vis conditions beyond that of a normal lighting system. Would
> that be accurate?
> 
> Later,
> 
> JoeL

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]