Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
trout, and you expected more from the left of the left. >From: Jess Armantrout <armantrout@mc*.co*> >To: Joel Markwell <joeldm@mi*.co*>, trey@ne*.co*, "John R. Rose" ><rose@cs*.sc*.ed*> >CC: Scott Landon <js_landon@ho*.co*>, cavers@cavers.com >Subject: RE: HID physics was Re: another stupid question..LOL >Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 17:24:54 -0500 > >Joel, >You get so caught up in semantics that it is impossible for you to learn. >That is the definition of a stroke. >Trout > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joel Markwell [mailto:joeldm@mi*.co*] > > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 6:25 PM > > To: trey@ne*.co*; John R. Rose > > Cc: Jess Armantrout; Scott Landon; cavers@cavers.com > > Subject: Re: HID physics was Re: another stupid question..LOL > > > > > > 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 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
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]