Carbon exposure light question

Now questioning my direction with exposure systems.

I was going to use a bank of 9-12 spiral BLB bulbs. Then I read Vaughn's statement that that BLB causes a soft print because of the thickness of the tissue. I plan to make my tissue in the way other folks have with a magnetic frame. The magnetic stock I have to use is 2mm thick so that will be the final thickness of the tissue. In my mind this is thick, and I can see the reasoning behind Vaughn's statement. I want sharp prints and it looks like a BLB box is out. No problem.

When I printed centennial POP I used my hydroponics lights. I have a multi spectrum grow light that worked well and I also have a metal halide bulb that worked. Unfortunately these are both 1000 watts. (it was a big indoor garden) Would there be an issue using these or will the heat generated melt the gelatin? Can I use a smaller watt bulb with the 1000 watt ballast?

mark said:

When I printed centennial POP I used my hydroponics lights. I have a multi spectrum grow light that worked well and I also have a metal halide bulb that worked. Unfortunately these are both 1000 watts. (it was a big indoor garden) Would there be an issue using these or will the heat generated melt the gelatin? Can I use a smaller watt bulb with the 1000 watt ballast?

Click to expand...

Using a 1000W grow-light is a good option...and it's something you already own to get you started. It's pretty close to the self-ballasted bulbs that Vaughn uses.

One way to combat heat would be to have a fan blowing cool air across the surface of the printing frame.

Big garden...only one crop? oliceman::w00t:

--Greg

That is what everyone thinks. Before I moved to where I am now I have always had a classroom big enough to grow veggies in, in four different types of hydroponic gardens. Now with things being legal for medical reasons I could maybe make some cash on the side growing what people have always thought I was growing.

That could seriously fund my GAS

Ha! What the FBI does around here is monitor utility usage. When there an unexpected spike somewhere they
get curious, and guess what, Fed law trumps state or county "medicinal" look-the-other-way provisions. When I
first moved here it was back in the heydey of Hippiedom and I was working in a place where grow lites and irrigation pipe were selling like crazy. The city never bothered anyone if the enterprise was behind closed doors.
But anything too conspicuous and the FBI would spring into action. Some pothead idiot leased a huge vacant commercial garage building with rafters spanning almost forty feet across the top. So he bought enough plywood
to form a raised floor right up by the lights, then piled a couple of feet of soil on top of this. Quite a structural
engineer it seems. A few nights later all the walls of the building splayed out sideways just like a torn carboard
box, and his garden was in view of the whole neighborhood. Finally he felt as dumb as he really was.

Getting back to the point...

If you can get spectral power distributions of your lights, you can see where they're outputting their energy. My understanding is that carbon is most sensitive in the area between 350-400nm (UVA), with some sensitivity around 450nm, but not as much. So if your light is putting out a lot of UVA, you're probably good. Even if your light isn't UVA-heavy, it will output some, but it might just take a longer exposure for you to get a print.

--Greg