moonpie what? I meant that to you saying "The spectrum of light you want to be hitting your eyes should not be going through a liquid crystal display of that intensity for that length of time."

Nothing wrong with the spectrum in the photo

      jordan

      This is precisely the spectrum of light you want hitting your eyes through a liquid crystal display for a very prolonged length of time.

        moonpie is it the spectrum itself or the heat (i think the fans deal with this) that damage the lcd?

          moonpie but why is the eazeye safe if I can use it with an incandescent light or (even worse, like they advertise) with sunlight as backlight?

              Either way, for myself I'm looking foward to the hannspree ecovision 24"monitor (illuminated by the sun during the day and by my incandescent bulb at night)

              moonpie All your doing is spewing fake info. I have many multi bulb chandeliers in my house. One of them holds 11 incandescent bulbs. Why hasn't it degraded anything in the house? They are incandescent bulbs NOT the sun. If they were that caustic you would hear all these stories about people with damaged eyes from those filament bulbs and fireplace/candle flame.

              Also in reply to the eazeye spectrum that isn't a healthy spectrum. Your blasting yourself with a daytime signal whenever your using it. You're lacking the good light. LED will NEVER be as good as incandescence.

              As I said before why are you on this forum? All you do is complain no matter what post it is. Is this the only way you get attention?

                  jordan All your doing is spewing fake info…Is this the only way you get attention?

                  Its because is an anti-Christemdomite, may he one day repent of his twisted tongue and serve the good light, or at least prove basic physics… haha haha

                  moonpie turn yellow and die prematurely

                  can't wait to see your actual experimental results Mr. OP

                  eduarchitect but why is the eazeye safe if I can use it with an incandescent light

                  its a strawman planted by monkeypie

                        moonpie You're the one that is going through some serious issues. You're behavior isnt even normal. It's like this anytime you comment on any post.

                        moonpie You have zero proof of it yellowing or damaging a panel. Are you okay? Do you not know when to quit? You're no different than a child. All you do is spew nonsense with nothing to back it up. If uv or ir was damaging it would leave damage to items in houses and to our eyes. There is not enough uv/or to damage a LCD. + There's a glass and a white non transparent diffuser behind the LCD spaced out with the bulbs furthest from the panel. There's also fans that take care of thermals.

                        I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore. You clearly need attention from people on this forum and I'm not giving you that.

                            eduarchitect exactly. Don't listen to moonpie he's always arguing with people on this forum for no reason. He loves to pull stuff out of thin air to argue about for unknown reasons.

                            Incandescents aren't going to damage a LCD panel.

                              moonpie I just made an account to say that you absolutely do not know anything about light. You're talking out of your ass.

                                moonpie

                                this is too amusing I just had to join in. Any degradation is a function of intensity. Jordan's measurements shows a peak intensity of 3.81 mW/m2 at 778 nm.

                                Comparing that to sunlight, taking AM1.5 standard 1 sun (standard in photovoltaic research and solar industry), at ~780 nm, the solar irradiance is slightly above 1 W/m2 (see the graph below) aka 1000 mW/m2. This means that the sunlight is 260x more intense than what jordan measured. Any IR bulbs that give out significant heat (like in your curing example?) will be using directional bulbs with >100W of output, while here it clearly says 25-40 watts, and it's not directional (from jordan's 4th photo, honestly the aluminium foil reflector is such a novice job, at least the manufacturer should have plastered the entire backside with foil, not just at the bulb) so the intensity should be at worst 1/4, at best 1/8 of that of IR heat lamps.

                                File:Solar Spectrum.png

                                Now I don't want to pour through literature to look for IR stability of liquid crystals… (would be nice if you can show me some, but if not it's fine too). The reference you provided speak specifically about direct sunlight damage, then I again reiterate my explanation about how sunlight IR x260 times more intense than incandescent IR i.e. the incandescent bulb IS the protection. This is equivalent to a reduction of 99.6%, which is better than any low-e coating in the market.

                                Now you don't have to change your mind on anything, there's just one single thing I want to point out, is that sunlight is many hundreds of times more intense as an incandescent bulb. And you are taking the degradation of LCD under direct sunlight exposure for prolonged periods, and implying that incandescent will do the same. It just won't, of course I won't say it will never yellow, but the degradation rate will be much lower, and the lifetime will likely last much longer. How much longer? I don't know. That's all I want to point out.

                                But my own take is that is won't degrade, at least, not at the speed that you're imagining, because you're imagining sunlight degradation rates.

                                (also, wtf is an easy bake LCD I'm genuinely curious what is this example you're speaking of?)

                                ps. I think there's a misconception that IR is bad, or UV is bad. No, IR from an incandescent lightbulb, or UV from a blacklight is not bad. IR from sunlight is bad, UV from sunlight is bad. because it's several hundreds times more intense than anything you use at home. Even if you combine all the incandescent light bulbs in your home, it would not produce the intensity that the sun provides. Yes, IR can be absorbed by organic molecules (C-C, C-N, C=O, C-H bonds) to produce heat, and the heat is bad (how bad I don't know honestly, presumably anything <40 °C should be safe). Yes, UV can be absorbed by certain bonds (C=C mostly) and create free radicals (electrons) that can promote certain reactions like oxidation in presence of oxygen in the air, this is the yellowing you speak about, that happens in any organic compound, plastics, LCD, our flesh. But it's the rate that's important. And that rate is dependent on the intensity. For anything that isn't the sun, the rate of free radical production, and the heat generated is very low. And if it's sufficiently low, then a mitigating action such as a simple fan (also present in image 4) to dissipate heat can alleviate that.

                                Also, to point out, just because there's a layer to absorb 3.81 mW/m2 of heat, doesn't mean all of it will be absorbed. When you place your hand under an IR lamp, and it feels hot, that's because you are absorbing ALL of the heat incident on your hand. A thin layer of LCD is likely going to allow maybe >80% of IR to pass through. Absorption is a function of thickness, and your several cm thick hand is gonna absorbed much more than a several micron thick LCD layer. So when you feel a hot oven/sun/lightbulb, you're really taking all of the IR into your thick hand and your hand is heating up. If you have a hand the thickness of an LCD panel, you will feel much less hot. So the degradation from heating is gonna go down even more, just because most of it will pass through.

                                It's actually really easy to test this too. For jordan, it's just to measure with the spectrometer of a bare bulb from the same distance, and then measure with the LCD in place, the delta will be the amount of IR absorbed. I suspect it will be <1 mW/cm2. This is very different from sunlight exposure, where the entire TV will heat up, and the opaque backlight panel will also be absorbing most if not all of the IR. Sunlight degradation is light shining into the TV. This degradation we are speaking of is light shining outwards, which just escapes into the room and never returns.

                                lol I've spoken too much, but it's nice to profess once in a while. I mean, I look forward to jordan using it honestly.

                                pps. after thinking about this for a bit more, I have also realised I made minor error myself. Since incandescent bulbs have peak intensities at ~1000 nm, the intensity could be higher than 3.81 mw/cm2. Using wein's displacement law, at 3000 K, we can project that if the intensity is 3.81 mW/cm2 at 780 nm, then at the peak intensity at 966 nm, and using Planck’s law for spectral irradiance and assuming a black body, the peak intensity is…. 4.3 mW/cm2. Well… still 230x less than sunlight. So my point still holds.

                                  dev