Connect with us

UV nail lamps for EPROM

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Bud Finley, May 18, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Bud Finley

    Bud Finley Guest

    Can anyone tell me if the 9W UV lamps sold as replacements for
    cosmetic nail driers are suitable for EPROM erasing.

    IOW are they genuine UV spectrum or some lesser version?

    The price is certainly right.

    Bud Finely
     

  2. Brand and type? I doubt most of the men on this newsgroup have even
    seen what you're talking about, unless it can be used to harden epoxy.


    --
    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
     
  3. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    Snooort!

    But we do use nail polish. For fixing enameled wire onto ferrites...

    Anyhow, can't this be tried out? Like running it for x minutes, then
    checking whether it has erased and once finding the point where it did
    work multiply the time by a safety factor y?
     
  4. D from BC

    D from BC Guest

    --being goofy---
    Glue some EPROM's on your nails and drive over to the local nail spa
    for a drying.. :)
    Bring a timer...and use one finger at a time..
    D from BC
     
  5. Phil Allison

    Phil Allison Guest

    "Bud Finley"


    ** See:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/9-watt-UV-nail-...categoryZ67653QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

    So the fuckers are actually compact fluoro tubes - not bulbs or lamps.





    ........ Phil
     
  6. Joerg

    Joerg Guest


    Could turn into a nice biz opportunity when some kids with colorful
    Mohawk haircuts and leather clothes walk in. "Hey, cool, I want those
    27256-2 nails!"
     

  7. No, not the 27256. Use the 1702 for the gold! the little idiots do
    love their bling. :(

    <http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&ie=UTF-8&rls=GWYA,GWYA:2006-31,GWYA:en&q=1702+eprom>


    --
    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
     
  8. D from BC

    D from BC Guest

    It'll go with the resistor nipple piercings, power diode tongue
    piercings,10Mhz clock crystal necklaces and schematic symbol tattoos..

    I'd get the hysteresis symbol tattoo...that one's cool..

    D from BC
     
  9. The Phantom

    The Phantom Guest

    Mercury vapor UV lamps come in two varieties; long wave, 365 nm, and short
    wave, 254 nm.

    Low pressure mercury vapor tubes internally generate mainly short wave UV.
    Tubes intended for producing visible light therefore have a phosphor which
    glows in the visible when irradiated by short wave UV.

    Tubes intended to produce long wave UV have a phosphor which glows in long
    wave UV when irradiated by short wave UV.

    The short wave UV doesn't penetrate glass, but long wave does (more or
    less), so the "glass" of which the tube is made for visible and long wave
    use is actual glass.

    If the lamp must emit short wave UV, then the envelope is made of quartz,
    or a high silica "glass", which does transmit short wave UV, and there is
    no phosphor in this case. Such lamps are often designated "germicidal",
    and when they're operating, you can usually smell some ozone near the lamp,
    although there are so-called "ozone free" lamps.

    Short wave UV will harm your eyes if you look at the operating lamp for
    very long; a minute or two is enough to give you an object lesson. There
    is no sensation of pain while you're looking, and you won't notice the
    damage for hours. The short wave UV "sunburns" the conjunctiva and that
    night while you're trying to sleep, it feels like your eyes are full of
    sand. Every time you move them while they're closed, it hurts. Even
    looking at a specular reflection of the lamp can burn your eyes.

    Only short wave UV can erase EPROMS (that's why the transparent lid is made
    of quartz), and if you look at these lamps:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/9-watt-UV-nail-...categoryZ67653QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting
    you will see that the tubes are white looking. That's because there is a
    phosphor coating the inside of the tube. This means that this tube
    produces long wave UV, which is what the nail dryers use.

    On the other hand, these lamps:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/9-watt-TUV-UV-l...2QQihZ016QQcategoryZ67653QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
    are transparent. There's no internal phosphor coating. These are short
    wave UV lamps. But the socketing looks the same as the long wave tubes,
    and I'll bet you could put one of the short wave tubes in this nail dryer:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/9-watt-GEL-UV-l...4QQihZ016QQcategoryZ67653QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
    and have yourself a cheap EPROM eraser. Just rig a shield so you won't be
    exposed to the UV while it's turned on.
     
  10. PeterD

    PeterD Guest

  11. Mike Monett

    Mike Monett Guest

    [... very good info on UV]

    Thanks for posting this information, Phantom.

    I have a question. I notice that silver chloride turns black when
    exposed to the light from ordinary office flourescent lights.

    This reaction occurs when a UV photon forces a chlorine ion to give
    up an electron, which then converts a silver ion to a metal atom.
    The metal absorbs visible light and appears black. The reaction is
    quite strong with only two overhead lights. Here is a description:

    2AgCl + 2UV --> Ag(s) + Cl2(g)

    The same reaction occurs outdoors in sunlight. Since the short wave
    UV cannot penetrate ordinary glass, I assume the UV in this reaction
    is long wave UV.

    However, manufacturers of flourescent lights, such as GE, insist
    that no UV escapes from their product. But obviously a great deal
    does escape.

    Do you have any idea how the UV gets through the phosphor coating?

    Regards,

    Mike Monett
     
  12. GE, publish the spectrum of their lamps, and show a small peak at
    404.656nm, and a second somewhat larger one at 435.833nm, together with a
    general very low level of radiation beyond this. The 'black light' type
    lamps, typically produce perhaps 10* the peak intensity of either of these
    lines, at the shorter wavelength of about 370nm. GE, say that their lights
    should be used with 'CovRguard' fittings, or with UV sleeves, to
    completely eliminate UV (I don't know who said the bulbs themselves
    produce 'no' UV, if you talk to their commercial division, and specify
    that there must be no radiation above 400nm, in the illuminated area, they
    specify sleeves to be used...). They say that the total UV (beyond 400nm),
    is around 1/500th the level from noonday Sun, but not that their is
    'none'.
    You'd need to work out whether it might be the two visible lines at the
    top of the spectrum, that are producing the effect, or 'UV'. I'd suspect
    it might be the visible lines, rater than 'UV'.

    Best Wishes
     
  13. Mike Monett

    Mike Monett Guest

    Hi Roger,

    Thanks for your very interesting post. Can you give the url for the
    info on the GE spectrum?

    Untill now, my sources for the reaction of light on silver chloride
    claimed that UV light was needed to knock an electron loose from the
    chlorine.

    However, I just discovered the following entry that shows the
    reaction is stronger at UV, but it still occurs even with red light:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    After hearing about William Herschel's discovery of infrared light
    in 1800, Johann Ritter decided to see if he could detect light
    beyond the other end of the spectrum - past violet. In 1801, he was
    experimenting with silver chloride, which turned black when exposed
    to light. He had heard that blue light caused a greater reaction in
    silver chloride than red light did and decided to conduct an
    experiment to see if this was indeed true. Ritter directed sunlight
    through a glass prism to create a spectrum and then placed silver
    chloride in each color. He found that the silver chloride
    increasingly darkened from the red to the violet part of the
    spectrum as predicted. Ritter then decided to place silver chloride
    in the area just beyond the violet end of the spectrum in a region
    where no sunlight was visible, and was amazed to see an even more
    intense reaction there. This experiment showed for the first time
    that an invisible form of light existed beyond the violet end of the
    visible spectrum. This is now know as the ultraviolet part of the
    electromagnetic spectrum.

    http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu//cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities
    /ritter_example.html

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I am very pleased to find this out. I was about to invest some time
    on an instrumentation project that would have not worked the way I
    planned:)

    Regards,

    Mike Monett
     
  14. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    I once made a tie-tac out of an 8751 chip.

    Nobody noticed. )-;

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
  15. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    It'll go with the resistor nipple piercings, power diode tongue
    piercings,10Mhz clock crystal necklaces and schematic symbol tattoos..

    I'd get the hysteresis symbol tattoo...that one's cool..[/QUOTE]

    I'd like to make some earrings (or any other pierced area rings) from
    machine shop chips and sell them in Hollyweird or Laguna Beach or
    something. ;-)
    http://www.neodruid.net/images/MetalChips.jpg

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
  16. Paper version sent to me at work, when I raised this question with regards
    to a commercial application which would be affected by light in the very
    near UV.
    I'd think they would send another copy, or may have it somewhere on their
    website as well.
    Just looked. They have a much lower resolution copy, showing the same
    peaks, but so poorly resolved, that it is hard to tell the exact
    frequencies. The spectra are at:
    http://www.gelighting.com/na/busine...ces/learn_about_light/distribution_curves.htm
    The curve I had, was for the 'WWX' lamp, with the paper copy ending at
    370nm, where some significant output is still shown. The computer version
    seems to lose the bottom percent or so.
    So it is responding to the visible, but more strongly to UV. A
    photo-chemist would probably be able to tell you the minimum energy photon
    required to trigger it.

    Best Wishes
     
  17. Mike Monett

    Mike Monett Guest

    The curve I had, was for the 'WWX' lamp, with the paper copy ending
    at 370nm, where some significant output is still shown. The computer
    version seems to lose the bottom percent or so.

    Great - thanks. The graphs show very little output above 375nm, and
    the FAQ states:

    "UV exposure from sitting indoors under fluorescent lights at
    typical office light levels for an eight hour workday is equivalent
    to just over a minute of exposure to the sun in Washington, D.C. on
    a clear day in July."

    So the UV output is negligible for any practical applications.

    [...]
    Thanks for your help. I'll try infrared and see if that works.

    Regards,

    Mike Monett
     
  18. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    That's because you live in the Silicon Valley ;-)
     
  19. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    No, actually John L is closer to Silicon Valley than I am - at the time, I
    was living and working in Orange County, a little quasi-libertarian
    bastion between LA and San Clemente. ;-)

    Cheers!
    Rich
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-