Conservation DistList Archives [Date] [Subject] [Author] [SEARCH]

Subject: UV monitors

UV monitors

From: William Hall <wdh>
Date: Sunday, August 3, 2003
Peter Lundskow <plundskow [at] dnr__state__in__us> writes

>I have a question that I have been researching and have not been
>able to find an answer to.  I know when it comes to general
>recommended UV readings for museums 10 microwatts per lumen is
>optimum with 75 microwatts per lumen being the high end of the
>'safe' range.  Also, that many museums use the Crawford type 760 UV
>monitor.
>
>After getting some inconsistent readings from this meter I did some
>searching.  I found out from a source that these meters can take
>misreadings and sometimes are effected by other factors such as some
>radio and other electromagnetic waves.

As manufacturer of the 760 UV Monitor I feel that I should point out
that this model was developed in the mid 1970s. It has since been
superseded, in turn, by the 762, 763 and 764 (I'm not sure what
happened to the 761).

The 764 is very different from the 760. Anyone who is interested can
see <URL:http://www.elsec.co.uk>

There are still many 760s in use and, as mentioned in another
message, it is useful for quick measurements. It measures the
*ratio* between UV and visible light so if there is little visible
light no sensible reading can be obtained.

William Hall
Littlemore Scientific (ELSEC), Oxford  UK
+44 1865 747437
Fax: +44 1865 747780
<URL:http://www.elsec.co.uk>


                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 17:18
                  Distributed: Tuesday, August 5, 2003
                       Message Id: cdl-17-18-002
                                  ***
Received on Sunday, 3 August, 2003

[Search all CoOL documents]


URL: http://cool.conservation-us.org/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/2003/1048.html
Timestamp: Thursday, 26-Jan-2012 15:56:53 PST
Retrieved: Saturday, 25-May-2019 21:20:56 GMT