I built sensor racks for dephi automotive. each rack had 7 $7500 sensor cards in it. They started moving racks to another section of the building. Plugged in the first rack, and released the magic smoke. He must have been a programmer, because he plugged in another rack to see if it was a fluke...
I built sensor racks for dephi automotive. each rack had 7 $7500 sensor cards in it. They started moving racks to another section of the building. Plugged in the first rack, and released the magic smoke. He must have been a programmer, because he plugged in another rack to see if it was a fluke...
Im not denying the original measurements are spot on.
Im talking about the derivative numbers that were not measured. These were estimates based on screen area blocked. But there is a huge variance between a 50% blocking screen wrapped around a bulb vs setting flat on bulb vs flat 1 foot away from the bulb etc. And it affects measurements really close vs really far, differently.
I have personally seen "50% blocking" large mesh result in only 10% UVI reduction directly under the bulb at 24" with arcadia 6% vs no mesh. I didnt measure a 50% reduction till 45 degrees off center.
I have personally seen "50% blocking" large mesh result in only 10% UVI reduction directly under the bulb at 24" with arcadia 6% vs no mesh. I didnt measure a 50% reduction till 45 degrees off center.