| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Kumar" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2007 04:54:48 AM |
| Object: |
Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
Hello,
There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared radiation.
Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue light' wavelengths are
considered as cooler than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered warmer whereas
blue cooler.
There are also some therupatic use of both IR and UV as heating an
phototherapy. However both may be relating to heating not IR heating
and UV cooling.
As such, how it happens?
Best wishes.
.
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
01 Jun 2007 08:13:39 AM |
|
|
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180691688.638277.295120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Hello,
There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared
radiation. Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue
light' wavelengths are considered as cooler
Note you correctly said "considered as cooler".
than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered
warmer whereas blue cooler.
There are also some therupatic use of both IR and
UV as heating an phototherapy.
UV is not used *on people* for heating, though it is in some
industrial processes.
However both may be relating to heating not
IR heating and UV cooling.
As such, how it happens?
UV light sources are very power hungry. For each unit of energy,
you get fewer photons of UV than you do with IR. Because each
photon has more energy. UV does not cool things. UV sources to
which people are exposed are less intense... make fewer photons
per second. Otherwise, they would be sunburned in instants, and
sue in minutes.
Your observation is astute. It is only a convention that blue is
cooler, not fact.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 02:15:34 AM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 6:13 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180691688.638277.295120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Hello,
There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared
radiation. Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue
light' wavelengths are considered as cooler
Note you correctly said "considered as cooler".
than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered
warmer whereas blue cooler.
There are also some therupatic use of both IR and
UV as heating an phototherapy.
UV is not used *on people* for heating, though it is in some
industrial processes.
Sorry, it is indicated:-
" Phototherapy
Exposure to UVB light, particularly the 310nm narrowband UVB range, is
an effective long-term treatment for many skin conditions like
psoriasis, vitiligo, eczema, and many others. UVB phototherapy does
not require additional medications or topical preparations for the
therapeutic benefit; only the light exposure is needed. It is
effective for about 80% of those patients who need it, and when used
properly, this treatment may be used indefinitely. There are virtually
no side-effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet "
However both may be relating to heating not
IR heating and UV cooling.
As such, how it happens?
UV light sources are very power hungry. For each unit of energy,
you get fewer photons of UV than you do with IR. Because each
photon has more energy. UV does not cool things. UV sources to
which people are exposed are less intense... make fewer photons
per second. Otherwise, they would be sunburned in instants, and
sue in minutes.
Are these fewer photons per second or more photons of different
intensity? Are blue waves not more energetic/vibratory?
Your observation is astute. It is only a convention that blue is
cooler, not fact.
Pls tell me more about it. Thanks.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 01:01:29 PM |
|
|
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180768534.952469.258910@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 6:13 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com>
wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180691688.638277.295120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Hello,
There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared
radiation. Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue
light' wavelengths are considered as cooler
Note you correctly said "considered as cooler".
than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered
warmer whereas blue cooler.
There are also some therupatic use of both IR and
UV as heating an phototherapy.
UV is not used *on people* for heating, though it is in some
industrial processes.
Sorry, it is indicated:-
" Phototherapy
Exposure to UVB light, particularly the 310nm narrowband
UVB range, is an effective long-term treatment for many
skin conditions like psoriasis, vitiligo, eczema, and many
others. UVB phototherapy does not require additional
medications or topical preparations for the therapeutic
benefit; only the light exposure is needed. It is effective for
about 80% of those patients who need it, and when used
properly, this treatment may be used indefinitely. There
are virtually no side-effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet "
There is a difference between surface (and near-surface)
sterilization and heating. If the intensity of the UV lamps was
the same as heat lamps, they would need to run huge conductors to
power them and they would blacken and burn the skin in seconds.
However both may be relating to heating not
IR heating and UV cooling.
As such, how it happens?
UV light sources are very power hungry. For each unit
of energy, you get fewer photons of UV than you do
with IR. Because each photon has more energy. UV
does not cool things. UV sources to which people are
exposed are less intense... make fewer photons per
second. Otherwise, they would be sunburned in
instants, and sue in minutes.
Are these fewer photons per second or more photons
of different intensity?
Intensity is "number of photons per time per unit area".
Regardless of wavelength.
Are blue waves not more energetic/vibratory?
Energetic, yes.
Your observation is astute. It is only a convention
that blue is cooler, not fact.
Pls tell me more about it. Thanks.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 09:53:11 PM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 11:01 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com>
wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180768534.952469.258910@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 6:13 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com>
wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180691688.638277.295120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Hello,
There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared
radiation. Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue
light' wavelengths are considered as cooler
Note you correctly said "considered as cooler".
than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered
warmer whereas blue cooler.
There are also some therupatic use of both IR and
UV as heating an phototherapy.
UV is not used *on people* for heating, though it is in some
industrial processes.
Sorry, it is indicated:-
" Phototherapy
Exposure to UVB light, particularly the 310nm narrowband
UVB range, is an effective long-term treatment for many
skin conditions like psoriasis, vitiligo, eczema, and many
others. UVB phototherapy does not require additional
medications or topical preparations for the therapeutic
benefit; only the light exposure is needed. It is effective for
about 80% of those patients who need it, and when used
properly, this treatment may be used indefinitely. There
are virtually no side-effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet"
There is a difference between surface (and near-surface)
sterilization and heating. If the intensity of the UV lamps was
the same as heat lamps, they would need to run huge conductors to
power them and they would blacken and burn the skin in seconds.
Heating effect is related ti increase in blood flow. How IR and UV can
be differenciated in this regard?
However both may be relating to heating not
IR heating and UV cooling.
As such, how it happens?
UV light sources are very power hungry. For each unit
of energy, you get fewer photons of UV than you do
with IR. Because each photon has more energy. UV
does not cool things. UV sources to which people are
exposed are less intense... make fewer photons per
second. Otherwise, they would be sunburned in
instants, and sue in minutes.
Are these fewer photons per second or more photons
of different intensity?
Intensity is "number of photons per time per unit area".
Regardless of wavelength.
Which causes more vibrations in us, IR or UV?> >
Are blue waves not more energetic/vibratory?
Energetic, yes.
Whether warming is not an energetic effect?
Your observation is astute. It is only a convention
that blue is cooler, not fact.
Pls tell me more about it. Thanks.
David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 10:53:38 PM |
|
|
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180839191.399992.309490@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 11:01 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<d...@aol.com>
wrote:
....
There is a difference between surface (and near-
surface) sterilization and heating. If the intensity
of the UV lamps was the same as heat lamps,
they would need to run huge conductors to power
them and they would blacken and burn the skin
in seconds.
Heating effect is related ti increase in blood flow.
This is an effect, not a cause. The body is attempting to carry
away / redistribute the heat.
How IR and UV can be differenciated in this regard?
No different. If the UV is absorbed, heating occurs.
....
Intensity is "number of photons per time per unit area".
Regardless of wavelength.
Which causes more vibrations in us, IR or UV?
Are blue waves not more energetic/vibratory?
See what I said elsewhere about "resonance".
Energetic, yes.
Whether warming is not an energetic effect?
See what I said elsewhere about "resonance".
....
Pls tell me more about it. Thanks.
Until I get tired of answering the same question over and over...
I do expect you to have some interest in the topic, and be
willing to do some research / thinking.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
03 Jun 2007 12:14:49 AM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 8:53 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180839191.399992.309490@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 11:01 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<d...@aol.com>
wrote:
...
There is a difference between surface (and near-
surface) sterilization and heating. If the intensity
of the UV lamps was the same as heat lamps,
they would need to run huge conductors to power
them and they would blacken and burn the skin
in seconds.
Heating effect is related ti increase in blood flow.
This is an effect, not a cause. The body is attempting to carry
away / redistribute the heat.
How IR and UV can be differenciated in this regard?
No different. If the UV is absorbed, heating occurs.
Why UV is used in phototherapy instead of IR?
...
Intensity is "number of photons per time per unit area".
Regardless of wavelength.
Which causes more vibrations in us, IR or UV?
Are blue waves not more energetic/vibratory?
See what I said elsewhere about "resonance".
Energetic, yes.
Whether warming is not an energetic effect?
See what I said elsewhere about "resonance".
...
Pls tell me more about it. Thanks.
Until I get tired of answering the same question over and over...
I do expect you to have some interest in the topic, and be
willing to do some research / thinking.
Sorry, I am trying, but it looks to be more technical for me.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
03 Jun 2007 12:03:15 PM |
|
|
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180847689.392854.233370@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 8:53 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com>
wrote:
....
Heating effect is related ti increase in blood flow.
....
How IR and UV can be differenciated in this regard?
No different. If the UV is absorbed, heating occurs.
Why UV is used in phototherapy instead of IR?
Because heating is not always required. UV has a very strong
effect with very low intensity. Its energy may not require the
body to even be warmed significantly. Candidate uses for UV on
living tissue are sterilization and vitamin D formation.
....
Pls tell me more about it. Thanks.
Until I get tired of answering the same question over
and over... I do expect you to have some interest in
the topic, and be willing to do some research / thinking.
Sorry, I am trying, but it looks to be more technical
for me.
Science is like that. It is your passion that makes you go
places you have never gone before. Your passion will require you
to learn things of a technical nature.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
03 Jun 2007 10:41:54 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 10:03 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com>
wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180847689.392854.233370@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 8:53 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com>
wrote:
...
Heating effect is related ti increase in blood flow.
...
How IR and UV can be differenciated in this regard?
No different. If the UV is absorbed, heating occurs.
Why UV is used in phototherapy instead of IR?
Because heating is not always required. UV has a very strong
effect with very low intensity. Its energy may not require the
body to even be warmed significantly. Candidate uses for UV on
living tissue are sterilization and vitamin D formation.
I feel, I am understanding it. Is it to sterlize some over-actions in
body and enhance calcium utilization(by vit D)?
By application of ice or cold, I think we also sterlize or
vasoconstrict?
...
Pls tell me more about it. Thanks.
Until I get tired of answering the same question over
and over... I do expect you to have some interest in
the topic, and be willing to do some research / thinking.
Sorry, I am trying, but it looks to be more technical
for me.
Science is like that. It is your passion that makes you go
places you have never gone before. Your passion will require you
to learn things of a technical nature.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
03 Jun 2007 11:31:06 PM |
|
|
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180928514.839171.326000@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 10:03 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<d...@aol.com>
wrote:
....
Why UV is used in phototherapy instead of IR?
Because heating is not always required. UV has a
very strong effect with very low intensity. Its energy
may not require the body to even be warmed
significantly. Candidate uses for UV on living tissue
are sterilization and vitamin D formation.
I feel, I am understanding it. Is it to sterlize some
over-actions in body and enhance calcium utilization
(by vit D)?
As a medical practice, yes.
By application of ice or cold, I think we also sterlize
or vasoconstrict?
Very few organisms die with cold. Most of them have "spore
states" that are immune to cold. UV will destroy them no matter
what state they are in... as long as the light gets to every
organism.
I seem to recall an apocryphal story of Indian fakirs burying
themselves in snowbanks, and essentially hybernating through the
winter.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 01:04:21 AM |
|
|
High PH and UV will hurt .
Lower your blood ph when in the sun.
Or sea weed will grow in your skin.
The uv will pass threw you hands just like a flash light can glow threw
your hand.
UV is not causing skin canser.
short wave microwave TV is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 09:02:48 AM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 11:04 am, (tj Frazir) wrote:
High PH and UV will hurt .
Lower your blood ph when in the sun.
I think, low pH causes vasodilation?
Whether increased or decreased blood flow is also related to sun's
effect? Some people can have constitutional or aquired blood flow
variations?
Or sea weed will grow in your skin.
The uv will pass threw you hands just like a flash light can glow threw
your hand.
Will such passing be without effecting hand?
UV is not causing skin canser.
short wave microwave TV is.
How people can feel differently on their exposure to IR and UV?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 08:37:58 AM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 9:31 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180928514.839171.326000@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 10:03 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<d...@aol.com>
wrote:
...
Why UV is used in phototherapy instead of IR?
Because heating is not always required. UV has a
very strong effect with very low intensity. Its energy
may not require the body to even be warmed
significantly. Candidate uses for UV on living tissue
are sterilization and vitamin D formation.
I feel, I am understanding it. Is it to sterlize some
over-actions in body and enhance calcium utilization
(by vit D)?
As a medical practice, yes.
By application of ice or cold, I think we also sterlize
or vasoconstrict?
Very few organisms die with cold. Most of them have "spore
states" that are immune to cold. UV will destroy them no matter
what state they are in... as long as the light gets to every
organism.
I seem to recall an apocryphal story of Indian fakirs burying
themselves in snowbanks, and essentially hybernating through the
winter.
David A. Smith
Thanks. Btw, how people, who are exposed to UV and IR will feel like?
.
|
|
|
| User: "dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 09:22:37 AM |
|
|
Dear Kumar:
On Jun 4, 6:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:31 am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com> wrote:
....
By application of ice or cold, I think we also sterlize
or vasoconstrict?
Very few organisms die with cold. Most of them have
"spore states" that are immune to cold. UV will
destroy them no matter what state they are in... as
long as the light gets to every organism.
I seem to recall an apocryphal story of Indian fakirs
burying themselves in snowbanks, and essentially
hybernating through the winter.
Thanks. Btw, how people, who are exposed to UV and
IR will feel like?
There is no general answer to this question. Given a reasonable dose
(as discussed elsewhere), the answer would be "mildly euphoric" and
"warm respectively.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 10:07:33 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 7:22 pm, dlzc <d...@cox.net> wrote:
Dear Kumar:
On Jun 4, 6:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:31 am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com> wrote:
...
By application of ice or cold, I think we also sterlize
or vasoconstrict?
Very few organisms die with cold. Most of them have
"spore states" that are immune to cold. UV will
destroy them no matter what state they are in... as
long as the light gets to every organism.
I seem to recall an apocryphal story of Indian fakirs
burying themselves in snowbanks, and essentially
hybernating through the winter.
Thanks. Btw, how people, who are exposed to UV and
IR will feel like?
There is no general answer to this question. Given a reasonable dose
(as discussed elsewhere), the answer would be "mildly euphoric" and
"warm respectively.
Simply, whether IR and UV exposure mean, exposure of more or less
photons per given area in same time?
David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 10:50:08 PM |
|
|
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181012853.493020.152060@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
....
Simply, whether IR and UV exposure mean, exposure of
more or less photons per given area in same time?
Think of IR as a punch by a 3 year old, and UV as a punch by an
18 year old bantam weight fighter. Now look at your question.
It is not just the number of photons (punches and intensity and
"dose"), it is also the power behind them (frequency).
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 11:01:01 PM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 8:50 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181012853.493020.152060@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
...
Simply, whether IR and UV exposure mean, exposure of
more or less photons per given area in same time?
Think of IR as a punch by a 3 year old, and UV as a punch by an
18 year old bantam weight fighter. Now look at your question.
It is not just the number of photons (punches and intensity and
"dose"), it is also the power behind them (frequency).
David A. Smith
Thanks. Now it is clear. Now tell me again about intensity and
frequency difference by IR and UV, and then how these are
differenciated effects?
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 11:26:51 PM |
|
|
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181016061.111186.16940@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
....
Thanks. Now it is clear. Now tell me again about
intensity and frequency difference by IR and UV,
and then how these are differenciated effects?
Review the thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity
http://www.googleguide.com/
UV "physiological effect" site:.edu
217 hits on google.
IR "physiological effect" site:.edu
381 hits on google
It is *your* passion. Put it to work. Transform yourself.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
05 Jun 2007 03:24:05 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 9:26 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <d...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Kumar:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181016061.111186.16940@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
...
Thanks. Now it is clear. Now tell me again about
intensity and frequency difference by IR and UV,
and then how these are differenciated effects?
Review the thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensityhttp://www.googleguide.com/
UV "physiological effect" site:.edu
217 hits on google.
IR "physiological effect" site:.edu
381 hits on google
It is *your* passion. Put it to work. Transform yourself.
David A. Smith
Thanks, I feel I will understand now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
01 Jun 2007 11:42:45 PM |
|
|
In article <1180691688.638277.295120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Kumar <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote:
There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared radiation.
Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue light' wavelengths are
considered as cooler than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered warmer whereas
blue cooler.
These are entirely psychological effects, well known to artists and
often used in design. They have nothing to do with heat or energy.
They are probably cultural, but may be partly innate. A sweater
dyed red will be no warmer than an identical sweater dyed blue, but
the red one may look "warmer" or "more cheerful" and have different
psychological connotations than the blue one.
The blue flame from burning natural gas is much hotter than orange
flame from burning wood.
There are also some therupatic use of both IR and UV as heating an
phototherapy. However both may be relating to heating not IR heating
and UV cooling.
IR radiation directly warms things it strikes. That's why your
hand feels warm if you put it near a source of IR like hot coals,
an incandescent light bulb, an electric heating element, in direct
sunlight etc. IR spotlights are often used to keep food warm in
cafeterias, to warm young farm animals in cold climates, etc.
UV wavelengths are more energetic than visible ones. UV is often
divided into three ranges for biological effects. The least energetic
is UV-A, which is adjacent to the visible spectrum, and is fairly
harmless. THe "black light" used for groovy posters, identifying
certain minerals and detecting rat urine by fluorescence is mostly
UV-A. UV-B is more energetic and biological effects include sunburn,
tanning, and synthesis of vitamin D in the skin. UV-C is sometimes
called germicidal UV and is used in food preparation facilities and
microbiological labs to reduce contamination, or at least it used
to be some years ago. UV-C and to a lesser extent UV-B damage DNA
and can cause skin cancer, cataracts and premature aging of the skin.
UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 02:24:09 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 9:42 am, wrote:
In article <1180691688.638277.295...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared radiation.
Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue light' wavelengths are
considered as cooler than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered warmer whereas
blue cooler.
These are entirely psychological effects, well known to artists and
often used in design. They have nothing to do with heat or energy.
They are probably cultural, but may be partly innate. A sweater
dyed red will be no warmer than an identical sweater dyed blue, but
the red one may look "warmer" or "more cheerful" and have different
psychological connotations than the blue one.
The blue flame from burning natural gas is much hotter than orange
flame from burning wood.
There are also some therupatic use of both IR and UV as heating an
phototherapy. However both may be relating to heating not IR heating
and UV cooling.
IR radiation directly warms things it strikes. That's why your
hand feels warm if you put it near a source of IR like hot coals,
an incandescent light bulb, an electric heating element, in direct
sunlight etc. IR spotlights are often used to keep food warm in
cafeterias, to warm young farm animals in cold climates, etc.
UV wavelengths are more energetic than visible ones. UV is often
divided into three ranges for biological effects. The least energetic
is UV-A, which is adjacent to the visible spectrum, and is fairly
harmless. THe "black light" used for groovy posters, identifying
certain minerals and detecting rat urine by fluorescence is mostly
UV-A. UV-B is more energetic and biological effects include sunburn,
tanning, and synthesis of vitamin D in the skin. UV-C is sometimes
called germicidal UV and is used in food preparation facilities and
microbiological labs to reduce contamination, or at least it used
to be some years ago. UV-C and to a lesser extent UV-B damage DNA
and can cause skin cancer, cataracts and premature aging of the skin.
UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
and energetic effect as warming effect?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 03:09:06 AM |
|
|
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180769049.652969.7370@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 2, 9:42 am, wrote:
: > In article <1180691688.638277.295...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
: >
: > Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > >There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared radiation.
: > >Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue light' wavelengths are
: > >considered as cooler than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
: > >light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered warmer whereas
: > >blue cooler.
: >
: > These are entirely psychological effects, well known to artists and
: > often used in design. They have nothing to do with heat or energy.
: > They are probably cultural, but may be partly innate. A sweater
: > dyed red will be no warmer than an identical sweater dyed blue, but
: > the red one may look "warmer" or "more cheerful" and have different
: > psychological connotations than the blue one.
: >
: > The blue flame from burning natural gas is much hotter than orange
: > flame from burning wood.
: >
: > >There are also some therupatic use of both IR and UV as heating an
: > >phototherapy. However both may be relating to heating not IR heating
: > >and UV cooling.
: >
: > IR radiation directly warms things it strikes. That's why your
: > hand feels warm if you put it near a source of IR like hot coals,
: > an incandescent light bulb, an electric heating element, in direct
: > sunlight etc. IR spotlights are often used to keep food warm in
: > cafeterias, to warm young farm animals in cold climates, etc.
: >
: > UV wavelengths are more energetic than visible ones. UV is often
: > divided into three ranges for biological effects. The least energetic
: > is UV-A, which is adjacent to the visible spectrum, and is fairly
: > harmless. THe "black light" used for groovy posters, identifying
: > certain minerals and detecting rat urine by fluorescence is mostly
: > UV-A. UV-B is more energetic and biological effects include sunburn,
: > tanning, and synthesis of vitamin D in the skin. UV-C is sometimes
: > called germicidal UV and is used in food preparation facilities and
: > microbiological labs to reduce contamination, or at least it used
: > to be some years ago. UV-C and to a lesser extent UV-B damage DNA
: > and can cause skin cancer, cataracts and premature aging of the skin.
: >
: > UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
: > make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
:
: Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
: energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
: and energetic effect as warming effect?
:
Hmm... which has the greater value, a US$100 bill (UV)
or 1,000,000 Indian rupees (IR)?
Which has more energy, water falling down a pipe from behind a dam
and driving a turbine to generate electricity or rain falling from 1000
feet?
The rain does, but it is spread over a large area.
Which does the greater damage, the bullet (UV) or the recoil of a gun (IR)
since they both have the same energy?
You have to take quantity into consideration when comparing energy.
The gun has greater mass than the bullet, but lower velocity.
-vM + mV = 0.
Energy 1/2 mV^2 for the bullet, 1/2 Mv^2 for the gun. Total
energy of the gunpowder was E = mv^2.
IR warms, UV burns, but you can tolerate each in small doses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 09:39:11 PM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 1:09 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180769049.652969.7370@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 2, 9:42 am, wrote:
: > In article <1180691688.638277.295...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
: >
: > Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > >There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared radiation.
: > >Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue light' wavelengths are
: > >considered as cooler than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
: > >light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered warmer whereas
: > >blue cooler.
: >
: > These are entirely psychological effects, well known to artists and
: > often used in design. They have nothing to do with heat or energy.
: > They are probably cultural, but may be partly innate. A sweater
: > dyed red will be no warmer than an identical sweater dyed blue, but
: > the red one may look "warmer" or "more cheerful" and have different
: > psychological connotations than the blue one.
: >
: > The blue flame from burning natural gas is much hotter than orange
: > flame from burning wood.
: >
: > >There are also some therupatic use of both IR and UV as heating an
: > >phototherapy. However both may be relating to heating not IR heating
: > >and UV cooling.
: >
: > IR radiation directly warms things it strikes. That's why your
: > hand feels warm if you put it near a source of IR like hot coals,
: > an incandescent light bulb, an electric heating element, in direct
: > sunlight etc. IR spotlights are often used to keep food warm in
: > cafeterias, to warm young farm animals in cold climates, etc.
: >
: > UV wavelengths are more energetic than visible ones. UV is often
: > divided into three ranges for biological effects. The least energetic
: > is UV-A, which is adjacent to the visible spectrum, and is fairly
: > harmless. THe "black light" used for groovy posters, identifying
: > certain minerals and detecting rat urine by fluorescence is mostly
: > UV-A. UV-B is more energetic and biological effects include sunburn,
: > tanning, and synthesis of vitamin D in the skin. UV-C is sometimes
: > called germicidal UV and is used in food preparation facilities and
: > microbiological labs to reduce contamination, or at least it used
: > to be some years ago. UV-C and to a lesser extent UV-B damage DNA
: > and can cause skin cancer, cataracts and premature aging of the skin.
: >
: > UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
: > make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
:
: Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
: energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
: and energetic effect as warming effect?
:
Hmm... which has the greater value, a US$100 bill (UV)
or 1,000,000 Indian rupees (IR)?
Which has more energy, water falling down a pipe from behind a dam
and driving a turbine to generate electricity or rain falling from 1000
feet?
The rain does, but it is spread over a large area.
Which does the greater damage, the bullet (UV) or the recoil of a gun (IR)
since they both have the same energy?
You have to take quantity into consideration when comparing energy.
The gun has greater mass than the bullet, but lower velocity.
-vM + mV = 0.
Energy 1/2 mV^2 for the bullet, 1/2 Mv^2 for the gun. Total
energy of the gunpowder was E = mv^2.
IR warms, UV burns, but you can tolerate each in small doses.
Thanks. Btw, can't warming burn? Suppose we are very near to buring
coal, we can be burned whereas bit far, we will be just warmed. As
such burning can be possible in both cases. Then?
Whether UV causes more vibrations in us then IR?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
03 Jun 2007 03:59:29 AM |
|
|
"Kumar" <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180838351.779553.313300@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 2, 1:09 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1180769049.652969.7370@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Jun 2, 9:42 am, wrote:
: > : > In article <1180691688.638277.295...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
: > : >
: > : > Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > >There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared
radiation.
: > : > >Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue light' wavelengths are
: > : > >considered as cooler than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
: > : > >light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered warmer
whereas
: > : > >blue cooler.
: > : >
: > : > These are entirely psychological effects, well known to artists and
: > : > often used in design. They have nothing to do with heat or energy.
: > : > They are probably cultural, but may be partly innate. A sweater
: > : > dyed red will be no warmer than an identical sweater dyed blue, but
: > : > the red one may look "warmer" or "more cheerful" and have different
: > : > psychological connotations than the blue one.
: > : >
: > : > The blue flame from burning natural gas is much hotter than orange
: > : > flame from burning wood.
: > : >
: > : > >There are also some therupatic use of both IR and UV as heating an
: > : > >phototherapy. However both may be relating to heating not IR
heating
: > : > >and UV cooling.
: > : >
: > : > IR radiation directly warms things it strikes. That's why your
: > : > hand feels warm if you put it near a source of IR like hot coals,
: > : > an incandescent light bulb, an electric heating element, in direct
: > : > sunlight etc. IR spotlights are often used to keep food warm in
: > : > cafeterias, to warm young farm animals in cold climates, etc.
: > : >
: > : > UV wavelengths are more energetic than visible ones. UV is often
: > : > divided into three ranges for biological effects. The least
energetic
: > : > is UV-A, which is adjacent to the visible spectrum, and is fairly
: > : > harmless. THe "black light" used for groovy posters, identifying
: > : > certain minerals and detecting rat urine by fluorescence is mostly
: > : > UV-A. UV-B is more energetic and biological effects include
sunburn,
: > : > tanning, and synthesis of vitamin D in the skin. UV-C is sometimes
: > : > called germicidal UV and is used in food preparation facilities and
: > : > microbiological labs to reduce contamination, or at least it used
: > : > to be some years ago. UV-C and to a lesser extent UV-B damage DNA
: > : > and can cause skin cancer, cataracts and premature aging of the
skin.
: > : >
: > : > UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That
wouldn't
: > : > make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its
source.
: > :
: > : Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
: > : energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
: > : and energetic effect as warming effect?
: > :
: > Hmm... which has the greater value, a US$100 bill (UV)
: > or 1,000,000 Indian rupees (IR)?
: > Which has more energy, water falling down a pipe from behind a dam
: > and driving a turbine to generate electricity or rain falling from 1000
: > feet?
: > The rain does, but it is spread over a large area.
: >
: > Which does the greater damage, the bullet (UV) or the recoil of a gun
(IR)
: > since they both have the same energy?
: >
: > You have to take quantity into consideration when comparing energy.
: > The gun has greater mass than the bullet, but lower velocity.
: > -vM + mV = 0.
: > Energy 1/2 mV^2 for the bullet, 1/2 Mv^2 for the gun. Total
: > energy of the gunpowder was E = mv^2.
: >
: > IR warms, UV burns, but you can tolerate each in small doses.
:
: Thanks. Btw, can't warming burn?
Of course it can. The world is not just violet and red, there are shades
of orange, yellow, green, cyan and blue in between.
Suppose we are very near to buring
: coal, we can be burned whereas bit far, we will be just warmed. As
: such burning can be possible in both cases. Then?
:
: Whether UV causes more vibrations in us then IR?
You'd better start defining words such as "burn", "warm", "hot", "cold",
"scald", "freeze", "singe", "temperature" in scientific terms rather than
everyday use. Bad vibes isn't going to mean much.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 11:43:53 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:24:09 -0700, Kumar <lordshiva5753@gmail.com>
wrote:
UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
and energetic effect as warming effect?
Are you talking about real physical warming (change of temperature)?
You confused things by bringing in our perception of colors as warm or
cool, a psychological effect which has nothing to do with energy. Read
bae's reply carefully!
bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
02 Jun 2007 09:41:03 PM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 9:43 pm, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:24:09 -0700, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com>
wrote:
UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
and energetic effect as warming effect?
Are you talking about real physical warming (change of temperature)?
You confused things by bringing in our perception of colors as warm or
cool, a psychological effect which has nothing to do with energy. Read
bae's reply carefully!
bob
Still such physiological effect by red and blue colour is felt? How it
happens?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beverly Erlebacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
03 Jun 2007 02:36:12 PM |
|
|
In article <1180838463.220756.219250@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Kumar <lordshiva5753@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:43 pm, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:24:09 -0700, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com>
wrote:
UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
and energetic effect as warming effect?
Are you talking about real physical warming (change of temperature)?
You confused things by bringing in our perception of colors as warm or
cool, a psychological effect which has nothing to do with energy. Read
bae's reply carefully!
bob
Still such physiological effect by red and blue colour is felt? How it
happens?
It's not a physiological effect, it's a psychological one that has no
basis in physics. If you want to know more about the psychological
effects of color, there's an immense literature in the field of art
and design. These effects vary culturally. For example, in China,
white is the color of mourning, and it's surprising to these people
to see brides in western countries wearing white, which is associated
with purity in teh west, where black is the color of mourning. Similarly
red is a festive color in China, associated with good luck, and brides
commonly wear red. In the west, a red dress on a woman has a sexual
connotation, and is associated with prostitution, or moral looseness.
Fast food outlets often use a lot of orange in the decor because it
makes people restless and gets the customers out the door to make room
for more customers. Pink is associated with harmlessness, and I've
noticed that both human and veterinary vaccines are often colored pink,
presumably to allay the anxieties of the customer. Look around a
supermarket some time, and you'll see how color is chosen to make a
product more attractive by its associations.
Please don't fall back on your usual practice of continually asking for
an explanation of an effect that doesn't exist, because you believe it
does or should, wasting the time of people who put sincere effort into
trying to explain things to you. I've seen you do this again and again,
and have refused to get involved. This time, I thought I'd give you a
good clear answer, with good clear explanations, which you have already
forgotten, or refused to absorb. So, having given you another chance,
and seen you blow it, I'm outta here. Plonk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 12:10:03 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, (Beverly Erlebacher) wrote:
Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:43 pm, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:24:09 -0700, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com>
wrote:
UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
and energetic effect as warming effect?
Are you talking about real physical warming (change of temperature)?
You confused things by bringing in our perception of colors as warm or
cool, a psychological effect which has nothing to do with energy. Read
bae's reply carefully!
Still such physiological effect by red and blue colour is felt? How it
happens?
It's not a physiological effect, it's a psychological one that has no
basis in physics. If you want to know more about the psychological
What effect has no basis in fusics?
red glow:red retina -> reflection, dimness
shore glow:red retina -> absorption, brihtness
Black is "hot" because the retina works to see im; white is "cold"
because the retina rests to shun im.
effects of color, there's an immense literature in the field of art
and design. These effects vary culturally. For example, in China,
white is the color of mourning, and it's surprising to these people
to see brides in western countries wearing white, which is associated
with purity in teh west, where black is the color of mourning. Similarly
red is a festive color in China, associated with good luck, and brides
commonly wear red. In the west, a red dress on a woman has a sexual
connotation, and is associated with prostitution, or moral looseness.
Yes, they are utterly demented and retarded. Say someone shoots up a
Chinese wedding. Is the blood and gore "good luck"? Their favorite
food--the same word--ris, is white; are they sad about eattan such?
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Madalch" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 01:17:30 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 10:10 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Their favorite
food--the same word--ris, is white; are they sad about eattan such?
Do you cry when you drink coffee or Coca-Cola?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
04 Jun 2007 10:24:14 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 10:10 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Jun 3, 12:36 pm, (Beverly Erlebacher) wrote:
Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:43 pm, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:24:09 -0700, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com>
wrote:
UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
and energetic effect as warming effect?
Are you talking about real physical warming (change of temperature)?
You confused things by bringing in our perception of colors as warm or
cool, a psychological effect which has nothing to do with energy. Read
bae's reply carefully!
Still such physiological effect by red and blue colour is felt? How it
happens?
It's not a physiological effect, it's a psychological one that has no
basis in physics. If you want to know more about the psychological
What effect has no basis in fusics?
red glow:red retina -> reflection, dimness
shore glow:red retina -> absorption, brihtness
Black is "hot" because the retina works to see im; white is "cold"
because the retina rests to shun im.
Can you tell more about it? Whether retina has to work less to see
blue colour and more to see red colour?
effects of color, there's an immense literature in the field of art
and design. These effects vary culturally. For example, in China,
white is the color of mourning, and it's surprising to these people
to see brides in western countries wearing white, which is associated
with purity in teh west, where black is the color of mourning. Similarly
red is a festive color in China, associated with good luck, and brides
commonly wear red. In the west, a red dress on a woman has a sexual
connotation, and is associated with prostitution, or moral looseness.
Yes, they are utterly demented and retarded. Say someone shoots up a
Chinese wedding. Is the blood and gore "good luck"? Their favorite
food--the same word--ris, is white; are they sad about eattan such?
-Aut- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kumar" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
03 Jun 2007 10:58:10 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 12:36 am, (Beverly Erlebacher) wrote:
In article <1180838463.220756.219...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:43 pm, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:24:09 -0700, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com>
wrote:
UV radiation certainly doesn't cool things it strikes. That wouldn't
make any sense, since radiation transfers energy away from its source.
Thanks. Sorry, I am still unclear about warming effect by IR and
energetic effect by UV. Whether warming effect is not energetic effect
and energetic effect as warming effect?
Are you talking about real physical warming (change of temperature)?
You confused things by bringing in our perception of colors as warm or
cool, a psychological effect which has nothing to do with energy. Read
bae's reply carefully!
bob
Still such physiological effect by red and blue colour is felt? How it
happens?
It's not a physiological effect, it's a psychological one that has no
basis in physics. If you want to know more about the psychological
effects of color, there's an immense literature in the field of art
and design. These effects vary culturally. For example, in China,
white is the color of mourning, and it's surprising to these people
to see brides in western countries wearing white, which is associated
with purity in teh west, where black is the color of mourning. Similarly
red is a festive color in China, associated with good luck, and brides
commonly wear red. In the west, a red dress on a woman has a sexual
connotation, and is associated with prostitution, or moral looseness.
Fast food outlets often use a lot of orange in the decor because it
makes people restless and gets the customers out the door to make room
for more customers. Pink is associated with harmlessness, and I've
noticed that both human and veterinary vaccines are often colored pink,
presumably to allay the anxieties of the customer. Look around a
supermarket some time, and you'll see how color is chosen to make a
product more attractive by its associations.
Please don't fall back on your usual practice of continually asking for
an explanation of an effect that doesn't exist, because you believe it
does or should, wasting the time of people who put sincere effort into
trying to explain things to you. I've seen you do this again and again,
and have refused to get involved. This time, I thought I'd give you a
good clear answer, with good clear explanations, which you have already
forgotten, or refused to absorb. So, having given you another chance,
and seen you blow it, I'm outta here. Plonk.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sorry, it can't be intentional from my side because I am asking to
understand. It can be due to that I am less technical and may
understand in simple explainations.
About colours effect, there can be specific effect of colour, but it
can also be constitutional. We do experiance, specific colour suits/
apeal to one but may not to other. A reddend complexioned person by
constitution may feel more apealing/energetic in pink or red colour
cloths. Probably, complexion may be directly related to apealing/
suited colour, specifically. An apple have specific properties, still
may not effect/suit to all similarilty. As such, different
constitutions may be related to different colours, IR or UV. If in
excessive quantity, still toxicity can be possible to all people, is a
different issue.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "beav" |
|
| Title: Re: Infrared:Visible:Ultravoilet Effects? |
01 Jun 2007 08:46:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:54:48 -0700, Kumar <lordshiva5753@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
There are differing effects from UV, visible and infrared radiation.
Light particularly approaching UV or 'blue light' wavelengths are
considered as cooler than light approaching the infrared or 'red"
light. I mean red light/colour/clothes are considered warmer whereas
blue cooler.
There are also some therupatic use of both IR and UV as heating an
phototherapy. However both may be relating to heating not IR heating
and UV cooling.
As such, how it happens?
Best wishes.
IR stretches, scissors and otherwise vibrates molecules. we percieve
it as heat.
UV pushes electrons around on the atoms. we see it as biological
damage like sunburn.
absorbtion of both is different
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
