LED reflections and danger to the eyes?

[Obamot]

my wife who was operated on by the eyes and who suffers from macular degeneration, does not support LEDs, and they are not recommended for her, so there are probably harmful effects

This is a special medical case, isn't it?

For those who have doubts, we can check it for ourselves:
If the eyes get tired, and you can't stand it, you obviously shouldn't insist ...

Now Zorglub, we should know if they are not recommended for him - to avoid any risk of visual contact with the LEDs (which would be very understandable) - or if it is because of the frequency of the LED? I cannot answer that. Maybe she could give her doctor a call, then it would be nice to pass the info around here? She could also at the same time ask if for "a healthy subject" LED lighting should be discouraged or encouraged and why?

As it stands, and for my own sake, I can only see beneficial effects.

Otherwise it's very simple, put yourself in the dark. Take an advertisement printed with color illustrations, then light it alternately with an LED lamp, then after with an energy-saving lamp ... You will immediately understand when you see the difference in lighting quality ... what i mean

[coucou789456]

Good evening

to have a good element of comparison, it is necessary to compare what is comparable, in this case the quality of the vision for the same luminous flux.

Obviously if on one side you have a few LEDs and on the other a so-called energy-saving bulb, there will be no picture.

given the difference in lighting, the choice is quickly made ...

jeff

[dedeleco]

LEDs are a very point source, like the laser, and when viewed directly, the image on the retina is extremely point and intense and therefore dangerous at this point of the retina, which leaves a luminous afterglow of over-intensity at one point. point, especially for fragile retinas!
Fluos have more UV than LEDs, which come out despite their fluorescent coating supposed to block UV, but they are not punctual.
For plants you need the spectrum for chlorophyll, green and red LEDs
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophylle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grow_light
400 - 500nm and 600 - 700nm typically

[elephant]

Yes, but we must qualify: the energy level is not comparable to a halogen spotlight, anyway, which in addition radiates a lot in the IR (therefore heating)
As for the lighting of the plants, I think that we should not be deluded too much: we must obtain the same level of illumination as with fluorescent lamps. If it's to get 50 lux, that's not enough. Is it to grow cannabis?

[oiseautempete]

[quote = "Obamot] Otherwise it's very simple, put yourself in the dark. Take an advertisement printed with color illustrations, then light it alternately with an LED lamp, then after with an energy saving lamp. .. You will understand immediately when you see the difference in lighting quality ... what I mean [/ Quote]

With a daylight energy saving lamp, the colors are natural ... the LEDs tend to be bluish ...

[clasou]

Hello,
No, it's not more for cannabis, than for tortured children :)
Whatever for the hemp, I had thought about it this year because a big supplier of organic matter, but I preferred the sunflower.

For the plants, in fact they are for my seedlings or I would have liked to try to see, given the current weather and the convoys of slugs ..
Do I make them inside?

The night bearing advice seems' it. For the dangerousness of LEDs, have seen more and more security guards at night with them, cars are equipped with them and certainly trucks soon.
So the rear lights may not be unless they tire like the fog lights, but the full headlights?

a + claude

[Obamot]

Otherwise it's very simple, put yourself in the dark. Take an advertisement printed with color illustrations, then light it alternately with an LED lamp, then after with an energy-saving lamp ... You will immediately understand when you see the difference in lighting quality ... what i mean

With a daylight energy saving lamp, the colors are natural ... the LEDs tend to be bluish ...

Yes and no ... In general, incandescent type lighting is catastrophic for the "truth of colors".

The ideal color temperature is 5150 ° K (daylight in sunny weather = rendering of "neutral" tones), it is this temperature which is used as standard light in printers who must reproduce "correct" colors, in order to to be able to compare them with their reference ranges such as Pantone or CMYK ...

So when we say "bluish", in general it means rather "neutral". I'm pretty sure LEDs don't drop much below color temperature "day light"... mine are at 5600 ° K so "warmer" than daylight (it corresponds roughly to the gamma of a CRT video screen) so that would already be too much "hot" to judge colors "fair"...
So the LEDs "cold"? "Bluish"? It depends which ...

[zorglub]

ah! how good it is to be blind ...........

[zorglub]

answer @ Obamot

I will try to find out about the harmfulness
on the other hand, the mere fact of supporting radiation does not mean that it is harmless ..;

[Did67]

What I know is that the last time I bought a "LED spot", it was marked on it (in small) that you should not look directly into the spot (very shiny Xanlites but not powerled).

And since the manufacturers do in terms of warning only what is necessary in the event that they could be sued in the event of damage, I deduce that damage is possible.

I think this is the local overcurrent issue that deleco is talking about.

For the plants, I saw somewhere a square "spot" of 200 LEDs (in terms of intensity, that seems to me to be a minimum). Seems that the spectrum is valid ... It is the intensity that sins ...

We do not realize how much our eyes are constantly "correcting" and at what point, at 1 m from a window, the intensity of the light has already decreased (although it is very very clear!).