I have a radical idea--rather than engage in a jargon war, go to Radio
Shack, get red and green led lights (they are cheap), take both lights to a
dark site and see for yourself which seems to be best protect your dark
adaptation at its dimmest chart readable setting. That is what the AL site
is trying to promote. You might be surprised at the result.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [M]: green vs red lighting to preserve night vision


> It is my understanding that the destructive effect is exactly the same per
> detected photon. In other words, each photon absorbed by a rhodopsin
molecule
> results in the dissociation of the molecule. That is the detection
technique,
> and the eye's sensitivity curve is then determined by how the absorption
cross
> section of rhodopsin varies with wavelength. The absorption cross section
is
> in low in the red, so our dark adapted eye's sensitivity is low there.
Light
> detection by the dark adapted eye occurs by the destruction of rhodopsin.
We
> could see our charts with a green supplemental light that has a lower flux
> (i.e. photons/cm2/sec) than if we used one in the red.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE:Re: [M]: [M] Polar Alignment Questions -- long, Email address hidden
Next message: Re: [M]: Wedges, Michael J. Cook
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: green vs red lighting to preserve night vision, peter erdman
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: green vs red lighting to preserve night vision, Rich Wellner