Lights (was: Re: Smithsonian gets it wrong)

[woodelf]

Allison wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Lights (was: Re: Smithsonian gets it wrong)
>>  From: William Donzelli <aw288 at osfn.org>
>>  Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:40:51 -0500 (EST)
>>    To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>So given the choice, what lighting *is* good?
>>>
>>>I'm just thinking that we might have to replace lighting at the museum 
>>>one day - so maybe keeping other options in mind is a good idea, 
>>>providing they're not horribly expensive....
>>>      
>>>
>>I have a book, called "the Care of Art Objects" (I forget the author) that
>>outlines all of this.
>>
>>Lots of interesting content in that book - things you would never know
>>(like why oak shelves should never be used in archives) - but then again
>>these folks actually plan on keeping things as close to forever as
>>possible.
>>
>>William Donzelli
>>aw288 at osfn.org
>>    
>>
>
>
>Well for computers especially those with exposed and unshuttered EPROMS 
>any exposure over time to UV light _may_ be problematic.  Generally speaking
>UV is har on a lot of things and florescents are fairly rich in UV, some 
>more than others.  That and it tends to distort color rendition if cheap
>lamps are used.
>
>  
>
Now if you want a neat lamp ...  somebody made a  sulfur lamp ...
you  zap the globe with microwaves and you get daylight... nice
idea for the hard to light big indoor areas.

>Allison
>
>.
>
>  
>