How about cheap enough to put in a fleshlight?
Comment on Why It Was Almost Impossible to Make the Blue LED
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 months agoMaybe making X-ray emitters cheap enough to put in a flashlight isn’t the best idea anyway.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 4 months ago
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If you have a bone in your penis, you may not be fully human.
Otherwise, don’t x-ray your penis.
FiFoFree@lemmy.world 4 months ago
/c/flashlight sends its regards
lud@lemm.ee 4 months ago
D4V2 x-ray edition when?
JATtho@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Maybe not in a flashlight, but the scientific industry would be very pleased with them. Sterilize water and all surfaces in a second? Flash with 200nm light.
heckypecky@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
Handheld battery powered X-ray devices exist and are widely available. I used to work with those. In Germany you need a permit to operate them. www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/…/XL2
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 4 months ago
What’s wrong with the current UV tubes? Sure, the smaller ones take about 5-10 W to get the job done, so maybe an LED version would be more efficient. If you’re using UV to keep a massive pool clean, then you’re obviously going to be need more of those bulbs, and they can add up to hundreds of watts quite easily. Is that really a big problem though? Having a pool isn’t cheap, so electricity spent on UV probably isn’t going to be your main concern. Sure, making it cheaper is always welcome, but are UV tubes really that big of a problem?
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 4 months ago
I mean they aren’t instant and have to be within a fairly short distance of the thing you want to sterilize in order to work because they are absorbed by the air. Something like a pool would be practically impossible as water also absorbs UV and a pool is too big to penetrate all the way through just from the sides or bottom. It only works for drinking water because you pass said water through a tube that must be fairly narrow.