Features of light catching

What is there to read? There is nothing there about any frequencies. Lamp (any) + screen (any) = quite a "scientific" method. And what kind of lamp and what material for the screen to choose depends on your capabilities and the rest of the equipment (throttle, power supply, etc.). If there is a 220V power supply in the fishing points, take DRV or DRL (+throttle), for especially cool men who are not afraid of melanoma, cataracts and retinal detachment - a broken DRL (+heavy clothing, a hat, and sunscreen). But if the net is not expected in the fishing area, then dancing with a tambourine begins, in this case it will really be useful to follow them from the very beginning of the topic.

Can someone tell me the golden mean? Here's the gist of it. Last year I bought a UV savings bank 26w BLB. I used it together with a non-gold DRL permanently all summer. At the same time, I never hung it in front of the screen, but carried it higher or to the side by 1-4 m and the butterflies did not quite fly on it. . And for the upcoming season, I'm going to make a collapsible screen for off-site fishing on 26w BLB and 50w sberegayka from the autoinverter and rested against the wall: Do the UV bracket so that it hangs against the background of the screen(reflected) or move it higher(so as not to look at it)?

Can someone tell me the golden mean? Here's the gist of it. Last year I bought a UV savings bank 26w BLB. I used it together with a non-gold DRL permanently all summer. At the same time, I never hung it in front of the screen, but carried it higher or to the side by 1-4 m and the butterflies did not quite fly on it. . And for the upcoming season, I'm going to make a collapsible screen for off-site fishing on 26w BLB and 50w sberegayka from the autoinverter and rested against the wall: Do the UV bracket so that it hangs against the background of the screen(reflected) or move it higher(so as not to look at it)?

I also noticed that UV works well at a fairly large distance from the screen. I often set a trap with only one UV in the garden. And at a distance of 5-6 meters there was a white wall of the house. So on the wall flew very well. And sometimes the Noctua fimbriata drummed so hard on the windows that it made it difficult to sleep. It seems to me that it is better to put it higher, so as not to look at the lamp (their light "presses" on the eyes too much), but also so that the light from it falls on the screen too.

All energy-saving UV lamps can be hung on the screen, so we do it all the time. The number of insects on that part of the screen is significantly higher. It also works on its own, but we checked it in the spring, many times more years than on the DRV , but the DRV was standing in a clearing, and the UV was in the bushes
But from gas UV tubes, you can get a burn of the eyes, if close to the eyes, it is desirable that the light from them does not get into the eyes.

All energy-saving UV lamps can be hung on the screen, so we do it all the time. The number of insects on that part of the screen is significantly higher. It also works on its own, but we checked it in the spring, many times more years than on the DRV , but the DRV was standing in a clearing, and the UV was in the bushes
But from gas UV tubes, you can get a burn of the eyes, if close to the eyes, it is desirable that the light from them does not get into the eyes.

I also noticed that if you hang BLB on the screen(in my case it was 2 x b sheets quilted with a stapler!), then the number of insects around it is several times greater, but this is when I hung it together with a 50w savings bank, and I did not try it with drl together. And why can you get a burn from tubes, but not from VLB?

Fluorescent "energy-saving lamps" are the same linear fluorescent lamps (LL), "tubes", but coiled and of a smaller thickness (T4), equipped with a starter built into the base. It is more correct to call them compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). They have a greater light output per unit length than standard T8 "tubes", and the range is better. In terms of the radiation spectrum and danger to the eyes, they do not differ with the same marking (and are quite safe if you do not look at them from a distance of less than 30 cm, or with glasses). I have been successfully using them for many years, both separately and (normally) together with DRL and DRV. This gives a good effect, especially at dusk.
I usually deploy a double screen, with panels about 2.5 m long and 1.7 m high positioned at right angles to each other. Fastening is a quick-assembly frame of a gazebo awning (2 sides are tightened). At the same time, the main side focuses on more remote stations of interest, and the perependicular side - on closer ones. I usually try to keep one of the sides oriented more or less towards the sunset, so as to intercept the natural direction of summer. On the main side I put DRL 125W (on a separate sealed starter; the starter must be removed from the lamp no more than 1.5 m; I hang it on the frame) + CFL 365nm 26W (Camelion company). It makes sense to use a more powerful DRL (250W) if you want to attract insects from a station that is more than 1000m away. An even more powerful (500W) DRL, in my opinion, should not be used, it illuminates the surroundings too much and many attracted insects linger on the border of the illuminated circle, not reaching the screen. Even with less powerful lamps, it is advisable to regularly go around the neighborhood with a flashlight, you can make interesting finds. On the second side of the screen, where the stations of interest are located within 300-500m, I put the DRV 160W + also the CFL 365nm 26W. Unlike DRL, DRV lamps do not require a starter, but, in general, are less attractive for a number of groups and less long-range, although all the main groups fly. There is a certain difference even in the attractive ability of DRV from different manufacturers (Osram, GE, Philips, etc.). I usually use Osram and Philips, each of them has its own nuances. GE and a number of other imported ones seemed worse, while Russian ones were quite bad. It is this combination of lamps on two screens that I use because the total load from it (125+160+26+26 = 337W, + charging batteries for flashlights, cameras, phones, tablets, etc.) allows you to use the Kipor 1000i generator in economy mode (max. 400W, 50% of the working 800W), which gives up to 9,5 hours of operation on a single tank. Increasing the power of the DRV or DRL by one stage already does not allow this, but there is usually no special need for this. Strong fliers in flat terrain and all this fly for 2-3km at least. So, in the sands beyond Dosang, you barely have time to dodge large water lovers and floaters, despite the fact that the nearest reservoir is obviously no closer than 3-5km. I don't see the point in removing UV 365nm and similar lamps from the screen, unless you use special traps on them (for example, on ground beetles, dung beetles, etc.), which I sometimes do, but then I take 8W. It is always better to turn on at sunset, before obvious twilight, usually I turn on only UV at first, and a lot of interesting things are going to happen at this time.

Many thanks for the detailed and clear explanation) Now feel free to attach the UV lamp to the screen! And maybe 2!!!

Thank you very much, Barnaba. However, I'm so far away from physics and electrical engineering that I'm even more confused. And I don't hesitate to ask some "stupid" questions.

In the course of your story, at the end, the abbreviation "UV" suddenly popped up next to "365nm". So UV = CFL, which is "365nm"? - That is, the apartments are illuminated by ultraviolet lamps?

And another thing: - why do you need to hang CFLs and DLR/DRV in one place?

And, what are those dark ultramarine, half-blind pipes that make your teeth and white T-shirts glow in discos? They don't give me any light, but I've seen them swarm with insects in the city, ignoring all the bright lights?

By the way, I will catch it by connecting a light source, either to the car's cigarette lighter or to 220, since the generator is not expected.
In the first case, it is a house on the outskirts of the farm, behind which the mountain immediately begins.

Different screen materials have different reflectivity for UV (different from that for visible light). Perhaps you have insects flying only at the lamp, but not at the screen illuminated by it, precisely because it reflects poorly. About the reflection of UV by different fabrics somewhere in this topic there are details, I just remembered that bleach is bad.
[/uote]But from gas UV tubes, you can get a burn of the eyes, if close to the eyes, it is desirable that the light from them does not get into the eyes.[/quote]
Quartz sterilizers or something? Still, yes, there is a higher danger, and not only for the eyes. It is even higher than from a stab DRL. And for the rest, it is strictly the same as from a similar energy saving program. By the way, there are also quite good UV LEDs that give about the same spectral range as "black neon", but consume much less voltage. White diodes also showed a fairly high attractiveness (approximately at the level of conventional energy-saving lamps of similar brightness). So purely on diodes, you can make a field version, powered not only from 12 V, but even from 3 and with a completely acceptable battery life. The result, of course, will not be comparable to DRV or DRL, but if you catch in the dark wilderness, it may be quite sufficient. In this topic, by the way, there is a report on successful fishing with such a device in the tropics.

When we write, we understand ourselves perfectly, the problem is that others would understand.

  
But from gas UV tubes, you can get a burn of the eyes, if close to the eyes, it is desirable that the light from them does not get into the eyes.

This is about such lamps http://svet-con.ru/Lamp/detail.php?ID=23061
and not about such things http://ozonet.com.ua/shop/233/desc/zemi-lamp-drt-125 , these are the killers of all living things, an analogy with the stab DRL.

When we write, we understand ourselves perfectly, the problem is that others would understand.

"That's why I didn't understand anything from ENO's letter at all. I didn't even understand who he was texting or replying to.
But I'm not in the mood to ask you to let me know anything anymore. I am ashamed to get to the bottom of educated specialists. Yes , and I'm stupid.
Therefore, I will either open the bike or read the branch from the first page.

  
And another thing: - why do you need to hang CFLs and DLR/DRV in one place?

This is done to maximize the glow spectrum, and in the hope that they work differently (this is really the case, as I already wrote, on the side where the UV"housekeeper" of animals is always more)
In the case of battery operation, in the double for UV, you must have a housekeeper with a visible spectrum, you can have two with different glow temperatures, so that you can see what flew on the screen.
"Housekeepers" are like this: http://www.mobilluck.com.ua/katalog/lamps/...rgosberegajsie/

  
And, what are those dark ultramarine, half-blind pipes that make your teeth and white T-shirts glow in discos? They don't give me any light, but I've seen them swarm with insects in the city, ignoring all the bright lights?

These are ultraviolet lamps, we do not see this part of the spectrum, and insects see very well and fly to it, for this reason they are used as an additional element, as the main one, such lamps are placed in light traps, we do not need to see what has arrived at the light. they are collected there later. ( and they are invisible)
Please ask questions, just specify them.

So DRL, DRV or savings bank, if the first core is closed with glass, will give a very close result.
I don't agree. On DRL and DRV will fly more, because they are brighter, because it is more powerful. Savings cards for 100-500 Watts I have not seen on sale. In fact, the spectra there are similar, since the same light source is used - mercury vapor, similar phosphors, and glass that is similar in light copying. DRL is better than DRV in the sense that there all the power is consumed for luminescence, and in DRV a good half goes to the incandescent filament, that is, in the yellow spectrum, which attracts most insects worse than blue. Minus the DRL - a large, heavy and rather expensive throttle. So if you catch from the network, IMHO, you need to look in the direction of high-pressure lamps and not savings books at 26 W. Another problem of savings books is a twisted bulb, where more than half of the surface shines inside the paws. In addition, the phosphor in them eventually fades to black. An ordinary tube lamp of similar power is better than a savings card, if you need to concentrate the rays on the screen, you can equip it with a simple tinplate reflector, then the light loss will be minimal, compared to the CCL. I used the savings bank only because I was too lazy to build something, just screwed it into a table lamp, pointed it out the window and provided food for insectivorous animals. And if fishing is meant for more serious purposes, then more serious training is needed.

And no one doubts that, if possible, you should look at high-pressure lamps, but you can not neglect 26V UV savings! Of course, more flies on DRL and DRV, but if you take the entire volume of victims who arrived on DRL for 100%, then when using DRL with UV savings at the same time, 105, and maybe all 107% will arrive))

This is just a mechanistic hypothesis, one of many explanations for the complex phenomenon of nocturnal insects coming to light. Not the most successful, in my opinion. Here, for example, we have a window in the wall of a multi-storey building, a table lamp shines through it. If the butterflies were flying towards her light in a spiral, they would stupidly crash into the wall. In fact, butterflies (and non-butterflies, too) arrive at the light source on very different trajectories, and at the source itself they behave differently (some circle around, others sit under or near, and still others hammer their forehead until they lose their ability to fly. But the distance of luring is difficult to check. To do this, you can suggest the following experiment: catch more nocturnal insects (let there be butterflies), mark them with different labels, put them in compact portable shelters, let them calm down, spread these shelters out during the day at different distances from the lamp, turn on the lamp in the evening and wait. Repeat many times with different lights and on different views. And then theorize about the angles of divergence of rays and all that stuff.

You can not even try to shine at a distance of more than fifty meters - this is useless even for large and active insects, and small things fly from a maximum radius of ten meters. In addition, butterflies practically do not descend to the light, so it is also unproductive to shine from the clearing to the crowns or from the foot to the mountainside.

This is not entirely true.

This is just a mechanistic hypothesis, one of many explanations for the complex phenomenon of nocturnal insects coming to light. Not the most successful, in my opinion. Here, for example, we have a window in the wall of a multi-storey building, a table lamp shines through it. If the butterflies were flying towards her light in a spiral, they would stupidly crash into the wall. In fact, butterflies (and non-butterflies, too) arrive at the light source on very different trajectories, and at the source itself they behave differently (some circle around, others sit under or near, and still others hammer their forehead until they lose their ability to fly. But the distance of luring is difficult to check. To do this, you can suggest the following experiment: catch more nocturnal insects (let there be butterflies), mark them with different labels, put them in compact portable shelters, let them calm down, spread these shelters out during the day at different distances from the lamp, turn on the lamp in the evening and wait. Repeat many times with different lights and on different views. And then theorize about the angles of divergence of rays and all that stuff.

All blah-blah-blah.
A person who has experience catching on a table lamp (we omit the type of the source itself, as unnecessary ) he teaches and instructs everyone. And so on all topics that make you happy with your presence. Yes, Ilya Nikolaevich Ogol?
It's amazing how one person can make so much noise in their topics. Unique talkative abilities.

This is not entirely true.

I would say that this is not the case at all Light traps work perfectly at ground level. Other revelations are also, at a minimum, controversial.

All blah-blah-blah.
A person who has experience catching on a table lamp (the type of source itself is omitted, as unnecessary smile.gif) teaches and instructs everyone. And so on all topics that make you happy with your presence. Yes, Ilya Nikolaevich Ogol?
Yes to what, Alexander Vladimirovich Zhakov? "Yes" - do I make you happy with my presence? Obviously, who knows how. Some people thank you for your help or for the photo material, and others probably would prefer that I was absent here and did not interfere with the broadcasting of pseudoscientific ideas.

Or " yes " - " having experience catching on a table lamp (we omit the type of the source itself, as unnecessary smile.gif )"? Then the answer is no. I used to catch (as a hobby) on various light sources, including UV LEDs (for full specifics: they are not screwed to the table lamp in any way). And unlike you, I know what a "quartz lamp" is and what it looks like.

Or " yes " - "all blah-blah-blah"? Still, yes: in all your appeals to me, starting with the topic about the long-term dynamics of the swallowtail population, it is solid, not diluted with a single argument. If I'm wrong, show me where and prove it.

The table lamp, which was not pointed at the window, I cited only as proof of the inconsistency of Bianor's peremptory statement that butterflies fly to the light in a spiral, measuring the angles of divergence of rays, and nothing else. Or are you also going to argue that this is exactly the case?

Sberegayka and nekolotoy DRL have a similar spectrum...So DRL, DRV or savings bank, if the first core is closed with glass, will give a very close result. Saving money is more economical, so it is preferable out of these three options. When there is no competition in the form of urban lighting, it can give quite a decent result. Of course, it is worse than real UV lamps, and in the city it is practically useless.

All these statements, alas, are incorrect. The effectiveness of a lamp for attracting insects, all other things being equal (installation, location, season, etc.) really depends, first, on the radiation spectrum (and not on the actual range, but on the radiation energy at certain lengths), and secondly, on the luminous flux emitted by the lamp. The radiation spectrum of all these lamps is different, it is easy to find out by finding their characteristics on the Internet. DRL has the largest spectrum width at noticeably higher radiation in the 320-400nm range that attracts insects. In DRV, the main radiation power is shifted to other parts of the spectrum due to the presence of an incandescent spiral. In the 365nm VLB CFL, the combination of phosphor and special glass cuts off almost all visible light (with a wavelength of more than 400nm), and all the power falls within the specified range. Special lamps for attracting insects differ from BLB mainly only in the "uncut" range of visible light, which does not play a significant role in attracting insects. At the same time, they are extremely expensive and difficult to access in Russia. The total luminous flux of these lamps also varies greatly. Naturally, this depends on the power, but with equal power, the DRV gives about 45-60% less light than the DRL. Even a 125W DRL gives a significantly higher luminous flux than a 160W DRL (6300lm vs. 3100lm). Hence, it is clear that it is better to attract DRL. However, they require a starter and are more sensitive to current parameters, and DRVs require only a cartridge and can withstand significant voltage fluctuations, so many people use them, including me. BLB energy-saving lamps, being compact fluorescent lamps of small diameter, do not even reach the power of gas-discharge lamps (maximum 40W, but on the Russian market a maximum of 26W), but all their light is in the "right" range, and the output of approximately 500lm is not so small. Therefore, the point is not so much in their economy, but in their "sharpness", and their use together with gas-discharge devices is justified, which is confirmed by many years of practice. Some groups are not attracted to the screen only by DRL without UV CFL. They also work perfectly in the presence of other light sources, including in the city. But their "range" is small, since the initial light flux is small.

You can not even try to shine at a distance of more than fifty meters - this is useless even for large and active insects, and small things fly from a maximum radius of ten meters.

This is simply not true. As I wrote, good flyers (many beetles, hawk moth, etc.) fly for kilometers, the bulk of beetles - for hundreds of meters, and even very small ones (aphodia, for example) - for tens and hundreds of meters. For butterflies, the norm is to attract, say, from the opposite slope, on which only forage plants are located and which is hundreds of meters away in a straight line. And even ground beetles on a UV CFL source with a power of only 8W, installed in 30-40cm above the ground, come for tens of meters (my direct observations). But what to say when effective light traps with garden lanterns on light elements, the power of which is negligible and they are not optimized for the spectrum.

This is just a mechanistic hypothesis, one of many explanations for the complex phenomenon of nocturnal insects coming to light. Not the most successful, in my opinion.

There is no other, more convincing one yet.

There is no other, more convincing one yet.

As usual, things are a bit more complicated:
http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/gornos11.htm

I don't remember the butterflies crashing into the unlit wall next to the window. Here is butting into the lighted ceiling of a balcony (Alaska), as well as bouncing off a window with flying under the windowsill and sitting there until morning - this happened many times.

I don't remember the butterflies crashing into the unlit wall next to the window.

Did you just come up with such an argument? Who should butt where and why?

Well, if you think butterflies fly to the light in a spiral (as suggested by the source provided by Bad Den-in a logarithmic spiral), then in the case of a lighted window and a large area of the wall, they simply have to knock their heads into it, don't they?

Well, if you think butterflies fly to the light in a spiral (as suggested by the source provided by Bad Den-in a logarithmic spiral), then in the case of a lighted window and a large area of the wall, they simply have to knock their heads into it, don't they?

Don't you even read what other people write?

Are you sure that the words you wrote in Russian have exactly the meaning that you wanted to put into them? For clarity, I probably should draw the trajectory of the insect's approach to the window in a spiral and mark the point where it does not apply to the wall, but I'm too lazy to assert myself with graphic proof of such obvious facts.

You've made up your own nonsense and you want to refute it yourself?

Comrades, do not engage in reasonableness. If there is a question about the peculiarity of some insects to sit on an unlit surface near a light source, then this is really characteristic of a number of lepidoptera. Moths, scoops often sit down "around the corner". Katokals, for example, can get under the roof canopy, etc.

And in a good way, we have several members on the forum who can clog up any topic with unnecessary messages that do not carry any more or less useful information. Don't clog up the forum with your stupid flood. For this purpose, there are topics about the "full moon".

And here it is appropriate to report facts based on the practical use of light sources.

Respect the other participants who come here to read about the gathering for the light, and not just empty chatter and verbal skirmishes.

Friends, a question.
Do I understand correctly that the old DRL lamp, in which the phosphor was partially showered with the smallest specks, represents an optimal compromise in terms of the ratio of health hazards and attractiveness to insects?
On the one hand, it is less dangerous than a split one (sunglasses and go ahead). On the other hand, some part of the UV passes outside.

This post was edited by PhilGri-08.04.2016 15: 29

Worked under someone else's lamp (DRL), in which there was a crack (the owner of the lamp did not know) I was under the lamp for 4 hours, and he was wearing a hat for six hours. The skin from the face peeled off both of them and without dark glasses they were able to go out into the light in a week. An old DRL lamp, especially a "high-quality" Soviet one, with a broken phosphor, is a direct encroachment on one's health.
Here it is better to be stabbed, you already know exactly what to expect.

That's for sure. But human nature is such that in order to understand that a non-punctured DRL is in good condition (without cracks and shedding) and normal health is good, and a punctured one (without spraying, with a crack) in any condition and burns are bad, you need to get burned at least once ( although for some reason and once is not enough). I burned myself once without noticing the crack - "I didn't like it" is an understatement. So let the lamp be intact. For me personally)