From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 09/02/01-08:51:57 AM Z
Manuel Gomes Teixeira wrote:
>
>I do not confirm as you said that direct sunlight will be faster than
>artificial light source. My experience says the opposite. At least with my
>working conditions.
>
Just want to clarify that my comparison for printing speed of the BL
tubes with direct sun was based on "real direct sun, no clouds," not
open shade. You may want to test the light sources again under these
conditions. At my location in South Carolina in the US I am located
in terms of latitude a little farther to the south of you (about 1-2
degrees depending on your exact location in Portugal), but I can't
imagine this small difference could account for the discrepancy in
printing speed. However, if it turns out that you really have BL
tubes that print faster than direct sun I must have some of them. I
use Sylvania 24" BL tubes, in fairly common use here in the USA among
alternative printers, and these tubes just do not compare to direct
sun in speed with any of the processes I have used.
Sandy King
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/01/01-01:41:32 PM Z CST