Safelight bulbs??
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
a lamp socket, the other holds a round filter. It's probably from the 1960's
or older, but it's the only thing I could get here in any color except red.
I bought out the last of the locally availaible little red things that
use nightlight bulbs and a bunch of the bulbs, so I am covered for red,
but I wanted an orange (Wratten OC) filter as I can see much better by
it.
The problem I have, is that here in Israel, we have been ahead of
everyone else in energy saving, CFL bulbs have been sold here, and used
by me, since 1997. That's good, but it has caused the demand and
therefore the supply of low wattage incadescent bulbs to dry up.
I found a few Chinese made 7-10 watt bulbs, but they only last a few
hours. I found a 15 watt bulb sold for refrigerators, but it has a
different base and I am trying to adapt it, but may not be able to get
those bulbs much longer and they are very expensive being made to
operate at 0F and below.
The smallest incadescent bulbs that are still common here are 40 watt
bulbs.
What is everyone else doing for safelights?
Thanks in advance,
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
Maciej Zielenkieiwcz
> I found a few Chinese made 7-10 watt bulbs, but they only last a few
> hours. I found a 15 watt bulb sold for refrigerators, but it has a
> different base and I am trying to adapt it, but may not be able to get
> those bulbs much longer and they are very expensive being made to
> operate at 0F and below.
>
> The smallest incadescent bulbs that are still common here are 40 watt
> bulbs.
>
> What is everyone else doing for safelights?
Here in Poland 15W bulbs are quite common and could be bought in almost
any shop (supermarkets etc.), but it is also possible to get 5
and 7 watt ones. The prices are like 0.5 euros for the 15W ones and
approximately 2 euros for smaller ones (they aren't so popular). Some
of the popular makers is Tungsram (owned by GE) and PIL1 (polish).
--
Maciej Zielenkiewicz RLU #232362
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." Wolfgang Pauli
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Here in Poland 15W bulbs are quite common and could be bought in almost
> any shop (supermarkets etc.), but it is also possible to get 5
> and 7 watt ones. The prices are like 0.5 euros for the 15W ones and
> approximately 2 euros for smaller ones (they aren't so popular). Some
> of the popular makers is Tungsram (owned by GE) and PIL1 (polish).
Thanks, I tried the supermarkets with no luck. I asked on a local group and
got some leads on real lighting stores, so I'll try them.
Although we have not gone as far as to ban incadescent bulbs, the market
seems to have spoken.
Jean-David Beyer
I use 7 1/2 watt 120 volt incandescent lamp bulbs. Whereas most incandescent
lamps are designed to last about 750 hours, these little ones are designed
to last 1250 hours. I do not know if I have ever had one burn out. Now if
you run them at 220 volts, their lifetime would be very short.
My safelights came with 15 watt bulbs, and they did not seem to fog paper,
but since the lights are slightly less than the 4 feet distance from my
working surfaces, I thought it would be better to use smaller lamps in them.
Incandescent lamps run much longer as their input voltage is reduced. You
might consider putting a suitable resistor in series with the bulb to dim
the bulb slightly and increase its lifetime. The trick is to compute the
proper resistance. If you measure the resistance of the bulb with an
ohmmeter, it will be very low, so you will get too low a value to put in
series. It is better to calculate it. If it is a 22 watt bulb at 220 volts,
the bulb draws 1/10 amp, so it is 2200 ohm with a hot filament. So you might
try a 110 to 220 ohm resistor to lower the voltage. You might wish to use a
5 watt resistor.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Geoff.
>
>
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:10:01 up 40 days, 13:24, 3 users, load average: 4.02, 4.15, 4.13
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the OP needs to consider what is available locally. Those
sound good, but I am not sure what is available in Israel. If the
enclosure will withstand a higher wattage bulb, it is also possible to
reduce the illumination by simply moving the safelight farther away,
shining the light on a dark wall or covering part of the filter with
black paper. Having tried any of these suggestions it is still
necessary to test the result.
Ian Harding
> The problem I have, is that here in Israel, we have been ahead of
> everyone else in energy saving, CFL bulbs have been sold here, and used
> by me, since 1997. That's good, but it has caused the demand and
> therefore the supply of low wattage incadescent bulbs to dry up.
I use 3W CFL lamps in my beehive safelights. They are supposed to
produce equivalent light output to 15W incandescents. They certainly
seem to produce about the same amount of illumination in my darkroom,
and no fogging problems when used for similar periods of time.
Ian
Lawrence Akutagawa
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrngvt6d...@cable.mendelson.com...
up to a variable resistor? A specific one commonly available (I trust even
in Israel) is the room dimmer. Get an electric/junction box which allows
two switches/receptacles, one two prong receptacle, and one room dimmer.
Mount the dimmer and the receptable in the box suitably wired. If desired,
add a cover plate. If desired, add rubber feet/felt pads to the bottom of
the box. Plug your safe light wire into the receptacle and turn on/off the
safelight using the room dimmer. You may want to mark the cover plate
suitably to indicate illumination levels. And connect the box to any wall
receptacle using a length of suitable wire ending in a male plug - I suggest
cannibalizing an plain old extension cord - cut off the female end and wire
it into the box.
Richard Knoppow
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrngvt6d...@cable.mendelson.com...
fluorescent lamp you can obtain and use some layers of plain
writing paper over the filter or inside against the filter.
The compact fluoresent lamps have some after glow but that
should not be a problem for a safelight. I don't think they
run hot enough to cause problems with the paper.
--
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> AKA Beehive lamp. Get the smallest wattage compact
> fluorescent lamp you can obtain and use some layers of plain
> writing paper over the filter or inside against the filter.
> The compact fluoresent lamps have some after glow but that
> should not be a problem for a safelight. I don't think they
> run hot enough to cause problems with the paper.
Thanks, and to everyone who suggested something. I went to another lighting
store today and found a bunch of GE 15 watt bulbs (made in Hungary).I bought
six, so I am set for a long time.
I'm still thinking about the other possibilites as I need more safelights,
and I doubt that there more Beehive lamps around (here).
Richard Knoppow
Are you not able to get these thing via eBay, they seem
to turn up pretty frequently there. However, I know you have
to deal with some pretty serious restrictions. I think
Ilford made a similar lamp, they certainly made filters that
fit the Kodak lamps.
Murray
(but not by half). Try a 1N4004. 400V @ 1amp. About 10c or less.
Murray
K W Hart
the clipped sine wave or the decereased voltage might not let the bulb work
Although the clipped sine wave might not be a problem..
"Murray" <m...@erewhon.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a05acac$0$12624$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
David Nebenzahl
> Will the series diode work with a compact fluorescent lamp? I think either
> the clipped sine wave or the decereased voltage might not let the bulb work
> Although the clipped sine wave might not be a problem..
*Please* don't top post.
Won't work (well) with most CFLs. Should work OK with dimmable CFLs.
By the way, it isn't a clipped sine wave; it's a half-wave rectified
sine wave.
> "Murray" <m...@erewhon.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a05acac$0$12624$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>A 1 amp diode in series with the bulb will reduce the wattage
>> (but not by half). Try a 1N4004. 400V @ 1amp. About 10c or less.
>> Murray
>>
>> Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>>
>>>> AKA Beehive lamp. Get the smallest wattage compact fluorescent
>>>> lamp you can obtain and use some layers of plain writing paper
>>>> over the filter or inside against the filter. The compact
>>>> fluoresent lamps have some after glow but that should not be a
>>>> problem for a safelight. I don't think they run hot enough to
>>>> cause problems with the paper.
>>>
>>> Thanks, and to everyone who suggested something. I went to another
>>> lighting
>>> store today and found a bunch of GE 15 watt bulbs (made in Hungary).I
>>> bought
>>> six, so I am set for a long time.
>>>
>>> I'm still thinking about the other possibilites as I need more
>>> safelights, and I doubt that there more Beehive lamps around
>>> (here).
--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself
- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
Bob AZ
> bulbs.
>
> What is everyone else doing for safelights?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Geoff.
Geoff
bulbnam.com is your best friend for bulbs. Failing that send me
some .jpgs of what you have and I am sure I have what you need.
Bob AZ USA
K W Hart
"Bob AZ" <rwats...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:be1aaf99-e44b-4db1...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Shouldn't that be bulbman.com?
Murray
Fluoros work to a completely different system.
That's why the usual dimmers warn against using them to
control fluoros. Incandescent only. Get a fluoro specific
dimmer.
A diode actually extends the lifetime of a normal bulb.
Murray
David Nebenzahl
> Sorry, been away -late answer. The quick answer is 'NO'.
> Fluoros work to a completely different system.
> That's why the usual dimmers warn against using them to
> control fluoros. Incandescent only. Get a fluoro specific
> dimmer.
> A diode actually extends the lifetime of a normal bulb.
Actually, you got it a little backwards. No such thing as a
"fluorescent-specific" dimmer. What you *can* get are dimmable
fluorescents, that work with any dimmer.
Please don't top-post.
> K W Hart wrote:
>> Will the series diode work with a compact fluorescent lamp? I think either
>> the clipped sine wave or the decereased voltage might not let the bulb work
>> Although the clipped sine wave might not be a problem..
>>
>> "Murray" <m...@erewhon.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4a05acac$0$12624$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> A 1 amp diode in series with the bulb will reduce the wattage
>>> (but not by half). Try a 1N4004. 400V @ 1amp. About 10c or less.
>>>
>>> Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> AKA Beehive lamp. Get the smallest wattage compact fluorescent lamp you
>>>>> can obtain and use some layers of plain writing paper over the filter or
>>>>> inside against the filter. The compact fluoresent lamps have some after
>>>>> glow but that should not be a problem for a safelight. I don't think they
>>>>> run hot enough to cause problems with the paper.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, and to everyone who suggested something. I went to
>>>> another lighting store today and found a bunch of GE 15 watt
>>>> bulbs (made in Hungary).I bought six, so I am set for a long
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still thinking about the other possibilites as I need more
>>>> safelights,
>>>> and I doubt that there more Beehive lamps around (here).
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
Murray
program displays from the top, down, and I don't have to
scroll all the way thru countless repetitions of
previous postings to get to the actual new message.
BTW - never seen dimmable fluoros here (Australia)
only dimmers labeled as suitable for fluorescent lamps,
But since I don't look all that often you are doubtless
correct.
Murray
Rebecca Ore
<4a1f855b$0$24400$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
Murray <m...@erewhon.com.au> wrote:
> I see your request not to top post - unfortunately my
> program displays from the top, down, and I don't have to
> scroll all the way thru countless repetitions of
> previous postings to get to the actual new message.
>
Get a real newsreader and learn how to snip.
Jean-David Beyer
> I see your request not to top post - unfortunately my
> program displays from the top, down, and I don't have to
> scroll all the way thru countless repetitions of
> previous postings to get to the actual new message.
>
only one of them is yours.
1.) When responding, the responder should delete all unnecessary material
from the post to which he is responding. Usually, retaining only the context
needed to make the response understandable is enough.
2.) When responding, either respond at the bottom or, when appropriate,
immediately after the part to which you are currently responding (when you
are responding to several parts of the original message).
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:15:01 up 65 days, 15:29, 3 users, load average: 4.09, 4.33, 4.31
Howard Lester
> 1.) When responding, the responder should delete all unnecessary material
> from the post to which he is responding. Usually, retaining only the
> context needed to make the response understandable is enough.
If only they would.... Unfortunately, so many people will not snip the
countless lines of old material, making top posting almost necessary. Those
who vehemently condemn top-posting, claiming it's "against the rules," and
citing "netiquette" and all that, should instead go after the many posters
who leave 600 lines of old, already outdated and now irrelevant material
from several different previous postings... and then respond with a
two-liner. That's even worse. Having to scroll, scroll, scroll just to get
to the next response is a real nuisance, thanks to those bottom posters who
do it badly.
Regardless of all that... ;-) I remember starting out printing b&w a
million years ago at age 12 with the aid of a Kodak safelight that probably
used 4w nightlight bulbs. The kit came with three large translucent domes of
red, green, and orange. Printing my own stuff was fun.
David Nebenzahl
> "Jean-David Beyer" wrote
>
>> 1.) When responding, the responder should delete all unnecessary material
>> from the post to which he is responding. Usually, retaining only the
>> context needed to make the response understandable is enough.
>
> If only they would.... Unfortunately, so many people will not snip the
> countless lines of old material, making top posting almost necessary. Those
> who vehemently condemn top-posting, claiming it's "against the rules," and
> citing "netiquette" and all that, should instead go after the many posters
> who leave 600 lines of old, already outdated and now irrelevant material
> from several different previous postings... and then respond with a
> two-liner. That's even worse. Having to scroll, scroll, scroll just to get
> to the next response is a real nuisance, thanks to those bottom posters who
> do it badly.
That's still not any justification for top-posting.
When I advise to bottom post, that *implicitly* includes trimming the
text before posting. You'd thing that would go without saying, but as
you say, too many idjits just blindly quote the entire damn previous
message, sometimes adding only a line or two at the bottom.
Like they say, it ain't rocket science ...
Frank Pittel
: Murray wrote:
: > I see your request not to top post - unfortunately my
: > program displays from the top, down, and I don't have to
: > scroll all the way thru countless repetitions of
: > previous postings to get to the actual new message.
: >
: I am sorry things work out that way for you. There are two problems, and
: only one of them is yours.
: 1.) When responding, the responder should delete all unnecessary material
: from the post to which he is responding. Usually, retaining only the context
: needed to make the response understandable is enough.
: 2.) When responding, either respond at the bottom or, when appropriate,
: immediately after the part to which you are currently responding (when you
: are responding to several parts of the original message).
These days I find that I prefer top posting to bottom posting. It makes threads
easier to read. Back in the days before threaded newsreaders I admit it was easier
to read a post when the reply was at the bottom.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Frank Pittel
: In article
You may try finding a newsreader capable of threading. Having to
scroll to the bottom of a post to read the new content is a pain.
It's much easier if the new content is on the top of the post.
Rebecca Ore
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> You may try finding a newsreader capable of threading. Having to
> scroll to the bottom of a post to read the new content is a pain.
> It's much easier if the new content is on the top of the post.
My newsreader is a real newsreader and is quite capable of threading and
I'm smart enough to snip. This is an argument that's basically newbie
against experienced -- and Microsoft isn't NNTP friendly. I've made the
arguments from the position of a top poster when I was a newbie over a
decade ago.
john joseph
You use MT-Newswatcher, and yes it is very good.
I'm rather surprised to read Frank's comment. He's an old-timer and
admin expert.
Frank Pittel
: Rebecca Ore wrote:
: > In article <daCdnTjfgOa8UbzX...@giganews.com>,
: > Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >> You may try finding a newsreader capable of threading. Having to
: >> scroll to the bottom of a post to read the new content is a pain.
: >> It's much easier if the new content is on the top of the post.
: >
: > My newsreader is a real newsreader and is quite capable of threading and
: > I'm smart enough to snip. This is an argument that's basically newbie
: > against experienced -- and Microsoft isn't NNTP friendly. I've made the
: > arguments from the position of a top poster when I was a newbie over a
: > decade ago.
: You use MT-Newswatcher, and yes it is very good.
I use tin. It's old and I don't think it's being worked on anymore but I like it.
: I'm rather surprised to read Frank's comment. He's an old-timer and
: admin expert.
It makes sense when you think about it. I set tin to thread on subject. This means when
I see a thread I'm interested in with say 10 posts. I select that thread and I get the
first post in the thread then I get the second and so on. By the time I get to the second
post I've already read the posts that preceeded it and I'm only interested in the new
content. When the new posts are top posted the new content is at the top and is easy to
find and read. When the new post is bottom posted I have to go look for it.
As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message.
Murray
> easier to read. Back in the days before threaded newsreaders I admit it was easier
> to read a post when the reply was at the bottom.
I am bottom posting for all your preferences.
I hardly consider myself as a 'newbie' since I have
been using computer comms for 25 years. Started on bulletin boards and
packet radio with a Kaypro4 under CP/M and an external 300baud modem
using dialup. Who remembers YAPP and YAM these days?
I am presently using Thunderbird and Firefox as Mozilla now has
difficulties with some newer sites. Pity, as I am still not convinced
that 2 programs are better then one.
I have set replies to top posting since nearly all my correspondence is
personal mail and the recipient knows full well what he has sent.
No sense in boiling your cabbages twice.
If my reader showed mail from the bottom up, bottom posting might make
more sense. Naturally I set the reader to 'threads with new posts'.
If you have a suggestion of a better reader then tell me, but I don't
promise to use it, but will check it out. Forget Linux - I have found
it seems like a solution looking for a problem. IE is out for me, too.
Think N1H1.
The sound/noise ratio of some threads is terrible - how much of this
thread is about the original poster's request for help with bulbs?
Less than 90%. Little wonder that the internet is starting to groan
under the load. Dropping the voltage to an incandescent bulb will
make it redder and in a green light that will cut emitted wattage
appreciably.
I await your reply with interest.
Murray VK4AOK - now there's a giveaway! :-)
David Nebenzahl
> john joseph <now...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>
> : I'm rather surprised to read Frank's comment. He's an old-timer and
> : admin expert.
>
> It makes sense when you think about it. I set tin to thread on
> subject. This means when I see a thread I'm interested in with say 10
> posts. I select that thread and I get the first post in the thread
> then I get the second and so on. By the time I get to the second post
> I've already read the posts that preceeded it and I'm only interested
> in the new content. When the new posts are top posted the new content
> is at the top and is easy to find and read. When the new post is
> bottom posted I have to go look for it.
Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it.
Your statement above assumes that a thread takes a linear path and
sticks strictly to its subject. As we all know, this is often not the
case here. Sometimes someone will take a particular aspect of the
question and discuss it, or even introduce an entirely new part of the
topic, or a new topic altogether. Going by your method, all this would
be lost without quoting and attribution, which is why it makes sense to
do it.
> As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message.
That may explain why you're often confused about things.
Frank Pittel
: On 6/9/2009 10:16 AM Frank Pittel spake thus:
: > john joseph <now...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
: >
: > : I'm rather surprised to read Frank's comment. He's an old-timer and
: > : admin expert.
: >
: > It makes sense when you think about it. I set tin to thread on
: > subject. This means when I see a thread I'm interested in with say 10
: > posts. I select that thread and I get the first post in the thread
: > then I get the second and so on. By the time I get to the second post
: > I've already read the posts that preceeded it and I'm only interested
: > in the new content. When the new posts are top posted the new content
: > is at the top and is easy to find and read. When the new post is
: > bottom posted I have to go look for it.
: Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it.
Actually when you think about it, it makes more sense to top post then to
bottom post.
: Your statement above assumes that a thread takes a linear path and
: sticks strictly to its subject. As we all know, this is often not the
: case here. Sometimes someone will take a particular aspect of the
: question and discuss it, or even introduce an entirely new part of the
: topic, or a new topic altogether. Going by your method, all this would
: be lost without quoting and attribution, which is why it makes sense to
: do it.
It's still a single thread to at least my newsreader. If I need to reread
what the poster was responding to I have a number of choices. The quickest
and most obvious is to simply continue reading. Since what the poster is
responding to is on top it's easy to find. The next choice is to simply read
the post the responder was replying to. There's always the option to have
my newsreader show a graphical tree of the thread with all the subthreads.
: > As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message.
: That may explain why you're often confused about things.
As always you're right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Over a
billion people in the world and you're the only one that's always right.
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> : On 6/9/2009 10:16 AM Frank Pittel spake thus:
>
> : Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it.
>
> Actually when you think about it, it makes more sense to top post then to
> bottom post.
And yet you bottom-post.
> : > As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message.
>
> : That may explain why you're often confused about things.
>
> As always you're right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Over a
> billion people in the world and you're the only one that's always right.
It's not just me. The overwhelming majority of posters in this group
bottom-post.
Like the old Kafka saw goes: In the fight between you and the world,
back the world.
Frank Pittel
: On 6/14/2009 7:18 AM Frank Pittel spake thus:
: > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
: >
: > : On 6/9/2009 10:16 AM Frank Pittel spake thus:
: >
: > : Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it.
: >
: > Actually when you think about it, it makes more sense to top post then to
: > bottom post.
: And yet you bottom-post.
I'm clearly not as religous about it as you are. In this thread I'm following
your lead in the worst possible posting methods. I'm posting in the middle
of the previous post.
: > : > As a rule I don't read the old content every time I read a message.
: >
: > : That may explain why you're often confused about things.
: >
: > As always you're right and everyone else in the world is wrong. Over a
: > billion people in the world and you're the only one that's always right.
: It's not just me. The overwhelming majority of posters in this group
: bottom-post.
Yet top posting in this group and most others top post.
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> : On 6/14/2009 7:18 AM Frank Pittel spake thus:
>
> : > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> : >
> : > : On 6/9/2009 10:16 AM Frank Pittel spake thus:
> : >
> : > : Well, actually, it *doesn't* make sense when you really think about it.
> : >
> : > Actually when you think about it, it makes more sense to top post then to
> : > bottom post.
>
> : And yet you bottom-post.
>
> I'm clearly not as religous about it as you are. In this thread I'm following
> your lead in the worst possible posting methods. I'm posting in the middle
> of the previous post.
Actually, that's what you're spozed to do. It's called "QUILA" (meaning
"quote and in-line answers"), an acronym I hadn't heard of until just
today. It's really bottom posting, because your replies come below the
text being replied to, just like in a normal conversation.
Very easy to follow.
Rebecca Ore
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> Yet top posting in this group and most others top post.
I don't know of any groups I post to where top posting is the norm, and
that sentence awkward -- possibly due to mild dyslexia. Mildly dyslexic
people sometimes find interleaved posts confusing to adapt to. My news
reader puts the older material in fainter type, so it's clear what's new
and what isn't.
JCH
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> Thanks, and to everyone who suggested something. I went to another
lighting
> store today and found a bunch of GE 15 watt bulbs (made in Hungary).I bought
> six, so I am set for a long time.
>
> and I doubt that there are more Beehive lamps around (here).
_____
Geoff,
Got my Thunderbird newsreader working again on Mac OS X after a month or
more switching from OpenBSD.
I noted your question about safe lights. Someone suggested a regular
triac based light dimmer. That would work fine as they can usually
handle 600 Watts.
I have used with great success a single diode to run several safe lights
on half power by inserting a simple and cheap silicon diode in the line.
The diode i picked was the 1N4004. It is small and can be hidden in
the standard plug, or in one of those Bakelite in-line rocker switches.
Current limitation is 1 Amp, so this means that you can drive up to
220 Watts worth of safe lights with one diode. This comes to about five
40 Watt bulbs. I use this simple trick to dim the safe lights while
focusing the enlarger. I use amber dome filters on my lights.
For specifications of diodes see
http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/ds28002.pdf. I have no idea how
easy/difficult it is to buy these diodes in Jerusalem.
Regards / John
contrex_nospam at shaw dot ca