Consider on a filiament lamp, what temperature the is the
filament burning at while providing the light of the spectrum between red and blue and centered upon a certain
color temperature as opposed to another source of light.
If in a simple sense of light output, a standard
incandescent lamp burns at about 2,8K and a
halogen lamp in "replentishing the
filament burned off" burns at about 3,2K, The
color temperature a
filament lamp no matter what's repressing it just burning up including xenon as a repression gas is slightly over 3,5K. That's the amount of heat this piece of steel will burn at when it mets it's flow
point in becoming liquid and breaking. Temperature in direct ratio to while it burns and turns to liquid or gas, how much light it's giving off.
What
effect do these figures have in how hot the lamp is burning? Given the spectrum of color is very much related to
color temperature of the white light in how red or blue it appears, what is hotter a more crisp even bluer white light, or one say on a
dimmer that just has an amber glow to it? What
effect does "amber
shift" have on how hot that
filament is burning at when dimmed as opposed to it's normal operating
color temperature?
Think frequency of light - it's related to
color temperature and in providing it heat how hot that thing is burning - incandessing to produce the light.
The more energetic the frequency, the larger the heat in reality due to effects of it on the surface. The slower the frequency, the less the skin effective heat, and more penetrating the heat. IR will destroy or
wash out paintings. UV light will penetrate the skin and cause the inside of the skin to burn up and cause a tan within the skin. While a tan can be related to a burn, it's different that sun-burn from that of a burn from a fire. Note also that the color spectrum and light is a circle in that you can get a first degree burn both from fire/heat/IR such as in a heat lamp warming a hamburger and from the UV-B & UV-C from the sun or a arc source lamp. Difference is that the UV for the most part is slower in wavelength and more penetrating verses heat/fire damage is more on the surface initially than penetrates.
When you sun-burn, you first tan from inside out, than burn. When you get burned due to heat, you first get burned and the more it burns away at the surface the deeper the burn.
The microwave oven is at error in that it's not really heating anything, just penetrating a surface like an X-ray, but too slow other than to
bounce off that surface. In a X-Ray, it's a sort of negative
image of what's blocked. In a microwave, it's a question of energy from light sent into a slab of meat, it being slow enough that it will penetrate, but it still being blocked and not powerful enough to reflect back as an X-Ray would. Given this, the energy beamed into the slab of meat heats up due to the energy - but not heat persay your oven has on the surface of that same slab of meat. In the same respect, a dimmed lamp in being more amber might seem hotter, but in reality it is not, nor in recieving less
voltage is the
filament working as hard in resisting the
current flow to the wattage or resistance of the lamp's capacity. Less
current equals less light thus dimming, less
current also means the
filament is burning. (It really is but a match - only one repressing burning up completely while optimized for production of light while doing so.)
Think of AM verses FM radio waves. The AM often will
bounce along the
ground in getting out further because it's slower. The FM at a higher frequency gets blocked more easily. Neither have harmful effects to people as opposed to UV rays,
X-Rays and Gamma Rays because the frequency tends to
bounce and reflect but not penetrate as opposed to those that do penetrate. That's internal heating once blocked or energized but not surface burning.
Think heat from the oven as hot, as compared to a microwave that heats from the inside by way of beamed in energy but would not on the surface be hot. Your egg heats from the inside out. The styrophone cup stays cool enough not to melt. This shows that it's not heat persay, only slow waveform energy making the molicues vibrate from inside out when sufficient in quantity. A certain amount of UV is present in all visible light, yet you don't get a tan from
incandescent sources. On the other
hand, the talent constantly goes under the hot lights.
The black light lamp proper is interesting in that it's
blocking all visible light but the UV output of the arc source. You of course can't see this but phosphors get heated by the low wave transmissions and react in heating and incandess themselves.
A Black Light Blue lamp - most common on the other
hand is
blocking all visible light also except for light coming out in the both UV and blue spectrum of the beam of light. If you look at a color spectrum chart you will note that there is a large difference in color between UV and blue. Blue being more close to infra-red than UV in the spectrum. This form of lamp than is
blocking all but light on both ends of the spectrum. Given true UV light is cool, and blue is warm both warm and cool, it might be interesting to test which between true black light and black light blue gets a surface warmer in surface temperature. We add the blue in so that we can see and direct the beam of light that's otherwise invisible. That blue seems cooler is only optical illusing or
stage convention in it's narrow wave length having less a lingering or penetrating to heat the surface
effect.
Blue while hotter will be cooler than because it's less penetrating and heating the surface due to narrow wavelengths that don't penetrate well, and looks dark, but on the other
hand is in reality more hot in
color temperature or wavelength
power thus heat.
Hope it helps this long and circular discussion. Ever note that Infra-Red, while red in coolness seemingly is once under it hotter than a nice cool blue beam of light? Very circular and confusing, but also remember that the longer you stand under the more red hot color, the hotter you get - just as with a microwave oven stood under. Still Infra Red as opposed to red burns the surface, slower wavelengths are slow enough to penetrate the surface and add energy to what ever blocks it.
UV is cooler. UV-A is safe, but from B to C, the slower the wavelength, the more damage it will do to you by internal heating of what is
blocking it's penetration. This energy is not heat persay, it's instead so slow that it's energy is retained internally and deeply in penetration until stopped by the surface that it's hitting. That surface once stopping the penetration of energy gets super heated itself. The beam of light itself is not heat, what it's effecting instead gets heated up due to surplus energy. That absorbing the energy than in becoming hot - blue in color is than hot, but the UV-beam is cool.
So in re-focusing, Which light beam has the higher
color temperature, much less in reality is a hotter beam of light?