引用:

原帖由 godzillaqqq 于 2015-11-15 10:13 发表


PWM 荧光粉 衰退 显色 功耗  光谱   你爱用就用罗

对眼伤害的测试数据呢？

The misconception that LEDs emit more blue light may have
several contributing factors. The blue pump results in a visible
“spike” in the spectral power distribution at short wavelengths,
a feature that is especially noticeable at high CCTs, which were
common in the earliest LED products. At lower CCTs, the spike
may be barely noticeable at all. Although most LED products
sold today have CCTs that are similar to their counterpart products—2700
K or 3000 K for screw-base lamps, 3500 K or 4000 K
for fluorescent-replacement products—it is possible to create LED
products with a wide variety of spectral power distributions. This
is in contrast to standard incandescent lamps, which are essentially
all the same.

Conclusions
LED products are no more hazardous than other lighting technologies
that have the same CCT. Furthermore, white-light products
used in general lighting service applications are not considered a
risk for blue light hazard according to current international standards.
Sensitive individuals may have additional concerns, and
colored light sources—which may be classified as Risk Group 2 or
higher and require a label to meet accepted standards—should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

从图里看能用上800流明以上的显示器的再考虑伤眼问题吧……

引用:

原帖由 godzillaqqq 于 2015-11-15 10:34 发表


蓝光的早就有了吧  显色 是舒适度这个 也有   不连续光 这个还在争议中

在哪？

引用:

原帖由 godzillaqqq 于 2015-11-15 11:13 发表

还要进步研究，这不是说了等于 没说

就是“目前为止不能说LED蓝光有害”的意思

引用:

原帖由 godzillaqqq 于 2015-11-15 12:55 发表


所以说 普通照明 不是直射 可以一用，读书还用 白织灯  连续光谱  显色 更接近阳光   LED 热量 功耗  衰退 现皆段不成熟，特别是 衰退 没有吹嘘的长  肉眼查觉不到的衰退   稍有一点不稳定 参数就变

电子管电视和显示器时代都是直射光进眼

光谱接近阳光是一回事，对眼有无害是另一回事，不知道是怎么关联起来的
同样的技术成熟是一回事，技术成熟跟对眼有无害又是一回事，怎么关联起来的

做蜡烛技术很成熟，蜡烛色谱接近阳光，点蜡烛看书保护视力么

[ 本帖最后由 jjx01 于 2015-11-15 14:03 编辑 ]

引用:

原帖由 godzillaqqq 于 2015-11-15 14:23 发表
posted by wap, platform: iPhone
一支蜡烛 能到35w 的注明吗？ 这么极端没意思.  越接近自然光 自然就越舒服   电子管时代不重视罢了

为何这时候谈起了功率，而喷蓝光危害时不谈功率？