Slashdot Mirror


New Material For Fast-Change Sunglasses, Data Storage

sciencehabit writes "'Researchers have developed a material that almost instantaneously (30 ms) changes from clear to dark blue when exposed to ultraviolet light, and it just as quickly reverts to clear when the light is turned off. The new material, one of a class called photochromics, could be useful in optical data storage as well as in super-fancy sunglasses.'" A comment to the article notes some of the potential dangers of quick-change sunglasses.

133 comments

  1. Slow Memory by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    30ms is pretty slow by memory standards.

    Could you imagine a CD burner which takes 30ms per bit?

    It'll need to get a LOT faster to be used in any kind of processing or storage medium.

    1. Re:Slow Memory by erayd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      30ms is pretty slow by memory standards.

      Could you imagine a CD burner which takes 30ms per bit?

      It'll need to get a LOT faster to be used in any kind of processing or storage medium.

      Who says you have to write things serially? Admittedly write latency would suck, but you can still get a phenomenal throughput if you write a whole bunch of bits in parallel.

      --
      Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
    2. Re:Slow Memory by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Especially if you need to keep the UV source on to keep the data stored...

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    3. Re:Slow Memory by EdZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you need to keep refreshing RAM too. With a refresh every 30ms, this could be used for medium-term storage in an optical computer.

    4. Re:Slow Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says you have to write things serially? Admittedly write latency would suck, but you can still get a phenomenal throughput if you write a whole bunch of bits in parallel.

      Sorry. 30 ms is still horribly slow. Even if you write, say, a whopping 15000 bits in parallel (which, BTW, is completely and utterly unfeasible), you'll still only get a throughput of about 60 KiB/s - the speed of a floppy disk...

    5. Re:Slow Memory by erayd · · Score: 1

      Why is it unfeasible to write that many bits at once? As far as I can see there's no practical reason that would prevent a write system with far more than that many simultaneous channels - and more channels equals more throughput.

      --
      Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
    6. Re:Slow Memory by dziban303 · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine a CD burner which takes 30ms per bit?

      No, no I couldn't. Could you help visualize it for me?

    7. Re:Slow Memory by maeka · · Score: 1

      You can fit that many UV diodes in a single drive enclosure?

    8. Re:Slow Memory by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably not, but I bet you could put a few big ones behind an LCD mask.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:Slow Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      33 bits per second?

    10. Re:Slow Memory by ChangelingJane · · Score: 1

      Sure. Pick your most favoritest CD evar, and hold a lighter under it so the flame just barely touches. Hold until the disc begins to warp. That should give you a clear impression.

    11. Re:Slow Memory by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      except that each bit would have to have its own diode, or at least UV source, and at that point you could just remove the material and just use diodes for the memory. After all, each bit would have to be exposed (or not exposed) to uv in order to retain its state, so something else has to have a memory of that too.

    12. Re:Slow Memory by EdZ · · Score: 1

      Or one source and a mask. Or one source and a scanning mirror.

    13. Re:Slow Memory by jhfry · · Score: 1

      What about scanning the UV laser. I can't imagine that the material needs 30ms of constant high intensity UV light to change.

      It may take 30ms to react to the light, but not require 30ms exposure.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    14. Re:Slow Memory by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine a CD burner which takes 30ms per bit?

      Could you imagine a CD burner that takes 30ms per CD?

    15. Re:Slow Memory by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which is exactly what todays 48x burners and hard drives already do.

      I wish people would realize that hardly anything in a modern computer is done serially anymore. Flash drives, standard hard drives, CD/DVD drives, all of them read/write multiple blocks at once to improve throughput without actually doing anything physically faster.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    16. Re:Slow Memory by profplump · · Score: 1

      I don't know what your optical drive does, but mine still reads bits serially -- given the physical encoding on typical disks it's really not possible to do anything else. Now it does read whole blocks or even series of blocks in one logical pass, but each bit is read in sequence.

      Really less and less things are happening in parallel in modern computers, because as speeds increase it becomes more difficult to synchronize all the signals -- take a look at PCIe, SATA, SAS, etc.

    17. Re:Slow Memory by giorgist · · Score: 1

      CD stamping comes to mind

    18. Re:Slow Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard drives serialize the platters, but that's a pretty obvious route, since the platters are all on the same spindle, and they have to have separate heads, anyway.

      Optical drives don't serialize anything. It's possible to serialize the second layer, but they don't do that. 48x burners simply spin at a constant velocity and increase the data-rate until they get to the end. (as opposed to the old style burners which used a constant data rate and varied the spin speed) Then, for marketing reasons, they use the data rate near the rim as the advertized speed, even though your average will be a fair bit less than that. (but more than half, because you don't start from dead center.

  2. Something missing? by OpenSourced · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nowhere in the article they mention how the data is going to be 'stored'. If you need to be constantly bathing the material with UV light just to keep it dark, there is not much storage going on, IMO. Of course there might be missing data from the article, but they should explain a bit more.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Something missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking that you put your sunglasses under an array of UV LEDs, and the coordinates describing the state of each LED are stored in that "C" drive bit in My Computer. Simple.

    2. Re:Something missing? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course there might be missing data from the article, but they should explain a bit more.

      That part was written in photochromic ink, you need to get a copy of the original publication and expose it to UV light in order to find out those details.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Something missing? by tsa · · Score: 1

      If you need to be constantly bathing the material with UV light just to keep it dark, there is not much storage going on, IMO.
       
      That's why you have to make sunglasses out of the stuff.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    4. Re:Something missing? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      If you need to be constantly bathing the material with UV light just to keep it dark, there is not much storage going on,

      I'm not calling the concept feasible, mind you, but do remember that our dynamic memory is currently based on removing and re-applying an electric charge to billions of capacitors hundreds of times per second. DRAM, according to Wikipedia, is guaranteed to hold its state for 64ms. If this one has 30ms, it's not that bad.

      (Or wouldn't be if it could *write* as fast as DRAM does. Of course the write operation must be far faster than the loss rate.)

    5. Re:Something missing? by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      Nowhere in the article they mention how the data is going to be 'stored'. If you need to be constantly bathing the material with UV light just to keep it dark, there is not much storage going on, IMO. Of course there might be missing data from the article, but they should explain a bit more.

      You need to constantly power your RAM in order to keep it storing information. All it means is that this could be useful for volatile storage.

  3. Sun-Glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who in their right mind would want blue sun-glasses? For use on planet earth at least...

    1. Re:Sun-Glasses? by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Mikko Alatalo of course

  4. I tried it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the googles, they did nothing !

  5. One more step towards peril-proof sunglasses by janwedekind · · Score: 1

    no text

  6. So when I turn out the lights... by macraig · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... I'm simultaneously deleting my entire terabyte of porn!? Noooooo!

    1. Re:So when I turn out the lights... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep the light on while fapping ;)

    2. Re:So when I turn out the lights... by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

      ... I'm simultaneously deleting my entire terabyte of porn!? Noooooo!

      Hey - keep the UV lamp on. Get off _and_ get tan. Just try not to burn the bits.

      --
      __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
    3. Re:So when I turn out the lights... by ChangelingJane · · Score: 1

      Weirdest farmer's tan ever.

  7. The eye adapts slowly by oneirophrenos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's all good and well, but the eye doesn't adapt to changes in lighting as fast as this material does. What if the lens (and the eye) were subjected to a bright light from the angle of, say, 70 degrees? This wouldn't be blinding, because it would not hit the area of high acuity vision on the retina, but would nevertheless cause the lens to dim. So we would have a situation where the light hitting the retina would be significantly reduced, but the eye would still be adapted to conditions of relative brightness. We would effectively be blind (think of going to dark indoors on a bright sunny day).

    1. Re:The eye adapts slowly by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps. But it seems to me that the experience of these things going dark would be very similar to the common everyday experience of simply putting on a pair of sunglasses, something I've done in just about every lighting condition, and usually while driving. The only time I can recall it ever being a problem is when I've done it at night (cue Corey Hart).

    2. Re:The eye adapts slowly by Thornae · · Score: 1

      ... usually while driving.

      That's the problem with this and every other UV adaptive lens treatment: Glass (like, for example, your windscreen) blocks UV.
      So, they don't actually work when you're driving.

      This is why I always get frames with clip on sunglasses with my glasses. Although, since I always end up losing the sunglasses part within a year, I'm considering just lashing out and getting prescription sunglasses.

      --
      |>
      Here be Dragons
    3. Re:The eye adapts slowly by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Glass (like, for example, your windscreen) blocks UV. So, they don't actually work when you're driving."

      Except in my experience that's not really true.

      I had this discussion with my optician last time I got a new pair of driving glasses, and they do darken while driving despite the fact that the windshield should block the UV (though, admittedly, not as dark as they used to go when I drove a convertible).

      I can only guess that the windshield doesn't block the full range of frequencies that cause the glasses to darken.

    4. Re:The eye adapts slowly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I always get frames with clip on sunglasses with my glasses. Although, since I always end up losing the sunglasses part within a year, I'm considering just lashing out and getting prescription sunglasses.

      You don't have to get the specialized clip-ons from your optometrist. There are some after-market ones which are pretty good (and cheap). I'm partial to the Polar Optics spring-loaded clip-ons. My local Walmart has them in their eye center. There's three dozen sizes and shapes, so you can match your glasses pretty well, and about $20 beats the $60 my optometrist wanted for the clip-ons, and certainly beats the $100+ for prescription sunglasses.

    5. Re:The eye adapts slowly by swillden · · Score: 3, Funny

      Although, since I always end up losing the sunglasses part within a year, I'm considering just lashing out and getting prescription sunglasses.

      Been there, done that. I lost the prescription sunglasses. Three times. I decided that I just have to squint.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:The eye adapts slowly by blincoln · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the problem with this and every other UV adaptive lens treatment: Glass (like, for example, your windscreen) blocks UV.
      So, they don't actually work when you're driving.

      Glass doesn't fully block UV. I take UV photos using regular glass lenses with a UV-A bandpass filter in front. I lose something like 3-4 stops of light sensitivity compared to visible, but at least some of that is probably due to the camera sensor not being designed with UV in mind.

      Apparently glass does block UV-B, UV-C, and shorter wavelengths. My camera isn't sensitive to wavelengths shorter than UV-A or I'd test it myself.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    7. Re:The eye adapts slowly by danpritts · · Score: 1

      my experience differs - in my accord, i had basically no darkening. in my miata, with the top down, i had less than i would have liked - the windshield blocked plenty of light and i still needed my regular sunglasses.

    8. Re:The eye adapts slowly by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      And that can be fixed with a simple surface layer filter than blocks light from off angles outside a given range.

      This really isn't rocket science, nor is this sort of solution anything new.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:The eye adapts slowly by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      What if the eye (without the lens) were subjected to a bright light from the angle of, say, 0 degrees? This would be blinding, because it would hit the area of high acuity vision on the retina, with no lens to dim. So we would have a situation where the light hitting the retina would not be significantly reduced, but the eye would still be adapted to conditions of relative darkness. We would be effectively blind (think of going outdoors on a bright sunny day).

    10. Re:The eye adapts slowly by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for these to become popular. Just walk into a big room and drop an IR strobe light on the table!

    11. Re:The eye adapts slowly by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      It depends on the glass. Typical glass is something like BK7, with a transmission curve like this. You can also get types of glass specifically designed for UV optics, such as fused silica.

    12. Re:The eye adapts slowly by El_Servas · · Score: 1

      You can always just *remove* your sunglasses when going indoors.

    13. Re:The eye adapts slowly by rilles · · Score: 1

      You mean UV strobe?

  8. Obligatory Douglas Adams reference... by LordAlced · · Score: 5, Funny

    But does it turn dark in the presence of danger?

    --
    Error: this custom sig failed to load. Please update your user preferences. If this message still appears, please contac
    1. Re:Obligatory Douglas Adams reference... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      But does it turn dark in the presence of danger?

      Yes. The lenses will leap out of a moving vehicle just prior to impact, while the driver cries "It works, it works!". Eventually, he will wake up in the hospital believing that he's really Leon Trotsky.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Obligatory Douglas Adams reference... by B33RM17 · · Score: 0

      They're working on the best feature yet for them right now.

      They will attempt to take control of and wreck the car for you, just to remind you every now and then that they still work.

      --
      My blood hurts...
  9. radiochromics ? by AeiwiMaster · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if a material exist with similar reaction to radio waves and what such a material is called?

    Materials called radiochromics normally react
    to radioactive radiation not radio waves.

    1. Re:radiochromics ? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      Radio waves are just a type of electromagnetic wave right? So they would be called photochromics too.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    2. Re:radiochromics ? by dtl · · Score: 1

      There just isn't enough energy in a radio frequency photon to mess with the electrons in material to cause this kind of effect. Perhaps if you jack up the power (the number of radio frequency photons per second) hitting your material then you might get it to change. Put it in a microwave oven for instance. By then you're already talking about dangerous levels of radio frequency energy.

    3. Re:radiochromics ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "ionizing radiation" or maybe "radioactive decay" as opposed to "radioactive radiation"

  10. epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can imagine situations where the ability to quickly remove a visual stimulus would actually help a person with photosensitive epilepsy.

    1. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by maroberts · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to mention waking up in the morning and turning round to face the hideously ugly person you picked up at the bar the previous night.....

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    2. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by value_added · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to mention waking up in the morning and turning round to face the hideously ugly person you picked up at the bar the previous night.....

      Your sister isn't that ugly.

    3. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by Trouvist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, she is.

    4. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your mom

    5. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but your mom is.

    6. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this removes a visual stimulus by producing another visual stimulus, sudden darkness. Now imagine one of these reacting to a strobe light.

    7. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      that's my brother

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    8. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my mum told me that you looked pretty gruesome too

    9. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You just have to learn to sleep with your beer-googles on.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But your mom is.

    11. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by westcoast+philly · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, give us a situation that most of us would never be in. Pick up someone at the bar? Maybe if this bar had a Linux User Group meeting... and this ugly person is your mom, upstairs...

    12. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by maroberts · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't have a sister. Wait a minute, whose bed is this? There's someone behind me... Damn, my glasses have gone dark, can't see a thing.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    13. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by ChangelingJane · · Score: 1

      Morning-after goggles?

    14. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People should realize that not everyone who is epileptic is photosensitive. Many people seem to have the incorrect impression that flashing lights and such will trigger off a seizure with anyone that has epilepsy. This is a myth.

    15. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      This is a myth.

      More of a meme I think, at least in the context we are seeing it here. I developed a seizure disorder when I was at college. A friend started to act like I had AIDS. Making a big deal out of something which was for me simple and easy to keep under control.

      Another friend of mine has some degree of photo-sensitivity. The biggest problem she described to me was the intense flashing sunlight caused by driving past trees with a low sun angle. One moment the sun is right on your face, then it is dark again. Glasses which darken when exposed to strong light would really have helped her, I think.

    16. Re:epileptics-need-not-apply. Why not? by Spit · · Score: 1

      Peril sensitive?

      --
      POKE 36879,8
  11. flicker probably not an issue by boog3r · · Score: 2, Informative

    (not sure why i posted this on their website. i blame the booze).

    Did a bit of math and figured out that at 60mph you would need a complete obstruction every 2.5 feet to induce a state change (on-off), 5 feet for a full flicker (on-off-on).

    This compound cycles on-off 33.333 (repeating, of course) times/sec. Halve that for a full on-off-on cycle. The human eye can do fine with a video frame rate of 30/sec, but can detect up to 72 frames/sec.

    It is possible the flicker may induce optical illusions, but not likely considering the optimal cycle time produces the highest flicker rate. Any UV transition slower will produce less flickers/sec, while a faster transition will create an increasingly static tint (chemical can't transition quickly enough).

    Now sitting under a 60Hz black light, that may be kind of trippy.

    --
    signatures are for fools with hands
    1. Re:flicker probably not an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      FTA- "And the compound is so stable that the reactions can be repeated thousands of times."

      Without doing the math(s), driving along a tree-lined road ought to kill 'em in a few hundred metres.

    2. Re:flicker probably not an issue by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      as you might or might not know, the windshield filters the uv rays. phototropic glasses cannot function in a car.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    3. Re:flicker probably not an issue by boog3r · · Score: 1

      did not know that.

      also, i never said anything about a car :)

      --
      signatures are for fools with hands
    4. Re:flicker probably not an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who mentioned a car?
      boog3r can jog at those speeds.

    5. Re:flicker probably not an issue by gaggle · · Score: 1

      Convertible?

    6. Re:flicker probably not an issue by tzot · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about four wheels.

      --
      I speak England very best
    7. Re:flicker probably not an issue by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apparently, I have hallucinated the suntan or sunburn that I get on long car trips. Thanks for the info, though!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:flicker probably not an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only the front blocks uv not the side windows

    9. Re:flicker probably not an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, I have hallucinated the suntan or sunburn that I get on long car trips. Thanks for the info, though!

      UV rays cause tans.
      Infra-red rays cause burns.

      Glass filters out UV
      Tanning booths contain only UV.

    10. Re:flicker probably not an issue by value_added · · Score: 1

      Apparently, I have hallucinated the suntan or sunburn that I get on long car trips. Thanks for the info, though!

      Commonly known as a trucker's tan.

      On your next trip, I'd suggest wearing a wife beater, and maybe some shorts with black socks. I'll guarantee your new tan lines will confuse rednecks, truckers and your fellow nerds. Freaking out the wife and kids is a bonus.

    11. Re:flicker probably not an issue by Inda · · Score: 1

      My eyesight went downhill about five years ago. I stumped up the extra hundred quid for my photochromic (is that what you meant?) lens. I was so annoyed that no one told me they don't work in the car.

      My solution was to drive with my head hanging out the window. You have to keep your mouth shut because of the bugs-of-teeth issue, so conversation with passengers is near on impossible.

      Seriously, I couldn't live without them these days. If the time from dark to light was reduced it would be fantastic.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    12. Re:flicker probably not an issue by dintlu · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not true. Sunburns are caused by UV rays.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunburn#Cause

    13. Re:flicker probably not an issue by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      yes, photochromic is the english word for it, sorry, i used the german term for it by mistake.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re:flicker probably not an issue by ChangelingJane · · Score: 1

      No no, go the extra mile and wear just a bra.

    15. Re:flicker probably not an issue by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It filters UV-B and UV-C pretty well, but not UV-A. Phototropic glasses are usually less effective in a car, but not completely useless.

      Depending on the wavelength it changes at, these sunglasses could either work great or piss poor. Should be interesting.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    16. Re:flicker probably not an issue by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, glas doesn't filter UV completely, but almost. That is the reason for using special quartz glas for UV optics and applications.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re:flicker probably not an issue by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      I'm going to regret it but where the hell did you get the up to 72fps number and if that's true why can almost anyone see the difference between a 75hz refresh rate and an 85hz refresh rate on a CRT.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    18. Re:flicker probably not an issue by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      It filters some, not all. Ever notice you can still get a sunburn in a car, it just takes longer.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    19. Re:flicker probably not an issue by fbjon · · Score: 1

      FPS numbers for human eyes are not trivially measured. There's a big difference in a moving image, and a flickering image. For instance, almost nobody will see the difference between video at 100fps and 120fps. Even so, you would immediately notice if a white screen at 120Hz turned black for just one refresh, then white again.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    20. Re:flicker probably not an issue by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure they do. I used to have a pair, of the slow change ones, of course. Whenever I left them on the dashboard they'd be good and dark when I put them on. Also hot.

    21. Re:flicker probably not an issue by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I've got a fun experiment we can try to test your hypothesis. We take you and stick you in a tanning booth for, oh, say six hours, and see if you get a really awesome tan (your hypothesis) or you come out crispy fried (my hypothesis).

      Ready?

    22. Re:flicker probably not an issue by drawfour · · Score: 1

      Not completely sure, but I think only the windshield filters out UV rays. Your tan/burn from long car trips is probably happening due to UV coming through the side windows.

    23. Re:flicker probably not an issue by Garganus · · Score: 1

      The US Air Force got pilots to identify a plane in a pic flashed up for a fraction of a second. The fraction where it dropped below 90% accuracy was 1/220th of a second. Also, if you reverse your test and flash white on a black wall, for most people the fraction of a second to see that the flash occurred is in the order of ten-thousandths of a second.

  12. But is the reverse reaction temperature sensitive? by misterjjones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The biggest problem with current photochromics in sunglasses is not the speed, but the fact that they darken beautifully in strong sunlight, but only when it's cold.

    In hot conditions the temperature sensitive dark=>light process is favoured over the uv sensitive light=>dark process and they stay clear. I don't want glasses that change colour quickly, I want glasses that change stay dark on the beach.

    The only use I have for my current "light sensitive" glasses is if I ever go to the Arctic in summer.

  13. If only it would turn completely dark by santax · · Score: 1

    when Britney Spears suddenly is in sight.

  14. Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    So with a little work, we can finally have the Peril-sensitive sunglasses of Zaphod's fame.
    Sign me up for a set.

    1. Re:Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 3, Funny

      perl-sensitive sunglasses? sweet!

    2. Re:Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those would be useful too, and actually a lot more feasible with current technology. Just add a camera, a microprocessor running OCR, and a perl parser -- and turn the glasses opaque the moment the parser finds legal perl code. This could save millions of young programmers from brain damage. The only problem is to create software that can distinguish between perl code and random OCR errors.

    3. Re:Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd prefer ones that filtered out COBOL or FORTRAN myself.

  15. useless for sunglasses by Ptur · · Score: 1

    dark blue is useless for sunglasses, you need (dark) brown....

  16. Blue, non-polarized, non car = whatever by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although it sounds interesting, I doubt most people are going to want to look at the world through blue-colored glasses. What would be far more useful would be glasses that the *user* can decide when they turn dark and by how much. 80% of the time I wear sunglasses is in the car, and Transitions and other UV activated glasses are useless for that purpose because they won't change dark.

    I also find that polarized sunglasses are *far* more valuable than just plain darkening glasses. Yet, there is no way to have changing, polarized lenses (right now). So.... give me glasses that can change from 100% clear to full polarized (50% dark at least), on-demand, instantly, and I will then get very excited :)

    1. Re:Blue, non-polarized, non car = whatever by miggyb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't that exactly how LCDs work? When no charge is applied to a liquid crystal, it lets light through, but when there's an electrical charge, it becomes dark. All you'd really need is a pair of glasses with a battery, photodetector, and two monochromatic LCD cells the size of the actual lens. I don't think it'd be that much of a pain in the ass to have to recharge your glasses at night.

      --
      This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
    2. Re:Blue, non-polarized, non car = whatever by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the light coming from a white pixel on an LCD is linearly polarized. LCDs have a polarizing filter, then a liquid crystal that can polarize the light at a voltage dependent angle, than a perpendicular polarizing filter. If your liquid crystal layer is oriented parallel to either the front or back layer, then no light gets through. If it is oriented at 45 degrees to both front and back, then you get maximum brightness.

      Unfortunately, if your light source is unpolarized to start, then after passing through one filter, it is reduced to 1/2 its brightness. Passing through another polarizer at 45 degrees reduces the brightness by 1/2 again (Malus' law), and then the third polarizer reduces the brightness by 1/2 again. This is maximum brightness for a typical LCD display, 1/8 of the backlight brightness.

      Now, you could put just one fixed polarizer, and one liquid crystal layer. Then you could have a range of brightnesses from 1/2 incident to 0. If you only put the liquid crystal layer, you would simply be polarizing in a different direction depending on voltage. So you would always get brightness 1/2.

      Now, this is all just extending the principles of LCDs. I don't know that much about the other properties of liquid crystals. It might very well be that you can turn their polarizing properties on and off to some degree, which would do what GP wants.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    3. Re:Blue, non-polarized, non car = whatever by maxume · · Score: 1

      It probably wouldn't be that big a pain in the ass, but most people want sunglasses that they think look good, not sunglasses that can be switched between clear and dark on demand, so it better not cost a lot extra (lots of sunglasses charge for the logo, so those would be easy to compete with on price, but you would be doing so at the cost of quite a bit of margin).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Blue, non-polarized, non car = whatever by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yet, there is no way to have changing, polarized lenses (right now).

      Although this won't help inside a car (as the windshield blocks UV), Transitions lenses can be polarized. As an alternative, they also offer Drivewear lenses that are polarized and respond to both visible light (less darking) and UV light (more darking). These are also available from Oakley.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Blue, non-polarized, non car = whatever by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You are correct, although consider that most people who would want sunglasses that could also go clear probably wear prescription glasses already and do not want to deal with the hassle of switching to prescription sunglasses whenever they go for a drive or using a clip-on filter.

    6. Re:Blue, non-polarized, non car = whatever by funkdancer · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to chip in that I too love my polarised (Ray Ban) prescription sunglasses for my driving. They take away almost all the glare from the front (and there's a lot of that!), at the small price of making certain windshields (that have tint treatments) and LCD screens etc technicolour funky.

      They were the most expensive pair of glasses I've ever bought, so I treat them with great care and have actually held on to them for over 3 years now. Absolutely love them!

      My UV reactive normal glasses are pretty useless in comparision. The change rate is way too slow, and they don't go dark in the car. Anyway those lenses are worn down now so will get replaced with "normal" ones instead of the UV reactive.

      I found another bad thing about UV reactive; going dark on an overcast day (I'm in Australia), things would get even more glum than before.

      --
      ISO certified == THX certified
  17. Re:But is the reverse reaction temperature sensiti by tresstatus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I believe you are totally missing the point for the light sensitive glasses. they are never meant to be sunglasses. they are meant to protect your eyes from UV rays so that you don't damage your eyes. they also only barely darken anything you are looking at, with it being most noticeable on white things, like clouds or sheets of paper. what they really excel at is taking the edge off when you are looking at an object that is extremely bright........ EXCEPT FOR THE SUN. you aren't supposed to stare at the sun while you wear these.

    I wear glasses that have the newest version of the transitions lenses. they turn much faster in heat than they do in cold... just the opposite of the older version. even still, when i wear them, i can't tell that they've changed to dark until I take them off and look at them.

    my advice is that if you want your prescription glasses to work on the beach, you have 3 options: buy prescription sunglasses, buy a style of sunglasses that comes with a built-in clip-on (usually magnetic), or get contacts and wear regular sunglasses.

    --
    stephen
  18. What's new? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've used a welder's face shield that changes to dark in the presence of UV from welding faster than I can perceive. It changes back to clear when welding stops. Am I missing something that makes this new?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:What's new? by pereric · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe that it doesn't need external power or control. IIRC, the auto-dim welding helmets I know of need an external power source (small solar panel + battery I presume), and dims by applying a current to the glass. I was also going to ask if this could be used for a simpler welding mask, but 30 ms is perhaps too slow for protecting against the lots of UV arc welding produces.

    2. Re:What's new? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Not positive but I assume the "solar cell" is to detect the light from the arc, might not be that difficult to substitude a much smaller photo-electric cell and a hearing aid batter for the much larger versions used in welding helmets. Welding helmets are personal proctective gear where failure can lead to significant injury so they are over-engineered for saftey.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:What's new? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      That's LCD technology. There are photovoltaic cells on the mask powering it.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:What's new? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

      Yikes...it doesn't go dark until it detects the UV from the welding arc? That would mean there's a short period of time where your eyes are getting a nice blast of UV. Anybody know how short it is?

      I think I'll just stick with the manual flip-down glass, thanks.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    5. Re:What's new? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Why so dismissive? What if the amount of UV is comparable to flying across the USA five times a year? Maybe it's even less. Dismissing it when you don't have enough information makes you look irrational and reactionary. Or maybe the flippant last line was just a weak joke.

    6. Re:What's new? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

      I'm not one to trust a safety device without knowing how it does its job better than what it's supposed to replace. If that makes me look irrational and reactionary, then I'll just be an irrational and reactionary luddite with a flip-down welding visor.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    7. Re:What's new? by gboss · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it's not like there's a government agency designed to test and enforce workplace safety. And companies surely love to expose themselves to huge amounts of liability, especially companies that manufacture safety equipment. I'm sure no one has ever studied the effectiveness of auto-darkening welding lenses. Now let me go extensively test my certified safety glasses and hard hat before I go back to work.

    8. Re:What's new? by vlm · · Score: 1

      That would mean there's a short period of time where your eyes are getting a nice blast of UV. Anybody know how short it is?

      A classic "when did you stop beating your wife" class of question.

      The glass doesn't transmit UV at all, at any time. The only common substance that is clear and transmits UV is Quartz (or fused silica which is more or less the same substance). Because it requires a much higher temperature to work than plain ole glass, its not used much, other than in UV spectrophotometers, UV sterilization lamps, eprom eraser bulbs, etc.

      However, I would not be surprised to if the Chinese "accidentally" sent us a batch of "special" helmets made using expensive quartz lenses.

      Now there would theoretically be a very short intense burst of regular old plain visible light, and that might be bad for you after decades. Maybe stress on the muscles of the iris due to "flinching". Maybe the flashing might have some epilepsy inducing feature. Maybe it would mess around with night vision. But so far, no evidence of anything. The radio waves from the arc are probably relatively more dangerous, and that is pure crackpottery, so I wouldn't worry.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  19. Only ultraviolet? So they are almost useless by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Sure it can protect your eyes against potentially harmful UV radiation, but when driving, the car windshield is already blocking a lot of that... of course, it doesn't stop bright light from getting in though, and when driving west in the evening, particularly just after a shower and the sun has come out, something that automatically goes darker in bright light alone, even if the UV isn't particularly high, would be just as, if not more useful.

  20. Thinking Too Small by Snowy_Duck · · Score: 1

    I think we could use this for more then just sunglasses. What about using it in a high rise building. I'm sure some architect could work having blue windows into the design of the building. Or what about if your office had blue windows during the day to give a nice calming blue tinge to the work environment but at night turned clear to allow a clear view of the city? I could see airlines (Virgin Atlantic specifically) installing these since they already have blue interior lights. What about night time use - does the small amount of UV light given off by a star cause it to appear blue? I think there's more possibilities then just sunglasses or data storage.

  21. Re:Only ultraviolet? So they are almost useless by rockNme2349 · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are activated by ultraviolet light...

    Since they turn dark blue, I'll let you figure out what type of light they filter out.

    --
    Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
  22. Re:But is the reverse reaction temperature sensiti by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been wearing glasses with photogrey lenses since I was about 8, so 35 years or so. I've never noticed a problem with them failing to darken in hot weather.

    Larry

  23. Safety goggles? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Interesting...but it suggests another use. What about safety goggles? 30ms seems to be considerably less than human reaction time to visual stimulus (190s grabbed from Wikipedia - no idea whether this is accurate for blinking). So this might be good for laser safety goggles - assuming it absorbs the correct wavelengths.

  24. Re:Only ultraviolet? So they are almost useless by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Doesn't help matters while driving if they are only activate by UV, since most UV doesn't actually get through a windshield, so the glasses would stay clear.

  25. Re:Only ultraviolet? So they are almost useless by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    UV filtering glass filters some, not all of the UV. Take a nice long car trip with the sun shining on you through those UV filtered windows, you'll still get tanned or burned given enough time.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  26. Re:Only ultraviolet? So they are almost useless by mark-t · · Score: 1

    That's because the side windows aren't shielded... my point is that glasses that automatically change from clear to dark in sunlight are almost useless while driving because they don't get exposed to enough UV through just the side windows. They'll go dark if the sun is lower in the sky and to either your left or to your right, but not so much if it's in front of you, which is where it would be most useful. Sure one might say that for that they should use real sunglasses, but they are a hassle when one already wears glasses, which is why they ever invented lenses that automatically go dark outside in the first place. I just wish they'd respond as well to plain old bright light, and not require UV to set them off.

  27. Re:But is the reverse reaction temperature sensiti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nor me, but what I have noticed is that mine get much, much darker in the winter. I always attributed that to the additional UV radiation reflecting off of the snow, but maybe the temperature is also having an effect like the OP says.

    Either way, it makes it really fun to enter a nice warm building; between the condensation and the tint, I go blind!

  28. Photosensitive Welding goggles work well by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've taken a couple of welding courses over at Techshop, and there's a range of welding goggle technology out there. Electric-arc welding (MIG, TIG, old-style stick, etc.) needs really dark goggles, and photo-sensitive welding goggles are available and really cool. They're adjustable-strength, and I think the technology is LCDs driven by a photocell, as opposed to a purely chemical mechanism like sunglasses. (For gas torch welding, the glasses don't need to be as strong, and the standard "adjustable" technology is just flip-up green lenses.) Unfortunately, the automatic ones cost about $200, as opposed to non-adjustable welding helmets that are usually under $100 or torch-welding goggles that are priced like sunglasses.

    If this technology is dark enough for welding, ,and not too expensive it's fast enough to be effective.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  29. Hey hang on a mo by hack++slash · · Score: 0, Redundant

    sunglasses? what for? you can't tell me that slashdotians actually go out in the sun.

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  30. 3d glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would be fast enough for 3d glasses

  31. Re:But is the reverse reaction temperature sensiti by dargaud · · Score: 1

    Nothing says 'beat me up, I'm a geek' like a set of photochromic glasses...

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  32. Can I paint my car with it by Spud70 · · Score: 1

    If it's not too expensive it would be cool to paint a car with it - that would really freak people out.