Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi

I just got myself a small portable UV light torch and has been playing around with it for a bit on my fossils to see if some of mine may have had repair/restore or composited or not. Although, I have heard and read that, the fake, composited or repaired parts would glow differently (or rather not glow at all?) when compared to the real fossilized parts or that glue marks may show up under UV light.

This is the UV light I got:

post-10857-0-27520900-1364975538_thumb.jpg

So anyway, I took out my Mosasaur Teeth with Roots which I assume should have some repairs or restorations or even composite treatment on them and tried shining the UV light on them:

Specimen A:

post-10857-0-82825400-1364975413_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-03848200-1364975427_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-70791100-1364975441_thumb.jpg

Specimen B:

post-10857-0-18758200-1364975460_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-15079900-1364975479_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-27605500-1364975491_thumb.jpg

The thing is, I am actually not quite sure what to look for and from my still-inexperienced eyes, I couldn't really tell the obvious signs of restorations or repair under UV light test. From the pics, it looks as if there was no apparent glow or iridescence to show any obvious difference between the repaired/restored/composited and the real/natural...

Or could it be that my UV light isn't the correct or usable type for this particular job? Though, I did shine the light on my Baltic amber and they do give out a greenish glow like I have read from online sources before. So are the obvious spots apparent and visible but I am just not seeing it (or don't really know how it should look) or is my equipment not the correct kind.

Thx for the help :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also did some UV light test on my Keichousaurus and didn't really have a clear idea of what to look for either so I am uploading the pics here too:

post-10857-0-32520200-1364976345_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-93199100-1364976361_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-43135600-1364976381_thumb.jpg

post-10857-0-70967700-1364976396_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-47994600-1364976408_thumb.jpgpost-10857-0-19693900-1364976423_thumb.jpg

From what I can see, the only apparent "obvious" I can see are the white shines of the calcite veins which, correct me if I am wrong - should be a good sign that its not a re-constructed or fake veins right?

So in the case of my K-saurus, do u see anything fishy about the specimen under the UV light?

Thx.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and any pictures or video examples of what the things to look for would look like that anyone can recommend me to look up for further research and get my eyes and observation skill trained for this whole UV light detection skills would be great. :)

I have looked and seen some pics examples at:

http://www.jpaleontologicaltechniques.org/pasta3/JPT%20N2/Pdf/JPT_n002_Jul.pdf

But what I saw on that paper (the dino skull test on page 4) and what I could see on my fossils don't seem to show an obvious difference in iridescence like the one shown in the article. And this article is the most concrete example with visual materials I could find regarding UV light test on fossils.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be careful with UV light, can accelerate the formation of Cataracts in the eye... can causes polymerization of the eye pigments... without proper eye protection.

  • I found this Informative 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain but pretty sure that his uv light is long wave and not short wave so he should be fine.

Mikey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx for the warning, I really had no idea the UV light could be that harmful.

How can u tell if what I have is a short or a long wave? And do they work differently when used for the purpose of fossils checking? i.e. does short wave or long wave matters and give different results (and thus different accuracy and efficiency) from one another?

Thx guys :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was short wave there should be a label or sticker with a warning on it if not your good. When it comes to fluorescent minerals most will "glow" under short wave fewer under long wave. Its all about the wave length and shorter is stronger. I cant see a manufacturer produce a UV penlight in short wave without a warning. They would be sued if people who damaged their sight with it could fill out the proper paperwork. ;)

mikey

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In trying to answer your question my experience with black light has been mixed. Its a multiple step process in trying to find restoration.Using blacklight is a step. Areas that have been painted usually appear darker and those that have not will show some fluorescence like your photos. However not all paints and not all bone behave the same way and may not show anything. That is why if I have a concern I will inspect the specimen with a loop/scope. I'm looking at the grain/texture changes. Dull surfaces followed by glossy surfaces. Composited areas covered by sand or odd joints. Anything that does not look like normal or natural. My best suggestion to you is to buy from reputable dealers and be very cautious of Moroccan or Chinese fossils or items sold on EBay.

  • I found this Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain but pretty sure that his uv light is long wave and not short wave so he should be fine.

Mikey

UV regardless long or short is detrimental to the unprotected Eyes!

Short wave= more energetic hence more damage... I don't fancy going blind without adequate UV protection.

PL

B.Sc. (Biochem) ;B.Sc. (Biology), B. Engineering

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

This is from a thread in March, 2009:

I'm having fun with this new toy. "Black light" and "UVA" are equivalent, pretty much, according to Wikipedia:

A black light, or Wood's light, is a lamp that emits long wave UV radiation and very little visible light. Commonly these are referred to as simply a "UV light". Fluorescent black lights are typically made in the same fashion as normal fluorescent lights except that only one phosphor is used and the normally clear glass envelope of the bulb may be replaced by a deep-bluish-purple glass called Wood's glass, a nickel-oxide–doped glass, which blocks almost all visible light above 400 nanometers. The color of such lamps is often referred to in the trade as "blacklight blue" or "BLB." This is to distinguish these lamps from "bug zapper" blacklight ("BL") lamps that don't have the blue Wood's glass. The phosphor typically used for a near 368 to 371 nanometer emission peak is either europium-doped strontium fluoroborate (SrB4O7F:Eu2+) or europium-doped strontium borate (SrB4O7:Eu2+) while the phosphor used to produce a peak around 350 to 353 nanometers is lead-doped barium silicate (BaSi2O5:Pb+). "Blacklight Blue" lamps peak at 365 nm.

While "black lights" do produce light in the UV range, their spectrum is confined to the longwave UVA region. Unlike UVB and UVC, which are responsible for the direct DNA damage that leads to skin cancer, black light is limited to lower energy, longer waves and does not cause sunburn. However, UVA is capable of causing damage to collagen fibers and destroying vitamin A in skin.

The UVA produced by the light-emitting diodes in my flashlight is at a frequency of 395 nm. This is the new technology that doesn't use a tiny flourescent blue-glass tube. Instead, it uses 51 LEDs that look like . . . well . . . like most other LEDs in a flashlight. -------Harry Pristis

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...