It is necessary to somehow ionize the gas a bit. Light is good, radiation is. Some people - eg. this guy http://eeberfest.net/gallery.php?set=thebox use UV LEDs to ensure ionization in dark conditions. Maybe it would be possible to somehow use your blue LEDs? I have no idea if they would be sufficient and how much time they would need to sufficiently ionize the gas. Just an idea. Marcin
On Tuesday, 11 September 2012 12:52:20 UTC+2, Michel wrote: > > I did some extensive testing today and made the conclusion that these > slow tubes need much more ambient light to ionize than other tubes. > Raising the anode voltage to 200V rather than 170/180 is not doing > much at all, I only see a dramatic improvement when I expose them to > more ambient light. Could that be related to the amount of mercury > vapor then? Is it then just a badly manufactured tube or is that due > to its age? > > Michel > > > > > On Sep 5, 8:30 am, marta_kson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just a thought as the off-time before the problem reappears seems to > > be very long, may the mercury in the tube be involved in some way? > > That would take minutes to condense. The loss of ionization is a > > microsecond process, so the explanation must be something else. The > > mercury insertion is also something that could had some process > > variations at the manufacture making some tubes worser than other even > > in the same batch. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neonixie-l" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/neonixie-l/-/mT2imdRsqX8J. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
