Talk:Glow stick

Chemistry Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

glowstick vs. lightstick

I have never heard the term lightstick before. Anyone reading this please put your name and location under the following headings so that we can get a gist of where the different terms are used and which has the wider geographic distribution. The bellman 14:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

glowstick only

The bellman 14:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC) NSW, Australia[reply]
24.13.93.171 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candy-Panda 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Victoria, Australia[reply]
Nick Cooper 17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC) UK[reply]
205.206.207.250 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Alberta and Ontario, Canada (I've lived in both and never heard "lightstick")[reply]

lightstick only

ZhongHan (Email), Singapore

both

Light stick and Glow stick. Both terms are used depending on the quality of the stick. The light stick in a dark room you can see objects around you for a longer period than a glow stick. The glow stick is not made for lighting it is more of a party or toy item, not as bright and cheaper to manufacture.

I have seen both. I have Cyalume "Safety Lightsticks" made by Omniglow. I understand both terms to be perfectly acceptable, wher I live, Edmonton, Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magu2k (talk • contribs) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles California U.S.A. March 9, 2006

Not so I'm afraid - 'glow stick'/ 'glowstick' / 'light stick' / 'lightstick' are all are generic terms for the same thing - it just depends on what you call them. The quality, brightness & glow duration simply depend on how the manufacturer made the product. Yes there are different qualities but there can be a difference with what the product was made for - ie. standard glowstick approx 12 hour usable light - high intensity will glow much brighter but for only say 20-30 minutes. - Both could be called any of the above terms - just like 'jumper' / 'sweater' / 'jersey' etc etc

Hong Kong July 21st 2006

internet stats

"Google Fight" showed the following usage statisticks:

"glow stick" at 584,000 results
"glowstick" at 315,000 results
"light stick" at 263,000 results
"lightstick" at 145,000 results

statisticks (sic) :)

Armandoban 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello. I just recently went to a party, and they had lightsticks there. A bunch of people broke the sticks, and the chemicals poured out everywhere. No one cared except me (In other words, I left). Now, I'm wondering, If my friends stayed in that room the whole two hours, surrounded by thes toxic chemicals, are they in any danger? Bluebry muffin 17:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chemicals in the glowsticks aren't very toxic; it may well be that the biggest hazard is the broken glass contained within the plastic enclosure.

Interesting trivia: For the movie Predator 2, the creature's glowing blood was simulated by mixing glowstick chemicals with K-Y Jelly.

Atlant 21:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much (and cool movie fact, too). But, it said "toxic chemicals" on the package. It also said it may cause skin irritation. I saw some people decide to put some on their hand, and walk around with it. Are you sure? Bluebry muffin 00:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not sure. And I'm sure the vendor will disavow the use of their product as a skin cream. But there's probably an MSDS available from the manufacturer that gives the straight dope; they can't sell into industrial situations without an MSDS.

Atlant 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, using one of the links on the MSDS Wiki page, here's a link to a "Cyalume" light stick:

http://siri.org/msds/f2/bgs/bgsjd.html

The crucial bit:

LD50 LC50 Mixture:ORAL RAT LD50 GREATER THAN 5.0 GM/KG

Routes of Entry: Inhalation:YES Skin:YES Ingestion:YES

Reports of Carcinogenicity:NTP:NO IARC:NO OSHA:NO

Health Hazards Acute and Chronic:PRODUCT IS AN ARTICLE CONSISTING OF A

PLASTIC TUBE OR SHAPE CONTAINING AN ACTIVATOR AND A GLASS AMPOULE

OF LUMINESCER.

Effects of Overexposure:OVER EXPOSURE IS NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE

SIGNIFICANT ACUTE EFFECTS. PRODUCT MUST BE DAMAGED IN ORDER FOR ANY

SIGNIFICANT PERSONAL CONTACT TO OCCUR. EYE:GLASS CHIPS MAY CAUSE

PHYSICAL INJURY. SKIN:NO IRRIT ATION OBSERVED WITH ANIMAL TESTS,SO

NO HUMAN IRRITATION EXPECTED.

Medical Cond Aggravated by Exposure:NONE KNOWN.

So at least the American Cyanamid brand of glowstick seems pretty innocuous; they mention the same hazard I did: the glass chips.

Atlant 01:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I always have questions, but, the air was extremely humid. Could the liquid be picked up by the large amount of moisture in the air? Bluebry muffin 01:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to doubt it, but I simply don't know.

Atlant 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left the party just because a bunch of people broke some glowsticks? You're no fun... --Candy-Panda 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phenol is not as deadly as pinene. -lysdexia 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(New Topic): Do Lightsticks Fade By "Half-Life"?

On a completely unrelated topic, one thing I'd love to see addressed in the article on lightsticks (at [[1]]) is the manner in which the light from a Lightstick fades.

When green-colored Cyalume(tm) Lightsticks first came out, I remember reading on the package that they "glowed with the brightness of a flashlight for the first six hours, and with the brightness of a night-light for the next six hours", or similar verbiage (this was years ago, and my memory is not exact, but that was the gist. I definitely remember the brightness of the second six hours being compared with a night light). From personal experience, this fade-off is both gradual and steady.

But it's the verbiage itself that fascinates me: it seems to me that the one phrase which the company went out of its way to avoid using, was "half-life." That's understandable -- the term is so thoroughly associated in the public perception with nuclear radiation that its usage in this context would surely have been the Kiss of Death to any marketing campaign. Nonetheless, it seems clear to me that the light indeed does fade according to the half-life principle. One thing which the half-life principle dictates is that the "radiation" -- only photons only in this case -- can never totally fade to zero, and indeed, in a dark room, a Lightstick can be seen to be still glowing, albeit very faintly, even after a couple of DAYS!

I'd love to see mention or discussion of this "half-life" fading within the main article, provided that someone -- anyone -- can obtain verification of and/or a confirmatory reference to it (not me, folks: I wouldn't even BEGIN to know where to look).

The Grand Rascal 18:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't most chemical reactions run to their endpoint in an exponential fashion? The lightstick is no different, it just happens to be a slow-enough reaction that you get to see the run-down take place across days.

Atlant 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry jargon concerns

While this article is short, to the point, and very well written, the chemistry behind it is incredibly detailed. At first glance, it almost looks like something most readers wouldn't be able to understand. There are a lot of chemical names and a few conversions. The page is also littered with links to articles that don't exist (or need to exist). The first paragraph is good, but the rest is just mind-blowing. Much of this information can be labeled as "jargon", that is, information and terms that common readers probably do not understand without a field of expertise. Is it possible to describe the chemistry on more simplified terms? Colonel Marksman 15:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the picture

The caption to the picture. i only counted four colours. What in the hell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.117.34 (talk • contribs) .

Try to stay calm ;-). It's fixed now.

Atlant 12:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electroluminescent lightstick

Should this page be edited to include electroluminescent lightsticks? ZhongHan (Email) 07:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luminol sticks & Toxicity

Could someone include information about Luminol based sticks containing different chemicals?

(A spam-banned glowsticks website I can't post here) lists alternate ingredients not including Cyalume or anthracene which are not mentioned in this entry (unless I misunderstood a chemical formula). These ingredients included luminol, ammonium & sodium carbonate, and copper sulfate pentahydrate. I'm curious as to how these sticks are different from cyalume sticks and how/if they're less toxic. (I have a suspicion a lot of people probably find this article looking directly for qualified information on how non-toxic glowstuff really is or isn't.)

Armandoban 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenol = toxic

Above, someone is asking help about possible toxicity of the glowstick contents. Someone else tells him its not harmfull. On the glowstick page itself it is suggested that the glowsticks can be used for invisible ink.

But; the reaction in the glowstick yields phenol, that's a mutagene as far as I know, and in my opinion very harmfull.

Can someone confirm this??

Drgn 13:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phenol is indeed poisonous but I suspect at the concentrations involved, there's not much to worry about. The dose makes the poison. --Rifleman 82 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-full -> ful

-gene -> gen

-lysdexia

Toxicity

In the "Usage" section of the article there is a line which reads:

When punctured, glowsticks can also be used as pens to write messages that can only be seen in the dark. This is not recommended as the chemicals in the sticks can be dangerous.

Then in the "Toxicity" section, it says:

Glow sticks are not toxic. They can however be mildly irritating to the skin.

So are they dangerous or not? --Candy-Panda 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infrared glowsticks?

What chemicals are used in infrared glowsticks as fluorophors? --Shaddack 04:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luciferase

Don't we use Luciferin and Luciferase in any glowsticks? I could swear we did. If not, why not? It's good enough for fireflies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why: http://google.com/search?q=luciferin+price%7Ccost. -lysdexia 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trains

Some trains here (UK) have glowsticks for use in emergencies where the lights have failed. 81.153.111.37 (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion

Can we fix the pic so the lines dont go thru it?Д narchistPig (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useable Conditions?

I am looking for more information on what sort of conditions thse can be used in, specificalyl temperature ranges? I haven't done any true testing, but I left one in the glove box of my car while it was -40 Celsius outside, the liquid still worked, but seemed to be a little thicker than normal. It breaked n shaked jsut fine and stayed lit well. I didn't measure teh actual temperature of teh stick though, so it may not have been -40c. Does anyone have any more specific information on the temperature range and variation? IE storing in a vehicle and taking it to extremely hot and cold places? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magu2k (talk • contribs) 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glow stick

I propose moving the page to Glow stick with two words. There are more google hits as two words than one, and it seems more correct. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Itub (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

I had a lot of difficulty understanding this sentence

Cyalume was invented by Michael M. Rauhut,[1] David Iba Sr, Robert W. Sombathy and Laszlo J. Bollyky of American Cyanamid based on work by Edwin A. Chandross of Bell Labs[2][3] in conjunction with Richard D. Sokolowski of Eh.M Labs[4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.121.116 (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper disposal

Could we have something on proper disposal, please? (After all, millions are produced.) Would it be treated as (shattered) glass? Are the residue chemicals more critical? Or is it a special case?

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White light

There are glow sticks that produce white light. I have one of these. Sportsmans Guide sells these things. Should be mentioned. 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)