13:02 Nov 9, 2006 

Note similar improprer use of 'lens' for things like indicator lamps, etc. I would imagine this is in 2 parts, maybe one for each lamp, for example.

13:01 Nov 9, 2006 

Now my broadband is back, I've done a bit more research, and I'm convinced DRMANU is on the right lines here; this isn't a true 'lens' at all, but the sort of diffuser that is commonly used on all sorts of lighting devices.

14:23 Nov 8, 2006 

Je ne suis pas spécialiste du phosphénisme mais je suis ouvert à tout !

14:01 Nov 8, 2006 

il y a définitivement 2 "lens" (lentilles?) ainsi que 2 ampoules - puisque qu'on parle de : switch one of the two bulbs
Tony-Dusty, I'm now questioning also and there's no other mention in the text about diffuser - only that one should not try to dissasemble the reflector
I'll ask the client ;-)
merci pour cette très bonne référence (solvital.fr) Drmanu49 - si j'avais trouvé lorsque j'ai commencé ce travail, ça m'aurait bien aidé
pas certaine de phosphénisme par contre - c'est sérieux? ;-)

07:09 Nov 8, 2006 

It probably isn't a true 'lens', if its rôle is to diffuse, so maybe 'optique' might be better — sorry, I'm out of my depth here! Think of the kind of diffuser you might have on a fluorescent light fitting...

07:08 Nov 8, 2006 

My only query would be if 'diffuser' doesn't perhaps modify BOTH 'lens' AND 'reflector', thus: 'lentille et réflecteur de diffusion' — but you'd really need to know how it's constructed to be sure on that one.

07:06 Nov 8, 2006 

I do not have specialist knowledge of this specific kind of light (though I know just the sort of thing they're talking about), but I don't see any reason to think your idea would be wrong, except its 'lentille' in the singular.