The good thing seen here immediately is that Lighting Gallery website itself is very well built. It is simple and easy on resources, without any dreaded "user experience", and works just the same as it does today



Viruses are foreign software which must arrive on the computer and be executed

Most of the time this happens through user action, ie. the user brings in and opens the stuff. So just not being an idiot prevents a big part of the problem in the first place

With the user out of the way, the rest of the threat is with defects in the normal software already existing on the computer, which would allow it to be hijacked (for example, into downloading and running all sorts of malware, viruses being one of them)

So, the problem is not the viruses (they are a consequence) but the possibility of he system getting hijacked to begin with



In the distant past, "basic" software and OSes were too dumb to have significant security threats facing outside through the network

If you install a fresh copy of Windows 95 and dont enable file/printer sharing, it probably won't have any listening ports by default

If you install a web browser from 1995, it probably doesn't support anything more than basic HTML rendering - No Javascrpt, no ActiveX, etc. The most that can happen is probably it running out of memory trying to load a big page, or failing to load a page altogether



Then things started becoming "smarter", opening new ways for things to be abused

Like the code execution from JPEG images in Windows 98. For the threat to materialize, the images would have to be downloaded to the computer and viewed with Windows explorer. So a possible way to catch anything could be to surf to a website serving such image, and going with Windows explorer to C:/Windows/Temp or the like before its contents are cleared



Windows XP is newer than that

It does have some default OS services interacting with the internet, each of which could have an open security defect

Web browsers used with it (which is anything from IE5 to browsers of ~2014) have complicated code execution mechanisms, which generally aim to execute the code only within the scope of the web page, but actual limits were anything from non existent (ActiveX) to badly flawed (Javascript, ...)

During the product's supported life, such issues are corrected once they are found (maybe or maybe not fast enough), so while the risks keep existing and growing (due to growing complexity of everything), there is an active effort to fix discovered holes

Once the service ends, new holes are still discovered but no longer fixed. Most of those holes are well abused already



New versions of Windows and web browsers are much worse than this in terms of raw possibilities of existence of threats

They are much more complicated, which creates more places where defects may exist. Modern web browsers have so complicated and capable JS engines that they require sandboxing just to keep the code running inside from accessing the system (if the engines would simply not implement anything besides some basic changes to the web page display, this would not be an issue)

Even with sandboxing, they are capable of running code which can abuse side channel attacks like spectre and meltdown. Again, probably would be much less of an issue with a JS engine which does not implement so much functionality (all of which isn't even needed for any proper websites, only for some extreme "user experience" stuff)

The OS itself has lots of services which interact with the "cloud". Some of which explicit purpose is to download and execute additional software on the computer

The only reason why this is considered safe is because the effort to fix everything by the software providers is ongoing. Once this system falls behind, it will become much more dangerous and much faster than e.g. Windows XP abandoned for the same period of time



In short, being mindful in general as a user, and closing system services which have an attack surface (possibly with the aid of a firewall), go a long way in securing a system

Existence of antivirus is not a significant measurement of how secure the system is



I'm on Linux since ca 2003

In terms of security of Linux (with everything running on top of it in a fairly standard desktop install) vs. the described systems above - Linux is on the complex side as a system, and the web browsers are pretty much the same as in other OSes. However, it has much better ability to configure it to reduce attack surfaces

Also, current and up to date versions run well on aging hardware. I have multiple systems running well on Core 2 Duos, and only a few years ago had some running on Pentium 4's, few of which may still be brought back to use as i expand my workshop

(Though right now in front of me i have a pile of just a few year old Lenovo and HP desktops, perfectly capable of any average use, that i saved from scrap - they headed there just because of Windows 11 TPM alola. Which have nothing at all to do with security in the normal sense)

Running Windows 10 with extended support patched for a few more years. I don't like Windows 11 and the direction that Microsoft is taking it. I considered Linux but a few of my important programs are Windows only. I built my computer fairly recently so older versions of Windows weren't fully compatible with it. 

Be careful here. The voltage rating is important. If you do what you are suggesting and wire the caps in parallel you will indeed double the capacitance but will half the maximum operating voltage. Far better to find two 8.8uf caps and wire them in series. That way you will get the 4.4uf and the voltage will be doubled. I had the same problem for a 131W sox e lamp. Two 6.8uf caps at 450vac gives 3.4uf at 900vac, more than the 650vac required and much safer to use.

rhombicuboctahedron

Had to look that up lol!

Interesting idea, that would definitely be easier to make yourself.

The container can be polygonal. Just make it of sheet metal

I have seen a rhombicuboctahedron shaped one in Righi Licht (a closed manufacturer of GLS lamps in Switzerland). It is fairly easy to make, and it can be bound in a rigid external cube "cage", which will prevent stress and flexing (which could chip the paint) on the sheet metal itself when it is handled (moved or door opened and closed)

You cannot make perfect use of the sphere shape being "ideal" anyway, because internally you have to "disturb" it at least with some sort of wall which would prevent direct line of sight between the lamp and detector

I would try SON ignitor to a wire wound externally around the lamp and not connected to anything

The wire can be in insulation

Superimposed ignitor can be wired from the same ballast which is powering the lamp, just connect the lamp before the ignitor so it does not get the pulse to the main terminals. This will still let the ignitor sense the lamp arc voltage, and stop igniting once the lamp fires

Ballast dependent ignitor (and possibly a small X capacitor) may be required if you figure you need a more powerful pulse. In this case use whatever ballast that provides the correct tap for the ignitor. I think you might still try to connect the entire 2nd ballast setup from the output of the 1st ballast (parallel to the lamp), to get the ignitor to see the lamp arc voltage, but there may be more things that might or might not work correctly

The lamp is internally coated with a conductive layer (ITO), which would act as a large capacitor plate, standing between the wire and the arctube. This is ok as long as you can couple enough pulse to this layer, so the entire layer gets to HV potential relative to the arctube

The environment (including metal luminaire parts, and in an open bench test - just the more distant general environment) is also a capacitor plate - a grounded one, which is undesirable, as it makes a 2nd capacitor from the lamp to ground, forming a divider with the capacitor made by the wire. You can increase the divider output by winding more wire

@Laurens
That is a very interesting possibility, there isn't a whole lot of telegraph line there but that could be the case.

It looks like he used MyPal, a Gecko-based browser. I usually use Supermium, which is chromium based and updated more frequently.

I'm currently browsing on a Windows 7 Ultimate computer. It was built in 2006 and has 12GB of DDR3 RAM, and a 4-core 8-thread Intel Xeon CPU. Quite the beast back in the day.

As for security risks, most antivirus programs still run on Windows 7, and there are even some that will still run on XP.

One potential reason is that if you own the telegraph line, you likely own the right to put other cables on it too. So this means that you can buy a dilapidated telegraph line for cheap in the late 90s, do just some cosmetic work to keep it in non-deserted state, and whenever your telecom company decides it's time, use that right of way to put fibre on those poles (which is of course much cheaper than digging, and you already have the permission to have those cables on that area of land).

Like my personality shows that my pics aren’t meant to be commented much? And I seem to want to be left alone?

Dave, you're fine...just be yourself. As to commenting, I'll comment on pics that interest me...mainly vintage HID lamps and luminaires. Other things, not so much...nothing personal.