Jump to content

As promised... COMPLETE SPECS on SciART LED lamps


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 hhughes

hhughes

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 164
    Gallery Images: 1
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Joined: 06-March 07

Posted 13 March 2007 - 05:07 PM

Hooray. They got here finally.

About an hour ago they arrived at my doorstep via UPS, and I set them up in like 5 minutes. Washed my face and did a 20 minute blue light session. Ok... here goes.

MY BACKGROUND:
1. Experienced with Lumenis ClearLight Treatment - one session yielded complete clearing within 5 days. I did the light therapy at a MedSpa and when I saw my Derm a week later his eyes almost popped out. He said my skin was perfect.
2. Currently using Retin-A Micro.
3. Non Prescription products include:
Dermalogica Pre-Cleanse - Occasionally if feeling congested
MD Forte Level 3 Face Wash - 2xDaily
Skinceuticals Phyto Corrective Gel - 2xDaily
MD Forte Replenish Hydrating Cream - As needed for moisture - like after dermabrasion
Skinceuticals 15% Serum - Morning
Astara Blue Flame Purification Mask - Spot Treatment

CURRENT ACNE STATE:
My acne is not severe, I would say mild to moderate with a few good days in between. I have current breakouts on both my temples, a little on my forehead. Everything else is 100% clear.

Next,

WHAT I GOT:
1. Two Blue Light LEDs
2. One Red Light LED
3. Three Clamp on LED Fixtures
4. Tanning Goggles (included)

First... THE BULBS

These bulbs are not bright... they are freaking blinding. I can't believe how bright they are. Even with the goggles on, they hurt my eyes. You cannot look directly into these bulbs, you will pay for it. You'll be seeing spots for a while. I cannot open my eyes at all with these bulbs on.... with ClearLight, I took my goggles off and looked directly at the light and it didnt hurt. These LED's own Incandescent, Di-CHromatic whatever... its no contest. They are that intense.

The LED bulbs are not manufactured by SciART, they are made by a company called EnLUX. This company I called (will get to this later) and can say is a highly reputable company. The LED's are patented and use unique technology to deliver unsurpassed brightness. They are currently the brightest LED's being manufactured for public purchase in the world.

The LED lamps were awarded the Grand Award by Popular Mechanics during their debut in early 2005. And the lighting industry as a whole has applauded the patented EnLUX light engine for how bright they are. They also won the Lightfair International award for best new LED product of the year.

STYLE

The bulbs are REALLY cool looking and nice and small... 3 inches wide and 5 inches deep. You could slip these into your pocket if you wanted to. They have a flower/fan heat sink that does a great job of dissipating the heat.

Yes, contrary to popular belief, LEDs do get hot. Just not as hot as other types of bulbs. You could touch these LED's while on, but they would not burn you. They would become a bit uncomfortable though, or at least I would imagine.

The directions say to sit AT LEAST 2 feet away... I sat about 1 foot away and could feel warmth on my face.

SPECS

The LED's say on the bulbs themselves...

120volts
60Hrz
22 Watts

The output is twice that of a 100watt incandescent bulb. SO... these LED's are putting out the equivalent of a 200watt bulb.

THE FIXTURES

The fixtures are neat and are the type used in photography for flash bulbs. They are small and can be adjusted to any possible degree. They have a easy to use switch... simple and straight forward.

MAIN THING

Ok, I'll have to use these bulbs for a while to see if they do indeed work... but I am very impressed with them so far. I'll post an update to this thread if i clear up. I also have the red light.... which I am going to use on alternating days.

My shedule:
20 Min Blue TRSat
20 Min Red MW
Sunday off... or if desired. My pick.

ONE IMPORTANT NOTE

I checked with EnLux and SciART - These Blue LEDs operate at a wavelength of right around 470nm. The studies that show best results do treatment at 405nm-420nm. This is a big difference. The Di-Chromatics that they had before have worked for other people, but also operated at around 470nm. I found some studies that say 470nm is effective for acne, but not nearly as effective as 405nm-420nm. SciART said they have had no returns so far and will be sending out testimonil requests soon.

I however, wanted a true 405nm-420nm LED. I asked SciART if they could get them. The woman I spoke with said that they FOR SURE are getting 412nm LED's custom manufactured by EnLUX. I thought maybe she was lying, but she said that they invested a lot of money in them and they just have not arrived yet, it has been about 60 days since their order. She ENSURED me they were coming, and said once they are in, I could swap my current blue lights out for the 412nm lights, for free.

She also said that she thinks the current ones will work for me since they have worked for others. But regardless, even if I have complete clearing, I can still exchange the bulbs if I desire. And even if I have complete clearing, I will for sure exchange for the new ones once they arrive.

I hope she wasnt just saying that b/c I confronted her about the wavelength, but I am hopeful that she was telling the truth and that indeed, 412nm bulbs will be available shortly. She said less than a month or so for sure. And that she would be calling EnLUX today to see what was going on and as soon as she found out, she would call me and let me know.

Other Info:
A Lumenis rep called me while I was typing this. He said that they have discontinued the ClearLight machine b/c it just wasnt working well. They now use their Lumenis One IPL machine. He told me that it was the Levulan that was working the best now, and people were focusing on activiating the Levulan. This occurs at a wavelength of 515nm. SO that is what they use for acne now.

I have used the ClearLight with outstanding results before though... and it puts out 412nm. I think they just decided to go with what works best. and that is apparently Levulan combined with 515nm light. I would imagine for those not wanting Levulan... blue light at 405-420 would be still the best option. 515nm by itself (no Levulan) should have very little if any effect on acne at all.

CONCLUSION

These are the brightest most powerful lights you can get.... im pretty sure of it.
Hopefully the 412nm will be available soon.
I will post updates of the treatment on this thread.
Questions welcome.
eusa_whistle.gif

UPDATE 1.1:

SciART woman called me back. She got in contact with EnLUX... and they are checking on the status of the custom bulbs. I miswrote earlier.... they are not 412nm. They are actually 415nm. Which is not a big difference and still within the study parameters. Given fluctuation, you would get anywhere from 408nm to 422nm from the new soon to be arriving bulbs with the dominant wavelength being 415nm. They currently have a prototype in the office that one of the girls is using. EnLUX said the time frame to manufacture custom order bulbs is 3.5 months. It has been over two months already, so it should be soon. I'll keep up with it and post more updates here in regards to this matter.

UPDATE 1.2

I have now sent the Blue LED's back. I kept the Red LED. SciArt has now updated their website and they have a picture of the 415nm bulb up. I believe it is just the prototype but hopefully they will be shipping soon. More to come.

#2 Guest_~Wolfy~_*

Guest_~Wolfy~_*
  • Guests
  • Posts & Likes
    Gallery Images: 1

Posted 13 March 2007 - 11:41 PM

Forget it, send it back now. 470nm lights don't do anything. Until they get the custom lamps in, these lights simply aren't worth getting. There's a graph of the sensitivity of P.Acnes to different colours, and these are completely off the colour where they make any difference.

p.s. The red lights should be OK though. Oh and the action potential of blue (actually it's violet) light is here: http://www.caci.co.nz/imagelibrary/100060.pdf


#3 hhughes

hhughes

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 164
    Gallery Images: 1
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Joined: 06-March 07

Posted 14 March 2007 - 12:38 AM

Yeah... that's what I figured too. 415nm is more violet so when i turned these on i knew they were powerful, but off the proper study proven wavelength.

I'll probably go ahead and use these blues for now whether they work or not, but I am not too optimistic for the results.

Im sure you are right. I only found a few obscure studies shouwing 470nm efficacy, and the studies were questionable.

But everything else aside, if they get the 415nm bulbs in. I bet these LED's will work better than anything. They are SO bright.

If I put my hand up to them or open my mouth close to the light... i can see it shining faintly through my skin.

I cant wait till they get the 415nm ins.... I hope it is only a few weeks. As soon as I get them, I'll change my review to reflect the new lights.

Is there a specific red light frequency that is recommended? Or is the range much broader for the red? Also, do you have a copy of the graph so I can check it out?

thanks!

#4 Guest_~Wolfy~_*

Guest_~Wolfy~_*
  • Guests
  • Posts & Likes

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:02 AM

QUOTE(hhughes @ Mar 14 2007, 06:38 AM)
But everything else aside, if they get the 415nm bulbs in. I bet these LED's will work better than anything. They are SO bright.

The thing is 470 nm lights are quite easy to make, and tend to be very bright. The 415nm seems to be more of a sticky patch. I really seriously doubt that 415nm bulbs would give 22 Watts. And I hope it doesn't. To put this in perspective I bought some very bright 400nm LEDs; they were 10mW each, and I used 78 of them. That treated an area about 6cm by 6cm (2.5 inches by 2.5 inches).

The thing was scary! Unfortunately it was slightly the wrong wavelength, and while it felt right and showed every indication that it worked, even from momentary glances at it, I started getting gritty eyes and haloes around things (i.e. clear symptoms of UV exposure), and after a few days of use my skin developed a slight tan(!)

That was just 780mW. 22 Watts would probably be dangerous (even though 15 nm lower frequency should stop the gritty eyes mostly).

Anyway 415nm is a different ballgame than 470nm and even 470nm isn't considered safe for long term use.

QUOTE
Is there a specific red light frequency that is recommended? Or is the range much broader for the red? Also, do you have a copy of the graph so I can check it out?

thanks!

See above for the graph. I think that 660 nm is recommended for red light. You can easily buy those LED arrays, they're not particularly expensive.

#5 hhughes

hhughes

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 164
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Joined: 06-March 07

Posted 14 March 2007 - 02:30 AM

QUOTE(~Wolfy~ @ Mar 14 2007, 02:02 AM)
Anyway 415nm is a different ballgame than 470nm and even 470nm isn't considered safe for long term use.


Wait... so you are saying that it is not considered safe to use for a long time as in years? or just for longer per session?

That would suck if the lamps turned out to be harmful to me after doing 20 minutes sessions every other day for two years!

Thanks for the graph, i didnt see there was a second page to the PDF.

#6 Guest_~Wolfy~_*

Guest_~Wolfy~_*
  • Guests
  • Posts & Likes

Posted 14 March 2007 - 09:18 AM

Sorry, I meant eye-safe. Looking at 470nm may cause degradation of the retina over time. 415 nm is very probably worse.

From a skin safety point of view, there's no big issue AFAIK. Actually it would be interesting to see whether the 415nm blue LED produces any tanning at all; I can detect a barely detectable tan from my lamp sometimes, but there's a small amount of UV, and the tanning level is consistent with that. LEDs produce essentially no UV, but these lights are very close to the UV and there might be some very, very small tanning; but skin-health wise it's going to be better than going out in the sun for even very short periods.

#7 Hultkrantz

Hultkrantz

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 197
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden
  • Joined: 31-March 06

Posted 01 August 2007 - 04:32 PM

http://www.sci-art-global.com/acne/index.htm

The blue light at the site (where you bought the bulbs) is 415 nm correctly but the red is 668 nm and thats a bit too high? shouyldnt it be around 633? Is there any curve of the rigth wavelength?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Jump to... Go to top
Hello, Guest.
It looks like you didn't set up an avatar.
Do you want to set up an avatar now?
Let's do it!
refresh page when finished
     Remind me in a few days