Jump to content
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. Thanks for sharing your data/experience. I don't know if my daughter is "the other tester" referred to in this thread or not, but she has not used the light enough for me to draw any conclusions. She is so busy that most weeks I have been unable to get her to use it. It's a shame since, given that she is allergic to BP and gets minimal help from S-acid, she'd be a good candidate for blue-light. Oh well...
  2. Check with your doctor, but my understanding is that you are specifically to avoid excessive exposure to sunlight and NOT to use any form of phototherapy while using Retin-A. That would mean no blue-light treatment while on Retin-A
  3. Thanks - Possibly, but I had better check with the girls and get a committment to really try them first. I'll PM you with an answer as soon as I can. Wow, I know just how you feel. My daughter refuses to even unbox the Beautyskin device i bought for her. Since she is using the ebay light 2 lamp setup, which covers the blue light treatment, I bought 3 extra Beautyskin red lamps to make the whole thing work with 6 red just to see if it would help her collagen and pigmentation, but alas, she
  4. Blackshieladog is correct about the spectrum of the Actinic 03 bulbs not requiring expensive filters. On the other hand, I'm pretty certain that the 400w Metal-Halide professional bulbs do need filters. There really isn't any large inherent benefit to the Metal Halide bulbs over fluorescent, it's just the technology chosen by one manufacturer. The cosmeticlasercenter folks have not replied to my multiple emails asking for specs (and bringing to their attention the misleading claims on their q
  5. For all of you who are asking about what light source to use, there is a separate topic thread on this site titled, "Internet alternatives to Expensive Clearlight treatments - sources on the internet for 420 nm lights", that while long, has a number of suggested less-expensive alternatives. See, [Edited link out] A few points contained in that thread: 1.The enLUX light that outputs 420nm is available solely through a customer of theirs, Sci-Art-Global (more specifically throu
  6. The Quasar appears to have less optical output power than competitors and cost WAY more. 24 to 30 small form-factor LEDs just cannot produce that much output. Until I see a verfied spec that shows at least 1,000mw output (at the proper wavelengths) I wouldn't consider spending any serious money on an LED unit. Also 1,000wm of power shouldn't cost over about $200 to make sense. For example the enLUX ultra-powerful LED assy from Sci-art-global has about that level of output for about $130. Fluores
  7. I seriously doubt that it will work. It doesn't even claim to have output in the critical 410-425nm range. Even if it had the right wavelengths to kill the acne bacteria (and it does NOT) it is a very low power unit. They claim a total output of 9,360mW, but with only 72 LEDs it appears that they are quoting the total input electrical power to the LEDs, not their optical output power*. Since most LEDs are only around 10% efficient he latter is about 1/10th as much, which is way too low to be
  8. The key is what you mean by "harmful." Yes, most sunscreen do a good job of filtering out the burning UVB rays that cause sunburn and are the worst contributors to skin cancer. An SPF-15 sunscreen cuts the UVB by 15x. The problem is that UVA also causes damage. It is clear that UVA can cause premature aging, and it *may* contribute somewhat to skin cancer. Most sunscreen do not filter UVA very well (and some not at all). A few of the newer ones do, but my understanding is that even the o
  9. Screw-in ballasts do exist. The problem is that there are lots of different socket styles used by fluorescent tubes and finding a screw-in ballast for your particular tube may be a challenge. An example of a screw-in ballast is shown here: http://www.goodmart.com/products/74094.htm I don't recall what bases are used on most of the PC Fluorescent actinic tubes, so I can't comment on whether the one above would match any of them. Note, the tubes need support if they are much longer than abou
  10. The "tanning bed" approach is interesting. The ones I have seen use UV fluroescent tubes. It might be possible to replace the existing UV tubes with 420nm tubes and be done. The problem would be finding tubes that are the right length etc to fit the existing fixtures. One could contact a maker of beds or a salon owning some of the beds and check out what tubes they use. Unfortunately, I am busy with work and can't afford the time to do the research. Best of luck
  11. Sure - I'll take it and I'll let you know how changing out the switch turns out. I'm a sucker for small projects. I'll PM you details.
  12. Responding to two issues... 1. Will the red light and the blue light cancel each other out? I have heard that as well, but have also heard elsewhere that they do not. If there is any interaction/cancellation it would NOT be due to a mixing of the wavelengths producing a wrong color; you are correct that any such mixing is soley a psycho-visual perceptive effect (i.e. the way the brain interprets the signals from the three types of cone cells in the retina as colors). It is possible, though, t
  13. My two cent's worth on the various questions raised in the last couple of posts: 1) Is a 15w compact equivilent to a 15w tube fluorescent? Blacksheiladog is correct, both have about the same total light output, but the compact one MAY do a better job of getting all that light onto your face. While, the bulb efficiency does vary some due to the geometry (linear tubes have a slight edge here), internal construction, and particualar mix of phosphors used, the biggest difference will be in how we
  14. Responding to the question from Veridis Quo about the addititive effect of lamps: Blacksheiladog replied, "So yes, more lamps means more watts, just like 15 one watt lights equals one 15 watt light, more or less. What we really want is lots of watts, as close to the face as possible, with as little wasted light as possible. So fixtures with mirror backing, or white housings will help deliver all possible light to the target." Blacksheiladog is correct, with one minor technical clarification.
  15. Let me see if I can shed some light on the blue vs violet question (sorry for the pun). Wavelengths at and below 420nm should indeed look violet to the normal eye (not necessarily to cameras). The confusion with blue can stem from multiple factors. 1. Some people don't bother making a distinction between blue and violet in speech and writing. They will call a color blue and only mention violet if you specifically ask them which it is. 2. The human eye perceives a mix of hues as a "color".