Quote:
Originally Posted by solarmeter®  Hey Roy... sniff... you're hurting my feelings! Please don't knock the "simple" model 9.6 Solarmeter until you (or Dr Caulderhead) have tried one. It is a scientific grade instrument with accuracy traceable to NIST in the proper phototheraputic bandwidth for skin rejuvenation:  People used to think Models 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 UV meters were "simple" toys too... (years ago) - until they realized they match Optronics OL754 spectralradiometers almost dead nuts. For what it's worth to you, Don Smith has also verified the 9.6 Red Light meter's accuracy too. The readings also can be converted to dose using session times as outlined in a (much) earlier post. Would you like me to invent an 830nm Near-IR meter next? Or can a Radio Shack digital thermometer do the job? Anyway.... all I'm saying is don't knock it 'till you've tried it vs the "sophisticated" equipment - OK? For ITS: You have NOT posted readings that MATTER yet - ie at FACE position from a full array. |
Steve,
I dont think that Roy meant to say anything negative about your meter. We use a very sophisticated meter here for testing purposes. We are not saying your meter is faulty or inaccurate like Roy pointed out it does serve a very valuable service for the salon owner. All we are saying is that is takes more than a simple reading on a meter and a part number to make a device work as described. Have you yourself done any research into the efficacy of LED light on human tissue? This is the point that I am trying to get across. Sorry for any confusion on my part.
Cheers,