New 100 Watt Lamps - Meter at 18. Is this normal?

[mstnt]

Hey Everyone. Sorry I didn't get back with a follow up to my situation. Shortly after my last post, my computer crashed and I came down with pneumonia. It took me a while to recover from both. I went back to work and then came down with pneumonia a second time. I am just now getting back to some semblance of health.

Anyway, I don't have all my notes from the day that TanAmerica (TA) sent out Pano, their supertech, to investigate the issues with our equipment, but I can recall basically what took place. First, he set up all kinds of test equipment to take readings on the temperature of the lamps, the temperature of the air going into the bed, the temperature of the air coming out of the bed. He took the line voltage serving the bed. He also had a instrument similar to Solarmeter 5.0 to take UV-A/B readings with. He found the line voltage was good, so that wasn't a problem. The A/C is set at 74deg and the rooms are big enough for proper ventilation. Basically, that ruled out anything that would have been contributing to the problems that were within my control.

The next step was to run the beds and take readings under several different conditions. The results of these tests were very interesting indeed. The main problem is a result of buying the upgrade to electronic ballasts. TA didn't adjust the lamp cooling fans to the lighter heat load of the electronic ballasts (magnetic ballast run considerably hotter). So the fans were overcooling the lamps. The lamps weren't getting hot enough to get into and/or stay at the optimum tanning temperature for the maximum amount of time. The fix was to set a fan delay so the fans don't come on for a 1.5 minutes after the bed starts, and then the set it shut off earlier upon cooling down.

We also have the electronic ballasts in our Level 2 equipment and the same situation and basically the same solution applied to them as well (time delay was modified). Lastly, Pano suggested that we turn the setpoint on our AC up a couple of degrees because our salon is so well conditioned (he said he doesn't ever remember having to tell a salon owner that).

I think the UV meter reading on the Level one equipment was around 14.7 - 16.0 range. The optimum temperature of the Level 1 equipment was 105 deg to 115 deg. Before or after that the UV rating fell.

I want to thank everyone for your valuable input while I was going through this. It was rather stressful at the time and I'm sure that it had something to do with me getting so sick.

L

[John]

Just like I said, you can't just swap a 1980's Magnetic ballast for a new electronic ballast without adjusting the cooling to the lamps.

I really don't like the solution of starting fans later & shuting off early.

Hope it works out.

[mstnt]

Originally Posted by John

mstnt,

Lamp wall temp should remain at or about 105º throughout the session.

If someone came in & changed your magnetic ballast for new electronic ballast & they didn't change/adjust cooling, sounds very fishy. The electronic ballast run much cooler than old Magnetic style ballast. They are more energy efficient and are much easier on the lamps.

My question would be: was the bed originally under cooled & when they put new electronic ballast in, is it where it is suppose to be now?

Or: Was the bed cooled right to begin with & now is it over cooled?

John:

The beds delivered new in December 2006 with magnetic ballasts. We had pre-purchased the retrofit to electronic, but they weren't able to ship with electronic ballasts. TA came out in February 2007 to do the retrofit of the ballasts. They didn't do anything to the fans. We purchased two more 100w beds in Dec 07 with electronic ballasts. They had the same cooling system as the original beds with the magnetic ballasts. The manufacturer (TA) had not reconfigured their cooling systems for electronic ballasts. I don't know what they are doing now.

I owe a special thanks to you for bringing this to my attention in the first place. TA was denying that there could be problem with overcooling. I don't know what I would have done without your input because it gave me the confidence to pursue the issue. Although, it was extremely frustrating at the time, TA did come out and finally did the right thing.

Thanks again.

L

[solarmeter®]

Lamps too hot: UV output drops.
Lamps too cold: UV output drops.
Lamps just right: UV output peaks.

msnt: re-read post # 29 on page 2. Did you do any of that with Pano? Did you show him the post? There is more to output than just 5.0 (mostly UVA) readings. Don't tell Island Tammy though! She might think Brian would think you have Boat Anchors® there lol.

[mstnt]

Originally Posted by solarmeter®

Lamps too hot: UV output drops.
Lamps too cold: UV output drops.
Lamps just right: UV output peaks.

msnt: re-read post # 29 on page 2. Did you do any of that with Pano? Did you show him the post? There is more to output than just 5.0 (mostly UVA) readings. Don't tell Island Tammy though! She might think Brian would think you have Boat Anchors® there lol.

Steve:

I tried to go over that stuff with Pano, he said what he was doing was the same thing and that his instruments were better. I do think he had another piece of equipment taking readings - but I forget what it did. He was blasting through everything (and he is difficult to understand due to his accent). It was pretty overwhelming He is coming back in a couple of days. (We have different issues now). Maybe I can talk to him about it then.

L

[solarmeter®]

I don't care if he has a $50K Optronics 754 or a $3000 IL 1700 or my cheap-ass Solarmeters: You need to find out 3 things to know it all:

1. Total UV (A+B)
2. UVB (and % B)
3. MED/hr

K? Show him this post.

he said what he was doing was the same thing and that his instruments were better

Ummm... then why didn't he tell you all three values? Expensive does not equal better for those three metrics. The Solarmeters match Optronics OL754 (gold standard) spectralradiometer traceable to NIST (National Institute of Technology - aka NBS).

I have been at NIST on their roof in Gaithersburg, MD matching Solarmeters with their $200K SciTec spectralradiometer ... and also on Table Rock Mountain in Boulder, CO for two NOAA/NIST UV Intercomparisons with every high dollar UV instrument in the world. Ask dear Pano if he has done the same with whatever he brings to your beds.

This is NOT a slam on Pano.. he's a very smart guy and knows what he's doing. Just ask him when is the last time his "better" instrument was calibrated reference NIST accuracy. The more expensive and complex a UV instrument is, the more finicky(sp) it is.... and the more often it needs recals. Solarmeters are simple, accurate, and hold their readings virtually forever:

[Island Cove]

The higher the percent B the lower a 5.0 meter will read for a given wattage lamp. It is not uncommon for some base bed high-B 100W's to read only 16-18 new. Old-era lamps sacrifice UVA (which is mostly what the 5.0 meter reads) to get more UVB (which is what the 6.0 meter reads).

Something new I've learned! Also, confirms that the 5.0 meter # doesn't always tell the whole story as to how a unit will tan. It explains why we can get a less tan on a higher 5.0 metered # bed and get better color on a unit that meters lower with a 5.0 even though we would assume less performance.

[Island Cove]

Lamps too hot: UV output drops.
Lamps too cold: UV output drops.
Lamps just right: UV output peaks.

so realy when we are posting the readings we get from our units, we should also be posting the temperature too, for acuracy.

[solarmeter®]

Something new I've learned! Also, confirms that the 5.0 meter # doesn't always tell the whole story as to how a unit will tan. It explains why we can get a less tan on a higher 5.0 metered # bed and get better color on a unit that meters lower with a 5.0 even though we would assume less performance.

That's why I always say you need 3 meters worth of readings to "get it". Then everything makes sense and correlates with tanning "results".

5.0.... browning rays
6.0.... pinking rays
7.0.... orange rays

The color "tan" is a perfect mix of brown, pink, orange... ie: bronze. Hawaiian 3-4pm beach sun is the perfect mix (for my skin type anyway). But it takes 1-1/2 hours to "get" a decent dose. So just meter the sun with all 3 models next time you're in Hawaii at 3:30pm and multiply the results by about 5 for a 12-15min tanning bed session.

[mstnt]

Originally Posted by solarmeter®

...Ask dear Pano if he has done the same with whatever he brings to your beds...

...This is NOT a slam on Pano.. he's a very smart guy and knows what he's doing. Just ask him when is the last time his "better" instrument was calibrated reference NIST accuracy....

Hey Steve:

I don't think that Pano was trying to be insulting. He actually was using what looked like a 5.0 which was comparing to what ever else he had - so I think that speaks to what you're saying. I think that he said what he said to avoid having to explain the spectrometer readings/calculations to me. I don't know if you've had many conversations with him, he is difficult to understand and he justs want to get his business done without a lot of distraction. I was reluctant to get into a discussion with him about things that I don't quite understand.

I may take a day off and plan a field trip to their factory, where he has all the equipment available. He may be more relaxed then. I'll bring my meters 5.0, 6.0 & 7.0 and then I may be able to figure this stuff out.

By the way, do you (or anyone) have a form that you use to record the readings. I did one for the 5.0, but it was pretty basic.

L