Network Sites: LOOKING FIT National Tanning Training Institute
| Network Sites: LOOKING FIT National Tanning Training Institute |
| |||||||
| Visit Our Sponsors! |
| High Pressure High Pressure Beds and Verticals spoken here. Post your questions and thoughts . |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
 20th November 2004, 11:22 AM | #5 (permalink) |
| VENDOR  Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 394 |  The columns are strategically placed to give you an even tan. The column below you, and the one on your right side are stationary. The lamp configuration is 1 x 2000 watt over your face, and the other two lamps over the right side of your face, and left side of your face are 1200 watts each. We have 4 lamps that are 600 watts each, 3 are located on the bottom column that extends from your rear to the back of your neck. The remaining 600 watt lamp is located in the center top column directly above your feet. The rest are 1200 watts each. This unit comes without the tri-act board, so the lamps are guaranteed for 600 hours. The power supply is 23000 kw, 3 phase, 100 amp breaker. The difference between the Magic 636 and the King is about 16,000 watts, and $10,000. Kindest Regards, Al |
 |  |
| 28th November 2004, 02:07 PM | #8 (permalink) |
| Rookie Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 16 | just curious... ... why do many people put much emphasis on wattage of bulbs? a Watt is a unit of measure to determine electricity consumption, but what does that have to do with tanning performance ? (more watts, more tanning power? I don't think so...) Enlighten me... __________________ Michael Pacific Sun Los Angeles, CA |
 | |
| 28th November 2004, 03:56 PM | #9 (permalink) |
| VENDOR Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 394 | Michael, It would be better for us to sell this unit at 18,000 watts, then 36,000 watts. Because not everybody has 100/125 amp breakers to spare in their power supply. But do to all the adjust abilities of different power levels, and how the triac board works we must use the higher wattage lamps. Not real sure how to answer your question, but I have done some general testing with a 5.0 solar meter using a 600 watt lamp, compared to a 1200 watt lamp. And measuring at the same distance away from the filter glass the readings from the 1200 watt lamp was a much higher reading, by almost 60 mw. Maybe Don can let us know why this is?? I would only guess because of the wattage. The UVB stayed the same. Al |
| | |
| 28th November 2004, 05:17 PM | #12 (permalink) |
| Rookie Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 16 | Wattage vs. Performance I just vaguely recall a seminar that was given by Jerry Deveney a couple of years back, where he was pointing out that wattage compared to performance is like comparing apples to oranges... So no matter who produces a 160w lamp, for example, they all perform the same way and give same results? Is that the general opinion? I thought there was way much to it than that... Enlighten me... __________________ Michael Pacific Sun Los Angeles, CA |
| | |
| 28th November 2004, 06:51 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
| Rookie Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 16 | Quote:
Higher Wattage = Better Performance/Results ? or Comparing Wattage & Performance = Comparing Apples & Oranges ? __________________ Michael Pacific Sun Los Angeles, CA | |
| | |
| 28th November 2004, 06:57 PM | #15 (permalink) |
| Moderator  Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Neverland Posts: 1,944 | Agreed Put an 800w Plug-In lamp with parabolic reflector up against a 1200w Wire lead with coffee can reflector. 50% less power, and 100% MORE output at the body/face. It ain't all 'horsepower', but an all-over design. |
| | |
| 28th November 2004, 06:58 PM | #16 (permalink) |
| Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 469 | While it's true they aren't the same thing, watts and performance are definitely NOT like apples and oranges. Performance is dependent on a lot more than watts of power available for the lamps, but Watts do affect performance. Maybe a comparison to a car stereo would make more sense. You can have a piece of crap factory stereo that puts out 100 watts using speakers that have poor frequency response. Or, you can have a JVC 100 watt receiver and Alpine speakers with a 15hz to 22khz .001%thd system and have some awsome performance that will blow away any homey's bass pounding static producing system on the block. |
| | |
| 28th November 2004, 07:35 PM | #17 (permalink) |
| VENDOR Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 394 | Sparky is correct about design being a key aspect. I couldn't imagine our Magic 636 with 1200 watt vertical lamp. We did test this in the beginning, and because of the overall design of how the columns are placed, the parabolic did not work in the Magic 636. Kindest Regards, Al Reasonover CEO Miracle Sun 2020 Elkhart rd. #F Goshen, IN 46526 1-800-449-9826 Fax (574)537-9333 miraclesun.net |
| | |
| 28th November 2004, 10:34 PM | #18 (permalink) |
| Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 367 | It depends upon what the definition of is, is - LOL When "watts" is used, you know that the term is being used to describe a "frequency" measurement for a given area. The usual term we see is W/cm^2/nm (Watts per centimeter squared per nanometer). When "joules" is used, you know that the element of "time" has entered the equation. One joule is the amount of work that can be done by 1 watt in 1 second. What we have to start focusing on if we want to (1) better understand the dynamics of sunlamps/sunbeds, and, (2) be better able to explain "tanning" to our clients is photon density. We have learned how to convert "frequency" measurements to "photon density", i.e., photons/s/cm^2/nm (photons per second per centimeter squared per nanometer) and this allows us to compare sunlamps and/or sunbeds (or sunlight) regarding their photon density, i.e., the number of photons in a given UVR segment that strike a given area of the skin. [Note: A cm^2 (centimeter squared) is about the size of a . that is square.] Once we all get used to talking about photon density instead of frequency, we can get away from arbitrary (and confusing) measurements like UVB% and begin looking at the the actual number of photons in a given UVR segment that strike a known area of the skin. I'll post some examples when I get time. The "bottom line" is that while "wattage" is important (because "more wattage" USUALLY - not always! - means more photons) other factors (the phosphors in LP sunbeds and the absorption filter/sunlamp combination in HID/hp sunbeds) can (and does) affect photon density. Don |
| | |
| 28th November 2004, 11:29 PM | #20 (permalink) |
| Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 469 | The only thing I'd add is that the watts that equipment labeling and sales literature are talking about is the electrical power that is delivered to the lamps. This is different than the irradiance of the energy that is received by the skin or by a detector. Watts of electircal power are just volts X amps, and don't necessarily translate into W/m^2 of UVR that the tanners' skin receives. And it certainly doesn't address the W/m^2 (or W/cm^2) of UV light at the useful and desired wavelengths. Irradiance which is measured in W/m^2, or some factor of 10, and watts of electrical power are apples and oranges. And that's what Jerry was trying to get across instead of making things as clear as mud like I'm probably doing. But the more electrical watts that are used to power lamps, the more radiant energy those lamps can produce, and potentially, the more W/cm^2 of irradiance that can be received by the skin surface from those lamps . That fact is simple physics. Like everyone has already said though one way or another, lamp and reflector geometry, filtering, and other factors such as cooling all play a role in determining how much of the desired W/cm^2 is actually able to be received. And this is true for both HP and LP systems. |
| | |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
