highest output reading ever!

[Miraclesun]

wow, the Saturn has gotten weaker over the years, as did the new Magic. I should be getting a phone call tomorrow from the customer that owns those two units. They either need lamps, or need to adjust their voltage from 120v to 240v. We get higher reading's on the Magic on our lowest settings for the RST triac board.

Al

[Drew]

ok, more fuel to the fire.

The new Saturn, installed last week had a 5.0 reading up near the glass of the facial of apx 410 mw....the body lamps at the glass were all over 300 near the glass.
The uv-ab meter had the unit puting out apx 175 "at the body" which is in towards the middle where the skin would be.
The 6.0 (no 7.0 meter available) , had the uv-b at 1.4 "at the body".

Don, if you think these numbers are wrong (which youshouldn't because Leif had printed photos of the Mueller 4k facial unit throwing over 300 mw at 12 inches.) but if you think is all hawkahooee, then put your face about 5 inches from the lamps, for about 5 mins....and YOU TELL ME if it is all bs.

Steve, you are correct. Don is working on revisionist history, or number callibration or something. His "tweaking" of calculations to always make the underpowered Matrix, with NO SPECIAL GLASS always perform in the number one catagory is getting a bit hard to stomach. Maybe their should be a "matrix meter" that has a switch on it, and you put it to OTHER when you meter any bed not sold by Peter D.

[Drew]

Oh, by the way. The SECOND, TA's new unit is done, it will become the best tanning unit on the planet based upon Dons calculations that eliminate all "non essential" uv photons in the 355-365 nm range and "skew" whatever photons ARE being put out by the new Matrix to be the "best and most powerful range of uv output" thus negating the need to meter well. ie Ergolines explanation of the 600 Turbos readings of 30 mw with the original phillips lamps.

METERS DON"T REALLY TELL YOU THE TRUE TANNING POWER OF A BED....
Quote. Jerry Devaney. 2001

[solarmeter®]

Yeah - I think Jerry by now has changed his mind on that. Not sure tho.

Anyway... I do think the newer HPs are getting stronger in UVA output and people are seeing that on their meters.. even the German one.

But a word of caution on the so-called 5.0HP meter that goes up past 200. It was "invented" as a curiosity item for the very few folks who wondered what HP lamps put out above body position where the regular 5.0 pings at 199.9.

I still don't have a table-top HP lamp to set them to. So I just copy the regular 5.0 setting of 4.5 onto them as 5 (because with no decimal point they would flip to 5 at 4.51 in theory). But if I am off a tiny bit twisting the screw at a low value... the error would multiply at big values. So take them with a grain of salt for now.

Having said that.... the regular 5.0 at body position or on bench pointing up when reading up to 199.9 should be fine..... even if that happens to be 40 times the sun! You can always take a 5.0 or 5.0HP meter outside in June at noon as a sense check, and make sure it doesn't read over 6 - which is about the max in southern states. About 7 near equator.

[Don]

David:

I posted some readings made with a SPECTRORADIOMETER showing that the readings made with a HAND-HELD RADIOMETER are (IMO) too high to be believable. Sorry, but "facts are facts" - even though you don't like them. Furthermore, if I decide to post the Tt/Te Ratios of the various HID/hp sunbeds I have read, you will be able to "see for yourself" how "meaningless" the A & B (i.e., "total irradiance") readings are ESPECIALLY the readings "at the glass" that are totally without merit (unless, of course, you have "modified" the sunbed so that the "glass" comes in contact with your clients).

The "problem" as I see it is that there seems to be a "misunderstanding" about the difference between a spectroradiometer and a hand-held radiometer.

A spectroradiometer reads the energy (i.e., the number of photons) between two points (typically 250 nm - 450 nm when reading sunlamps/sunbeds) in 1.0 nm increments. [FYI - one (1.0) nm (nanometer) is 1 millionth of an inch.] You can (1) calculate the amount of energy between 280 nm and 400 nm, i.e., the TI (Total Irradiance) and (2) "integrate" the energy in any range, i.e., (a) between 280 nm and 320 nm (UVB) or 320 nm and 400 nm (UVA). [FYI - the wavelengths at the interface between two regions, i.e., at 320 nm, is "split" and half of the energy goes into each region.]

Spectroradiometers are "calibrated" by using a known "NIST certified" reference source, either a tungsten/halogen lamp or a deuterium lamp and (at least in our case) the precision (i.e., a combination of the accuracy and the reproducibility) of the measurement is checked by routinely measuring a "known" and "like" lamp. [FYI - if we are measuring a LP lamp, a "known value" LP lamp is used; if we are measuring a HID/hp lamp, a "known value" HID/hp lamp is used.]

A hand-held radiometer, on the other hand, measures the energy in a small range of wavelengths and "approximates" (i.e., "estimates") the TI (Total Irradiance) between two points. There are NO hand held radiometers available that measures and integrates the EXACT energy within a given range (for instance) 280 nm - 400 nm or (for instance) 280 nm - 320 nm. [Note: The Model 6.0 (UVB) meter measures the energy from a little below 290 nm to approximately 336 nm which means that it measures UVB (280 nm - 320 nm) and most of the UVA2 (320 nm - 340 nm) range.]

Furthermore (and I know that Steve is trying to "rig up" a HID/hp lamp for this), Solartech meters are only "calibrated" against a "known value" LP lamp that has been "read" by his "reference meters", not by a "NIST certified" reference standard "calibrated" spectroradiometer.

The "bottom line" is that spectroradiometric readings (at 1.0 nm increments) are the "Gold Standard" which is why FDA only accepts them for purposes of certification. [Note: If you don't believe me, try submitting the results from a hand-held radiometer to get a sunlamp/sunbed approved.]

What CAN be done to make hand-held radiometers "better" and "more precise" is to "specifically calibrate" them to "match" the readings from a spectroradiometer for a specific irradiance source. For instance, I have a set of Solartech hand-held radiometers for (1) sunlight, and, (2) to "match" specific sunlamps/sunbeds. FYI, they "correlate" quite well to my spectroradiometer!

And if you had a set (5.0, 6.0 and 7.0) of hand-held radiometers calibrated to "match" the output of (for instance) a Magic 636, then readings could be made and exchanged between Magic owners (who all had "Magic calibrated meters") that would be meaningful. That same hand-held radiometer (i.e., the "Magic Meter") CANNOT be used to measure a Matrix with the same accuracy that you get when measuring a Magic. For that, you have to "specifically calibrate" it to "match" the Matrix.]

[Note: Before someone is "tempted" to say or imply that I am "against" Solartech hand-held radiometers, let me remind you that (1) I made the first industry presentation (at the Chicago Trade Show) advocating their use, and, (2) I have written several articles published in various trade publications and "online" advocating their use. There are PLENTY of reasons to use them but trying (1) to compare two sunlamps/sunbeds, and/or (2) reading HID/hp lamps (at present) accurately aren't two of them.]

Finally, your closing remark was:

METERS DON"T REALLY TELL YOU THE TRUE TANNING POWER OF A BED....
Quote. Jerry Devaney. 2001

I agree. For that, you need a SPECTRORADIOMETRIC measurement so that you can calculate the Tt (Tanning Time) and Td (Tanning Dose) of the sunbed.

Donsense

PS: Next time I am in Southern California with my spectroradiometer - IF you are willing - I'll stop by your salon and make some measurements of your Magic.

[Joey]

I'm not going to argue with Don.

JOEY

[solarmeter®]

For what it's worth.... all the Solartech model "reference" meters (used to transfer readings to saleable units) were indeed set to:

a "NIST certified" reference standard "calibrated" spectroradiometer

....at Solar Light Co using the same kind of pair of LP lamps set up in the same kind of fixture.

Don... I hope you do measure the beds in SoCal someday. Would be interested to know if you get half (or less) of what a 5.0 handheld says at body position. Just humor me and make a few checks moving the Optronics head closer to a HP lamp to be sure that the value increases somewhat in line with the inverse square law. If not some kind of saturation could be present reducing the readings.... as was recently discovered with an IL unit in Europe measuring UVB from MV lamps.

Last year you were telling me the UV Index in Tucson was barely exceeding 6 or 7 when it really was 10-11. Not sure if a similar problem caused those low values at that time. Since then you have gotten correct readings.

Otherwise - I completely agree that handhelds cannot do what a spectralradiometer can do nm by nm. No contest.

[Drew]

Ok, if anyone read the entire donsensical post. Let us know. I will wait for paperback myself.

And Donald my dear dear man. I don't own a magic myself. Maybe you could go to tan4less and try testing theirs. Not sure what condition it is in though.

My Chronos with clean glass and new lamps will put out between 95 and 105 at the body on the 5.0. (sides are higher, back is lower though. 60's)
6.0 meter a bit over 1.0, down to .7 or .6 with aged lamps. If anyone cares.

As far as the high numbers of the toy 5.0, it is for interest sake only.
The numbers at the body are what we are interested in, and you can use a regular 5.0 for those. PLUS A 7.0.

Any bed at over 200 at the body would , at this point in technology, be too hot to use no mater what the cooling design. So moot point.

[Don]

Drufus:

Sorry for using so many big words.

I only respond to posts that are interesting to me these days and I make no apology for taking the time to post a full and complete answer.

Moreover, I am fully aware of the fact that some people get upset when I present facts that don't agree with their (unsubstantiated) spam.

Steve:

I'm stunned and surprised that YOU would try to "rewrite" history!

You said "Last year you were telling me the UV Index in Tucson was barely exceeding 6 or 7 when it really was 10-11. Not sure if a similar problem caused those low values at that time. Since then you have gotten correct readings." and that's not what happened at all.

The "confusion" was caused because of the difference between UVI readings made in the "sky" position (i.e., when the meter is pointing straight up) vs the "sun" position (i.e., when the meter is pointing directly toward the sun). I recall a conversation where we discussed (and resolved) this issue.

As a "for instance" here are the results made on 1/21/06.

1. UVI - Sky - 2.3 (Solartech UVI Meter - Specifically Calibrated for Sunlight)
2. UVI - Sky - 2.2 (Spectroradiometer) - WHO Calculation
3. UVI - Sun - 3.3 (Solartech UVI Meter - Specifically Calibrated for Sunlight)
4. UVI - Sun - 3.2 (Spectroradiometer) - WHO Calculation

[Note: If you "factor in" the difference between the sun and sky measurements, you will see that this accounts for last years difference.]

5. Vitamin D Time - Sun - 42.9 minutes (Solartech Vitamin D Meter - DLS Calculation - Whole Body)
6. Vitamin D Time - Sun - 35.7 minutes (Solartech Vitamin D Meter - Your Calculation - Face & Hands)
7. Vitamin D Time - Sun - 42.4 minutes (Spectroradiometer - DLS Calculation _ Whole Body)

8. 1.0 MED - CIE EAS - Sun - 42.1 minutes (Spectroradiometer - CIE EAS)
9. 1.0 MED - FDA EAS - Sun -22.1 minutes (Spectroradiometer - FDA EAS)
10. 1.0 MED - (Model 7.0) - 22.4 minutes (Specifically Calibrated for Sunlight)

[Note: All of the above times are for "the most sensitive skin type II individual" - i.e., our skin subtype 2A.]

[solarmeter®]

Don: What me revise history? Never. I leave that to the liberal democrats haha.

No - the UVI readings we were discussing by email in May/June of 2005 were up at a sun angle nearly overhead.... where sky vs sun values "flatten" out. Remember? You were observing that the Eeff handheld models 6.5 and 6.4 readings were somewhat flat as you angled the meters from straight up toward sun... as they should be in "summer".

But then you said:

FYI, the highest reading I have gotten here in Tucson was on 7/9/01 I got 0.178 W/m^2-eff (CIE EAS).

That is only a UV Index of 7.1 (0.178 x 40 = 7.12)! Not 10-11 as it should be.

Then later when we met at the pool in Vegas (June 20 something) I showed you the 6.5 meter was reading 12.1 UVI and the 6.4 meter 85 IU/min ...and I asked you what was wrong with the Tuscon data? You mumbled something about oh I fixed that but you weren't specific and then changed the subject. Ask Pat... she probably heard us talking about it. I was not wearing my GW Bush spy bug, but I do save most of our techy discussions in a special D. Smith "folder" in outlook express.

Anyway.... I don't post peoples emails online (it's bad enough to quote a sentence from one) - so I will email it back to you for your info only. Reply if you wish.

Regarding your above Jan 21 2006 sun/sky readings at low 2-3 UVI during low zenith angles - yes that is exactly correct.... as a cosine response curve indicates:



But at a zenith approaching 90 degrees overhead (0 degrees from vertical) and one atmosphere density.... the cosine response has little if any bearing.

Tomorrow you should get a UVI of ~3 (straight up) near solar noon with both instruments: http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvindexmap.html

PS: for anyone else actually reading this (in full) please be advised that Don and I are not mad at each other (yet). We actually enjoy bantering UV stuff back and forth. It keeps our old minds sharp.
.

[Don]

The solar declination on 1/21/06 was 19.92° at solar noon.

The solar declination today (1/23/06) was 19.46° at solar noon.

Today's reading (at solar noon) was 3.7 UVI (Sun) and 2.6 UVI (Sky) and the "average" of the two is 3.1 UVI. [The NOAA "estimate" for Phoenix today was 3.0 UVI - Tucson isn't shown. FWIIW, the paper here "predicted" a 4.0 UVI today.]

The readings (3.7 Sun/2.6 Sky) would indicate a 30% cosine variance between the two measurements, 10% more than the declination alone would account for.

[Joey]

Right on Don.

JOEY

[solarmeter®]

Exactly Don.

And by June 21 the actual UVI will reach 11-12.... unless there's too much hot humid haze down there.

[solarmeter®]

See Don? You and I are the only ones who care about this stuff!

What will become of on-line UV posts when we retire to Tahiti or somewhere equally exotic? I can see it now: Chippp will become the source of all scientific knowledge.

[sparky]

Not true there steve

I read 'em all, just can't create a full thought to add to the subject.

[solarmeter®]

Contemplate this Spark:

[sparky]

Now i can see WHY


I'm 'D'Prived


Guess I Could move to Miami

[sparky]

Why such a difference between Clear Sky and the Forecast numbers ??

Was thinking it could be air pollution, but Maimi more differential than Chicago and LA ??? NY City did have a wider variation though, maybe that it the case.

[solarmeter®]

That's a good question Sparky. The "forcast" is from satellite observation predicting atmospheric particulates, cloud cover and ozone layer thickness a day in advance. The "clear sky" readings are from my Solarmeter® model 6.5. Just kidding - they are actually from a network of Brewer Spectralradiometers made by SciTec of the "actual" UVI made during clear sky (no cloud) scans.

The deltas vary due to less (or sometimes more) atmosphere "pollution" than predicted city by city. Some deltas are small... some larger.

Miami delta is big due to (in my opinion) seaside water vapor being less than predicted by NASA satellites. Chicago delta is high because Lake Michigan is keeping more clouds away than forcasted. Arizona delta is low because - well, Don lives there!

San Juan hit 14! on forcast:



Then in June the hurricane season started and dropped it down.

[Don]

Sparky:

Shown below is a comparison of my "actual" data taken on July 8, 2005 (solar noon) to satellite data taken on the same day.

1. My data = 13.0 UVI
2. Satellite = 13.3 UVI

When the satellite reading was "adjusted" to reflect "sea level" (we are at 800 meters = 2625 feet above sea level) the UVI reading is 11.7.

The highest "terrestrial" reading I have in my file was taken in Hawaii = 16.0 UVI.

However, an "extraterrestrial" reading taken at 42,000 ft, i.e., at the upper edge of the earth's atmosphere by a NASA airplane, is hard to top = 581.1 UVI. In case you are wondering, the Te (4.0 MED) time was 0.63 minutes (38 seconds).

Two questions for you techno-nerds:

1. Is it possible to have a reading comparable to the extraterrestrial reading (0.63 minute Te time) in a tanning bed?

2. If so, how?