Tan America LED Light Therapy

[TanologyGuru]

Originally Posted by ITSTAN

Still no part number??????????????

Paul,

You are relying on a part number to bring legitimacy to your product. We rely on Clinical data and trials...like all legit medical manufacturer's do. I have never seen any medical papers or studies written about ANY of your products....Why not??
You produce a clinical study using YOUR piece of equipment then we can talk. Looking forward to meeting you at ITA this year!! Should be interesting.

Good Day.

[TanologyGuru]

Originally Posted by ITSTAN

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard!!!! We have no desire to know what your part numbers are as our leds are far more powerful than the ones you use. I posted our meter readings, why don't you put your product where your mouth is and buy a meter from Steve and post your own readings.

Who would buy a tanning bed without knowing what bulbs are in the bed?

Furthermore, we haven't copied anything from your machine.
We have our own patents and patents pending.

Yes it is the funniest thing I have ever heard...Because I have spoke to you personally as well as one of my associates have spoken to representatives from your company posing as salon owners. Yes I am aware you have bought a patent...Still I have not seen any respectable medical study done on any of your equipment....Why? If you knew what you were talking about you would know that it is not the brightest LED that matters. In fact why dont you come to our booth at ITA. I would love for you to speak to one of the worlds leading LASER and LED minds on this planet and ask him the same question. I will be there with a video camera so when he laughs at you I will have it recorded so I can post it here, cause we know you will never admit being wrong...which you are. So now put your money where your mouth is my friend and bring it to the table and have a discussion with someone who was involved in the INVENTION of LED therapy.

[TanologyGuru]

Solar Steve,

Can you please figure out the reading from the LTS device showing below. Following the math you have here I came up with a reading of 1.2 J/cm2....is this right?
Thank you for your help.

Cheers

Originally Posted by solarmeter®

For anyone who cares what the "dose" is in J/cm² based on Model 9.6 Red Light meter mW/cm².... convert the mW to W and multiply by seconds of exposure time.

EG: For 80.0 mW/cm² at 10 minutes (600 sec):

80/1000 = 0.08 W/cm² x 600 = 48 J/cm².

[solarmeter®]

Paul.... you blew the meter off it's 199.9 mW/cm² scale. That's a "bit" of improvement over your first units ~2 years ago reading like about 10!

Hold the meter at "face distance" away from the LED array (about 2" ?) and hopefully the reading will show on the LCD.

Todd.... That "1" display on the meter means "over-range". The full scale 199.9 mW/cm² for the same 10 minutes would be 0.199 W/cm² x 600 sec = 119.9 J/cm² fyi.

[imported_wpipp]

The fact is that there is 20 years of medical research science behind the Omnilux LED Light Therapy panels along with a 510K clinical trial and FDA OTC clearance based on those clinical trials. There are many factors that contribute to the effectiveness of LED Photo Therapy some of those being total energy output, distance from subject, nanometer levels, what different nanometer levels are transmitted, in what sequence the skin is subjected to the different nanometer levels, time between exposure to the different nanometer levels and more. For those of you that are looking for a more indepth understanding of the science behind LED Light Therapy I suggest you log on to Omnilux : Leaders in light therapy : Home and you can go to Tanning beds and commercial tanning beds by ETS to check out the facts on the Rejuvasun Spa bed with Omnilux Light Therapy. From an industry perspective this new technology opens many opportunities for revenue increases, new customers and a new service that even the Derms will have a hard time complaining about as long as the manufacturers are using proven technology that utilizes the same science/technology as the LED Phototherapy units that they currently use. At last count over 3000 doctors are providing LED Photo Therapy sessions with Omnilux devices.

[imported_wpipp]

Website Address for Omnilux Omnilux : Leaders in light therapy

Website for Rejuvasun Spa Bed Tanning beds and commercial tanning beds by ETS

[solarmeter®]

Per Bill's website link... the specs are:

Specifications
Omnilux revive^TM

Output Intensity>>	105mW/cm2>>
Output wavelength>>	633+/- 6nm>>
Standard Dose>>	126J/cm2>>
Treatment time (standard dose)>>	20 minutes>>

Users of the Solarmeter 9.6 meter have in the past posted readings around 100 mW/cm² for Omnilux and near 80 mW/cm² for Lumiere fyi.

[Din]

Originally Posted by solarmeter®

Per Bill's website link... the specs are:

Specifications
Omnilux revive^TM



Users of the Solarmeter 9.6 meter have in the past posted readings around 100 mW/cm² for Omnilux and near 80 mW/cm² for Lumiere fyi.

That's a 20min session of 126J/cm2

What would ITS readings show....you mentioned above 119.9 in a 10min session. Does that change for a 20min session time?

I don't understand the differences between the readings.

[solarmeter®]

It would be twice the 119.9 = 239.8 J/cm² for 20 minutes.... IF it read 199.9 mW/cm² at "face position"... distance from LED cluster surface to face surface (cheeks not nose). We don't know what it reads at that distance because he stuck the meter right up against LEDs it looks like in picture.

Don't confuse meter readings with dose. Dose is intensity x time.

[Titan]

So the ITS unit should get the same results in less time?

I'm thinking of adding a unit to my salon and it seems like everyone is bashing the ITS unit but yet it seems to be the one making the most power.

[solarmeter®]

Seems-to-be and IS are two different things. Need to see a completed array reading at proper position.

The readings should not be via sticking the meter sensor right on top of an LED. That's like taking a high pressure UV lamp reading "at the glass" instead of at body and/or face position.

[Titan]

My apologies. I guess what I'd like to see is some meter readings from the Lumiere machine. I could care less about part numbers I have no way of looking up, I want to see how much power both machines put out. All I've seen so far, is ITS posting pictures, even if the meter is too close, it still shows something right?

[solarmeter®]

The meter readings and pics from Lumiere and Omnilux were discussed and posted about 2 years ago (Circa June 2006). I will email the people who did so and ask if they want to join this thread with data and images. You can try a "search" of the site in meantime if you wish.

[Titan]

Thank you. I'd be interested in seeing how close they are to the power the ITS machine is showing.

[solarmeter®]

Well.... as I recall - the readings were taken 1-2 inches from LED array (maybe 1" from nose or 2" from cheek). The Omnilux read higher than Lumiere mostly because there were not any divider-bars between the clusters of LEDs (I think).

As with tanning beds for UV readings... illumination geometry is important (canopy curvature, reflectance, etc), and of course amount of LEDs plus how closely packed they are. Also input wattage and yes individual LED output in the 633 ±xx nm bandwidth SPD narrow bell curve vs meter responsivitity:



Got all that? Does Underhill lol?

I have NO foggy idea what the TA or ProSun red LED units put out.

[Le]

Steve, I would love to post some readings, but I do not have access to post pictures in the gallery. I have been following this thread for some time now, but have opted to not put in my 2 cents, but I can not hold back any longer.

As far as readings go, I have metered several Lumiere units and one Omnilux. The Lumieres I metered vary from 78 mw/cm2 to 84mw/cm2, the Omnilux was @ 96mw/cm2

I metered an ITS unit in Vegas and it only hit 12mw/cm2. The guy running the booth told me (only after) the reading that it was not at full power. So I told him to turn it up; he said no, I can’t do that. Ummm BS! We can all do the math on that one.

I don’t care how strong your LED’s are Paul, I care about actual dose to the face. The Lumiere unit has something like 2100 LED’s. How many are you working with? What is the reading off your unit at a practical 2-3 inches?

BTW: I do hope you finally got some power in that thing. FYI: Needs a new look, to “Battlestar Galactica” for most salons/spas.

IMHO

[Le]

ETS Tanning/633 combo… I do not believe in it at this point.

1.) Panel is too far from face to be at peak effectiveness. An LED’s power fades very fast.
2.) Cross contamination (do not know how else to put it) of other rays, specifically UVA

I remember Tony showing me a note from PTL that stated unequivocally that Lumiere customer should in no way tan their face and that any use of a device emitting UV would be counter productive.

So why the sudden change in opinion by PTL?
Is this Dr. Whitehurst opinion too, or just the marketing teams opinion?

Fact is that PTL does have the due credit in this field. They discovered it, they perfected it and now they get knocked off by others. ETS partnered up with the right company, but I would like to know about the 2 issues raised.

IMHO

[Le]

Now for the kicker!

What about 830nm?

According to another experienced (past) Lumiere operator, he states that the magic is really in the 830nm when used with the 633nm as per the general protocol for facial rejuvenation. He found this out when he sold his Lumiere to purchase an Omnilux with the 830 head.

Does 633 work with out the 830? Yes, I have plenty of B&A pictures to prove it to myself, staff and clients. However, the boost in facial regeneration is heavily amplified by the combo with 830nm.

So who am I to speak on this? We operate a Lumiere unit, one of the first in the market and have done over 5,000 sessions w/ hundreds of clients. My opinions are my own and based in real hands on experience for 4+ years of offering this service.

FYI: The B&A picture in the ad (page 14, IST; April 2008) for the rejuvasun332 bed is from a salon in Florida (a friend of mine) and was the result of a 12+ session firming package on a Lumiere unit. Those pictures are real, no photo-shop.

IMHO

[Le]

PTL = Tested, Proven, Clinical Proof, Leader

ITS = New, w/Hand Treatment*, Competition for PTL, May be Stronger**

• *We get a lot of requests for hand treatment and upper chest (AKA the Lumiere Breast Lift)

• **We need real world testing Paul, take a reading at 2.5 inches and post it.

IMHO

[Roy Griffith, ETS]

Originally Posted by Le

ETS Tanning/633 combo… I do not believe in it at this point.

1.) Panel is too far from face to be at peak effectiveness. An LED’s power fades very fast.
2.) Cross contamination (do not know how else to put it) of other rays, specifically UVA

I remember Tony showing me a note from PTL that stated unequivocally that Lumiere customer should in no way tan their face and that any use of a device emitting UV would be counter productive.

So why the sudden change in opinion by PTL?
Is this Dr. Whitehurst opinion too, or just the marketing teams opinion?

Fact is that PTL does have the due credit in this field. They discovered it, they perfected it and now they get knocked off by others. ETS partnered up with the right company, but I would like to know about the 2 issues raised.

IMHO

I would like to address your concerns:

1. PTL measured their dose at the correct distance that a human face would be from the LED panel. This is the same dose that was utilized in clinical studies.

2. There is no cross contamination of UV rays as the HP facials cannot be activated at the same time as the LED panel.

3. The ETS Rejuvasun bed utilizes 633nm and 830nm LED's in alternating sessions as per the clinical study.