Tan America LED Light Therapy

[sunsally]

Originally Posted by ITSTAN

Ann,
ITS/Solei has not slung any mud at ETS. Our current equipment is not a direct competitor to ETS. We are actually glad that ETS got into this market and is on the forum.
This only helps all of us to bring attention to this new technology that has entered the market.

There should be other manufacturers on here also talking about the benefits of adding this service to a salon.

Per requests, We have posted our meter readings and have given our LED part numbers.

The more people that jump on this bandwagon the better it is.

By "sling mud" I guess I meant my perception of you asking 3-4 times for them to "show us your part number" when that isn't meaningful to almost any salon owner anyway (as I think Pumpkin pointed out). At this point, I think we all know you want them to post it, and they don't want to. At the same time, I think someone (Solarmeter Steve) asked you to post your readings at some particular point from the LED's and you didn't. So my interpretation is it is starting to read like a cat fight and losing it's value to the average salon owner trying to follow along.

Perhaps a new thread -- the benefits of Rejuvenation type therapy, as currently featured in Tan America, Prosun, ETS & ITS equipment (and others??). Tell salon owners WHY this is good, HOW it works, what successes your client salons have had, HOW to sell it alongside traditional tanning, etc. When I hear "jump on a bandwagon", as a salon owner I always ask "is this a good bandwagon for me as a salon owner? For my customers? Or just for the equipment salesperson?". Best when it is a win/win/win for all 3 of course!

I think more can be learned through that sort of discussion than the bickering over posting of LED part numbers.

Again - that is just my perception. While there were initially a few posts in this thread from salon owners, maybe about 85% of the total, almost all the recent one seem to be just vendors squaring off against each other. That was what I termed the "mud slinging" -- my terminology, whether exactly accurate or not.

Carry on as you see fit.

[solarmeter®]

I thought Todd has just explained to you that there is more to it than simple handheld meter readings? Have you ever spoken with Dr. Glen Calderhead? He would be happy to explain this to you at the ITA show (as he did with me last year). Skin rejuvenation is a completely different biological response than the production and oxidation of melanin through tanning.

When you buy a car do you ask for the part number of the engine components? We use sophisticated measurement equipment when measuring the dose for a light therapy session not a little $150 meter. Those handheld meters are very helpful for letting a salon owner know when to change bulbs in their tanning beds but they are not accurate enough to let someone know how efficacious a light therapy session is. What does your handheld meter record at 830nm?

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.

[ITSTAN]

Steve,
I'm the only one that has posted anything. Regardless, here they are!

How is 116.8 ?????

[Din]

It seems to me that ITS is the only one posting actual/factual meter readings.

To me, if a manufacturer post actual readings, that has more credibility in my eyes.

I have seen reports of tanning lamps that read "X" and last "X" amount of hours. Put them to use and they don't mean squat these reports and studies.

[TanologyGuru]

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,

[TanologyGuru]

Originally Posted by Din

It seems to me that ITS is the only one posting actual/factual meter readings.

To me, if a manufacturer post actual readings, that has more credibility in my eyes.

I have seen reports of tanning lamps that read "X" and last "X" amount of hours. Put them to use and they don't mean squat these reports and studies.

Yes. He is the only one posting readings. Now can anyone tell me what these readings mean in relation to Fibroblast stimulation?

[TanologyGuru]

Originally Posted by ITSTAN

Steve,
I'm the only one that has posted anything. Regardless, here they are!

How is 116.8 ?????

Now what does that mean? Give me the relation this has to cellular stimulation? Please tell...

[ITSTAN]

Todd,
It is you that is confused! You obviously have no idea of who we are or what we do.

If you have ever been to our website solei systems you will see that we have our own automated assembly equipment, our own patents and patents pending, not purchased, as you have tried to mislead the people here.

You will also see that, in addition to our own American Doctors, we have Russian scientists on board. More importantly, all of our products are made in the USA!

Why don't you tell everyone why your Lumiere machine is better than ours, other than you have 20 year old clinical trials.

Your unit only does your face and is fan cooled. Our machine does your face, your neck, your hands, and is liquid cooled. Our liquid cooled circuit boards are twice as long as yours and twice as powerful than yours. Our USA made unit comes with Luxeon leds and a lifetime guarantee.

So you don't want to give meter readings, led part numbers, etc.

At least, would it be too much for you to tell everyone where your unit is made?

now it's your turn????

[solarmeter®]

Todd,

Biological responses to ANY bandwidth of light (UV, visible, IR) is proportional to dose. Dose is the product of intensity and time. The meter measures red light intensity centered about 633nm. It's as simple as that... period.

In other words.... intensity (dose rate) and dose have a reciprocal relationship (law of reciprocity). Pure physics. No doubt about it.

OK. Now what does a Red LED meter reading "mean". What does the above 116.8 mW/cm² mean compared to a Lumiere at say 85.0 or an Omnilux at say 105.0? Simple (1.) and not so simple (2) below:

1. IF all three had the exact same SPD (spectral power distribution) - then there is a proportional efficacy relationship adjusted for session minutes/seconds (assuming they all emit similar IR ~830nm too).

2. IF all three have different peak irradiance (say 629nm, 633nm, 640nm) and/or different wavelength bandwidth at bottom of LED bell-curve.... then one needs to convolute specific nm intensities by the meter's response and integrate the result.

Both of the above assume that all 3 units have narrowband LED irradiance falling within the "CAS" (collegen action spectrum) covered by the meter's spectral response. Don Smith has a copy of the CAS if you don't already have it.

Same is true for Ery (Eeff) UVR intensity based on the EAS (erythemal action spectrum) long ago validated by Model 7.0 readings vs FDA, and recently by Model 7.5 readings in accordance with the Euro-Norm 0.30 W/m² dose rate cap.

So put all that mumbo-jumbo in your pipe and smoke it for a while. This is the No-Spin-Zone when it comes to science based meter readings. Otherwise the original poster (S. Underhill) would have re-posted by now lol.

[TanologyGuru]

Originally Posted by solarmeter®

Todd,

Biological responses to ANY bandwidth of light (UV, visible, IR) is proportional to dose. Dose is the product of intensity and time. The meter measures red light intensity centered about 633nm. It's as simple as that... period.

In other words.... intensity (dose rate) and dose have a reciprocal relationship (law of reciprocity). Pure physics. No doubt about it.

OK. Now what does a Red LED meter reading "mean". What does the above 116.8 mW/cm² mean compared to a Lumiere at say 85.0 or an Omnilux at say 105.0? Simple (1.) and not so simple (2) below:

1. IF all three had the exact same SPD (spectral power distribution) - then there is a proportional efficacy relationship adjusted for session minutes/seconds (assuming they all emit similar IR ~830nm too).

2. IF all three have different peak irradiance (say 629nm, 633nm, 640nm) and/or different wavelength bandwidth at bottom of LED bell-curve.... then one needs to convolute specific nm intensities by the meter's response and integrate the result.

Both of the above assume that all 3 units have narrowband LED irradiance falling within the "CAS" (collegen action spectrum) covered by the meter's spectral response. Don Smith has a copy of the CAS if you don't already have it.

Same is true for Ery (Eeff) UVR intensity based on the EAS (erythemal action spectrum) long ago validated by Model 7.0 readings vs FDA, and recently by Model 7.5 readings in accordance with the Euro-Norm 0.30 W/m² dose rate cap.

So put all that mumbo-jumbo in your pipe and smoke it for a while. This is the No-Spin-Zone when it comes to science based meter readings. Otherwise the original poster (S. Underhill) would have re-posted by now lol.

Steve,

I guess you took my post the wrong way. Sorry to hear that. I never said your meter was not accurate. I was referring to the readings Paul seems to think is so important and all I was trying to point out is that we have done the studies using all different types of LED's intensities, wavelenghts and so on. We have found the secret to unlocking skin rejuvenation and Acne treatments. Is there a better design for the wheel as well? I have never used your meter....so I will not speak about its accuracy. I would leave that to the scientists. Sorry for the confusion.

[TanologyGuru]

Originally Posted by ITSTAN

Todd,
It is you that is confused! You obviously have no idea of who we are or what we do.

If you have ever been to our website solei systems you will see that we have our own automated assembly equipment, our own patents and patents pending, not purchased, as you have tried to mislead the people here.

You will also see that, in addition to our own American Doctors, we have Russian scientists on board. More importantly, all of our products are made in the USA!

Why don't you tell everyone why your Lumiere machine is better than ours, other than you have 20 year old clinical trials.

Your unit only does your face and is fan cooled. Our machine does your face, your neck, your hands, and is liquid cooled. Our liquid cooled circuit boards are twice as long as yours and twice as powerful than yours. Our USA made unit comes with Luxeon leds and a lifetime guarantee.

So you don't want to give meter readings, led part numbers, etc.

At least, would it be too much for you to tell everyone where your unit is made?

now it's your turn????

Paul,

Our unit is made in the UK...everyone who calls me and asks..this is what is told. We are not ashamed that they are made there. The Manufacturing standards ther are actually mugh higher that here in the US...not that this means anything.
We know exactly who you are Paul. I have never tried to mislead anyone here...you are the misleader. You are the one with ZERO proof there device works (except your statments) We are the ones with the data.
Our devices are aircooled because it is the most effective way to do it. Yes water cooling is a great idea....for Internal Combustion Engines. My computer I am using now is aircooled.....why?? Because it works. Our aircooling is also patent protected...so you can tell any story you like Paul, but we know the reason you chose water. Why did you make a device and have it available for sale when it was not powerful enough to create cellular activity at the show in Las Vegas?? In retrospect we did NOT release our first device Omnilux until we had proved it worked...see the difference here. We do not test things by trial and error. We test them using standard R&D procedures. It was not for about 10 years did we release our first device after we discovered what LED could do. Key word DISCOVERED.
I do not need to justify my product to you. It has been proven....yours has NOT.
I invite anyone here to come to ITA and speak with a real person who knows LED inside and out...not a sales person...or even an employee of PTI. Come and learn from the BEST in the WORLD why some devices dont work. Dr. Glen Calderhead will be a main speaker at ITA this year. Please do not liten to me...or Paul for that matter. Come to ITA and make your own opinion. Speak to someone who really knows what he is talking about. Someone who has written many books on Laser and LED therapy.
I want to apologize to anyone here who may have been offended by this thread. MY only intention was to state facts about our equipment, but just like the last time it has turned into something ugly. Please if you are interested in LED technology at all for your business. DONT BELIEVE ME..... COME TO ITA!!!

Cheers,

[ITSTAN]

todd,
Our machine is and has been more powerful than yours. I have no idea why you keep lying to people about the output of the machine we had at Vegas, since Solar Steve didn't perfect his meter until after the show. And as for one of your cronies testing our machine and telling everyone the light output was only 10mw/cm2 is just more of your lying about a competitor instead of showing results with your machine.

Now your telling everyone that made in the UK is better than made in the USA???

Like I keep saying, you're our best salesperson!

[Le]

Um, the 10mw/cm2 was me. I had the prototype 633 meter on the floor at the Vegas show.

The meter used was sent back to Steve for calibration later, but really did not need it. It was an accurate reading.

I am no one's "crony"


Good job on getting your readings (dosage) up, but that machine in Vegas did read pitifully low.

[solarmeter®]

FYI: The prototype Model 9.6 Solarmeter used a slightly different Schott cutoff filter. It read about 10% lower than the final NIST traceable version. ALL of them (only about 5 units) have since been updated to the current sensor calibration.

Anyway... a reading of 10 on the prototype would read 11 on the production meter. Red (633-ish) fluorescent lamps still read only 10-15 mW/cm² - so obviously LEDs are (so far) a much better choice.... up in the 75-115 range.

Hey Todd..... I did not take any of your posts "the wrong way". I was just responding to the technical details you and/or Roy brought up. No offense taken at all.... I respond to any and all UV meter issues in like manner - always have, always will. "Accuracy" is my Geek middle name.

This whole Red (and Blue - Model 9.4) light metrics is a relatively new arena. NO other meter company (that I know of) makes these kind of meters.... so they will take some getting used to as the visible light phototherapy industry matures. Someday they will become the handheld radiometer "gold standard" like the UV Solarmeters already have. No hurry. I can wait. Too busy making tons of new Model 7.5's for Europe... where they are becoming "all the rage" for the new 0.30 W/m² Eeff irradiance dose-rate limit-cap.

[ITSTAN]

Le,
Like I said before, we were not running at full power because we were not trying to treat anyone and we were concerned about people just jumping in the machine without any eye protection. I tried to explain this to you.

I believe you do have a Lumiere unit...