Is this okay?

[cashisclay]

I am tight on money, but want to start RLT along with my IPL. Through searching the forum I found this site that sells Red bulbs it seems:

http://www.progearwarehouse.com/E27-JDR-Red-LED-Lamp

They are $16 a piece. Any word on them? Do they look okay? I have a couple of desk lamps already, so this would be perfect if they are okay to use and not just a piece of junk.

Anyways, if anyone has any other idea about a cheap way to get going in RLT I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.

[TheMediumDog]

Looks good to me.

I don't know if you can be bothered, but you could try ringing/mailing the manufacturers to find out the specific wavelength of the red light emitted, i.e. whether it is 630nm (likely in this kind of bulb) or 660nm (which, as I'm sure you've read, some people recommend). Personally I'm not convinced this is that important.

But, aye, seems good. You'd want at least 2 but probably more. Otherwise its going to take ages to do your face, and you'll have to constantly check your aim in the mirror.

[cashisclay]

Thanks Dog.

I will send them an email asking what kind of bulb it is. I am going to buy two and luckily I have two desk lamps.

[Nurdis]

Any news about if this low cost option works?

I dont realy understand the science behind all of this... but why are people paying for expensive equiptment when these are low cost? Is there a difference or is red light red light no matter how expensive?

Thanks

My first post by the way so hi

I found you guys through a seach when looking for info on this treatment for flushing. Any advice is appreciated.

[Twickle Purple]

Hi Nurdis and welcome!

Check out this thread:

http://www.rosaceagroup.org/The_Rosa...ad.php?t=14225

It will hopefully shed some light on this for you. But to quickly answer your question, from the article:

…several other studies establish that it is the light itself at specific wavelengths that is therapeutic in nature and not the machine which produced it.

While none of us are experts in this, we do share what we've learned through reading and experience, so will try to help as best we can.

Cheers and good luck!
TP

[Nurdis]

Thanks you Twickle Purple,

I must also thank you for the great info you have posted on other thread about this, i have been researching this recently and you seem to provide help for many people

This just seems like one of those to good to be true things, where there is a very low cost alternative to expensive machines. If it is simple the wavelengths of the light that is usefull, then it seems that any red light would work..... i guess?

From what remember as school any light which shines red must be within a certain wavelength.... so again i cant see any difference... apart from possibly power of the light.

Maybe someone out there has tried this cheap option and can help out?

Thanks again

[hozer2k]

This may be a good and cheap unit.

In addition to wavelength, you should consider the power density. While many units can produce a 660nm wavelength, the power density may vary considerably. Research has indicated that one can get the same result from an equivalent amount of energy...i.e. you match the number of joules. To do this you determine the power density at the target and multiply it by time. Therefore, in theory any unit that had the same optica spectra can be considered equivalent by adjusting the amount of exposure time and distance from the target.

For illustrative purposes only, 50LED's for 10 minutes would be approximately equivalent to 10LED's for 50minutes. So unless you know the power density you will may not be able to get the amount of exposure time right for a specific unit. At a minimum you should probably be shooting for 2.7mW/cm^2 at the target source, but this is just my personal feeling. However, this being said, some research has indicated that much higher energy is effective as well, but I am not sure how rosacea skin would respond to that. If you subscribe to that approach you could do like medium dog says and get a few extra bulbs and this would hopefully get you into a threshold that is at least beyond the 2.7mW/cm^2 value. Unfortunately, it may be unlikely that the seller has power density at the distance you will be using it. They have data on input power, but have yet to see an effective method of actually determining what the response will be. Perhaps others can provide a bounds for min and max that would enable one to take a good guess. Actually, there are some ways to take some educated guesses at it, but would need to be confirmed via testing to determine the validity.

[phlika29]

Realistically not many people on here are going to be able to test things like power density. It is more practical to use subjective experience and take advice from people who have practical experience on using similar or the same units.

[hozer2k]

Philka, that is a good point. But this user appears to be asking about a unit that no one is really familiar with. From what I have initially witnessed, it may not be easy to quantify a unit as "similar". I have initially compared two units which would have seemingly been considered similar, but had very different responses. But I am not ready to reserve final judgment on this until I have further data. For this unit, perhaps we can try guess that it has the right power output, and maybe it does, but we just have be aware there may be a little guesswork going on, but that is the trade for a low price.

On the other hand, at a higher price, you can purchase a unit with a more quantifiable power density. If budget is tight, nothing wrong to start here...but you may not want to make a final judgment on it either.

[Twickle Purple]

I have initially compared two units which would have seemingly been considered similar, but had very different responses.

Clarification please: Which units, how were they compared and what responses?