Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Make a "blinker" for LED panel?

KrisBlueNZ

Sadly passed away in 2015
Nov 28, 2011
8,393
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
8,393
Are you sure it reads "5%60Hz"? I think there's a typo somewhere - either in your post, or on the label itself!

It's probably supposed to read "50/60 Hz" which means it will run at either 50 Hz or 60 Hz mains power. In America and some other countries, the AC mains frequency is 60 Hz. In some other countries, including the UK, the AC mains frequency is 50 Hz. The label just means that it will work with either mains frequency.
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
Are you sure it reads "5%60Hz"? I think there's a typo somewhere - either in your post, or on the label itself!

It's probably supposed to read "50/60 Hz" which means it will run at either 50 Hz or 60 Hz mains power. In America and some other countries, the AC mains frequency is 60 Hz. In some other countries, including the UK, the AC mains frequency is 50 Hz. The label just means that it will work with either mains frequency.

Yes, I am sure it reads that, but I think you are right and that it is a typo. Thank you, I was hoping it would give me a clue on the output.
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
It seems to me that if this red spectrum of light was so beneficial with such a short duration than a few hours (extended duration) of sun exposure each day would be of arguably of equal value...

Maybe, but then you would have the damaging rays from the sun as well as the "healing" red rays.
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
The problem is, with 60Hz mains you're going to have a hard time flashing the lights very fast unless you modify the panel itself.

This is because the 110V mains is already "flashing" 120 times per second.

292 times per second (which isn't really that hard to achieve) is also imperceptible to the eye. You wouldn't know that it was flashing (It would just appear a little dimmer).

It would be a lot better to get a panel that operated from DC, that way the flash rate could be made as fast as you like (within reason)

This is interesting, now that I am not so tired and have had time to think about it! So, the woman in the video must have her panel "flashing" at speeds way below what they were already flashing at before she had the special plug made, and her flashing speed is nowhere near the speed recommended by the alternative healing doc.
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
Finally, what do you think a 14 watt, 12.5 inch square panel, with 225 red LEd lights, would have as a radiant output?
 

BobK

Jan 5, 2010
7,682
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
7,682
Hard to tell without the actual datasheet for the LEDs. But, for comparison, here is a single 5W LED at 660nm that puts out up to 1W of radiant power.

http://www.ledengin.com/files/products/LZ1/LZ1-00R200.pdf

This would be enough to give you 60mW /cm^2 in a 2inch circle. The panel you have is probably not as efficient as that. So, I think 1 to 2W is probably a good guess.


Bob
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
New Question

Okay--Where would I get a panel with 225 red led (660nm) with a radiant output of around 4 watts of radiant power? Do they make such a thing?
 
Last edited:

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
Hard to tell without the actual datasheet for the LEDs. But, for comparison, here is a single 5W LED at 660nm that puts out up to 1W of radiant power.

http://www.ledengin.com/files/products/LZ1/LZ1-00R200.pdf

This would be enough to give you 60mW /cm^2 in a 2inch circle. The panel you have is probably not as efficient as that. So, I think 1 to 2W is probably a good guess.


Bob

The Growace co. said the LED's are 0.6 watts each. There are 225 of them on the 12.5 inch square. Can you determine the output from this info.? Math and electronics are not my forte.
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
Jan 21, 2010
25,510
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
25,510
The Growace co. said the LED's are 0.6 watts each. There are 225 of them on the 12.5 inch square. Can you determine the output from this info.? Math and electronics are not my forte.

If that were true, the panel would be 135W. I think it's far more likely that the LEDs are 0.06W each, giving you a total power of 13.5W (which stacks up quite well against the power that was quoted previously (was it 14W?)

If you assume that they're 20% efficient, then you have 2.7W of light. Over a 900 cm^2 surface, that gives you 3mW/cm^2.

The actual value is probably somewhat lower. Flashing it would reduce it further.

As a comparison, the intensity you get from the sun (when it is directly overhead, no clouds, etc) is 100mW/cm^2.
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
If that were true, the panel would be 135W. I think it's far more likely that the LEDs are 0.06W each, giving you a total power of 13.5W (which stacks up quite well against the power that was quoted previously (was it 14W?)

If you assume that they're 20% efficient, then you have 2.7W of light. Over a 900 cm^2 surface, that gives you 3mW/cm^2.

The actual value is probably somewhat lower. Flashing it would reduce it further.

As a comparison, the intensity you get from the sun (when it is directly overhead, no clouds, etc) is 100mW/cm^2.


Yep--I meant 0.06.
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
More Valid Source for LED Claims

Yes, I saw the video.
Is a blinking light supposed to have a therapeutic effect?
What is the name of this effect?
You know that blinking lights can trigger seizures in people with epilepsy, and even sometimes in people who DON'T have epilepsy?

You'll probably need to modify the panel internally. That's actually simpler and safer than making an external box. But take lots of good close-up photos and post them here. If there's a circuit board inside, take photos of both sides of it.

Here is a more valid source for the LED/skin cliams:

http://www.szerman.com.br/newsite/Arquivos/artigos/quedadecabelo/lasercapilar03.pdf
 

KrisBlueNZ

Sadly passed away in 2015
Nov 28, 2011
8,393
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
8,393
Thanks for that reference.

The mention of continuous vs. pulsed light is on page 231, right column, where the author (Bariolet) says: "The influence of CW [continuous] versus pulsing mode, as well as precise pulsing parameters [...], on cellular response has not been fully studied. To date, comparative studies have shown conflicting results." He does not cite these studies.

He then goes on to describe his own experience that pulsed light stimulates more collagen production than continuous light.

I'm not a biologist so I can't comment on his descriptions of how light from LEDs operates at the cellular level.
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
Thanks for that reference.

The mention of continuous vs. pulsed light is on page 231, right column, where the author (Bariolet) says: "The influence of CW [continuous] versus pulsing mode, as well as precise pulsing parameters [...], on cellular response has not been fully studied. To date, comparative studies have shown conflicting results." He does not cite these studies.

He then goes on to describe his own experience that pulsed light stimulates more collagen production than continuous light.

I'm not a biologist so I can't comment on his descriptions of how light from LEDs operates at the cellular level.

Yes, I have pretty much given up on the blinking. Now I just want to know if the grow lights have enough power to do what the LED skin machines are supposed to do.
 

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
Thanks for that reference.

The mention of continuous vs. pulsed light is on page 231, right column, where the author (Bariolet) says: "The influence of CW [continuous] versus pulsing mode, as well as precise pulsing parameters [...], on cellular response has not been fully studied. To date, comparative studies have shown conflicting results." He does not cite these studies.

He then goes on to describe his own experience that pulsed light stimulates more collagen production than continuous light.

I'm not a biologist so I can't comment on his descriptions of how light from LEDs operates at the cellular level.

He does, indeed, cite this after the quote you wrote above:

B13. Al-Watban FA: The comparison of effects between pulsed and CW
lasers on wound healing. J Clin Laser Med Surg 22:15-18, 2004
 
Last edited:

KrisBlueNZ

Sadly passed away in 2015
Nov 28, 2011
8,393
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
8,393
In Steve's calculations in post #49 on this thread, he estimates 2.7W total radiant energy for the grow light panel. The WARP75 has 3.5W radiant energy in an area of about 58 square centimetres. To get this radiant energy density, you would have to reduce the grow light panel area to about 45 square centimetres, or about 6.5 x 6.5 cm.

You could do that by unmounting all the LEDs and remounting them more close together, or by using some kind of lens.

If you dismantle the grow light panel, take some photographs of what's inside. It's quite possible that the LEDs are driven with pulsed DC rather than continuously. In this case the pulse rate will be either 60 or 120 Hz (assuming an AC mains frequency of 60 Hz). If we can see the components inside the panel, we may be able to tell you whether the LEDs are run continuously or pulsed.

These calculations are based on estimates. We do not have any definite figures for the grow light panel. So these calculations could be wrong. I cannot, and do not, guarantee that it is safe to use the grow lamp, or any modification of it, on your own skin. If the radiant energy density turns out to be much higher than the safe level, you could damage your cells. Do it at your own risk.
 
Last edited:

elizabeth

Dec 17, 2012
41
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
41
Thank you!

Well--this has been a learning experience. Thank you, again, for all of your answers. Electronics are interesting. I have a boy in the military who is studying this stuff right now for his job. He is home on leave for the holidays and we had a lively conversation about this last night.

To the skeptics on here--I will be careful, but, why pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a machine that may well only do what the LED panels would do? I am not a biologist, either, but I actually have a MA degree, so I know how to research, and I have studied the skin and hair as a licensed barber for 25 years. I have also read many, many articles on red light and infrared light--enough to know it is healing to the skin, not damaging. It would be hard to overdo it. As one of you pointed out, people get much more exposure to this light from the sun. Now--if it was a panel of UV lights, that would be a different story, as the effects of the sun and tanning beds have been shown to damage the skin.

Anyway, thanks again. I hope you all have a wonderful holiday and a happy new year!

~Elizabeth :)
 
Last edited:

KJ6EAD

Aug 13, 2011
1,114
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
1,114
I thought that might be an issue. They do like that slightly more orange "high efficiency red" for traffic signals but if you have a friend that works for the local traffic signal maintenance crew, you might be able to get your hands on a dead unit and repopulate the board with what you want. I have an 8" ball signal containing 84 amber LEDs that I've modified to work on 8-12VDC. When I finish with it, it'll be the mother of all bicycle safety blinkers.
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
Jan 21, 2010
25,510
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
25,510
KJ6EAD--Thanks! That might work, except it needs more nm. :).

Just a quick technical note.

nm are a unit of distance. 1,000,000,000 nm = 1m.

In this case nm are used to specify the colour of the light by specifying the wavelength of the light emitted. "More nm" (more strictly a longer wavelength) means a lower frequency, i.e. toward red.

The wavelength in nm gets smaller as you go from infra-red to red, to orange, to yellow, to green, to blue, indigo, violet, and then ultra-violet. (And the spectrum goes far further in both directions -- it's just this part is what's called visible light.

So, properly, you would say "The wavelength is too short", "The light is too orange", etc.

Incidentally, the eye is quite insensitive to red, and most "red" warning lights tend to be at the orange end of red. For your application the optimum may be a deep red, or even extending into near-infra-red. (I haven't checked the wavelength to be sure)

One of the issues of having a highly intense light source is eye damage. LEDs tend to be an almost point light source, so the bright point of light can be dangerously bright. IPL and other intense light sources used for cosmetic and medical purposes are applied while the person undergoing the treatment wears protective eye covering. Beyond that again you have laser treatmnts that are actually designed to burn the skin. Whilst it is unlikely that the intensity from your source will approach even the lowest of these levels, the bright points of light certainly exceed the average brightness of the light source. I would not recommend staring at these light sources (especially higher powered ones) for any length of time.

Having said that, an array of 3W red LEDs would probably be better, with each of these putting out up to 1/2W of light. 4 of these would give you about 2W of light in a much smaller footprint. However you would have some issues in driving them.

For practical purposes, I would use the grow-light as it currently is, and see if you notice any effect. Due to the lower incident intensity, it is likely to be far safer than a higher powered alternative.
 
Top