The infrabed

lilies said:
Also we might wanna seriously consider the 48 neodymium N51 magnets, currently I could only find N52:

What does the N35, N40, N42, N45, N48, N50, N52 grade mean?
Neodymium magnets are graded by the maximum strength they can be magnetized to. The higher the number the stronger the magnet is, however the higher the number the more brittle the magnet becomes as well.

I made a mistake, it is not N51 but N52. Here is a link to the magnets installed in the infrabed:
https://fr.aliexpress.com/item/100pcs-12-X-2mm-Super-Strong-Round-Disc-Magnets-Rare-Earth-Neodymium-Magnet-Permanent-magnet-N52/32621734907.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.Yw7Bmo

To install the magnets, I drilled 2.5mm deep holes with a 12mm wood bit, put some epoxy glue in the holes then pressed the magnets in, then cleaned the excess epoxy with a bit of acetone.
 
Hello all this is a great cheap project!
I need to deepen my research about 850 nm, somehow i have been focusing on 650 nm, i have a terrarium lamp, the kind used for lizards (!!!! lol) to keep them warm. I have used the lamp to relieve muscular tension mainly from weights workout, and the lamp light peaks at 800nm glows a fading red and almost all of it infrared, I noticed it leaves a sunburn impression on the skin and seems to improve blood circulation in the area. and it heats... a lot!
this one http://www.exo-terra.com/en/products/infrared_basking_spot_lighting.php

but I guess LED at almost exclusivly 850 nm is probably the best, and puts out less heat.

RedFox said:
Ordered the 30 degree one for myself yesterday (figured the narrower beam would be better for getting the most power at close range).
It dawned on me today that as it's powered directly by mains electricity the LED's may have a 50hz-60hz flicker (it's a cheaper circuit to build for manufacturers and the LED's last longer).
I'll check it when it arrives.

From my understanding leds need a circuit to receive DC current even is it say 120 or 220 AC on the main plug it most likely as a transformer inside converting AC to DC (0 hertz). hence you use a transformer if you buy only the leds strip.

Anyhow if you have a digital movie camera that can film at least at 60 fps you should be able to catch the flicker if it has any. Just disable all filters in the camera settings.

I guess someone already posted about the vertical infrared chamber ;) I image a infrared "bacta tank" like in star wars (where luke recovered) but inside a salt water solution dense enough to put me in floating suspension and an oxygen mask :D what you think?
 
OromNom said:
I guess someone already posted about the vertical infrared chamber ;) I image a infrared "bacta tank" like in star wars (where luke recovered) but inside a salt water solution dense enough to put me in floating suspension and an oxygen mask :D what you think?

Would the water absorb/block the rays and prevent them from reaching deep into the body?
 
Laura said:
Would the water absorb/block the rays and prevent them from reaching deep into the body?

According to Wikipedia's diagram, at 850nm (the LEDs we use) the absorption of liquid water is still low:

1280px-Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png


Here is the transmittance spectrum of a kind of plexiglass acrylic, looking good for 850nm:

IR-LightTransmission.gif


And attached is the transmission spectrum for various body tissues, also looking good for 850nm. (Screenshot from http://www.laser.nu/lllt/pdf/Penetration.pdf)

There are a couple of studies investigating IR penetration, here is one:

Near-infrared photonic energy penetration: can infrared phototherapy effectively reach the human brain? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552256/
 

Attachments

  • Selection_042.jpg
    Selection_042.jpg
    110.3 KB · Views: 237
Data said:
Laura said:
Would the water absorb/block the rays and prevent them from reaching deep into the body?

According to Wikipedia's diagram, at 850nm (the LEDs we use) the absorption of liquid water is still low:

1280px-Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png


Here is the transmittance spectrum of a kind of plexiglass acrylic, looking good for 850nm:

IR-LightTransmission.gif


And attached is the transmission spectrum for various body tissues, also looking good for 850nm. (Screenshot from http://www.laser.nu/lllt/pdf/Penetration.pdf)

There are a couple of studies investigating IR penetration, here is one:

Near-infrared photonic energy penetration: can infrared phototherapy effectively reach the human brain? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552256/

I'm not sure I remember absorption coefficient correctly. Apparently this coefficient for water is 0.0387 (unit being 1/cm) for 847nm radiation (NIR), it means that water that is about 25 cm thick (1/0.0387 cm) will absorb 100% of the 847 nm radiation. Is that correct? :huh:

Added: the above is partly incorrect. 1/absorption coefficient= attenuation length=25 cm. The attenuation length is the distance where the intensity of the beam has dropped to 1/e , or about 63% of the particles have been stopped.

Concretely, it means that 25 cm of water absorbs 63% of the NIR radiation and not 100% as I previously stated.
 
lilies said:
Just note that redlightman: they sell "790nm near-infrared light all the way into the 880nm near-infrared, with the peak wavelength output firmly in the 830nm range." They emphasize 830nm. Different from the strictly 850nm leds what Laura is using, from what said she felt perky - unnoticeable energy increase. Unknown, what the measured full spectrum of Pierre's LEDs would be in the lab. Still, better safe than sorry. You would be complaining about missing effects from a different wavelength product.

Type "SMD3528-300-IR InfraRed 850nm", this is the correct LED that Pierre used, or a product that says 850nm and nothing else. The ones that Pierre linked are already sold out. :)
http://www.ledlightsworld.com/dc12v-smd3528300ir-infrared-850nm940nm-single-chip-flexible-led-strips-60leds-48w-per-meter-p-1000598.html

About optimal NIR wavelength:

Optimum Wavelengths
Certain wavelengths provide a better biological response. In short, CCO absorbs 4 peak areas of wavelengths (see figure below) in the 600-900 nm range that cover almost half of the 600-900 nm range. In an activated state, the CCO changes shape so that even more wavelengths are absorbed. It uses this energy to increase ATP and place the cell in an alkaline or oxidized state that results in many secondary benefits.

This wide range of wavelengths is specific evidence for the general evolutionary argument that a wide range of wavelengths exactly like the Sun is the best possible exposure. However, there are three ways it might be possible to provide equal or greater benefit than the Sun for hypoxic or injured cells: 1) LEDs can provide injured cells with a larger amount of light in the beneficial range and at times when the sun is not available, 2) we can reduce the heat and thereby provide higher concentrations that reach deeper cells (the Sun is limited to about 1/2 to 1 inch of depth like most LED and laser units), 3) in the future an inexpensive device will be made that is specifically tuned to the CCO set of proteins, having a specific sequence of pulse times of specific wavelengths and pauses, forcing CCO through each step of its pumping action with minimal heat and maximum depth.

A single wavelength may work as good as full spectrum by causing an electrostatic push or pull on neighboring electrons when moving only one electron (into or out of one of the two copper atoms in CCO). The electrostatic push and pull may cascade all the way through the electron transport chain. Complex II activity has been shown to increase even though it does not absorb these wavelengths.

Many different wavelengths have been used, but very few studies have compared different wavelengths. The figure above indicates wavelengths 610-625, 660-690, 750-770, and 815-860 nm are the best wavelengths. Considerations other than how well they activate CCO are: 1) which wavelengths penetrate the best (see section on absorption), 2) which LEDs provide the strongest light output (keep in mind 850 nm has 30% more photons per watt than 630 nm), and 3) possibly 630 nm being usefully absorbed and reflected as (aka "converted to") an 825 nm photon to be used again.

Inexpensive LEDs typically come in 630, 660, 850, and 880 nm with a hard-to-find (expensive) gap between 710 and 830 nm. (Often $1 for 830 nm and $0.05 for 850 nm). The peaks of the LEDs and optimum wavelengths are not exact, but spread out about +/- ~15 nm so there is an overlap of available LEDs and the biologically optimum wavelengths. The 630 nm LED can affect the 620nm peak in the chart, and 660 nm LED touches the 670 nm peak, and 850 nm is directly on one peak, but does not cover the nearby peak 820-830 nm as well.
 

Attachments

  • opti.gif
    opti.gif
    3.2 KB · Views: 235
We have been wondering how much NIR our bed generates compared to the Sun (NIR Solar irradiance).

At 850 nm frequency, the Solar irradiance is about 1W/m2.

Solar_Spectrum.png


Our bed consumes about 180W, so if we assume a 80% efficiency, it generates 144W of NIR radiations. The total surface of our two panels being about 2m2, we have 77W/m2.

In conclusion, our bed generates about 77 more 850nm NIR radiations than what we get from the Sun on a sunny day. In other terms, a 15 minutes session in the infrabed is equivalent (as far as exposition to the 850 nm NIR radiations is concerned) to spending 20 hours in the Sun.
 
Pierre said:
In conclusion, our bed generates about 77 more 850nm NIR radiations than what we get from the Sun on a sunny day. In other terms, a 15 minutes session in the infrabed is equivalent (as far as exposition to the 850 nm NIR radiations is concerned) to spending 20 hours in the Sun.

:O 20 hours of sunlight in 15 minutes? That's a lot!

Went on holiday last month and spent most of the time under the Sun. At the end of those 2 weeks, I was completely re-energized and overall in better health. I literally felt like an empty battery being fully recharged and you could physically see the difference.

If the infrabed can replicate that same light in a condensed form, I can only imagine what benefits it can bring. Will definitely be following for further developments.
 
Eboard10 said:
:O 20 hours of sunlight in 15 minutes? That's a lot!

Went on holiday last month and spent most of the time under the Sun. At the end of those 2 weeks, I was completely re-energized and overall in better health. I literally felt like an empty battery being fully recharged and you could physically see the difference.

If the infrabed can replicate that same light in a condensed form, I can only imagine what benefits it can bring. Will definitely be following for further developments.

But keep in mind that it is not full spectrum sunlight, only a narrow band - the good stuff without the UVs and other bad stuff.
 
Hello H2O said:
Thinking of grabbing this one. With the dimensions around 7" X 5" X 5" deep and about 2 lbs, it seems like something you could hold in your hand. I suppose you could mount it to something as well.

https://www.amazon.ca/Fuloon-Infrared-illuminator-adapter-E8100-30/dp/B01M4OGF39/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1502389038&sr=8-2&keywords=infra-red%2Bfloodlight&th=1

But there are two options, described as:

Model selection:(E8100-30-A-IR/E8100-60-A-IR)
E8100-30-A-IR: Standard 30° level angle visual range, Visual distance:60m(236") - $72.98
E8100-60-A-IR: Standard 60° level angle visual range, Visual distance:40m(157") - $57.99


Any thoughts on which one would be better? I am guessing the 30 degree level angle as it would seem it would be more focused compared to the 60 degree angle option. But since it would be used close up, not sure that would make much difference. Not sure whether it is worth it to spend the extra $15.00 to get the 30 degree model.

Hi Hello H2O,

As far as I can see, the 2 models are the same prices (57,99$) and the shipping is 13$ for each model.
 
Everybody might wanna read the whole interview: HOLY COW!!!!! :jawdrop:
https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,44298.msg719719.html#msg719719

Near InfraRed Light best for Stem Cell Activation in Bone Marrow. Lights put on the head, low powered ones into the ears, nose. Uh.. my head is spinning, especially as I plan to do a teeth/jawbone/gums regeneration device, one with low powered battery = no Hertz flicker, one with wall outlet/flicker.

Just look at this $100K+ monster, "the real thing", you'll never have at home, but can book sessions to lie in: healed 3rd degree burns, repaired neck injuries, mended knees-->can squat again, losing excess fat plus repaired leg/feet nerve damage, fixed severe case of psoriasis/joints, fixed arthritis/fibroM, debilitating spine pain fixed, testimonials.
l8lWlnL.png
 
lilies said:
Just look at this $100K+ monster, "the real thing", you'll never have at home, but can book sessions to lie in: healed 3rd degree burns, repaired neck injuries, mended knees-->can squat again, losing excess fat plus repaired leg/feet nerve damage, fixed severe case of psoriasis/joints, fixed arthritis/fibroM, debilitating spine pain fixed, testimonials.
l8lWlnL.png

It's nice to know that such things are becoming available. Apparently, it's like $35 bux for a 15 minute session.

It's got way more than the Near infrared, too. But it's the NIR that is most important, so I'm sticking with the home model!!!
 
RedFox said:
(...) From the IR lights spec: • Input Voltage: 100V-240VAC (50-60Hz)

I found the following to double check my understanding:
LED Lighting Flicker and Potential Health Concerns: IEEE Standard PAR1789 Update
_http://www.ece.neu.edu/groups/power/lehman/Publications/Pub2010/2010_9_Wilkins.pdf

So it's possible it'll actually be 100hz-120hz (see circuits on page 3 of the doc).
Constant current (no flicker) may only be available for the smaller IR camera LED's, that needed an external DC power supply.

Rather than assuming anything further, I'll have a look at its circuit when it arrives.

Thanks for the links RedFox! It would be great if you could share the results of your assessment of the device one it arrives :)
 
It seems that to get maximum health benefits, patients should get an optimal amount of NIR radiation, i.e. enough radiation but not too much:

When injured cells are directly exposed to the light (such as in a test tube or the retina) research indicates 4 to 6 Joules of energy (J) applied to each 1 cm by 1 cm area (1 cm^2) once or twice per day is the best dosage. At 10 J/cm^2, all the benefits gained from the light can be negated, so not applying too much light is important. Source

From the above, it seems that NIR exposure should be between 4 and 12 Joules/cm2 (from one session at 4 Joules/cm2 to two sessions at 6 Joules/cm2 each).

Our bed generates 77 W/m2 of NIR radiations, that's is 0.0077 w/cm2. Since one Joule equals one watt X time of exposure (in seconds), a 15-minute session delivers 0.0077X60X15= 6.9 Joules/cm2 which is right in the 4-12 Joules/cm2 bracket.

Keep in mind that the figures above were established based on experiments conducted in test tubes and retina. It is entirely possible that human bodies, which are thicker than retinas and test tubes and therefore transmit less NIR, require higher amounts of NIR radiations to get full benefits from them (particularly deep tissues):

Ten to 20 times as much energy (Joules) is required to treat tissue that is beneath the skin, or 10 x 6 = 60 J/cm^2 because of the 90% to 95% light (or more) that is blocked by the skin and other tissue between the skin and the injury. This dosage can be applied twice a day and is not harmful to tissue.

If we follow this guideline, it means that we should spend between two and five hours per day in the infrabed to optimally treat deep tissue injuries. That's a lot :shock:
 
Turns out, 660nm and 780nm is best for eye healing. Okay, that's another device to build.

6.1. Human studies: [..] improved visual acuity in 95 percent of the patients. [..] improved contrast sensitivity.

I wonder if it will fix my inability to focus on intense/bright red letters on dark backgrounds [without glasses].
 
Back
Top Bottom