The infrabed

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Eboard10 said:
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.
The calculation I provided above is incorrect. I'm sorry about that, this NIR LED business is quite new to me and I'm learning about it everyday.

So, I wrongly assumed that the radiation emitted by our NIR LEDs was 850 nm in wavelength. Actually the peak emission is at 850 nm but those LEDs cover a spectrum of several wavelengths (including 850 nm).

Here is the spectrum analysis of a typical 850 nm LED (see the solid light red spike centered around 850 nm in the graph below):



The spectrum of the 850 nm LED covers a wavelength that starts a 800 nm and stops at 880 nm. That's is a 80 (880-800) nm range.

However the LED emissions are very weak on its left end (from roughly 800 to 840 nm) and on its right side (from roughly 860 to 880 nm).

Therefore we can consider that most of the energetic output of the 850 nm LED is focused on the 840-860 range.

So we don't have 77W/m2 of 850 nm radiation but more likely 77 W/m2 of radiation distributed over a 20 (860-840) nm range.

That leads to 3.85 W/m2 (77/20) per nm over the 840-860 nm range which is to be compared to the 1 W/m2 per nm of Solar emissions in the 840-860 nm range.

In conclusion, our bed generates about 4 times more NIR radiation in the 840-860 range than the Sun does. In other terms, 15 mn in our infrabed is equivalent to 1 hours in the Sun (as far as exposure to the 840-860 nm range is concerned).
 

Eboard10

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Pierre said:
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:
But if you were to spend a couple of hours per day in the infrabed, wouldn't you risk damaging the skin? Or does the fact that UV and the other bands of the spectrum are not emitted remove any damaging effects from "excessive" exposure?
 

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Eboard10 said:
Pierre said:
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:
But if you were to spend a couple of hours per day in the infrabed, wouldn't you risk damaging the skin? Or does the fact that UV and the other bands of the spectrum are not emitted remove any damaging effects from "excessive" exposure?
This guys states that 'excessive' exposure doesn't harm tissue:
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. For a 0.03 W/cm^2 LED device, 60/0.03 = 2000 seconds = 33 minutes at a minimum. This dosage can be applied twice a day and is not harmful to tissue.
By the way the whole article is worth reading. The author has spent a lot of time testing NIR contraption but it's difficult to assess with certainty the right dosages based solely on one source.

I've tried strong local doses. I've installed two NIR LED spots behind my arm chair and get about 2 hours neck exposure a day for a few weeks now. Those LEDs generate about 150 mW/cm2, that is about 20X more radiation per cm2 than the infrabed (7.7 mW/cm2) and I've not noticed any adverse effect on the superficial neck tissue yet.

Edit: corrected ratio from 2 to 20.
 

Keyhole

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Eboard10 said:
Pierre said:
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:
But if you were to spend a couple of hours per day in the infrabed, wouldn't you risk damaging the skin? Or does the fact that UV and the other bands of the spectrum are not emitted remove any damaging effects from "excessive" exposure?
I haven't come across any accounts of damaging effects of 'excessive' exposure in the research, but that is not to say that it does not exist. I would imagine that doing anything too much could have some damaging consequences in the long run, but the main question with photobiomodulation is: How much is too much?

And don't think anyone has come up with an answer yet :lol:

A useful way of looking at it is: The human body is optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight.

Full spectrum sunlight contains many different wavelengths, or "colours". The blue part of the spectrum is useful, specifically for setting the circadian clock part of the brain. Blue light contains specific information that the body can utilise to "sense" the time of day and to coordinate its myriad functions. Similarly, UV has many useful functions which we don't need to go into here.

The fact is that Blue light is inherently very 'stressful' for the body. It actually stimulates the release of (among many other things) 1. stress hormones. 2.reactive oxygen species (what you may know as free radicals).

1.Stress hormones are a natural adaptation used to counteract the damaging effects of the UV light. The stress hormones are also eventually degraded in the bloodstream as a response to full spectrum sunlight.

2.The reactive oxygen species would ordinarily become an issue you were exposed to only blue light, but since sunlight contains Infra-red light aswell, the IR stimulates the release of antioxidants (via enhanced mitochondrial ROS production caused by enhanced ATP production) to protect against the damaging free-radicals associated with the blue light.

So in this sense, infra-red and red light can be seen as the antidote to the damaging effects of the blue light. This means that we can isolate this kind of light and use it for our benefit. This was how it was designed to work by nature.

As we have seen from the research on this thread, IR-light is an amazing tool that can be used. It is fascinating to see how much of an effect this kind of light can have on the body.

But at the same time it is very important to emphasise the negative effects of blue light. IR light therapy is so potent because IR light is designed to counteract the severely damaging effects of blue light. We can't separate the two from one another, seriously.

IR light's potency (to benefit) matches blue light's potency (to damage).

Hence, we should acknowledge the severity of blue light exposure's effect on health, and then take necessary precautions against that.

Added: If the above doesn't make sense, then in other words: Red/IR light undoes the damaging effects of blue light, but blue light also undoes the healing effects of red/IR light.
 

Lilou

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I am planning on ordering this Infrared pad for my mother. It contains 72 880 nm LEDs and 26 640-650 nm LEDs. It is a bit small, but seems to be better than an incandescent type bulb and can be placed directly on the skin. I'll report back on results.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Keyhole said:
A useful way of looking at it is: The human body is optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight.
We don't know that this is necessarily true if we consider environmental changes on our planet over the past 12K years, at the very least. It is clear that critters used to live on our planet that can no longer survive here. We see animal species going extinct around us at an alarming rate and it may not ALL be due to human actions, but environmental conditions changing.

For example, if earth had a water vapor canopy, or serious ozone layer for much of the history of human evolution, we would most certainly NOT be optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight as we experience it today.
 
Pierre said:
Eboard10 said:
Pierre said:
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:
But if you were to spend a couple of hours per day in the infrabed, wouldn't you risk damaging the skin? Or does the fact that UV and the other bands of the spectrum are not emitted remove any damaging effects from "excessive" exposure?
This guys states that 'excessive' exposure doesn't harm tissue:
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. For a 0.03 W/cm^2 LED device, 60/0.03 = 2000 seconds = 33 minutes at a minimum. This dosage can be applied twice a day and is not harmful to tissue.
By the way the whole article is worth reading. The author has spent a lot of time testing NIR contraption but it's difficult to assess with certainty the right dosages based solely on one source.

I've tried strong local doses. I've installed two NIR LED spots behind my arm chair and get about 2 hours neck exposure a day for a few weeks now. Those LEDs generate about 150 mW/cm2, that is about 2X more radiation per cm2 than the infrabed and I've not noticed any adverse effect on the superficial neck tissue yet.
Hi Pierre, me too having a hard(er) time to get the numbers straight for my surveillance unit I bought, but I don't have enough data from the supplier.

Right now I'm very confused. Anyway, you mentioned that your infrared generated 77W/m2 or 0.0077 mW/cm2, right? Isn't that 7.7 mW/cm2? So when you mentioned the NIR LED spots generating 150mW/cm2, saying it is about 2 times more....

The Red Light Man https://redlightman.com/product/infrared-mini-830/ sells lamps with 200mW/cm2, so that seems to be in the ballpark.

Well, I don't know, just checking. It's all about the Joules anyway....I think.

Edit: Not 0.0077 mW/cm2, meant to be 0.0077 W/m2....head is melting. Still not sure... :)

Edit 2: Wrong again! 0.0077 W/cm2! I'll go to bed....
 

Keyhole

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Keyhole said:
A useful way of looking at it is: The human body is optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight.
We don't know that this is necessarily true if we consider environmental changes on our planet over the past 12K years, at the very least. It is clear that critters used to live on our planet that can no longer survive here. We see animal species going extinct around us at an alarming rate and it may not ALL be due to human actions, but environmental conditions changing.

For example, if earth had a water vapor canopy, or serious ozone layer for much of the history of human evolution, we would most certainly NOT be optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight as we experience it today.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I didn't consider that before I said it. Whether we are/were ever optimally adapted is therefore difficult to say, but either way the above point about blue & red light is applicable in the conditions we are in right now it seems.
 

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
worldbridger said:
Pierre said:
Eboard10 said:
Pierre said:
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:
But if you were to spend a couple of hours per day in the infrabed, wouldn't you risk damaging the skin? Or does the fact that UV and the other bands of the spectrum are not emitted remove any damaging effects from "excessive" exposure?
This guys states that 'excessive' exposure doesn't harm tissue:
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. For a 0.03 W/cm^2 LED device, 60/0.03 = 2000 seconds = 33 minutes at a minimum. This dosage can be applied twice a day and is not harmful to tissue.
By the way the whole article is worth reading. The author has spent a lot of time testing NIR contraption but it's difficult to assess with certainty the right dosages based solely on one source.

I've tried strong local doses. I've installed two NIR LED spots behind my arm chair and get about 2 hours neck exposure a day for a few weeks now. Those LEDs generate about 150 mW/cm2, that is about 2X more radiation per cm2 than the infrabed and I've not noticed any adverse effect on the superficial neck tissue yet.
Hi Pierre, me too having a hard(er) time to get the numbers straight for my surveillance unit I bought, but I don't have enough data from the supplier.

Right now I'm very confused. Anyway, you mentioned that your infrared generated 77W/m2 or 0.0077 mW/cm2, right? Isn't that 7.7 mW/cm2? So when you mentioned the NIR LED spots generating 150mW/cm2, saying it is about 2 times more....

The Red Light Man https://redlightman.com/product/infrared-mini-830/ sells lamps with 200mW/cm2, so that seems to be in the ballpark.

Well, I don't know, just checking. It's all about the Joules anyway....I think.

Edit: Not 0.0077 mW/cm2, meant to be 0.0077 W/m2....head is melting. Still not sure... :)

Edit 2: Wrong again! 0.0077 W/cm2! I'll go to bed....
Math classes happened too many years ago for me!

You are right about the spotlight vs infrabed discrepancy:

The neck spotlight generate about 150 mW/cm2 and the bed generates about 7.7 mW/cm2 so the ratio is roughly 20 (not 2 as I stated). Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected the original post.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Keyhole said:
Laura said:
Keyhole said:
A useful way of looking at it is: The human body is optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight.
We don't know that this is necessarily true if we consider environmental changes on our planet over the past 12K years, at the very least. It is clear that critters used to live on our planet that can no longer survive here. We see animal species going extinct around us at an alarming rate and it may not ALL be due to human actions, but environmental conditions changing.

For example, if earth had a water vapor canopy, or serious ozone layer for much of the history of human evolution, we would most certainly NOT be optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight as we experience it today.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I didn't consider that before I said it. Whether we are/were ever optimally adapted is therefore difficult to say, but either way the above point about blue & red light is applicable in the conditions we are in right now it seems.
The conditions we are in right now don't really matter if they are not what we evolved to encounter.

You might benefit a lot from reading "The Idea of History" as posted on another thread, and using the methods he describes to begin to try to get in touch with your inner paleolithic ancestor.
 

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Keyhole said:
A useful way of looking at it is: The human body is optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight.
We don't know that this is necessarily true if we consider environmental changes on our planet over the past 12K years, at the very least. It is clear that critters used to live on our planet that can no longer survive here. We see animal species going extinct around us at an alarming rate and it may not ALL be due to human actions, but environmental conditions changing.

For example, if earth had a water vapor canopy, or serious ozone layer for much of the history of human evolution, we would most certainly NOT be optimally adapted to full spectrum sunlight as we experience it today.
Today we experience a higher cloud cover, i.e. more atmospheric water droplets and water absorbs NIR about 1000 times more than blue. So, here we have a dis-balance in favor of the 'harmful' blue radiation vs. the beneficial red/NIR.

In addition the depletion of the ozone layer induces an increase in incoming harmful UV radiation.

So, compared to say, only 100 years ago, the atmospheric condition modified (in a detrimental way) the spectrum of incoming Solar rays. Now it's difficult to know what the nature of the atmosphere was 12,000 years ago, but knowing how much it changed in only 100 years, the difference between now and 12,000 BP might have been huge.
 

Hello H2O

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Gandalf said:
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.
Hi Gandalf

It seems that when you go through the buying process, the different options and pricing becomes more evident. I was able to grab the more expensive one, 72.98, for free shipping, due Aug 18th. There was about 5 different shipping options, and the free one was not so evident upon first glance. (You can't really see the options clearly until you are in the cart making the purchase, so it is a bit confusing.)

Thanks
 

Hello H2O

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Received my infrared lamp today.

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

A whole 5 days early. Was supposed to arrive Aug 18th. (Must have been in the giant Amazon warehouse that is only about 8 blocks from here...)

It seems to be as advertised, seems high quality. I notice a slight hum when plugged in, but no flicker that I can see.

Now I just have to figure out how to use it. :D

Any suggestions would be welcomed.
 
Top Bottom