Make a "blinker" for LED panel?

[KrisBlueNZ]

Here's a summary of the article Elizabeth linked to:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/features/heals.html

The therapy is called HEALS ("High Emissivity Aluminiferous Luminescent Substrate"). It was developed by NASA for plant growth experiments on space shuttle missions but has been demonstrated to reduce oral mucositis - painful mouth and throat sores that are a side-effect of chemotherapy and radiation treatment in bone marrow and stem cell transplant patients - and to help heal wounds, burns, and diabetic skin ulcers.

The therapy is administered using a "WARP 75 light delivery system", which was developed by Ron Ignatius of Quantum Devices Inc of Barneveld, Wisconsin in collaboration with NASA, and uses 288 far red/near infrared LEDs to produce "intense light energy" in the form of photons - "the equivalent light energy from 12 suns" (LOL). The LEDs "release long wavelengths of light that stimulate cells to aid in healing". The business end of the WARP 75 is "about the size of an adult human hand" and is held close to "the outside of the patient's left and right cheek and neck area for 88 seconds each, daily for 14 days at the start of the patient's bone marrow or stem cell transplant".

Significant benefits were found in a two-year-long double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial with 80 cancer patients undergoing bone marrow or stem cell transplants. "The WARP 75 device is currently undergoing Food and Drug Administration premarket approval."

----- end of summary

Of course this doesn't tell us any details about the WARP 75 device; not even the wavelength of the light, and you can't conclude anything about the effectiveness of plant grow-lights when used for this therapy. This article also doesn't mention pulsing the light; I suspect this may just be gimmick invented by makers of copycat "therapeutic" equipment to give their product a unique selling point in a cramped market.

Edit: The article that mentions flashing the LEDs at 292 Hz at http://www.esmhome.org/library/led.html is provided by "Energetic Science Ministries", a name that absolutely REEKS of pseudoscience! The article is full of medical terminology and mentions many studies without giving citations for readers to check. The discovery that 292 Hz is the best frequency for skin therapies was made by Dr. Paul Nogier, who is famous for using acupuncture (a therapy with no proven effect beyond the placebo effect) on the outer ears of patients, like "reflexology" without the feet.

So from what I've seen so far, I would not expect any effects beyond the placebo effect from any low-power LED therapy, with or without the 292 Hz flashing.

 

[elizabeth]

Here's a summary of the article Elizabeth linked to:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/features/heals.html

The therapy is called HEALS ("High Emissivity Aluminiferous Luminescent Substrate"). It was developed by NASA for plant growth experiments on space shuttle missions but has been demonstrated to reduce oral mucositis - painful mouth and throat sores that are a side-effect of chemotherapy and radiation treatment in bone marrow and stem cell transplant patients - and to help heal wounds, burns, and diabetic skin ulcers.

The therapy is administered using a "WARP 75 light delivery system", which was developed by Ron Ignatius of Quantum Devices Inc of Barneveld, Wisconsin in collaboration with NASA, and uses 288 far red/near infrared LEDs to produce "intense light energy" in the form of photons - "the equivalent light energy from 12 suns" (LOL). The LEDs "release long wavelengths of light that stimulate cells to aid in healing". The business end of the WARP 75 is "about the size of an adult human hand" and is held close to "the outside of the patient's left and right cheek and neck area for 88 seconds each, daily for 14 days at the start of the patient's bone marrow or stem cell transplant".

Significant benefits were found in a two-year-long double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial with 80 cancer patients undergoing bone marrow or stem cell transplants. "The WARP 75 device is currently undergoing Food and Drug Administration premarket approval."

----- end of summary

Of course this doesn't tell us any details about the WARP 75 device; not even the wavelength of the light, and you can't conclude anything about the effectiveness of plant grow-lights when used for this therapy. This article also doesn't mention pulsing the light; I suspect this may just be gimmick invented by makers of copycat "therapeutic" equipment to give their product a unique selling point in a cramped market.

Edit: The article that mentions flashing the LEDs at 292 Hz at http://www.esmhome.org/library/led.html is provided by "Energetic Science Ministries", a name that absolutely REEKS of pseudoscience! The article is full of medical terminology and mentions many studies without giving citations for readers to check. The discovery that 292 Hz is the best frequency for skin therapies was made by Dr. Paul Nogier, who is famous for using acupuncture (a therapy with no proven effect beyond the placebo effect) on the outer ears of patients, like "reflexology" without the feet.

So from what I've seen so far, I would not expect any effects beyond the placebo effect from any low-power LED therapy, with or without the 292 Hz flashing.

Sorry--I did not realize this board was created to make light of people who want to try out an idea. I hope I have provided you with much entertainment tonight.

 

[elizabeth]

"Of course this doesn't tell us any details about the WARP 75 device; not even the wavelength of the light, and you can't conclude anything about the effectiveness of plant grow-lights when used for this therapy. This article also doesn't mention pulsing the light; I suspect this may just be gimmick invented by makers of copycat "therapeutic" equipment to give their product a unique selling point in a cramped market."

Specs on WARP: http://www.904laser.com/thorlaser/DOCUMENTS/WARP75specs.pdf

 

[CocaCola]

I'm not even going to get into a debate on the effectiveness or lack there of...

But, when I see quotes from a company like...

The WARP 75’s radiant power output of 3.5 watts is the highest radiant output of any LED device in today’s marketplace.

I can only LOL, and shake my head at the nonsense and blatantly false claims they make, and it clearly should toss up a red flag about any other claims made...

 

[elizabeth]

"The clinical trial found that 670 nanometers of light technology, previously used for plant growth experiments on the International Space Station..." http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/features/heals_photos_prt.htm

 

[elizabeth]

I'm not even going to get into a debate on the effectiveness or lack there of...

But, when I see quotes from a company like...



I can only LOL, and shake my head at the nonsense and blatantly false claims they make, and it clearly should toss up a red flag about any other claims made...

Great! However, I came here to ask how to make the panel lights flash.

 

[(*steve*)]

Hi,
Other than the fact that it is 14 watt and has 225 red led bulbs on a 12inch square panel, with a cord attached that plugs into the wall, I don't know what the other terms you mentioned mean.

Not a problem. The link you gave answered those questions for the most part.

The fact that it's mains powered means that any device that flashes it will need to switch the mains, and that is something that carries some danger. Whilst it is very unlikely, if something goes wrong (like the device gets stood on, then dropped in a sink of water) someone could be injured. I mention this because someone who doesn't have appropriate insurance may not want to place themselves at the small but finite risk.

Having said that, the problem is actually quite easy to solve, and I am somewhat surprised that there isn't some sort of commercial device that is designed to flash lights that couldn't be bought off the shelf.

I have to mention that I am probably around 20,000 km from you, so I'm unlikely to be of much assistance directly.

 

[(*steve*)]

Maybe something like this.

 

[elizabeth]

Maybe something like this.

Thank-you, Steve. That looks interesting. I wonder if it would work. How does it hook up to the panel?

 

[CocaCola]

Maybe something like this.

An over the counter flasher like the above is fine if you want to make a Youtube video and show it flashing, or show it flashing to someone else for effect but if the goal is 292Hz you will need something custom and it won't be perceivable...

The problem with anything over the counter is that there is really no practical reason why any light flasher would go anywhere near 300Hz as the human eye won't see it... This is also a potential concern for anyone that would make this device or even help make this device as without some equipment to measure the flash rate it would simply appear full on and you would have no way to dial it in properly or even be sure it was actually working properly without the proper equipment...

 

[elizabeth]

An over the counter flasher like the above is fine if you want to make a Youtube video and show it flashing, or show it flashing to someone else for effect but if the goal is 292Hz you will need something custom and it won't be perceivable...

The problem with anything over the counter is that there is really no practical reason why any light flasher would go anywhere near 300Hz as the human eye won't see it... This is also a potential concern for anyone that would make this device or even help make this device as without some equipment to measure the flash rate it would simply appear full on and you would have no way to dial it in properly or even be sure it was actually working properly without the proper equipment...

Nope, goofy as it sounds, I actually wanted to try it on my own skin, just for myself--not to make a video. I think you are right, however, about getting the 292Hz--that may be a challenge. I did not know that was the recommended flash rate when I first asked the question. I really do think the panel will work like the expensive lights used by the derma docs. though, because it is in the same range of nm's that they use in their machines.

 

[(*steve*)]

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)

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

Sorry--I did not realize this board was created to make light of people who want to try out an idea. I hope I have provided you with much entertainment tonight.

Actually, I'm just trying to save you from forming unreasonable expectations, wasting time and money, making claims you can't demonstrate, and being taken advantage of.

While most of the volunteers here do like to help people with their electronic design projects, I for one also feel an obligation to tell people when I think they are wasting their time.

There is a lot of fakery, misleading "information" and outright lies out there, especially in the field of alternative therapies, and it is very important to understand how to tell whether an effect is real or not. The placebo effect is very powerful, and not yet very thoroughly understood. When it is combined with unscrupulous businesspeople, there is huge scope for trickery and exploitation. This is why one must be skeptical, and critically evaluate the material.

I will assume that the medical trials were conducted properly, since NASA is involved and they have a reputation as "real" scientists to protect. However, nothing else I've seen so far has any credibility with me, and there are several differences between the medical trials and what you (Elizabeth) want to do.

1. These trials involved cancer patients, where the infra-red light was used to help to heal damage caused by intense chemotherapy and radiation therapy. You (I assume) just want to use it to improve your skin.

2. These trials used the WARP75 device, whose specifications are (from the PDF you kindly linked to): peak wavelength 670 nm; working area 75 cm^2; output 60 mW/cm^2. You don't have the figures for your plant grow-lights, and I would assume the output will be a lot lower.

3. The only mention of the 292 Hz flashing of the LEDs is from a site with no credibility; the text shows many of the common signs of pseudoscience and heavy marketing influence.

That is why I say I wouldn't expect any therapeutic effect from your grow-light panels, whether you flash them or not.

Edit:

I am happy to help you make your panels flash. As Steve has already pointed out, it's not practical to do this by adding an external circuit, because you want to flash them at a rate that's higher than the AC mains supply frequency. But it should be possible to add circuitry inside the panel that will flash them at that frequency. This is why I suggest that you take some photographs of the inside of the panel, when you get it, and post them here.

As has also been pointed out, a flash rate of 292 Hz is not visible to the human eye, except that you will see multiple images of the light if you turn your head while it's flashing at you, or if you move the panel quickly in front of you. You can use those tricks to confirm that it's flashing, but unless you have a multimeter with a frequency counter feature, or a friend who's into electronics, you won't be able to check the frequency. If the frequency is derived from a crystal, it can be made very accurate. But all that said, I have no confidence that flashing them will make any difference, based on the unconvincing claims of one pseudoscience web site.

 

[CocaCola]

I will assume that the medical trials were conducted properly, since NASA is involved and they have a reputation as "real" scientists to protect.

The problem I see with this is that conducted properly is really a slippy slope when dealing with medical test like this... As you stated the placebo effect is real, that makes any data collected even when using a placebo sampling in the study a little hard to 'prove'... You can surely come to some conclusions with enough clinical studying but history has shown that more studies can cloud the outcome as easy as they clarify it...

Our tissue is certainly photosensitive, so it will react to light and things do happen when it's exposed to light, but to what degree this is beneficial overall vs say just stepping out in the sunlight is something that can be debated all day long... What I find odd about this treatment is that it's only used for a small number of seconds each day... But, when you look at other phototherapies, like for example 'biliblankets' they are used 24/7 to best achieve the desired results... 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...

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

CC, the article I quoted from is on the NASA web site and it stated that the tests were conducted over a 2-year period with 80 participants and used double-blind placebo-control protocol. Assuming that it was conducted properly, that kind of study is about the best you can get, and is accepted as proof of the effectiveness of medications, so it's good enough to convince me that that particular machine is effectve with that particular side-effect of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. But it's simply wishful thinking to use that as evidence that a blinking grow-light will improve your complexion.

 

[(*steve*)]

But it's simply wishful thinking to use that as evidence that a blinking grow-light will improve your complexion.

Let's just say that it is reading more into the study than can be justified.

 

[elizabeth]

2. These trials used the WARP75 device, whose specifications are (from the PDF you kindly linked to): peak wavelength 670 nm; working area 75 cm^2; output 60 mW/cm^2. You don't have the figures for your plant grow-lights, and I would assume the output will be a lot lower.

.

Thank you. It just sounded like you were making light of me (lol) in some of your responses.

Anyway, the peak wavelink of the plant grow light is 660 nm. Would that not be similar to the WARP75? As far as output--how could I figure that out and how much does it matter? Isn't the wavelength the most important?

 

[KrisBlueNZ]

The output is equally important. The specification 60mW/cm^2 means that for each square centimetre of the emissive surface, there is 60 mW (that's 0.06 watts) of radiant power.

CocaCola quoted a claim that the total power output was 3.5 watts. From those figures, the WARP75's emissive area would be 58 square centimetres, or 7.6 cm x 7.6 cm, or about 3 inches long and 3 inches wide, which sounds reasonable, so at least those figures are consistent. And it might explain where the "75" in the name comes from.

In your case, to determine the radiant power, you would need to know the part number for the LEDs, so you could look up their specifications. You could estimate their radiant power output by measuring voltage and current going into them, but I don't know what efficiency figure to use. You could probably hire a device that can measure radiant energy.

If the grow light panels don't produce a high enough power density, you could re-mount the LEDs so they're closer together.

 

[elizabeth]

The output is equally important. The specification 60mW/cm^2 means that for each square centimetre of the emissive surface, there is 60 mW (that's 0.06 watts) of radiant power.

CocaCola quoted a claim that the total power output was 3.5 watts. From those figures, the WARP75's emissive area would be 58 square centimetres, or 7.6 cm x 7.6 cm, or about 3 inches long and 3 inches wide, which sounds reasonable, so at least those figures are consistent. And it might explain where the "75" in the name comes from.

In your case, to determine the radiant power, you would need to know the part number for the LEDs, so you could look up their specifications. You could estimate their radiant power output by measuring voltage and current going into them, but I don't know what efficiency figure to use. You could probably hire a device that can measure radiant energy.

If the grow light panels don't produce a high enough power density, you could re-mount the LEDs so they're closer together.

Hmmm. Well--it is here and the holes are deep, with odd screws that require a special tool to open the box up. I am afraid I will just break it if I try. My husband seems to think there should be a switch we can wire into the existing cord to make it blink--probably not at the above mentioned freq. though.. Anyway, maybe this is all too much trouble. I really wanted to figure it out, but now I am exhausted from searching the net all night (literally) last night for answers. I will just try these lights in continuous mode and see if anything happens. If not, then I will know!

Thanks to all who tried to help.

~Elizabeth

 

[elizabeth]

The output is equally important. The specification 60mW/cm^2 means that for each square centimetre of the emissive surface, there is 60 mW (that's 0.06 watts) of radiant power.

CocaCola quoted a claim that the total power output was 3.5 watts. From those figures, the WARP75's emissive area would be 58 square centimetres, or 7.6 cm x 7.6 cm, or about 3 inches long and 3 inches wide, which sounds reasonable, so at least those figures are consistent. And it might explain where the "75" in the name comes from.

In your case, to determine the radiant power, you would need to know the part number for the LEDs, so you could look up their specifications. You could estimate their radiant power output by measuring voltage and current going into them, but I don't know what efficiency figure to use. You could probably hire a device that can measure radiant energy.

If the grow light panels don't produce a high enough power density, you could re-mount the LEDs so they're closer together.

One more thing: On the side of the panel is a sticker and next to the Voltage: 110 it reads 5%60Hz What does that mean?