Some how I suppose my posting worked!
Best
Glen
WOW that did weird things to my eyes when I went back to a white page lol! psychedelic! presumably best viewed in the dark? I wonder is it accurate, is it safe?
Fantastic solution if it’s accurate, but I suppose that will depend on the monitor.
Correct! You clearly know what you are looking at.
I dont think we need to be so specific
here are some options:
thank you moderator007
Thank you Sir!
very grateful for your information… lots of questions… not all may be relevant… just wondering out loud.
how many lumens do you think is not too strong for the eyes?
I have 4 levels to choose from on this particular light
0.1, 2, 26, 105 lumens
Do you know if Green light also charges mitochondria?
Do you know if other LED colors, also charge mitochondria?
Do you know if Sunlight also charges mitochondria?
Again why 670nm and not 660nm which is so commonly available from no-name LED manufacturer to well known LED manufacturers.
If you look into the graphs of most deep red LED their peak is 660nm not 670nm. While many are rated 650nm to 670nm does not mean their peak is 670nm.
Example here, specifications and peak are not identical that is why most manufacturers say 660nm and not 670nm
https://eu.mouser.com/datasheet/2/602/DS236-luxeon-2835-color-line-datasheet-1596094.pdf
Yeah, that is what I am trying to say, I do not think we need to be that specific as 670nm instead of 660nm when that is where the peak is of 99% of deep red LEDs.
Hard to start posting all datasheets now I looked over but I did post one to give as an example.
The specific wavelength doesn’t seem to matter, notice the broad range that Glen identified.
imo 670 is not specifically required… it just happened to be part of the range used.
As you said, LEDs are not actually single nm output… I dont think it is necessary to only use 670nm
there is a tendency to latch on to one particular bit of info (the number 670 in this case), and then assume that is the key ingredient… I do not believe that is necessary.
Bingo!
Agree
now, who is ready to inform us whether 620nm works fine too?
Yes, they all have a broad spectrum and we are only talking peak here. There is so much we do not know. Vast amount of work on 670nm. Shorter wavelengths are generally less effective. But we have not mapped out others that well. I have used 810nm which was fine. But then you can’t see it so there is the insecurity of about if it is working or not.
670nm LEDs are a little difficult to obtain and in my experience been of varied quality.
Maybe you can test some 660nm since most manufactured Deep Red LEDs peak at this wavelength. And there are of course the typical 620nm peak for regular Red LEDs.
i would assume that the 40mW/cm^2 is the radiant flux hitting the surface of the eye, so for a 5mm pupil that would be about 8mW of radiation power into the eye. This would be over all electromagnetic frequencies, but for semi-monochromatic one could assume it was mostly at the frequency of interest.
Lumens is a photometric unit for the luminous flux, or the total visible light emitted by the source. This is related to the spectral response of the human eye to visible light wavelengths.
So in general terms there is no direct conversion factor of lumens to irradiance, one is the power emitted into a sphere, the other is the power hitting the target.
okay so i’m gonna go outside and stare at the sun like Barkuti and see what happens…
yes, Lux is different than Lumens
but, if I put a red light directly on the target, Lumens and Lux are the same.
can someone help me figure out how many lumens from an AA Eneloop, produces
40mW/cm^2 on a target that is touching the bezel?
or let me ask that in another way
at what distance would a 2 lumen source, produce 40mW/cm^2?
and fwiw, there are mitochondria in blood
so maybe aiming a red LED at my heart will help treat the whole body against inflammation? Or aim the light at the femoral artery, to reduce foot swelling?
lots of possibilities…
This is something I found a few days ago when trying to figure out how to convert radient flux to luminous flux.
http://sanken-opto.com/Products/FAQ-LEDs/converting
What’s being discussed here resures me on what I thought I had figured out with looking at the red’s datasheet.
I used the XP-G3 645nm Red led. What I got from looking at the datsheet was its typical peek radient power was 645nm but it also transmits from around 630 to 680nm in lower power. Since this led was rated at 1.5 amps in red I figured it probably outputs enough 670nm to be useful to help eyesight. I probably need a difuser though.
In the datsheet for the XP-G3 I didn’t really see a current to wavelength graph. Do the red leds experience any wavelength shift with higher currents like white leds do with tint shift at high currents?
1 Thank
so maybe aiming a red LED at my heart will help treat the whole body against inflammation? Or aim the light at the femoral artery, to reduce foot swelling?
lots of possibilities…
that type of question is currently getting a lot of research attention around the world.
In certain circles where Red light is used as a positive effect, like hormonal conversion up regulation, metabolism boosting, the UV light is considered as doing the opposite of Red light and promoting inflammation.
I wonder if the light from the Sun can really be something that effects all people the same considering the mount of frequencies hitting your body, far from these mono-frequencies therapies.
it does seem that UV will cause skin damage, and IR is used for heating and cooking too.
Maybe some frequencies of ElectroMagnetic radiation are beneficial and others are harmful.
How much absorption and attenuation does the eyelid provide across wavelengths from UV to IR?
Lid data are here:
Reduced transmission at shorter wavelengths.
I don’t know, yeah.
All I have seen the claims of pro raising metabolism vs lowering metabolism, Red light is mentioned as beneficial and UV as detrimental, again in the circles where Red light is used as therapy as combating all the so called bad light exposure, UV, Blue light, etc.
So the sun will have both and many more other frequencies at the same time.
red and blue work in opposite directions but via very different mechanisms and with a different time course. Mitochondria have a very specific absorbance point at 420nm which has negative impact. But this can be redeemed by long wavelength exposure (670-1000nm) . Most blue light in man made environment e.g. screens etc are well above 420nm.
Sunlight has both in different proportions depending on weather etc. But modern commercial/domestic lighting has almost no long wavelengths in it
Assuming we don’t get this benefit from sunlight, why? Is sunlight not powerful enough? Is it the fact that sunlight also has a lot of output in the 400nm-660nm range?