Its difficult to know how much long wavelength light you get and its blue balance in sunlight. Much to my surprise this is changing second by second even when it looks stable. If you filer out everything below about 450nm there is a real benefit form sunlight based on improved mitochondrial function mediate by longer wavelengths. But that does not happen in the real world. This dynamic situation is too complex to play with experimentally, although perhaps in the future when we know more it could be modelled.
Wow thanks, that is an interesting article. i guess it figures that someone would want to know this and make a study to measure it.
and the test data shows that the longer Reds have 100x better transmittance than the shorter Blues, or that the Blues get blocked (which is probably a good thing for the eye lens and internal parts)
A drug was the reason I could do such a thing by then, which as usual involved manipulation or mind control by negative entities. I don't see how a sober person in his right mind could even reckon such a thing (with wide :facepalm: open eyes!).
Unrecommended. 
Hi Glen, I have been following this forum discussion for a few weeks now, based on the article you contributed to which related to 670nm red LED’s being used to assist with eyesight health.
I purchased one of the Sofirn C01R units with 660nm Red LED and was hoping to use it as a test. Previous posts have mentioned a filter being put between the LED and the eye and I wondered what sort of filter was used? I believe it was also indicated a 6cm tube was used to keep the light that distance from the users eye. Can you confirm if that was indeed the distance used?
I would like to try red light therapy for a couple of weeks to see if there is an improvement in my eyesight. Obviously I want to be cautious about this and would appreciate any feedback you might be able to provide.
Many thanks
I hear the sofirn is very bright… you will be able to tell as soon as you shine it at your eyelids… you can reduce the intensity by holding the light farther away. and you can diffuse it with a layer of scotch tape
the 6cm, (where did you read that), would only apply if your sofirn was the same brightness as the light in the news.
btw, are you over 40?
the link on page 1 says
“The effect was not seen in younger individuals who were aged below 40.”
The Sofirn C01R is 3 mode, but still bright on low.
Don’t know about the Sofrin units. Also we use 670nm or longer. Under 670nm the impact is reduced. The longer the wavelength the greater the safety. I can’t quote the filter - I’m not technical but it stops the LEDs being point sources. Its plastic and has an appearance similar to thick grease proof paper. It certainly reduces the power and distributes the light relatively uniformly. The front of the eye is about 6cm from the filter.
Only 1-2 people reported that they thought their colour perception had improved subjectively, but when tested it was there is all of those over 40. So please don’t expect anything dramatic without be formally tested
best
Glen
Dear Glen,
Please check this thread if you want to take a look at Sofirn's C01R:
https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/58847
It uses Cree's XP-E2 photo red (660nm dominant wavelength). Certainly, this light is not meant for shining into anyone's eyes but with some minor changes (wide angle beam, frosted/diffused optic and a lower low-mode) it might be useful for scientific/medical purposes as well. Would be interested in testing one? I will be glad to establish communication with Sofirn (the manufacturer).
If you have any good hints where to get 670nm LEDs, I would be more than happy to know about them. The only deeper "tint" available that I know about is far red with 710-730nm. However, this wavelength seems borderline already in terms of visibility, being so close to the infrared spectrum.
Thanks a lot for being here and sharing your ideas!
Cheers,
Thomas
for 670nm try https://www.epigap-optronic.de/en/led-vi.html
The problem with 660 is that all my research is on 670. I’m sure they overlap a lot, but it is a bit of a risk
Best
Glen
I told a friend in NY to buy from Amazon 2 ABI 660nm lights,one 12W and one 24W and bring these in Greece on Saturday ,coming on holidays.Because we have 220V,while in USA 110V,could I use these or I have to put a transformer?
I see in specs that it can be used in 110/220V lines,but I don’t understand how it is this possible.
Now i see why its only the 660 bulbs available—big bloom bud boosters in grow lights.
LEDs operate on DC voltage so there is a rectifier circuit inside the base of the 120-240vac bulbs that can work with any AC voltage.
Oh nice, EPIGAP Optronic GmbH is right in the same city that I live in. :-)
The 5mm EOLD-670-524 might fit into Sofirn's C01 host which was previously used for Yuji's BC 5mm LED. I'm not sure if its driver will cope with this 670nm LED using 6mW.
https://www.epigap-optronic.de/tl_files/frontend/epigap/Datenblaetter/LED%20VIS/EOLD-670-524.pdf
The 3838 footprint of EOLS-690-496 could maybe fit in lights using a 4040 footprint like Luxeon V 4.000K 70CRI.
https://www.epigap-optronic.de/tl_files/frontend/epigap/Datenblaetter/LED%20VIS/EOLS-690-496.pdf
However, 690nm is really at the far end of the human eye's visibility. Not sure, if any manufacturer would be interested in making such flashlight in a series production.
Thank you very much arek98.
TL;DR many stuff here but, basically you said 670 to 1000 nm. So, at around 730nm a far red emitter is better suited for this therapy, doesn't it? It can also be seen, even if faintly.
By the way, how about an aspheric or plano-convex lens just above the led? It's a superb optic to evenly distribute the emitter's output.
thank you 
a 5mm LED with a lens built in…
nice and simple
a good match for the Sofirn C01 host
Does anyone know what the Power Density (mw/cm²) of this lamp is please?
I’m trying to calculate the dosage as per Complete guide to light therapy dosing - Red Light Man without having to buy a $120 solar meter. The Brightness Bins - Flashlight Wiki don’t give the Power Density.
Thanks.
with all due respect, when a scientist does a study on a specific wavelength, such as 670nm, that does not mean other wavelengths dont work. It just means that they tested that one.
I think people get too caught up on trying to get the exact same LED and exact same dosage protocols…
different LEDs have different brightness levels, so distance protocols will differ.
I suggest doing some personal testing, with dim light, and reasonable caution. This stuff is not going to hurt you, if you behave in a reasonably cautious manner. So dont turn the red up to super bright and hold it directly against your eyeball
that said… here are some alternative facts:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11061-y
“Several parameters showed that green light was even more potent to stimulate proliferation and migration of endothelial cells than clinically well-established red light therapy … Blue light is also most efficient to release NO which is bound to mitochondrial and other heme proteins5, 13. NO has been shown to play a key role in wound healing.”
—
“the use of low power light in animals and humans involves almost exclusively light in red and near infrared wavelengths. Historical issues, mainly cost and availability may be related to this fact.”
I quote those to point out that not just one single frequency has biological effects.
and fwiw, I think we are talking about several different factors, here are some of them
1. mitochondria are energized by light. there are mitochondria in all our cells, not just the retina.
2. red light is specifically not rhodopsin bleaching… this speaks to dark adapted low light sensitivity
3. nerve ganglia transmit information from rods and cones to the brain. Light movement tends to promote more efficient signalling… kind of like exercise promotes increased muscle ability
4. Stimulate cell proliferation
5. Stimulate NO release.
so… given that 670nm red has biological effects of at least 5 different types
which of those three is red specific?
imo only #2
and can green light produce similar biological effects?
imo yes for all except #2
I welcome more information, these are just my opinions
I do have a red light, and am enjoying using it. I have a 0.2 lumen mode that I use cautiously on my eyes, for brief periods. I do not find the effect enjoyable, inasmuch as when I open my eyes, I find myself a bit oversensitized to daylight…
I have used the red light on a skin scrape that was red and painful. It seemed to reduce the pain, and the redness was reduced the day after, and the scab dried and came off, sooner than it might have without the photon bombardment.
I have ordered green, because Im curious to use it on cuts and bruises.
Im totally skeptical about significant vision enhancement … be it low light sensitivity, or increased color differentiation. Effects that can be measured with instruments, may not be perceivable in day to day vision, by an individual. However, I see this as an interesting educational challenge, and Im enjoying learning more about Low Level Light Therapy, including, not limited, to Red.
I dont expect my cataracts to reverse, nor do I expect my bifocal prescription to change for the better
and I dont expect to recover vision that I have lost due to Central Serous Retinopathy.
I do otoh, find the the red light helps with sore muscles, inflammation reduction, and hence healing rate. I am curious to test for myself if green has similar effects. I suspect it will.
Because mitochondria respond to light… think of them as little photoreceptors inside our cells, that when given an energy source, in the form of light, will transmit energy that fuels our life processes…
and btw
mitochondria are an ancient symbiotic bacteria that has co evolved inside our cells… not unlike a virus, but in this case, life promoting.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-origin-of-mitochondria-and-chloroplasts-14747702/
“Mitochondria … evolved from engulfed bacteria that once lived as independent organisms…. then formed an endosymbiotic relationship with the host”
What a fascinating analysis Jon Slider! Thank you.
As a layperson with zero medical or scientific knowledge I can only try to emulate what exerts have already researched.
My desire is not to improve my vision in any way but as a 66 year old film colourist I am concerned in retaining my colour perception after reading this article Declining eyesight improved by looking at deep red light | ScienceDaily
Quote from the article:
So without any knowledge and time to research, I am hoping to at least start from the same place where other expert researchers already found success.
Also have read several article implying that because eyes are extremely photosensitive, damage could occur from too much exposure. Is Red Led Light Therapy Bad for Your Eyes? Let's Find Out – PlatinumLED Therapy Lights(UVA%20and%20UVB,occur%20from%20too%20much%20exposure.
Thank you for your input and expert knowledge.
Jacek
I share your interest in preserving vision, and hope you find the dosing and other info you seek, to be comfortable using light therapy.
Since the LUMEN output of my red light is different from the output of the red light in other studies, and I dont have a sofirn C01S
the Distance to obtain a similar brightness on target, LUX, will be different for each output level.
I will be interested in learning how to do the distance calculation that equalizes for variations in lumen output of different flashlights, if you manage to sort it out.
I hope you enjoy whatever red light you choose… I recommend the experience… its fun, at my age… lol