PHOTO REJUVENATION SYSTEM
LED Skin Care Technology
|From NASA, to Wavelengths,
to Penetration Levels, to Duty Cycles, to Wave Destruction an extended
read because it regrettably has to be
In the skincare industry, related to LED technology, you may have heard it all which shouldn't be confused with actually knowing it all. Because, as in many arenas, what we 'hear' and what we have read can't always be relied upon as truth in the absolute sense. Make coffee and strap yourselves in, people. We've got something of a ride ahead
NASA Didn't Actually Invent Or Develop The LED and to describe it even as 'NASA Technology', in any proprietary sense, is a bit of a stretch, including many of the associated modalities.
But seemingly most distributors of LED Photo-Rejuvenation devices want you to think so (or worse - think so, themselves) as if it should matter in any event. Still, they woo you into believing youre buying the latest in Space Age Technology that youre getting the skincare tech enjoyed by The Jetsons, in short. And who, after all, knows more about science than frigging NASA? That, alone, should sell you. Indeed, some LED skincare distributors even put images of the Space Shuttle hurling through space in their promotions to seemingly prove it (or at least underscore it). Moreover, as so many makers and distributors of 'LED Skincare Machines' essentially copy one another's 'promotional templates', this piece of folklore has been repeated so often its been regarded as fact in absolute terms. But it isnt. Not quite. Not ... really.
The origins of the LED, it can be argued - or suggested - goes back to 1907, in Marconi Labs but that would might be a bit of a reach. Its then that it was discovered that applying a low DC voltage to silicon crystal emitted a (very) small amount of light. In 1927 the first white paper on solid-state (non-filament like an LED) light emission was published. Then things kind of came to a standstill during a depression and a World War. It was in 1955 that an engineer working at RCA observed that some light could be emitted from an electrical diode (L.E.D., as an acronym for Light Emitting Diode). Fast-Forward to 1961, when engineers at Texas Instruments developed an infrared LED. It couldnt be seen by the human eye, technically, but it was there. In 1962, General Electric created the first visible-light LED. It was red. A bit dim by today's standards, yes - but it surely glowed.
Now, for those of us who were interested in electronics as kids (we were a weird and eccentric bunch), we could walk into any Radio Shack store in the early 70s and buy LEDs off the shelf. Hell, reaching back into our own, rather extensive electronics parts catalog archives, here they were then featured in the Radio Shack catalog in 1974.
Prior to that, Radio Shack had an in-store catalog where LEDs could be had in 1971 some 10 years prior to the first Space Shuttle launch of 1981. And, as children, we didn't have to break into Area 51 to get them. Moreover, LEDs had already begun to show up consumer electronics, such as FM stereo receivers, as indicator lights replacing the small incandescent or neon bulbs used previously.
So, what of NASA? In truth, their first use of LEDs was as indicators lights (much like FM stereo receivers) because they were very light in weight and had very low power consumption two things of significant interest to those engineering spacecrafts. But what the skincare industry refers to pertains to NASA's non-space exploration of some LED wavelengths being used for cell regeneration and other forms of bio-stimulation in both humans and plants. To advance these explorations looking for higher-output LEDs of selected wavelengths, they essentially farmed out the engineering aspects of these LEDs to an electronics manufacturing firm who worked in unison with the Medical College of Wisconsin, with both keeping in communication with NASA as the 'end client' via The Marshall Space Flight Center. This led to what became colloquially know as the 'NASA LED', but others such as Fairchild and National Semiconductor were also working on increasingly higher-output LEDs and, in fact, what was described as the first 'high-brightness' LED would date back to 1976. The 'NASA LED', as called, would be a creation of the 1990s. But there's more
NASA's interest in using 'light application' of particular wavelengths for cell regeneration and bio-stimulation was prompted by research and light-based modalities already established in the late 1960s just using low-level lasers, initially in place of LEDs.
None of this is to slight or to, in any way, diminish the work of NASA. We love NASA and grieve every time they have to endure funding cutbacks. But moreover, they aren't trying to promote a product. Others are. It's called 'piggyback marketing' trying to associate oneself with the better recognized and accomplished endeavors of others as old as Madison Avenue, itself. But this promotional ploy would be the equivalent of a maker of frying pans proclaiming that their product is based on NASA technology because it uses Teflon which many people believe NASA was also responsible for. It was invented in 1938 by DuPont. NASA simply used the pre-existing technology as they did with LEDs (in addition to expanding on pre-existing research). NASA also didn't invent Velcro as another myth-buster. We're just setting the record straight here in an industry our industry that often gets so much wrong ... or 'not wholly accurate', to be more kind. And "innacurracies" continue to plague many things, with increased frequency, as we'll see
By the way ... None of the NASA wavelengths (680nm, 730nm, 880nm) that were used individually in isolation, not in combination are employed in truly professional photo-rejuvenation equipment, with most all operating below 650 nanometers for cosmetic / esthetic applications - and with reason.. Much has been explored since NASA with other and more specific targets. There has also since been some notable advances in LED technologies, themselves. But let's explore further ...
There IS no ONE 'BEST' wavelength, combination of wavelengths, pulse frequency, or pulse width ('duty cycle')
Many of you have perused the internet skincare boards where subjects related to photo-rejuvenation / photo-modulation frequently discuss the best wavelength (in nanometers) for light-based modalities. Some come across as authoritarian and definitive in tone, but are really rehashes of something someone read somewhere else, presented as a 'voice of experience'. The problem: This is no one best wavelength for photo-rejuvenation, outside what might be considered as a range of wavelengths, from around 585nm to nominally 660nm. While it can be generally said (with some nuanced exceptions) that 'red' wavelengths leaning towards 'the low 600s' approaching amber do something of a better job with pushing lymphatic fluids, and somewhat higher numbers (longer wavelength) do a bit better with red-based anomalies such as Rosacea, there's more to the story ...
Particularly as it relates to photo-modulation (pulsed output), the wavelength is only one part of a three-part equation: Wavelength / Pulse Frequency / Pulse Width. Changing any one of these parameters will influence the parameters of the other two. Each can be considered as a sliding scale with cross-interaction among and between the parameters. For example, exploring two different 'red' LEDs, 635nm and 660nm, a well-versed design engineer will adjust the number of pulses per second (frequency) against the pulse width (how long each, individual pulse lasts in time sometimes referred to as 'duty cycle'). Juggling each of these three parameters can yield the optimum results for a given LED, regardless of which particular LED is chosen for the design (within a wavelength range). In short, there are a range of usable wavelengths possible without any one in isolation possessing any innate superiority in the general sense. It's just how one plays the numbers in that three-part equation at the engineering end.
But yes, there's still a little more. There's always more
Aside from a 635nm LED having eight times the optical output of a 650-660nm LED (with the latter almost invariably being 'consumer-electronics' LEDs, not true MED-Grade) if all other parameters were equal there are surely some advantages to using LEDs that are lower than the 650-660 nanometer range. Again, one can get a better lymphatic push with LEDs at around 635nm or below while still being able to successfully address issues such as Rosacea and other ruddy-type problems. But to argue a decisive superiority between 625nm and 635nm, say, is without merit when other parameters in their respective outputs are adjusted properly. In fact, it might be useful to consider that the once-popular (and expensive) GentleWaves units (company sold long ago to another who oddly never pursued it further) got their FDA approval for esthetic applications with LEDs operating at 590 nanometers, looking amber/yellow to the eye.
So why have 650-650nm LED wavelengths been somewhat popular in more recent days? They didn't used to be not for cosmetic / esthetic applications. But an increasing number of 'photo-rejuvenation' devices both 'at-home' units, as well as an increasing number of those cited as 'professional' devices have started to use 'consumer electronics' LEDs ... Operating at 650-660nm, they remain the least expensive LEDs to use. As these were the first wavelengths commercially available in the 1970s, they're most commonly used in a number of consumer applications. They're made by the bagfuls. Millions upon millions of them. The massively high production numbers of this wavelength makes them the most inexpensive of all LEDs known as it relates to parts costs.
Still, there are those who might argue that LEDs in the 650-660nm range having a somewhat longer wavelength will penetrate more deeply. But the truth is there's more to that story and we'll be covering that further down in an upcoming section along with the some of the key differences between 'consumer-electronics' LEDs and those more regarded as scientific / MED-grade LEDs later on. For now, just make a couple of mental notes on what you've just read in the paragraphs above. But let's move on to 'Duty Cycle'
Some years ago we read one website on the Internet proclaiming that LEDs have a 50% 'Duty Cycle', whereby they're 'on' half of the time and 'off' half of the time. True to what is far too commonly internet form, that would be flatly false. LEDs have no innate duty cycle of their own. They're steady-state in output. Only a circuit they're connected to can modulate their on-off state (duty cycle) when applicable, such as in modulated photo-rejuvenation. What is true is that the 50% Duty Cycle is among the most popular used by many distributors of LED photo-rejuvenation machines that modulate whether proving best for a given LED wavelength or not (remember, it's a three-part equation where 'duty cycle' really refers to 'pulse width' in engineering terms). Why then, so popular? Again, it often comes down to production costs. A '50% Circuit' that 'blinks' is readily available as an inexpensive, ready-made, off-the-shelf circuit that's used in many products including bicycle safety flashers and such.
And yet we read of one 'study' that proclaimed that the 50% Duty Cycle proved 'best' for collagen regeneration. The problem: That might have proven true as it related to the particular LED wavelength in use combined with the pulse frequency (how many pulses per second) as part of that three-part equation. But change any one of the two parameters surrounding the 'duty cycle' and 'the show's over'.
As a general rule, longer duty cycles (longer pulse width) will have greater exposure efficiency as there's more 'on-time' than 'off-time' to the cycle. Engineer the long-pulse to work best with a given wavelength by also adjusting the number of pulses per second, and you're good to go. Many pulse modulation units 'blink' at a rate far faster that the eye/mind can perceive, it should be noted
The eye and, more significantly, the mind begins to integrate the pulses as perceived continuous light when the pulse rate approaches 20 pulses per second by way of a phenomenon known as the 'Persistence of Vision' where the mind holds onto what it's just seen for a fraction of a second and can 'blend' it with the next repetitive event. It's essentially what has always allowed motion picture to work. In the theater, you're essentially watching 24 frames (think 'pulses') coming out of the projector gate that you perceive as continuous motion. These days, 'digital projection' is more common in modern movie houses, but the same theory (and practice) applies.
So what's the 'best' pulse frequency? Again, there is no 'best' as it has to relate to the other two operational parameters. Some pulse circuits are blazingly fast. Others are so slow they can be detected by the human eye with ease. Here's something of a trend, however. While not definitive in the absolute sense, a visible pulse rate would be far more commonly associated with LED-based pain relief devices (which so many photo-rejuvenation units incorrectly copied from) and aren't generally applicable as being best for esthetic purposes. With regret, there are devices where the 'blink rate' is made to be deliberately visible because it impresses with something of a 'light show' at skincare conventions whether it proves to be the most effective or not, based on the other parameters. This should come as no surprise as the skin care industry is no less capable of 'flash' than any other product sector.
In a related aside, some may have observed and counter that high-powered IPL (Intense Pulse Light) units operate as a notably slow pulse rate. The thing is that's principally because that technology has to (in addition to taking a different approach, entirely). Most are 'flash tube' based. An electrical capacitor has to first 'fill-up' (charge) before it rapidly dumps its stored energy into the flash tube. In fact you know how you often have to wait for your camera flash to be ready to fire? It's the same thing. You and your flash are waiting for a capacitor to charge up. IPL units are just like that, only their flash tubes are operating at a specific wavelength. And, again their entire approach to light-based skincare is different, often including another set or modalities.
Before we move on, let it be said that we don't wish to imply that those who haven't struck an intelligent balance or engineering 'recipe' are producing products that 'don't work outright, per se. Rather, what we are saying is that there are an abundance of LED products (now, more than ever) great and small, cheap and pricey that haven't been even nearly optimized. Much more could otherwise be coaxed, but whether it be to reduce production costs or yes a matter of distributor technical ignorance or both, so much more could be pulled from the skincare procedure and at a much faster rate. Some will never know.
A Deeper Look at Wavelength Penetration
Here's a subject that's been treated and discussed in such a 'definitive' way, you wouldn't think there'd be anything more to consider. After all, red wavelengths penetrate deeper into the skin and underlying tissue than blue wavelengths, right? And 'near-infrared' penetrates further, still. And surely, the deeper the penetration, the better (not inviting jokes, here). But, alas again there's more to the story
With some variations, you may see different penetration levels stated for given wavelengths A 4mm depth for blue, say and 10+mm for LEDs operating somewhere in the red range of wavelengths, as examples. But what happens when that blue LED hits the 4mm mark? Does the light simply stop? Does it hit a brick wall of some sort? Is there a magic and invisible switch of some kind that ceremoniously turns it off? In a word, no. It keeps going until it encounters something decidedly opaque that brings it to an end or at least prompts an extreme and rapid level of attenuation. Let's consider this more as it relates to penetration levels
In the actual sciences regrettably too often at odds with what you've read in our skincare industry the penetration parameters are described as follows: 'Penetration Depth' reflects how deep any electromagnetic radiation (that would include 'light') can penetrate into a given material (including the body), more specifically defined as the level when the light falls to nominally 37% of its original (lumen) value. That is, no brick wall; no magic off switch. It can keep going, if with further attenuation (true, even in 'open air' by way of 'The Inverse Square Law but that's another subject). All of this is significant
Note that, as more specifically defined correctly by the scientific community, they use the very important words referring to the light source's "original value" (KEYWORD ALERT!). So, technically, if we were to have a blue LED of a higher luminance level than another red LED, at a 4mm penetration target, the blue LED could have a notably higher lumen level at that target than the 'deeper penetrating' red and the same could be said even at a 10mm target. Remember, the light keeps traveling even after it reaches the 37% attenuation point. In other words, it's not simply the stated, nominal penetration level of a given LED but of greater practical significance how much lumen level exists at a given target, independent of its wavelength. Said another way, it's not simply the numerical value given for penetration levels in millimeters, but how much power you have when you get there. This is why true, professional-level photo-rejuvenation devices aim for the highest lumen level output available from modern LED technology. But wait. There's even more
Let's introduce you to what will likely be a new term and concept for many of you because the skincare industry never talks about it, perhaps leading us to believe that they don't know much of it. It's called 'Absorption Coefficient'. It sounds pretty esoteric and involved, doesn't it? Still, it's every bit as important arguably more so than 'stated' nominal penetration depth
Let's take the comparison between the red and blue LED we spoke of above only this time, they'll have identical lumen outputs. Depending upon the complexion at hand, a blue LED can potentially 'push deeper' than the red LED operating at the same output level. Say what? Yes
Let's take an easy example of something you may frequently encounter: Rosacea. This red-based skin anomaly will have a much higher absorption rate relative to red light than any other wavelength. It is, in effect, why you see Rosacea as 'red' in the first place (same for a piece of red construction paper, for that matter). The red wavelength will be absorbed like a sponge by the Rosacea and won't have much projection to a deeper level beyond it. In this instance as just one instance the 'shallower' blue wavelength will shoot right past it to a deeper level that the red LED of the very same luminosity. There's good news in this! You want the red wavelengths to be absorbed by the Rosacea for maximum benefit.
But it might be noted that this notion extends outside of Rosacea. We just picked an easy to understand example. Indeed, there can be different 'absorption coefficients' for each Fitzpatrick skin type, light to dark. Consider this in a related matter LEDs with wavelengths at or below 635 nanometers will better push the excess lymphatic fluids out of the face and this is directly related to the absorption coefficient, independent of its 'penetration level'. Let's take a quick Field Trip to the water ...
But what makes the absorption coefficient potentially more important than the nominally-stated penetration depth level of a given LED wavelength in practical, real-world terms? Whether using Red, Blue or Green LEDs any one of them as it relates to the face (in addition to the décolleté, generally), you'll hit skull before you run out of light 'oomph'. So the take-away here is as long as you're using high-output LEDs used in genuinely professional machines you should have little practical concern regarding penetration levels of any particular wavelength. There would be a greater argument and consideration for Body Treatments, but you're not likely to be using a shallow-depth blue head for acne on one's upper thigh. As to infrared or 'near-infrared', these longer wavelengths have only been approved by the FDA for mild to moderate pain relief never for cosmetic / esthetic purposes ever.
Monochromatic Vs. Polychromatic: Isn't Having More Than One LED Wavelength In A Head Better Or At Least More Convenient & Less Costly?
Think again. Because the answer to such a question is, most generally, no.
Devices that operate two wavelengths at once will encounter a piece of high school physics as it relates to light: Destructive Interference - where two (or more) different waveforms collide and have a cancellation effect, reducing or eliminating the desired wavelengths if they were otherwise used in isolation. Like two pebbles thrown into a pond, where the two resulting waves collide in the overlap, the individual waves become disturbed.
Something easy to see with the human eye as Destructive Interference in action - would be when one combines blue and red light, say. These two wavelengths exist at opposite ends of the rainbow and, used in combination, beat one another up, as if 'natural enemies' of one another. The eye will see the mix as magenta (as a direct result of destructive interference). That is, neither pure red or pure blue, along with their base wavelengths, exists anymore nor their attendant benefits, not in full. Each has been significantly diminished by the other and magenta, odd though it may seem, doesnt actually exist in nature - not as part of the rainbow. Its a synthesized color. The two waves combined may result in the same amplitude, but the final output doesnt represent either of the two original waves. And all of this is true regardless of the relative output amplitude between the waves where either wavelength may have a lower output than the other. Thats just two different sized pebbles cast into the same pond.
In fact, hell Given that so many in the skincare industry speak of NASA, here's an explanatory graphic we located some years ago from NASA's own website that covered the very concept of Destructive Interference
There you go, NASA aficionados. So while two (or more?!) wavelengths in the same head particularly when operating at the same time may seem 'convenient' and 'less costly', it can potentially cost you big time as it relates to the speed and quality of the result. This is not "a matter of opinion", people. It's Physics and not even particularly esoteric physics. Think High School Physics. Related to the same, here's a mind-blower: Take primary red, blue and green LEDs (all being used in skincare) of equal output amplitudes, fire them all into the same space, and you'll end up with white light.
Want a practical example of detructive interference in application? Good enough. Fog lights - should your car be so equipped. They're amber for a reason. For while we perceive fog a 'gray', it actually contains a high blue component. The amber portion of the spectrum assists in canceling the blue spectrum in fog by way destructive interference. Yes, 'red' could also be used, but amber offers better general visibilty for the driver because of the human eye's non-linear spectral sensitivity. In any event, imagine then, firing off a red LED in the presence of a blue LED (which would serve up an even higher level of destructive interference, wholly independent of the human eye).
But is there a solution? Kind of even though potentially creating another problem For heads that might contain both red and blue in the same casing, there needs to be a function that will shut one of the two wavelengths down completely not simply 'dimming' one. In short, you'd select either red or blue in our example. But there is a potential compromise in this form factor concerning LED 'real estate' that is, the layout of the LEDs. Every LED wavelength needs to take up its own space. Consider each wavelength red and blue being laid out in respective rows, side by side. What happens is that each wavelength row has to be interrupted (separated) by an adjacent row that's covering the other wavelength. In the aggregate, you've now reduced the output, per cm/2, to nominally one-half for each wavelength of what it otherwise would've been if just one LED wavelength had fully occupied the entire space, instead. But there's more
In an effort to obtain relatively even coverage among the LEDs of a common wavelength when they've been 'space-interrupted' separated by a different LED type, the projection angle of each LED now has to be widened. That seems simple enough, but it can come with a cost With all other parameters being equal, the broader the LED beam, the lower the lumen output of the LED, reducing the per cm/2 exposure yet again. So, you now have two strikes against you all when you thought you had gotten 'the best value' with a multi-wavelength head "in one convenient location". And if the mistake had been made of operating the two wavelengths at once in the same instant that means three strikes.
But let's walk this back just a bit As it relates to the optical distribution of a given wavelength, putting the collective output power aside for the moment, we can calculate that having two wavelengths nestled closely together, side by side, is feasible (if, again, each wavelength can be turned on and off individually). Yes, you'll still have about one-half the power for each of the two wavelengths present, but as it relates to projection angle without excessively spotty coverage yes, 'doable'.
The far bigger problem one of exponential proportions is when one now endeavors to load three wavelengths as an 'all in one' form factor. The physical spacing of each, individual wavelength reaches beyond the LED's capability for even coverage even using the widest LED projection angle available (120 degrees) at close, actual operational distances. And you don't want your LED head or panel located a foot or so away, rapidly losing lumen output power with distance by way of 'The Inverse Square Law' (yet another piece of High School Physics). Yes, the long-throw distance will eventually integrate the separated beam angles, but as such a distance it simply won't matter anymore.
Two more things as it relates to this section before we continue to the following section
There have long been 'RGB' LEDs where any of the three primary colors (wavelengths) red, blue, and green can be output from the same LED. Moreover, their inputs are 'switchable' so one could select the individual wavelengths, outputting just one at a time. So wouldn't it be cool if we used these for photo-rejuvenation devices where all of the tri-color LEDs could be nestled closely to one another while having the ability to output each, individual wavelength? Yes, it would be very, very cool, indeed. But there's a problem
While LEDs are innately cool-running devices at their exterior on the outside they can be relatively 'hot' (at least in circuit component terms) on the inside. A tri-color, 'RGB' LED essentially has to cram three LED component 'dies' into one LED housing. To do this, each individual interior component has to be made much smaller. With this, the internal components have far less ability to dissipate heat away from themselves. If one tries to run them at 'high power' as what's needed in professional photo-rejuvenation devices the LED would go into 'thermal shutdown' (as an engineering term). Said another way the LED would self-destruct. Ouch.
As advances are made in future LED technologies, the RGB Tri-Color LEDs would show great promise for photo-rejuvenation therapies. But as of this day regrettably, no. And we've been waiting for 15 years as of this date (which we pretty much anticipated, knowing what was involved).
Okay just one more thing as it relates to 'destructive interference' among two (or more) LEDs operating 'at the same time' for future reference ... There is a somewhat esoteric, tricked-out piece of circuit magic where two different LED wavelength types red and blue, say can seemingly be on at the same instant as seen by the human eye (giving that 'magenta glow' that you generally don't want), but not 'seen' as such by the human skin. The skin and its underlying structure will only 'see' the individual wavelengths in any given instant. To date, we've yet to see a single LED photo-rejuvenation device employ the technique. To pull it off successfully to do it well takes design intelligence and great circuit acumen, but we're not here to design and describe circuit topography for other device makers or distributors. We just would feel remiss if we didn't mention it, even as other problems would need to be addressed, with a minimum of sacrifice.
An LED is An LED is An LED Not.
And so one wonders why professional, LED-based photo-rejuvenation machines as 'so expensive' when one can buy a Bell & Howell 'Light Bar' with 60 (white) LEDs for $20, as seen on TV, and ultimately place it in the garage over the workbench. And then there's the 'Atomic Beam' LED lantern for the same price. More so, there are those who ponder why there are handheld LED skincare devices that are only $100 ~ $200, say while there are dedicated professional systems that hover over the $10,000 mark. Funny The very same people won't question why there are stereo loudspeakers that cost well over $1,000, even $10,000(!) each when they can buy a pair of speakers for $100 at Best Buy. And the Best Buy speakers are even 'larger' in physical size! They additionally don't ponder why professional photographers use expensive and rigged-out Nikon or Canon camera systems with expensive lenses when there's a camera in one's phone.
We've heard a few of our Esthetician friends tell us stories of how a couple of their Esthetician friends bought LED devices on eBay or Amazon wherever, having seen that the LEDs operate at the 'same wavelength' as "the big boys". Some even 'blink', so it must be 'the same thing'. This sort of decision, not simply out of a willingness to believe, but a desire to believe. We kind of understand it. The motif can be seen in a number of product markets, wholly unrelated to LED devices. But as it relates to professional skincare, for every 'contraption' in a Day Spa, there ultimately will be a 'Home Shopping Network' offering or what we call 'The Home Version of The Game', somewhat akin to 'Jeopardy' in a cardboard box.
There are some few Estheticians who reason that they can buy an inexpensive LED unit, simply put 'Photo Rejuvenation' or 'LED Light Therapy' on their menu and still charge $95 a session for it You don't want to be among them. You'll not only be hurting an industry filled with other, fellow-Estheticians - while diminishing the reputation of LED applications, but you'll also end up hurting yourself in time, delivering diminished results relative to the Spa a block over that's operating a true Pro machine - not one simply labeled as 'Pro'
Moreover, imagine the Esthetician delivering a 'Photo Facial' with an inexpensive unit they believe is "the same thing" and one week the client realizes they're being treated with something that looks oddly reminiscent of something they saw on late-night TV. They easily calculate that they can buy "the same thing" for around $150, say, and do "the same thing" at home outside of the initial, relatively low cost. In either event, they're not getting all of what photo-rejuvenation is capable of either from the thrifty Esthetician or by way of their own, at-home treatments.
But to make matters worse, over more recent years aside from the inexpensive units that are often essentially LED 'flashlights', just loaded with 'colored' LEDs, rather than white we've seen an increasing number of somewhat pricey offerings (>$1500), cited as 'professional', that are also using common, garden-variety, consumer-electronic components including the LEDs (originally designed for ornamental purposes). It's become more of a 'buyer beware' market than what we would've previously thought possible, particularly in the past 5-6 years, say. But let's consider just a couple of key differences in LEDs
To abbreviate the numerous nuances and 'qualities' of LEDs, it might be most useful to break them down into two general groups: Consumer Electronics LEDs (that have surrounded you for years in other products, right down to the very same infrared LEDs used in your TV remote) ... and then those that would be regarded as Scientific / Medical-Grade LEDs
First, that which have been classified as Scientific / MED-Grade LEDs have a very high 'flux level' resulting in an extremely high output, relative to the far more prevalent consumer-electronics LEDs. In fact, you wouldn't want to have these 'high-end' LEDs staring at you (or you at them) in something like your FM stereo receiver, no less in the dashboard of your car. While they won't actually 'blind you', many might simply describe them as 'blinding'. They're notably bright if varying with wavelength because the human eye is more sensitive to some colors than others, being non-linear in sensitivity. While there are consumer LEDs that might be considered as 'bright' (those aside from 'white' LEDs used in flashlights, say), none will compare to this high-end genre of LEDs. Some few designs use 'optical amplification' in addition.
Secondly, Scientific / MED-Grade LEDs are very accurate relative to their stated wavelength specifications. Back when we were buying consumer-grade LEDs at Radio Shack as kids, you could flip the package around and read the general specifications (before RS did away with them in their packaging). They'd commonly read 660nm +/- 10%. Do some quick math in your head and you'll soon realize just how huge of a variation that 10% can be, relative to 660. In truth, they far more commonly measured to be within 5%, but that's still a large 'tolerance' variation on either side of the stated 'nominal' wavelength. This, as people debate over which is 'better' 635nm or 650nm even though they might not know which actual peak wavelength they're holding in their hand. But let's consider this further
Even in these more contemporary times, a consumer-grade LED can still possess as much as a fairly large 5% variation relative to stated wavelength. Does this matter when, as we stated before, there is "no one 'best' wavelength"? Yes, it can still matter and very much so for those designing and producing photo-modulation circuits to drive the LEDS. Let's consider how
Remember that for modulated photo-rejuvenation devices, there are three parts to the 'recipe' equation: Wavelength / Pulse Frequency / Duty Cycle (Pulse Width). To do things well, it's something of a delicate recipe where the proportions of ingredients matter. Really matter. But imagine working on this or any three-part equation where the absolute value of one parameter isn't entirely known. Without it, you can't accurately calculate or adjust the other two parameters to maximize performance. And the faster the pulse, the more accurate the other parameters need to be. That's why true, Scientific /MED-Grade LEDs have a guaranteed accuracy tolerance of less that 1%. In fact, when measured, they usually fall within 0.5% of stated specification. This accuracy, by the way, can also be quite important with non-modulated circuits for other scientific applications in no way related to photo-rejuvenation. It's why they're made.
So combine that with again much higher and more efficient output, along with the decidedly tighter wavelength tolerances. Now add the fact that very few in the Opto-Electronics industry even make them in the first place resulting in low production runs relative to the consumer electronics LEDs that are made in the millions by many opto-electronic manufacturers. Indeed, 'select grades' are available for all electronic 'semiconductor' devices which is what LEDs are as well as for 'passive' components such as resistors and capacitors with tight tolerances as used in precision pulse circuits where the timing is a matter of milliseconds.
All considerations combined, you now have a comparatively pricey LED often ten to twenty times that of a generic LED as a 'part cost', depending on selected wavelength. It's, again, not too far removed from those $1,000 speakers relative to the $100 Best Buy Specials. It comes down to the quality of components within those expensive 'speaker boxes', from the individual drivers (woofers and tweeters, say), to the internal crossover network you never see as a frequency dividing network. The reason for it all? Simply a better product yielding a better result in very realizable terms. And yes it cost some money to produce such a product. Still, with regret, in the skincare industry we've seen hardware examples of all types, not just the LED-based that are selling you "$1,000 speakers using the $100 components" ...
In consideration of all of the above, we again state that those devices that have taken the 'economy route' and/or have used the outer fringes of a "fudge factor" are not necessarily completely bogus, producing zero results. They're just operating on those outer fringes of "what could have been" had the devices been well engineered and optimized. But do consider that being a 'Professional' is about 'optimization'. It, in fact, defines professionalism by way of skill, craft, experience and knowledge where many of those professions require professional tools to achieve that optimization. It's what they come to you for as something they readily can't do at home. Better knowledge and experience combined with the better tools. But even the best and most experienced of Estheticians can't coax the most from the sub-par. Still, with regret, as LED-based modalities have increasingly become part of the skincare/wellness lexicon among the general public (a good thing for you), there's been an exponential increase of those who have hastened to jump on the LED equipment bandwagon and doing so with the least-expensive production cost as just one path of least resistance. Not just the inexpensive examples but that which has too frequently extended into what are often pricey offerings.
But before we head to close, we give you some interesting, quick tidbits in
In An Aside The Bonus Round!
1 The FDA has, indeed, approved some specific modalities associated with LED applications (both esthetic and pain-related) within a given set of guidelines. Great! But as it relates to devices that have been specifically 'cleared' by the FDA, know this (as a jaw-dropper for some of you): The FDA never actually tests no less even sees the devices they 'clear' (in the esthetic /pain-relief sector). It's mere paperwork where a manufacturer or distributor indicates that their product offering falls within the general guidelines that have already been established by the FDA. That is, 'clearance' is based on the information the manufacturer or distributor provides 'on paper'. Then one writes a check to go along with the paperwork. We know. Weve been there. As such, 'FDA Clearance' doesn't actually suggest any innate superiority. This very notion extends into another area often used to impress
2 Patents. The US Patent and Trademark Office receives thousands upon thousands of patent applications each year. The majority, after what can sometimes be a long backlog in instances ('patent pending') are 'approved' just about 89% of them, currently. And as some who work for the Patent Office would tell you, the lion's share of those are marginal in concept with others being well silly. Most never even make it to any marketplace, but they will have their patent filed (and approved). They merely represent someone's 'unique idea' independent of actual merit. That is, technically, you could file a patent for an eight-sided, octagon tire (because, you know, no one ever thought of it before). Yes, it would roll like crap but you'd have your patent (as one not likely to be challenged in the future).
So when a manufacturer boasts that their product "uses our patented technology", it doesn't mean they're Thomas Edison. More to the point, it in no way is an indication of supremacy. It's principally a legal protection just often used as a catch-phrase designed to impress and it often works! For much in the skincare equipment industry has increasingly become a matter of 'the staging'.
3 'Born in The USA' OR Not Many might see this as somewhat incidental, but it's still rather interesting One can have their entire circuit board made in China with the cases being fabricated in Mexico, say and as long as the circuit boards are loaded into the case within the territorial limits of the United States, one is allowed to legally state 'Made in The USA' (in our own factory!). Yeah.
NOW in closing
If Popularity Is The Benchmark Of 'The Best', Then McDonalds Makes The Best Hamburgers
Many of you like us have been at the skincare shows and conventions for a number of years. For some, as many as 20 years maybe even a bit more. Think back. We all can remember LED photo-rejuvenation machines (some of which were simply relabeled pain relief devices) that were capturing a buzz. Names you would instantly recognize. Some were, in fact, the same machine as another just dressed in slightly different clothing, carrying a different nameplate and logo. A few were proprietary designs. But among the most popular offerings in the early to mid-2000s, say so many would since become vague memories. Some are still made and sold, yes. Others, gone. For those who have 'been around' at the shows, you can probably call up the names in your head.
There will always be market cycles and trending waves of popularity. But for you long-timers, you know that today's 'Wave Peak' of popularity often becomes tomorrow's second-hand flood at Ebay.
Do your own thinking, people and yes, we've given you a fair amount to think about while only covering some of the key points (really). We openly invite you to 'check our work'. But, by our deliberate design, so much of what we've discussed can be found in any good Physics book with a section on light (or one dedicated to light behaviors) and such a book will have no product to sell you outside of knowledge. Other things, at least some of them, can be confirmed by a really good and enthusiastic student in a high school Electronics 101 class.
It's with tremendous regret that the skincare community can sometimes be the worst place to go for truly accurate information and yes that would include several 'studies' that miss key parameter elements, right out of the gate (they used to be much better in the late 90s / early 2000s, actually). You'd logically assume that some doctors went to a medical school of some kind but seemingly cut Physics class back in high school. They might have also benefitted from tapping that bright kid out of Electronics 101.
So, again do your own thinking. And, in the interest of that endeavor, we hope we've enlightened more than we've confused.
Be well and be smart,