PHOTO REJUVENATION SYSTEM
Cubic 7: 5 Minutes. Done.
With just one DermaWave Planar Head, pushing over 32 square inches of light, just place at three locations. No, we're not kidding.
But, for us, it was never about rushing the Spa client out the door in 5 minutes (our co-founder owned her own Day Spa for 19 years). Rather, we wished to provide the most punch within any given time - that which we achieved back in 2001 (seems so distant, doesn't it?), when our original DermaWave PL-100 / Revision II absolutely blew away anything else out there. This, simply because we were engineers - not cookie-cutter distributors pimping me-too wares. You know the type ...
And with our massive Planar Heads, you now have the extra time to employ additional services in addition to Photo Rejuvenation within, say, a 30 minute visit. But there's more to it than our heads employing the highest output LEDs currently available. Or even our 1.7x Planar-Convex magnification lenses. Consider the following ...
Duty Cycle: What They Don't Want You to Know
- Or Even Know Themselves ...
And, by the way -- as erroneously reported on other sites -- LEDs, themselves, do not have a 50% Duty Cycle, innately -- or even an 85% Duty Cycle as another site incorrectly reports. LEDs, in fact, have no duty cycle of their own. It's the circuit to which the LEDs are mated that determines such. The same is true of solid-state lasers, by the way -- and neither is "less capable" of delivering a given Duty Cycle than the other when connected to a circuit that actually defines the parameters. Any well-versed high school Electronics student will tell you this. With regret, many people in this industry -- perhaps most, it often seems -- know less than that high school student -- by their own example ...
But in contrast to the common 50% Duty Cycle -- as defined by the driver
circuit to the LED, all DermaWave devices can produce a staggering
92% Duty Cycle with only an
8% blanking interval between the
(On) pulses. This, by any objective measurement
standard, increases the output efficiency by a stunning 85% over
any other LED pulse machine you're likely looking at. And then we
repeat this 'Long Pulse Duty Cycle' ... 64,000 times per second.
In any event, would you like to see the difference in Duty Cycle be expressed in another way -- in 'Real Time'? Okay ... We're going to slow two, side-by-side pulses way down -- to only one pulse per second -- so your eyes can readily see the difference, as well as to operate within the "refresh rate" limits of your computer monitor ...
Pssst ... If you
don't see the squares below flashing that means you took awhile to
Okay, don't expect the two pulses to be entirely synchronized with one another as your Internet connection may load the images and start the sequences at a somewhat different time. But both full pulse sequences, comprised of both On and Off cycles, are lasting for one second, total -- before the next pulse sequence begins. It may be easier to view one pulse sequence at a time -- first the one on the left, with a 50% Duty Cycle -- being off (or 'black') half of the time ... And then view the pulse on the right, noticing how brief the Off portion of the cycle is (the 8% 'blanking interval'), resulting in a 92% On time. Said another way, if your computer was a Photo Rejuvenation machine (don't you wish?), the pulse light to the right is giving your face 85% more exposure. And in DermaWave machines, we're giving you that pulse 64,000 times per second. Again, we're showing you the difference at a very slow rate of only one pulse per second for demonstration purposes, but the theorem remains constant at any and all pulse rates, fast or slow.
This 'Long-Pulse' Duty Cycle -- delivered 64,000 times a second -- is
a DermaWave exclusive that yields an output efficiency far greater than,
say ... Rejuvelight, Revitalight, PhotoActif ... pretty much name it.
The Joke of Joules ... We may get
around to devoting an entire article to this in the near-future, but in the
interim ... If you were a device manufacturer that employed LEDs in your
design (such as we do), and you were to order LEDs in the raw from the
Opto-Electronics industry that produces them, requesting a particular 'joules'
specification, you'd be greeted with ..... a blank stare. Why? Because no
matter what you've heard or have even read in 'skin magazines'
(principally filled with articles submitted by those associated
with distributors, posing as objective and unbiased writers - with the
magazine's full knowledge), LEDs aren't typically measured in 'joules'. (Read
that again, if you must). Lasers, okay (related to a 1 second constant).
IPL flashlamps, yes (related to a 1 second constant, as well).
LEDs ... ummm, not so much. This, because a joule rating can be so wildly
and creatively fudged as it relates to LED output, all while generously presented
with entirely incomplete and misleading information that allows for most
any number or rating of one's choosing. There's more to the story, you see.
There usually is ... Give us one photorejuvenation device - any
one - and we can provide you with a variety of 'joule' ratings and
specifications. It all depends on ...
As you might imagine, most who try to sell you a device by the Numbers Game, do so by choosing the most 'favorable light' (no pun) that provides the highest numerical value.
Ways to Fudge include ...
Here are a few examples ... '9 Joules/cm2 in 90 seconds' ... or '60 Joules in 90 seconds' ... or '80 Joules/cm2, per session'. None of these are worthy of comparison or consideration. Sorry, we know many of you have worked so hard, and have done so much note-taking homework already ... based on dupery. In fact, in response to the 'Numbers Game' one popular photorejuvenation machine distributor boasted two very different specifications in the space of a single year -- without a single design or part revision. They simply "recalculated" the math ... in a most calculating manner.
Now here's a specification for one of our standard photorejuvenation heads, driven by the actual DermaWave circuitry ...
22.4 joules/cm2 (per square centimeter) @ 590nm, 92% Duty Cycle, 60 seconds, at surface (actual skin surface, not LED dome surface).
If you don't see the kind of specicifity that we've provided above, then any nebulously incomplete ratings you encounter can be safely ignored and, indeed, should be ...
In a quick related aside, it gets worse ... Because there's no independent review of equipment in this industry (such as there is for cameras, audio equipment, and automobiles - toasters, even), too many people in this field are free to simply 'make it up', as they go - knowing that there's no one to actually check the specification claims, least of all ... you. And, no ... the FDA doesn't affirm specification parameters.
Complete Review Every 90 Days ... As the industry's only original source designer and producer of our own devices - without having to 'farm it out', we produce at a 'just in time' production pace, relative to immediate demand. With this, we have the exclusive luxury to survey the Opto-Electronics industry every 3 months for the 'hottest' LEDs in current production. Sometimes there's something new available... sometimes we have to wait for the next 3 month review. This certainly is far more timely than the some-odd 5 years others have to sit-out, apprehensively waiting for their own stock depletion -- particularly in a rapidly-changing technology sector. As such, the DermaWave you purchase on this day will feature the highest output devices currently available, outside of experimental prototype units not officially in mass production.
That's more than power. That's empowerment ... enjoyed by no other.