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 hit the market ...
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 (as longtime Spa owners, we know that clients don't like being left 'unattended' for 30 minutes under an inefficent panel. They want you there). But there's more to it than our heads employing the highest output LEDs currently available.
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 ...
Of greater importance is Pulse Width calculated with Pulse Frequency,
orchestrated with the selected Wavelength. That is, it's an interacting,
three-part equation. Pulse Width / Pulse Frequency / Wavelength.
So anyone claiming an inate 'superiority' of any one specification
can be safely ignored. There is no 'one correct answer'. In fact, if one
were to plug in a DermaWave Blue Head into the control console, the modulation
parameters are adjusted because the wavelength has now been
changed. The three-part equation must (should) be altered.
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 (ours), 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. 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 'Micro-Long-Pulse' technology (far fast erthen the eye/mind can
perveive) is a DermaWave exclusive that yields an output efficiency far greater
than others ... pretty much name it.
The Joke of Joules & Other Parameters
... 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.
Now here's a specification for one of our standard photorejuvenation heads, driven by the actual DermaWave circuitry ...
28.4 joules/cm2 (per square centimeter) @ 610nm, 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 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 confirm specification parameters.