Red Light Therapy, Lights, Supplemental Lighting

[narouz]

 

[narouz]

Narouz, here you go. See how its 130 volts?

http://www.lightbulbemporium.com/bulbri ... 0br40h.asp

Yes. Sorry. I got the voltages reversed:
-designed to run at 130V
-but operated at 120V for Peatanic Perfection

 

[narouz]

My thinking was a little scrambled,
but here are some (hopefully) clarifying thoughts on voltage.

In the US, voltage does vary locally--
that is, the voltage coming out of your wall sockets.

Most outlets are wired for what is called 110V.
But I've read that the average voltage is more like 117V.

One can measure the voltage oneself with a multimeter or voltmeter,
but I wouldn't recommend that unless you know what you're doing.
I actually have a multimeter,
and have used it to measure resistance,
but never voltage.
So I'm going to try to do that soon.
(If you don't hear from me... )

But to get to the point with where we're at with Peat and Lights and Voltage...
It would seem that in the US we are likely already set up to run
the Peat Perfect Light
and the Peat Perfect Voltage (well...very close to it, anyhow):
That is:
An infrared, reflective, clear-glass bulb designed to run at 130 volts,
but which will in practice being running in the U.S.
at around 117 volts
(close to what Peat suggests--120 volts).

So probably no Variac needed, in the U.S.

Now: all that is salient
if one wants to try to follow Peat's light-therapy ideas faithfully and strictly.
There would seem to be other promising, non-Peat prescribed light-therapy options--
options, that is, to produce the recommended Peat "Red Light" wavelengths
of approximately 600-820nm.
Halogen lighting would seem to be a legitimate option,
but Peat has not commented on them.

Also, according to peatarian's communications with Peat,
regular incandescents (the non-infrared ones) are said to be "OK" by Peat.
Personally, if part of the idea is to let the light shine into one's eyes briefly and intermittently,
I would feel safer staring at a regular incandescent
than at an infrared bulb.
So...maybe a mixture of bulbs would be ideal:
the Peat recommended infrareds to shine upon ones skin
(but not directly into one's eyes),
and then some regular incandescents to gaze at
for the seeming retinal light-therapy...?

 

[narouz]

I had an email exchange with the guy behind this website,
http://heelspurs.com/led.html,
and a long article on light and light-therapy there.
I've copied a couple of his illustrations/graphs into this thread previously.
I asked him about some of the Peat-related, red-light therapy issues
we've been exploring:

Me ("Narouz")

"Hey Scott,

A couple of follow-ups if you don't mind:

1. What kind of light do you think
delivers the most continuous wavelengths of 600nm--820nm light?
a. halogen
b. regular incandescent
c. incandescent, infrared

2. Dr. Ray Peat thinks that an infrared, 130 volt bulb, run at 120 volts,
gives off the the best balance (strongest & most continuous) of 600-820nm light.
Does this make sense to you?"

Scott replies:

"When you consider that halogen is between the sun and incandescent, and
then look at my chart below, then you cann see halogen is the best.
Likewise, if you consider that heat lamps are shifted further to the
right, then you can see they are not even as good as incandescent, let
alone halogen. You can't even see red of most heat lamps, which shows
they provide zero from 600 to 700 nm. Even 800 nm would glow red.

http://heelspurs.com/a/led/BLACK.gif"

I follow-up:

"Yes, Scott, that sure would seem to be true--based on your chart.
Can you imagine a significant shift in an infrared bulbs wavelengths
caused by running a 130V (infrared) bulb at 120V...?"

Scott replies:

"That makes it even cooler than normal which means more far infrared that
only heats the skin."

Well, let me state that I don't know anything about "Scott"'s scientific qualifications.
I can only judge by the quality of his writing as it appears at the site noted.
My take is that he seems pretty smart and forthright.
He does seem to have done a lot of research,
some of which is documented.

But my purpose was just to try to establish some basic facts about light,
not to put him forth as some impeccably credentialed scientist
presenting peer-reviewed, unimpeachable light-therapy research.
He just seems like a smart, honest guy who knows a thing or two about light basics,
at a minimum.

For us Peatians eager to jump into the wonderful world of Red Light Therapy,
I'm afraid Scott's input underlines the confusion we've been unable to escape.

On the recent "breakthrough" info relayed by the wonderful, Peat-in-touch "peatarian,"
nailing down the exact, obscure details of the Peat Preferred bulb
(Infrared reflective bulb designed for 130V but run in practice at 120V),
Scott's answer only increases the confusion.
He says that running that bulb at 120V
would decrease the energy output in the favored Peat wavelengths
of 600-820nm,
while adding more of the unhelpful far-infrared spectrums.

Furthermore, Scott believes that the kind of heat/infrared bulb recommended by Peat
is "not even as good as incandescent" in delivering light in the Peat-preferred
600-820nm wavelengths.

Well, as I've already intimated,
one dissenting view does not a Peat idea destroy.

On the other hand,
I have to say,
I haven't seen much in the way of convincing, documented argument
from Peat on this particular subject.
Maybe I have missed it.
I know his article "Aging Eyes, Infant Eyes, and Excitable Tissues,"
but beyond that I haven't seen much else
beyond his general statement that light--red light--is very important for health.

Unlike his nutritional work,
which is exhaustively documented
and thoroughly argued in voluminous detail,
his ideas on light are only sketchily outlined,
especially with regard to practical applications:
how, exactly and specifically, should we poor, befuddled, light-seeking human organisms
best avail ourselves of the correct light?
I wish I could find more graphs, details, explanations, and research from Dr. Peat.

As it stands now,
I'm inclined to trust Peat on the "red light," 600-820nm wavelengths
being the best.
But in terms of how one gets a bulb best designed to produce those wavelengths...
I'm more inclined to go in the direction of regular incandescents
and possibly the halogens.

 

[charlie]

Oh, so we are back to incandescents now? And possibly halogen. Maybe a mixture of the two would be optimal. :hanginground

Not to confuse more, but when I was researching halogens they have different ones that burn at different levels so that would affect the wavelengths to.

I am hoping one day we could without a doubt name the light that is needed, and I hope that day is soon cause winter is almost here!!!!

 

[kiran]

As it stands now,
I'm inclined to trust Peat on the "red light," 600-820nm wavelengths
being the best.
But in terms of how one gets a bulb best designed to produce those wavelengths...
I'm more inclined to go in the direction of regular incandescents
and possibly the halogens.

But is it just the 600-820nm or is the ratio of the blue light and the 600-820nm.
That is, minimizing the blue while increasing the IR.

 

[narouz]

Oh, so we are back to incandescents now? And possibly halogen. Maybe a mixture of the two would be optimal. :hanginground

Not to confuse more, but when I was researching halogens they have different ones that burn at different levels so that would affect the wavelengths to.

I am hoping one day we could without a doubt name the light that is needed, and I hope that day is soon cause winter is almost here!!!!

Well, ya know Charlie, the thing is--
the big deal, to me--
peatarian gave us the exact bulb
and the exact (mismatched) operating voltage,
directly from Dr. Peat.

For many, who have no particle of skepticism about anything Peat,
that should be the end of the confusion.

But for me,
because I do maintain some skepticism,
it just simply does not add up for me yet--
I mean The Peat Bulb.
The infrared, reflective, bulb made for 130V but run at 120V.
I'm not convinced that
that bulb is a very good at delivering the wavelengths Peat himself recommends:
600-820nm.

To my (admittedly limited :) ) mind,
Peat is recommending 2 things which are in conflict.
He says 600-820nm wavelengths are what we're after.
But the bulb he recommends doesn't seem to get us there.

 

[kiran]

To my (admittedly limited :) ) mind,
Peat is recommending 2 things which are in conflict.
He says 600-820nm wavelengths are what we're after.
But the bulb he recommends doesn't seem to get us there.

You're forgetting something. Peat says blue light causes damage to the retina, and is stressful.
So it's not just about maximizing 600-820nm, you also want to keep the amount of higher frequencies like blue light low. That's the purpose of the IR lamp. I'm pretty sure halogens generate more UV radiation, and are generally more blue.

 

[narouz]

I followed up my earlier questions to Scott at http://heelspurs.com/led.html
(see earlier in this thread)
by sending this quote by Peat to him...

"Plain incandescent bulbs are o.k., but the best kind are used by farmers for incubators, etc., and are designed as 130 volt bulbs, so when they operate on 120 volts they have a bias toward the longer wave red color, and they have an internal reflector. They are often called "infrared" or "heat lamps," but they have a clear glass front."--Dr. Ray Peat

...and then asking Scott...

(Me)
"So to make sure I'm understanding you:
the quote above from Dr. Peat...
...I think you're saying that Peat has it backwards.
That operating a bulb like that at 120V,
would yield less light in the 600-820nm spectrum (than operating it at 130V).
Right?"

...and Scott answered as follows:

"What he is talking about appears to be a "heat lamp" because he says it
has a glass font. He also says it is shifted to the red which means the
red in it must be seeable. This used to be used a lot in the food
industry, keeping food warm on the "bar" or whatever, making the food
really red in color as you went through the a la cart or whatever. You
implied "infrared bulb" which I thought was used in incubators that does
not have a glass font and does glow red. By running at 120 V a 130 V
bulb, he is simply saying how they create a "heat lamp". They simply use
an incandescent filament but make the wire a little longer as if house
voltage was 130 V. It would look like an incandescent if house voltage
was 130 V. But since house voltage is 120V it does not get as hot and
bright as usually, and everything shifts towards the "red" or 'infrared'
(same direction). This is still to the right of the incandescent spectrum
in my chart which shows it is not as good as an incandescent for healing
wavelengths. It gets the water in the skin too hot too soon. But it
feels great and heating tissue by itself is good. Chiropractors have used
these in their offices for decades. They should have been using halogen
lights instead, unless their goal was to also to apply heat as well as
light therapy. Most people thought those heat lamps in the office was a
scam, but I know it was healing. It's not as good as incandescent or
halogen, but it still works. The dose from it is smaller because the skin
gets hotter faster. The percent energy in the "healing range" is smaller.
However, now that I think about it, the white light in halogen will also
heat the skin which is really seen if the skin is dark. So the heat lamp
with water blocking is probably better if the skin is dark and if you're
going to use water blocking." [emphasis/bolding mine]

So, to sum up Scott's take:

1. Doesn't appear that the 130V heat lamp bulb (run at 120V) really helps us get
the Peat-desired 600-820nm spectrum; indeed, the intentional voltage mismatch
would seem to make the bulb less effective for the 600-820nm range.

2. Regular incandescents are much better for getting 600-820nm.

3. Halogens are even much better than incandescents for 600-820nm.

4. Interesting how Scott says chiropractors used those "Peat bulbs" in the past,
and with some real efficacy--though, again, not as effectively as regular incandescents
or halogens, unless one believes the heating component to be valuable.

At this point I'm thinking, if I make an artificial light array,
I would probably go with the halogens for shining on my skin
(and maybe just intermittently--bursts of a few minutes per hour
as Peat suggested years ago; I couldn't take 1000's of watts of halogens
blazing away at me for hours on end! )
And, ideally, I would combine that with strong regular incandescents
for staring at for a few seconds/minutes at a time
(the halogens apparently emit some pretty strong blue light,
which could be dangerous to the eye if stared at.)

Actually, I guess I would go ahead and blast myself
with both the halogens and incandescents in terms of skin (not eye) targeting.
Together they would fill-in the 600-820nm range quite strongly and continuously,
I would think.

One question mark about the halogens:
should I rig up some kind of red water filters as briefly discussed by Scott
over on his website (see above)?
Probably so, because, as I understand it,
those filters would remove unwanted wavelengths, like the blues and ultraviolets.
(but maybe those should be left unfiltered because I know that some kinds of UV, ultraviolet,
react on the skin to produce vitamin D...

The whole "retinal light therapy" thing would seem to be very scantily described by Peat.
I have seen quotes from him indicating its benefits, but only in a very general way.
His article, "Aging Eyes, Infant Eyes, and Excitable Tissues,"
discusses light and eyes,
but does not go into any detail about how best to give oneself "light on retina therapy"
(for lack of a better term).
I've read quotes from him saying that looking at (safe) bright light intermittently is healing.

 

[narouz]

To my (admittedly limited :) ) mind,
Peat is recommending 2 things which are in conflict.
He says 600-820nm wavelengths are what we're after.
But the bulb he recommends doesn't seem to get us there.

You're forgetting something. Peat says blue light causes damage to the retina, and is stressful.
So it's not just about maximizing 600-820nm, you also want to keep the amount of higher frequencies like blue light low. That's the purpose of the IR lamp. I'm pretty sure halogens generate more UV radiation, and are generally more blue.

Yes, kiran, I think keeping the blue spectrum low
is part of the equation--
but I guess the main thrust is to get the maximum, safe 600-820nm.
If one used the IR lamps,
I suppose one would avoid almost all blue light spectrum,
but at the cost of coming away with very little light energy at 600-820nm.

Now, the regular incandescents do not deliver much blue light,
and they are much stronger in the 600-820nm range.

And the halogens are much stronger still at 600-820nm.
But as you note, they do apparently also have quite a dose of blue light.
Two things:
1. I think the clear glass plate which (always?) comes with halogen bulbs
is intended to block some UV rays.
2. Scott (at http://heelspurs.com/led.html) discusses the use of red water filters
which, as I understand it, block unwanted spectrums--like the blues.

 

[narouz]

More follow-up from Scott.
I asked him (see posts preceding this one for context):

(Me)
"So by running the 130V "heat lamp" at 120V,
you would actually shift the wavelengths away from the (Peat-) desired 600-820nm,
further out into the near-infrared and beyond.
Right?"

(Scott replies:)

"Yes. Terminology: Running an incandescent light intended for 130V at 120V
is called running a heat lamp at its intended 120V. You would not run a
130V heat lamp at anything because you won't be able to buy a 130 V heat
lamp. You can buy a 130V incandescent but that don't call it that; they
call it a 120V heat lamp."

--Scott

Hmmm...wasn't that bulb we've posted earlier in the thread a 130V heat lamp...?

 

[narouz]

On the specific bulb some have put forward as the ideal Peat Light,
the Bulbrite 250BR40H‏
at http://www.lightbulbemporium.com/bulbrite_714025_250br40h.asp
which is described on their site like this:
"250 Watt 130 Volt BR40 E26 Medium Base (Standard Base) Clear Heat Lamp"

I asked in an email about the bulb.
Here is what I asked:

"1. It is, primarily, a Heat Lamp, right?
2. Could it also be called an Infrared Lamp?
3. Does it put out any visible light?
4. What do people buy these for? heating animals? heating areas inhabited by humans? other?
5. If I run one of these in USA at 120volts (they are said to be 130volts), how will that affect the bulb's output?"

A Mike Jordan answered as follows:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting www.lightbulbemporium.com

Yes, it is a heat lamp. It is not an infrared lamp. The light emitted is visible.

Typically, they are used in bathrooms and spas to provide heat when people are getting in and out of a shower or bath. There is also a coated version which is used to keep food warm.

When operated at 120V, a 130V lamp will emit approximately 10% less light than when run at 130V. However, it will also last 10-15% longer.

Sincerely,

Mike Jordan

www.lightbulbemporium.com

For what it's worth.
More data to mull.

 

[pete]

Infrared heat lamps produce some visible light (transparent or red) and infrared. All infrared lamps are heat lamps because they generate heat (infrared). Infrared heat lamps can cause fires, and they are usually quite large. For normal use and brightening a house, a normal incandescent bulb (transparent or red) is better. At the same time, even a remote control has an infrared LED.

 

[narouz]

On the specific bulb some have put forward as the ideal Peat Light,
the Bulbrite 250BR40H‏
at http://www.lightbulbemporium.com/bulbrite_714025_250br40h.asp
which is described on their site like this:
"250 Watt 130 Volt BR40 E26 Medium Base (Standard Base) Clear Heat Lamp"

I asked in an email about the bulb.
Here is what I asked:

"1. It is, primarily, a Heat Lamp, right?
2. Could it also be called an Infrared Lamp?
3. Does it put out any visible light?
4. What do people buy these for? heating animals? heating areas inhabited by humans? other?
5. If I run one of these in USA at 120volts (they are said to be 130volts), how will that affect the bulb's output?"

A Mike Jordan answered as follows:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting http://www.lightbulbemporium.com

Yes, it is a heat lamp. It is not an infrared lamp. The light emitted is visible.

Typically, they are used in bathrooms and spas to provide heat when people are getting in and out of a shower or bath. There is also a coated version which is used to keep food warm.

When operated at 120V, a 130V lamp will emit approximately 10% less light than when run at 130V. However, it will also last 10-15% longer.

Sincerely,

Mike Jordan

http://www.lightbulbemporium.com

For what it's worth.
More data to mull.

Sent that reply from Lightbulb Emporium
over to Scott at http://heelspurs.com/led.html
for his reaction (as follows):

"The specifications for the bulb are based on 120V, so if you run it at
130V, it is probably a regular incandescent bulb instead of acting like a
heat lamp. They are wrong, most of the light energy is in the infrared
even though it is very bright white light too. It will work, just not as
good as an incandescent or a halogen. If you get it, get the red version
of that model. It's not as bright to the eyes and has a "neater" feel to
it. I have about 5 different types of these that I acquired before I
realized halogens are best."

 

[narouz]

Concluding, with Scott from
at http://heelspurs.com/led.html

I asked Scott:

"So Scott,

Bottom line:
With regard to this specific (Bulbrite heat lamp, 130V run at 120V) bulb
which many regard as Dr. Peat's recommended red light bulb,
what I hear you saying is
that it is nothing special in terms of producing the 600-820nm wavelengths
noted by Peat to be the most healthy.
Actually, you seem to say it is pretty weak in those wavelengths,
and that both regular incandescents and even moreso halogens
are much stronger and more continuous in that 600-820 spectrum...
right?
(Not trying to put words in your mouth.
Just trying to make it easy for you to reply without a lot of work:>))"

And Scott replied:

"Yes."

 

[peatarian]

On the specific bulb some have put forward as the ideal Peat Light,
the Bulbrite 250BR40H‏
at http://www.lightbulbemporium.com/bulbrite_714025_250br40h.asp
which is described on their site like this:
"250 Watt 130 Volt BR40 E26 Medium Base (Standard Base) Clear Heat Lamp"

I asked in an email about the bulb.
Here is what I asked:

"1. It is, primarily, a Heat Lamp, right?
2. Could it also be called an Infrared Lamp?
3. Does it put out any visible light?
4. What do people buy these for? heating animals? heating areas inhabited by humans? other?
5. If I run one of these in USA at 120volts (they are said to be 130volts), how will that affect the bulb's output?"

A Mike Jordan answered as follows:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting http://www.lightbulbemporium.com

Yes, it is a heat lamp. It is not an infrared lamp. The light emitted is visible.

Typically, they are used in bathrooms and spas to provide heat when people are getting in and out of a shower or bath. There is also a coated version which is used to keep food warm.

When operated at 120V, a 130V lamp will emit approximately 10% less light than when run at 130V. However, it will also last 10-15% longer.

Sincerely,

Mike Jordan

http://www.lightbulbemporium.com

For what it's worth.
More data to mull.

How is the heat of this 'heat lamp' produced if it is not 'infrared'?

 

[kettlebell]

Not to digress but in the UK we run at 230 volts.

Would a standard 230 volt 300 watt incandescent kick out the desirable wavelengths? I would like some clarification.

I am assuming that if I were to plug in a 230v incandescent into a 110v socket (Via a transformer) it would kick out a lot less light and not in the desirable ranges. In other words the bulb output is built for the intended countries power supply so in the uk a normal 230v incandescent will kick out the correct desirable wavelengths.

Also a question for those who already use incandescents for this purpose -

How far from your face do you have the bulb?


Thanks everyone

 

[peatarian]

@ kettlebell - When you read the posts from the beginning you should find the answers. There are lots of quotes by Ray Peat.

 

[kettlebell]

Thanks Peatarian,

I have adjusted my questions above only those that haven't been previously discussed.

 

[Ryan999]

How to use red light?

Does red light work only when it's hitting actual skin? Or is it because it's hitting your eyes and that's how it decreases things like melatonin? How are you specifically suppose to use it?