bsmart

Well, this is shaping up to be an interesting experiment. I for one am looking forward to seeing what comes of it. I wonder about how much time is going to be required to come to a decision point on the matter. If I understand correctly, these lamps are quite different in the way they achieve their individual results. Black Sun being higher UVB, while the Philips is higher in UVA. This being the case, time will become a factor, as it usually takes a bit longer to achieve a tan 'from scratch' under a higher % UVA lamp vs. the higher % UVB lamp. Additionally, my understanding is, the UVA tan will tend to stay with you longer between repeat exposures, than the UVB tan. The reciproical is, the UVB lamp will leave an immediate impression of being INTENSE, providing some immediate redness, that the tanner won't get under the UVA lamp. The UVA tanner might not get this same initial impression. Sooooo this is shaping up to be an interesting project. Stay with it Mitzi, don't quit too early. We'll all wait with 'baited breath' to see what results.[ This Message was edited by: bsmart on 2002-09-01 14:06 ]

BooBop

bsmart, i promise i am staying with it. yes this will be a time thing and it really isn't scientific on my part. i will post the meter readings i get and more info as we go along.

Now Sam James came to my salon today. He brought his 5.0 and 7.0 meters. As I have the 4.0. I posted my 4.0 readings Saturday. Here is the other readings that I did today with the updated meters.
These are with acrylics. I didn't take them off to get the readings like I did with the original post I made.
Phillips Advantage top w/5.0 meter
18.0 19.2 20.4 = 19.2
Bottom
17.4 17.2 16.3 = 16.9
w/7.0 meter
.81 .87 .93 = .87
Bottom
.82 .92 .93 = .89

Black Sun Infinity top w/5.0 meter
20.7 20.2 18.1 = 19.6
Bottom
15.8 18.4 16.0 = 16.7
Top w/7.0 meter
.81 .96 .96 = .91
Bottom
.87 1.07 1.02 = .98

I will post more when the beds are used for a while.

Sam James

Bsmart, your oberservation would be completely accurate if the claim made that the Advantage has more UVA was true. I agree that the Black Sun has a bit more UVB, but the Black Sun also provides all of the UVA qualities of the Advantage as well, maybe more. At least that is what I think. I was skeptical about the claims made that the Advantage lamps has more A. Maybe it has a higher percentage of A, but not more total A. And the quality of the phosphor is critical to performance and longevity of lamps. The Infinity has a very high quality phosphor and even though Phillips is a well known manufacturer of lamps, their distributors can not just start discounting all the hard work done by Black Sun with a few convienient keystrokes. I remain confident that Mitzi will not have any customers telling her they prefer to tan with the Phillips lamps. So what if they are a few cents cheaper. I don't see him posting his prices anywhere. Mine are on http://www.tansup.com and http://www.ourbigdog.com. (Big Dog members get real special pricing)

This project Mitzi took on may only prove one thing. The claims made by Lampman were nothng more than a competitor of Black Sun trying to plug his product in a thread where a Black Sun lamp user had paid us a compliment so he put Black Sun lamps down, or at least tried to say his was better, with no facts to back it up.[ This Message was edited by: Sam James on 2002-09-01 21:19 ]

Don Smith

Mitzi/SAm:

Here are some new calculations I made from your latest results.

1. Advantage: 95.4% UVA & 4.6% UVB.

2. Infinity : 95.3% UVA & 4.7% UVB.

Not enough difference in the UVA vs UVB percentages to pay any attention to.

Note To Mitzi: If you will e-mail (or PM) me your mailing address, I will send you a loaner MED/hour meter.

Don

BooBop

Thank you Don for the nice offer. You may teach this girl some science before it is over.

bsmart

Sam, I understand you went to Mitzi's salon to tan under the Philips lamps. What were your impressions after the tanning session? Looks like Don's analysis of the 2 lamps leaves them about neck in neck on spectral output. If the Black Sun provides a WOW factor to the client, that would be hard to ignore when deciding what lamp to purchase. A big part of our business is about making a positive impression on each client and leaving them with a memorable experience.

What about the claim some have made, about the Philips lamps operating approximately 20% cooler. Did you seem to experience a noticably cooler session as you tanned under these lamps?? [ This Message was edited by: bsmart on 2002-09-02 13:13 ]

Sam James

Bsmart, yes I did visit Mitzi so I could tan with the Phillips lamps. I wanted to try them for my own personal observation and experience. I won't give my impression of the lamp here because I don't want to influence Mitzi or others with my comments about my impression of the session. I will say that her salon was extremely comfortable, and the bed didn't seem to get very hot. It could have been due to her air conditoning doing such a great job.

We have some more readings to see, and thanks to Don for deciphering the math. The lamps really do appear qutie similar on paper. Let the tanning begin.

Here is a link to some pictures from the trip. www.blacksunusa.com/on_tour.htm

Don Smith

Sam:

What is wrong with Vicki and Mitzi? Do both of them have some rare eye disease?

Let's face it, Sam, neither you or Russ Keller are going to Hollywood and yet both of you have (somehow) married beautiful women.

All I can say is that you and Russ must have married them when they were too young to know that there are handsome devils (like me) out there in the world. LMAO

Don" Who Also Married Above Himself" Smith

Don Smith

Sam:

What is wrong with Vicki and Mitzi? Do both of them have some rare eye disease?

Let's face it, Sam, neither you or Russ Keller are going to Hollywood and yet both of you have (somehow) married beautiful women.

All I can say is that you and Russ must have married them when they were too young to know that there are handsome devils (like me) out there in the world. LMAO

Don" Who Also Married Above Himself" Smith

solarmeter

Mitzi (and Sam),

The readings you posted below the model 5.0 values must have been from a model 6.0 UVB meter, not a 7.0 MED/hr meter (because they read two decimal places). Therefore the percent UVB values Don mentioned would be correct.

The outputs in A and B are quite close. If A was a lot higher in one vs the other, model 5 readings would have showed such.

SO - the only thing left to do (scientifically) is the model 7.0 readings. Here you may be suprised if the spectral distribution of one vs the other favors highly weighted 290-302 nm rays. If not, the MED/hr readings may be similar as well.

Don - be sure to give Mitzi the cal-factor to result in FDA 156 J/m^2 per MED values. Send me yours back someday to set them all the same.

Steve