BooBop

Okay guys, I finally got both sets of lamps installed with new acrylics. I used Don’s protocol in metering the lamps (pretty close anyway). I metered from one end of the bed to the other, thus giving 3 readings per top and bottom. I found that where the fan was on one end the reading was slightly higher. Thus clearly showing that the cooler the condition the better the performance of the lamp. Now if I could just convince the old school tanners that Hotter Is Not Better! LOL

Following is the meter results:

Advantage Top w/out acrylic: 19.2 18.5 16.8
With acrylic: 18.0 17.3 17.9
Bottom w/out acrylic: 15.6 17.8 15.3
With acrylic: 13.5 14.3 13.5

Infinity Top w/out acrylic: 19.1 18.8 18.0
With acrylic: 18.4 18.0 16.2
Bottom w/out acrylic: 16.1 14.3 15.1
With acrylic: 12.4 18.8 12.5

Now that I have these in place I will see what the results of my tanners are. I am sure there is more to this than I can actually provide. But as I stated, I will judge fairly and give accurate meter readings. If anyone has any suggestions for my efforts in this comparison I am open for them.




_________________
Proud supporter of Don's Army
Mitzi Soakin up the Sun, Tell everybody to lighten up. Rock On!
[ This Message was edited by: Mitzi on 2002-08-31 14:12 ]

CHUNN

How will you compare tanners? Same people using the same lotions? Different people? Gut feeling? Maybe Don has some recommendations......

Sam James

MItzi,

First, thanks for your efforts in this comparision. Vikki and I were talking last night and we thought that we may just drive up to visit you and tan with these Phillips lamps that Lampman sent you. We don't have any plans made yet for the next couple of days. Will your salon be open? If so, what hours and is this okay with you?

BooBop

Sam I would love to have you visit my salon. I am closed this Sun. and Mon. but I only live about 1 or 2 mins. from the salon. We don't have any plans so come on up.

As for the comparison of tanners. I will go with what they say when I put them in the different lamps. No science here. Just what they say. You know everyone gets a pick of the beds. But I plan to watch their color amoung other things. I guess Pam and I could compare the difference. She in one lamp and me in the other. We tan pretty much alike. Quote:
On 2002-08-31 16:25, Sam James wrote:
MItzi,

First, thanks for your efforts in this comparision. Vikki and I were talking last night and we thought that we may just drive up to visit you and tan with these Phillips lamps that Lampman sent you. We don't have any plans made yet for the next couple of days. Will your salon be open? If so, what hours and is this okay with you?

Sam James

Wow! That was a quickie reply. Ok here is the plan, we will drive up in the morning, but not too early. I can get there around noon if thats okay. It will be a nice drive and I am looking forward to seeing you.

Don Smith

Mitzi:

Here is the data you posted.

Adv. Top w/o acry: 19.2 18.5 16.8 = 18.2 avg
W/acrylic: 18.0 17.3 17.9 = 17.7 avg
Bottom w/o acry: 15.6 17.8 15.3 = 16.2 avg
W/acrylic: 13.5 14.3 13.5 = 13.8

Inf Top w/o acry: 19.1 18.8 18.0 = 18.6 avg
With acrylic: 18.4 18.0 16.2 = 17.5 avg
Bottom w/o acr: 16.1 14.3 15.1 = 15.2 avg
With acrylic: 12.4 18.8 12.5 = 14.6 avg

Anyway you look at it, the results (especially if you "adjust" the 18.8 reading on the Infinity w/acrylic) are about even.

You are seeing the problem one has when you try to compare two different sunlamps using a hand-held radiometer and not a spectroradiometer. Even though the two lamps "appear" to have similar characteristics, they may in fact, have completely different spectral characteristics.

I like the Solartech MED/hour meter because it at least gives you a "weighted" (to the FDA-CDRH Erythemal Action Spectrum) result that can be used to calculate Te (time to 4.0 MED) times. That result could help you evaluate these two sunlamps (in fact, if Sam has a MED/hour or UV Index meter and brings it along, you can post some more readings that will help us evaluate these sunlamps).

Based upon the data posted, you are correct in using the "opinion" of some of your most avid clients. Often, when we are testing sunlamps, we will change lamps and not tell our clients and then wait to get their opinion (and it is ALWAYS helpful!).

And, based upon your data, there does not appear to be too much difference between these two sunlamps. You are learning why a spectroradiometer is required when you want to evaluate the spectral characteristics of two different sunlamps.

[Note: Here is how I explain the problems of using a hand-held radiometer as compared to a spectroradiometer. When you use the former, it is like standing with one foot on a cake of ice and the other in hot water and saying "on the average" the temperature is just right and with the latter, you know exactly the temperature gradient of the two sources.]

If you and Sam get some more data (especially if he has a MED/hour or UVI meter) perhaps we can know more tomorrow.

Don "Who Applauds Your Efforts" Smith

Sam James

Don,

That all makes sense. I appreciate your input. I can take a 5.0 and a 7.0 Solarmeter. But I just really wanted to tan with the Advantage.

Lampman claimed it had more A. I wanted to see if that more A was noticable when I tan. That is what counts. If you need a meter to see the effect Lampman was bragging about, then I will stick with a lamp that makes the customers say "WOW", which what my Infinity will do most of the time. I really doubt any tanners will be bringing their spectroradiometer with them to tan. I am not saying this testing should not be done, of course it should. But I think we should really leave the metering to experts like you. That info will certainly help determine MTI, but a tanners choice is what makes a lamp desirabe. I honestly don't know how this test will turn out, but I am confident that my lamp will be hard to beat. I have been comparing lamps for almost 15 years here is Tennessee and this lamp that I sent to Mitzi is just one of the best "customer pleasers" I have ever seen.

So that is how all this started. As you can see by reading the other thread, it later turned into a lamp compatibility thread. I'm still wanting to see if this lamp with more A is any competition. We should know soon.

BooBop

Quote:Based upon the data posted, you are correct in using the "opinion" of some of your most avid clients. Often, when we are testing sunlamps, we will change lamps and not tell our clients and then wait to get their opinion (and it is ALWAYS helpful!).

Thank you Don for your input. I understand what I am doing will only be a test of what my clients prefer. As you state above, I have done this as well. And you are right, it works. Hopefully when Sam comes up with his meters we can have more readings to post.
I value your input and opinions. Thanks
_________________
Proud supporter of Don's Army
Mitzi Soakin up the Sun, Tell everybody to lighten up. Rock On!
[ This Message was edited by: Mitzi on 2002-09-01 07:28 ]

njchica

oh my *shudder* *cringe* *flinch*

Mitzi, your comparisons and client opinions will be strictly that, opinions. Too many variables in this "experiment" in order to draw any meaningful conclusion, except maybe about customer satisfaction.

In order to really, scientifically compare, you would have to ensure that your clients all tanned for the same duration in the beds and that they all used the exact same type of lotion (both of which we know are impossible unless you actively enlist their assistance in your experiment). ****, you would even want to ensure that the beds were the same temperatures (cold, heated up, at the end of the day after being used 20 times or whatever). If these factors are all different, then you cannot truly know what is causing the results: could be the lamps, could be the lotion, could be the temperature... even then, it could be genetics and that is a really really really difficult area to try to "control".

sorry, just had to get my $0.02 in there.

BooBop

Yes, chica, you are correct in your observations. But,,,, I can see what my clients think of each set of lamps. Like I stated before, this in NOT scientific. Only observation at this point. Thanks for your input.