what is the % of visable light to uv light coming from a tanning lamp? - tanTALK

Chippp · 04-24-2002, 11:17 AM

How much of the output is just visable light. How much is uv. how much is infrared "heat".

Is a true "black light" a lamp that produces very little visable light and mostly uva and violet visable light?

Why are tanning lamps not "dark" like black lights the dark purple type, used in night clubs?

_________________

Tanning Booths, for people that want only the very best.
Fast, Comfortable, Dark Tanning and Hygienic.
Don't get booth envy, get a booth.

[ This Message was edited by: Chippp on 2002-04-24 11:18 ][ This Message was edited by: Chippp on 2002-04-24 11:24 ]

Chippp · 04-24-2002, 11:21 AM

A few clients has said over the years that they find the tanning lamps "bright", what could be done in the design of tanning lamps that could make them produce less visable light.

solarmeter · 04-24-2002, 11:54 AM

Who do you think would know these answers other than your co-tantalk poster D. Smith?
So ask in "his" forum...

Did you look at the IST article mentioned in "reflected UV" thread? It shows amount of visible vs UV. You have to add up the mW under curves from 280-400 and compare that to area under 401-435.

Since the graph isn't big enough for you to do that, either contact the author (Wolff), or ask your co-poster to show spectroradiometer breakdown from UV-Visible-IR bandwidths.

As for blacklights, they don't put out enuf visible to "see" bed controls thru eyewear. And last time I metered one it was very low UV output compared to sun or tan lamps.

JOHN @ URI · 04-24-2002, 01:28 PM

The glass used in Blacklight-blue lamps (shown above)blocks almost all UV emmisions. You would need to load the lamp with UVB to make it put out anything at all. Also the glass is much more expensive. So it is not feasable at this time to amke a tanning lamp using such properties.

I believe that most lamps have an average of 20-40% total UV output, the remaining is IR, and visible light.

Don Smith · 04-24-2002, 01:37 PM

Chippp:

In a study we did we found that our test lamp (a Cosmedico ESP) had 87% of it's total irradiance power in the UVR range (280 - 400 nm) and 13% in the visible (400 - 700 nm) and near-IR (700 - 100 nm) range. Since only 0.25% was in the latter range, almost all of the 13% was, therefore, in the visible range.

I mentioned in another post that the "LUX" reading for the Cosmedico ESP was 1743 LUX (at 10 cm from the lamp). Thus, 13% irradiance = 1743 LUX.

This data proves several things.

1. Our sunlamps are VERY efficient at performing their task, i.e., producing UVR wavelengths since 87% of their "output" is in the UVR range.

2. Minimal "output" is in the visible range (only enough, I believe, to let us know that they are "on").

Hope this helps.

Don

PS To John: I have let Jerry Frank of Cosmedico know that his numbers (20 - 40% UVR output) are, in our opinion (the spectroradiometer doesn't lie!) WRONG. His lamps are MUCH more efficient than he has claimed.

Chippp · 04-24-2002, 01:41 PM

interesting.

JOHN @ URI · 04-24-2002, 02:57 PM

DON,
What was the total UV wattage?
I've been told by many lamp producers that the Uv watts were usually around 25%-40%.
And that the rest was IR and Visible light.

JOHN @ URI · 04-24-2002, 02:58 PM

To add: when a bed claims to be 20,000watts or what ever they claim.

How many watts are from UV?
How much is wasted?

Chippp · 04-24-2002, 04:30 PM

good question

solarmeter · 04-24-2002, 05:21 PM

John we're confusing watts with watts per unit area (or mW/cm^2) here. But I've always wondered the same thing.

Cosmedico is fond of listing their UV output in units of watts flux. I think that relates to testing of lamps inside a big round ping-pong ball called an "integrating sphere".

According to FDA & CIE that is how overall visible ratings are determined for regular overhead fluorescent tubes, etc. Measurements are taken at the exit port of the sphere, and reflect full length of lamp diffused "radiance". So if you put in 100 watts of electricity, you only get out maybe 30% of that in watts worth of UV light photons. Not very efficient. Also confusing.

So, adding in visible and IR, you still may only get 40% out of 100% put in. What Don is really saying above is that of that 40%, almost all of it is UV.

In my opinion, Cosmedico should drop that "Philips" method of measuring UV, and use mW/cm^2 like almost everyone else does.

{added later} There's no such thing as a 100% efficient perpetual motion machine (energizer bunny) yet, but what I wonder is where does that 60% lamp loss go? If it doesn't come out as heat, where is it? Stuck in the glass (absorbed)? Dissipated in wires & ballasts? Poof. Gone somewhere...

Steve [ This Message was edited by: solarmeter on 2002-04-24 17:33 ]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How can you people do this to yourself??	Pale and Proud	Skin Care	44	08-01-2007 05:15 PM
What you need to be telling your tanners about tanning products!	Anonymous	Tanning Lotion Buzz	14	08-04-2006 06:47 PM
Best way to sell lotions	Sonshinetans	General Tanning Industry Discussions	21	11-23-2005 08:41 PM
Why Tanners should only buy tanning products from your salon!	Soakinuptherays	Tanning Lotion Buzz	2	05-13-2001 08:45 PM
Using Flyers to Educate your Tanners about Tanning Products!	Anonymous	Tanning Lotion Buzz	2	04-16-2001 12:47 PM

04-24-2002, 11:17 AM	#1 (permalink)
Chippp Join Date: Apr 19 2001 Posts: 2,262 Rep Power: 13	How much of the output is just visable light. How much is uv. how much is infrared "heat". Is a true "black light" a lamp that produces very little visable light and mostly uva and violet visable light? Why are tanning lamps not "dark" like black lights the dark purple type, used in night clubs? _________________ Tanning Booths, for people that want only the very best. Fast, Comfortable, Dark Tanning and Hygienic. Don't get booth envy, get a booth. [ This Message was edited by: Chippp on 2002-04-24 11:18 ][ This Message was edited by: Chippp on 2002-04-24 11:24 ]

04-24-2002, 11:21 AM	#2 (permalink)
Chippp Join Date: Apr 19 2001 Posts: 2,262 Rep Power: 13	A few clients has said over the years that they find the tanning lamps "bright", what could be done in the design of tanning lamps that could make them produce less visable light.

04-24-2002, 11:54 AM	#3 (permalink)
solarmeter Join Date: Nov 13 2001 Location: MI Posts: 861 Rep Power: 12	Who do you think would know these answers other than your co-tantalk poster D. Smith? So ask in "his" forum... Did you look at the IST article mentioned in "reflected UV" thread? It shows amount of visible vs UV. You have to add up the mW under curves from 280-400 and compare that to area under 401-435. Since the graph isn't big enough for you to do that, either contact the author (Wolff), or ask your co-poster to show spectroradiometer breakdown from UV-Visible-IR bandwidths. As for blacklights, they don't put out enuf visible to "see" bed controls thru eyewear. And last time I metered one it was very low UV output compared to sun or tan lamps.

04-24-2002, 01:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
JOHN @ URI Lamp Geek Join Date: Dec 21 2001 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,746 Rep Power: 12	The glass used in Blacklight-blue lamps (shown above)blocks almost all UV emmisions. You would need to load the lamp with UVB to make it put out anything at all. Also the glass is much more expensive. So it is not feasable at this time to amke a tanning lamp using such properties. I believe that most lamps have an average of 20-40% total UV output, the remaining is IR, and visible light.

04-24-2002, 01:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,529 Rep Power: 15	Chippp: In a study we did we found that our test lamp (a Cosmedico ESP) had 87% of it's total irradiance power in the UVR range (280 - 400 nm) and 13% in the visible (400 - 700 nm) and near-IR (700 - 100 nm) range. Since only 0.25% was in the latter range, almost all of the 13% was, therefore, in the visible range. I mentioned in another post that the "LUX" reading for the Cosmedico ESP was 1743 LUX (at 10 cm from the lamp). Thus, 13% irradiance = 1743 LUX. This data proves several things. 1. Our sunlamps are VERY efficient at performing their task, i.e., producing UVR wavelengths since 87% of their "output" is in the UVR range. 2. Minimal "output" is in the visible range (only enough, I believe, to let us know that they are "on"). Hope this helps. Don PS To John: I have let Jerry Frank of Cosmedico know that his numbers (20 - 40% UVR output) are, in our opinion (the spectroradiometer doesn't lie!) WRONG. His lamps are MUCH more efficient than he has claimed.

04-24-2002, 01:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
Chippp Join Date: Apr 19 2001 Posts: 2,262 Rep Power: 13	interesting.

04-24-2002, 02:57 PM	#7 (permalink)
JOHN @ URI Lamp Geek Join Date: Dec 21 2001 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,746 Rep Power: 12	DON, What was the total UV wattage? I've been told by many lamp producers that the Uv watts were usually around 25%-40%. And that the rest was IR and Visible light.

04-24-2002, 02:58 PM	#8 (permalink)
JOHN @ URI Lamp Geek Join Date: Dec 21 2001 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,746 Rep Power: 12	To add: when a bed claims to be 20,000watts or what ever they claim. How many watts are from UV? How much is wasted?

04-24-2002, 04:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
Chippp Join Date: Apr 19 2001 Posts: 2,262 Rep Power: 13	good question

04-24-2002, 05:21 PM	#10 (permalink)
solarmeter Join Date: Nov 13 2001 Location: MI Posts: 861 Rep Power: 12	John we're confusing watts with watts per unit area (or mW/cm^2) here. But I've always wondered the same thing. Cosmedico is fond of listing their UV output in units of watts flux. I think that relates to testing of lamps inside a big round ping-pong ball called an "integrating sphere". According to FDA & CIE that is how overall visible ratings are determined for regular overhead fluorescent tubes, etc. Measurements are taken at the exit port of the sphere, and reflect full length of lamp diffused "radiance". So if you put in 100 watts of electricity, you only get out maybe 30% of that in watts worth of UV light photons. Not very efficient. Also confusing. So, adding in visible and IR, you still may only get 40% out of 100% put in. What Don is really saying above is that of that 40%, almost all of it is UV. In my opinion, Cosmedico should drop that "Philips" method of measuring UV, and use mW/cm^2 like almost everyone else does. {added later} There's no such thing as a 100% efficient perpetual motion machine (energizer bunny) yet, but what I wonder is where does that 60% lamp loss go? If it doesn't come out as heat, where is it? Stuck in the glass (absorbed)? Dissipated in wires & ballasts? Poof. Gone somewhere... Steve [ This Message was edited by: solarmeter on 2002-04-24 17:33 ]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)