Red Light Making A Big Difference

[charlie]

I have an on line friend who is obsessed with this light stuff and he has been communicating with Ray Peat and he said some of the orange would be good for other kinds of hormone activation.

 

[narouz]

I have an on line friend who is obsessed with this light stuff and he has been communicating with Ray Peat and he said some of the orange would be good for other kinds of hormone activation.

Thanks!
I wonder if Peat a believes that at least a little bit of ultraviolet is needed for Vitamin D production?
Isn't it one of the ultraviolets that stimulates D?

 

[charlie]

UVB for vitamin D.

 

[j.]

Thanks!
I wonder if Peat a believes that at least a little bit of ultraviolet is needed for Vitamin D production?
Isn't it one of the ultraviolets that stimulates D?

Yeah. But I heard Peat on a radio show warn against too much UV because it can encourage the release of fatty acids into the bloodstream. One should avoid even getting the reddish color from sun exposure. Also, aspirin or PUFA elimination for a long time allows one to be exposed to the sun for more time with less damage.

My conclusion is this. The sun has two benefits: UV for vitamin D, and red and orange waves for metabolism. UV is more risky, because getting it in excess is toxic for blood cells. The amount of exposure that'll do damage depends on the skin color (white, black, etc.).

So what I think one should do, or what I would do, is expose myself a bit to the sun to get D and the amount of red and orange I can get incidentally. Then get the rest of the red and orange with a bulb.

Glass reduces UV exposure, but not very significantly apparently, as Peat's arm got sunburned by sun exposure through a glass in 10 minutes while driving in Mexico.

 

[gabriel79]

I also don't understand how voltage (v) and the watt (w) influence efficacy. Watt is cumulative and the higher the number the greater the effect. Holds this true for voltage, too? I live in Europe and we run our electrical gear on 220V. Does it pay-off to invest in a voltage converter?

. When you double the voltage, you quadruplicate the consumed power (watts) by the bulb; meaning you'll burn it in less than a second. You need one designed for the same power that operates at your voltage. And I'm sorry there, I don't live in Europe to help.

 

[jaa]

Are these bulbs good for light therapy?

http://www.lowes.ca/light-bulbs/sylvani ... 02064.html

I plan on using to of those bulbs with the bayco clamp light - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0061M ... B0061MZ4Q6

I also have one extra clamp light. Are there any other bulb types I should get?

Cheers

 

[charlie]

According to Ray Peat, this is the preferred light bulb. Notice its 130 volts as opposed to the others which are 120 volts.


http://www.mrsupply.com/bulbrite-reflec ... 14025.html

 

[narouz]

Are these bulbs good for light therapy?

http://www.lowes.ca/light-bulbs/sylvani ... 02064.html

I plan on using to of those bulbs with the bayco clamp light - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0061M ... B0061MZ4Q6

I also have one extra clamp light. Are there any other bulb types I should get?

Cheers

I'd say so, jaa.
But those bulbs are 120 volts.
There is some controversy over whether it would be better to get the 130 volt bulb
(see up the thread for the link).
When asked, Peat said that because the bulb runs at 130 volts,
it supplies more of the wavelengths he deems beneficial.
But when we looked into this on the giant Red Light thread a while back,
and conferred with a light expert about that,
the expert said that running at 130 volts would make the wavelengths less Peatian.
Peat gives the range of wavelengths he thinks best.
Again, check the big Red Light thread.
This is one of my Greatest Unsolved Peat Mysteries.

 

[John Eels]

This light subject is interesting. It's a little too technical for my taste. I use the Philips InfraCare 200 Watt at the moment. I will have a better setup in the future that lights my head and feet when I lay in bed. I am still fascinated about the metabolism boosting effects of red light and asajulian's experience.

 

[jaa]

Thanks Charlie and narouz. I'll check out that other thread.

Assuming peat meant the 130V, is there much difference between the wavelengths emitted by that and the 120V? Or is it just splitting hairs?

 

[charlie]

Ray Peat says it moved the spectrum to the "warmer" side which is better, IIRC.

 

[narouz]

Thanks Charlie and narouz. I'll check out that other thread.

Assuming peat meant the 130V, is there much difference between the wavelengths emitted by that and the 120V? Or is it just splitting hairs?

Perhaps.
But that's what we do.
I'll try to find what Peat said about this.

 

[narouz]

So let me try to summarize the highpoints
of the 25 page thread "Red Light Therapy, Lights, Supplemental Lighting"
(Ha...no small feat! )
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187

Let's start of with some basics from Peat.
Peat said:

I think the slightly shorter wavelengths are the most beneficial, from about 600 nm to about 850 nm. -Dr. Peat

And, roughly, these are how the wavelengths are usually designated:

600--700nm, is labeled "Red"
700--1000nm is labeled "Near Infrared"

A poster named peatarian relayed an email answer she had from Peat about the bulb mystery:

[peatarian] I asked Ray Peat again about the right bulbs, here is his answer:

[Peat]"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."

You still get the normal bulbs on Ebay and some companies are working on re-introducing them as 'heat bulbs'.

Okay.
So Peat thinks the mismatching of running the 130V bulbs at 120volts
causes the bulb to shift further toward "toward the longer wave red color."
That is,
the shift would be toward the "Near Infrared" spectrum
which is generally thought of as 700--1000nm

This is where the plot thickens.
I asked Scott over at Heelspurs.com--
he is some kind of expert on light--
about that view of Peat's:
that the 130V heatlamp bulb run at 120V would be better
for Peat's own designated ideal wavelengths--600nm to 850nm.
Scott didn't think this makes sense.
Now, you'll have to study the chart below
to see what Scott is referring to.
And he weaves halogen lights into his response
which I realize is a bit confusing
since we haven't talked about those here.
Still...see if you can understand what he is saying:

Scott replies:

"When you consider that halogen is between the sun and incandescent, and
then look at my chart below, then you can 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, asking Scott:

"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...?"

And Scott replies:

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

So to summarize,
Scott says that running that 130V heatlamp bulb at 120V
would decrease the energy output in the Peat-favored 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.
Again--study the chart to understand the regular incandescent range.
The Peat-favored heatlamp bulb is a kind of incandescent bulb,
but one which is already (before being run at the mismatched voltage)
shifted too far to the right (toward the infrared range) to produce the Peat-favored 600nm--850nm.

According to Scott, the mismatching of voltage would even further shift the heatlamp bulb's radiation
toward the infrared.

I probed Scott further:

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.

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
(but also emit a lot of the blue spectrum, which is harmful. But...
...if one filters that halogen bulbs through a red glass filter,
then that would, it seems, get rid of those blue and ultra-violet wavelengths.)

But looking back over this now,
I spot what seems to be a break in Scott's reasoning.
Scott said (above)about the 130V heatlamp bulb run at 120V:

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

If the 130V heat lamp bulb running at 120V is cooler than normal,
then wouldn't that shift its radiation to the left
away from the infrard spectrums
and back toward the visible red spectrum of roughly 600-700nm,
back toward the Peat desirable 600-850nm wavelengths?

In other words, maybe Scott was reasoning wrongly,
and Peat was correct about the shift caused by the 130V bulb run at 120V mismatch.
Maybe that mismatch does cause production of more radiation in the Peat-favored 600-850nm wavelengths.

Another possible Scott reasoning error might be revealed here:
Scott said (above):

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.

Well, when I asked our poster (forget his handle now) earlier in the thread
about his 130V heat bulb running at 120V,
he said they were quite bright--very visible.
Whereas Scott assumed the mismatch would cause the bulb to emit almost no visible light.

So again: maybe Peat was correct about the Mythical 130V heatbulb run at 120V!
(Actually, I said some time ago that I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be the case. )

 

[charlie]

Narouz, excellent post.

I would not be surprised either, if Ray Peat was right, once again.

 

[gabriel79]

But looking back over this now,
I spot what seems to be a break in Scott's reasoning.
Scott said (above)about the 130V heatlamp bulb run at 120V:

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

If the 130V heat lamp bulb running at 120V is cooler than normal,
then wouldn't that shift its radiation to the left
away from the infrard spectrums
and back toward the visible red spectrum of roughly 600-700nm,
back toward the Peat desirable 600-850nm wavelengths?

Hi, Sorry I can't expand the explanation writing in my phone. The above is incorrect. When the filament gets cooler by operating at a lower voltage, the light emitted spectrum shifts to the right, towards longer wavelenths. The higher the temperature, more shift to the shorter wavelengths.

 

[narouz]

But looking back over this now,
I spot what seems to be a break in Scott's reasoning.
Scott said (above)about the 130V heatlamp bulb run at 120V:

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

If the 130V heat lamp bulb running at 120V is cooler than normal,
then wouldn't that shift its radiation to the left
away from the infrard spectrums
and back toward the visible red spectrum of roughly 600-700nm,
back toward the Peat desirable 600-850nm wavelengths?

Hi, Sorry I can't expand the explanation writing in my phone. The above is incorrect. When the filament gets cooler by operating at a lower voltage, the light emitted spectrum shifts to the right, towards longer wavelenths. The higher the temperature, more shift to the shorter wavelengths.

Dang!

gabriel79-
So this supports Scott's interpretation on the cooler = shifts toward more infrared point.

How would you sort out the other little cluster of confusion?

On the one hand:
Scott stated that running
the 130V heat bulb at 120V should cause it to put out almost no visible light,
showing that it is producing a lot of Infrared and almost no Red light.
reinforcing his view that the radiation spectrum will be moved toward the Infrared.

But on the other hand:
our poster who described his own 130V-running-at-120V set-up,
saying that his heat bulbs put out a LOT of visible light,
which might indicate that the voltage mismatch may've caused the radiation spectrum to shift
toward the visible spectrum, as Peat seems to think it does.

----

I guess one telling experiment would be to compare the two different voltage heat bulbs:
1. the Peat-preferred 130V bulb running at 120V.
2. the same bulb essentially but designed as 120 V, and run at 120V.
It would seem that the brighter bulb would also be the bulb
with the most radiation within the Peat-preferred 600nm--850nm wavelengths,
wouldn't it?

gabriel:
You say that the cooler the filament runs,
the more the radiation shifts toward the Infrared, right?
So that would seem to indicate that the bulbs would produce more heat
when shined on the human body, yes?

If this is the case,
by using the 130V Peat bulb at 120V
one would seem to get:
1. less of the Peat-preferred 600--850 nm wavelengths
2. a more uncomfortable bulb--unless you enjoy the heat

 

[narouz]

...and continuing with some of the same light principles...

Now, Scott thinks regular (non-heat lamp) incandescents
provide more 600--850nm Peat-preferred radiation
(more than incandescent heat lamp bulbs, that is).

Check his chart again:



The chart seems to show that regular incandescents put out a lot of Near Infrared?
This supports Scott's view that regular incandescents are superior to
Any heatlamp/infrared bulb
(well, let's set aside for now the special case of the 130V heat lamp run at 120V).

But what about this:
if you take a regular incandescent--a strong wattage bulb with an inner reflector:
in other words a floodlight.
Let's say you got a 250 watt floodlight.
Well, right there you'd think Scott would say
you've already got a much better 600-850nm producing bulb
(better than a heat lamp incandescent, that is).

And Scott's chart would seem to say that that floodlight
would actually be putting out a lot of energy "to the right" of the visible red spectrum,
into the Near Infrared and even Infrared spectrums.

I'm a little dubious about that, I confess.
But if it's true, such a powerful floodlight would seem to be the best 600--850 watt incandescent bulb.
(I'm still of the view that the halogen bulb is the most effective, though it would seem to need a colored
filter to block the undesireable blue and ultraviolet radiation.)

But let's say we find that the strong, regular incandescent floodlight
produces (as it would seem to) a great Visible Red Light spectrum, 600--700nm,
but not enough of the also Peat-preferred 700--850nm Near Infrared.

Well, by the reasoning described in the last several posts--
intentionally running a bulb at a voltage mismatch to shift the radiation produced--
it would seem like you could maybe find a 130V regular incandescent floodlight,
and then run it at 120V.
That should result in shifting the radiation a bit more into the Peat-desirable Near Infrared spectrum.
Wouldn't it?

I guess all that becomes somewhat inconsequential
if you believe Scott's chart above,
because there the incandescents already (without any special voltage mismatching)
put out a spectrum of radiation that peaks well over into not only the Near Infrared
but actually, most strongly, into the Infrared--
well to the right of the Peat-designated 600--850nm range.

 

[narouz]

I thought I'd post this over here too since we're talking about incandescents.
I got it over at http://raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1035

Konstantin at Ray Peat Fans.

When asked about light therapy:

Ray Peat wrote:
"Incandescent bulbs have a continuous spectrum, luminous gases have intermittently distributed wavelengths. Orange and red are the metabolically most important wavelengths. I don't think the far infrared does anything special, besides heat. Ordinary incandescent bulbs have a slightly orange color compared to sunlight, and the bulbs I have mentioned are just slightly warmer in color, with very little blue, and more red. Ordinary incandescent bulbs are good, if there are enough of them, directed toward your skin."

I wonder what "the bulbs I have mentioned" refers back to?
Apparently to something outside the quotation....
Maybe to the "Peat Bulb"--the 130V Heat Lamp Bulb?

 

[narouz]

Here are some graphs on the wavelengths of regular (non-heat lamp) incandescent bulbs:

The light from an incandescent light bulb is produced by a solid metal filament of Tungsten wire through which an electric current is passed. The current heats the filament to an extremely high temperature (typically 2000 to 3000 K) producing a thermal blackbody spectrum with a peak intensity in the near infrared (1000 - 1500 nm). Although the peak is not in the visible region, there is still enough energy emitted at visible wavelengths to produce light useful to the eye (although this light is much "yellower" than the white light of the Sun which has a temperature of about 5800 K).

So, you can see that
while there is a good portion of energy output in the visible orange and red spectrums,
most of the radiation is in the near infrared and beyond.

So here is the basic stumbling block for us Peatians trying to find the best light sources:
Peat says the best, most health-enhancing light spectrum is about 600nm--850nm.
If you look at the charts above,
you will see that regular incandescent bulbs cover that pretty well,
even though most of the bulbs radiation is shifted too far to the right.
So the question arises:
why would you want to use a heat lamp incandescent instead of a regular incandescent.
Well, yes, Peat says the best bulb is the heat lamp incandescent.
But scientifically, objectively,
that heat lamp incandescent bulb
shifts the radiation output even farther toward the infrared,
exacerbating the inefficiency from a Peatian standpoint by
reducing the output in the 600-850nm range
and increasing it in the infrared ranges.

 

[narouz]

gabriel79-
Check out below if you would, noting my bolded passage.
This would seem to support your view that
decreasing filament temperature (by running the 130V bulb at 120V)
will shift the bulb's output spectrum to the right, further into the infrared spectrums.
Here, the author writes that increasing the filament temperature
shifts the output back to the left, toward the visible spectrum.

A significant portion of the electrical power consumed by incandescent tungsten wire filaments is output in the form of electromagnetic radiation spanning the wavelength region between 200 and 3000 nanometers. Mathematically, the total radiation increases as the fourth power of the wire temperature, which shifts the spectral distribution to increasingly shorter (visible) wavelengths in a bell-shaped profile as the temperature is increased (see Figures 1 and 3). Even though the peak wavelengths tend to be redistributed from the near-infrared closer to the visible region with higher filament temperatures, the melting point of tungsten does not permit the majority of output radiation to shift into the visible spectral region. At the highest practical operating temperatures, the peak emission is centered at approximately 850 nanometers with about 20 percent of the total output being visible light. Infrared wavelengths, which comprise most of the output, must be dissipated as unwanted heat. As a result, compared to the daylight spectrum (5000+ K) emitted by mercury, xenon, and metal halide arc lamps, the red portions of the spectrum always predominate in tungsten-halide lamps.

http://zeiss-campus.magnet.fsu.edu/articles/lightsources/tungstenhalogen.html