Esecallum I believe the information comes from the original patent. I'm having a problem rationalizing why the irradiated area needs to be covered since the body is opaque to visible light.

I'm presently irradiating the back of the head with 15 LEDs now for 30 minutes twice per day. The new improved version will probably block more of the environmental light.

Good suggestion. I like the idea of a quantitative metric. thanks

I am concerned about one aspect of your test helmet. You need to be cautious about getting too hot. The LEDs can produce heat if you increase the amount of LEDs or if you increase the exposure time. LEDs generally do not produce too much heat, but as you increase the amount of them and have direct skin contact, you might make your head temperature too hot.

Just to be careful, why not sit directly in front of a box fan while doing your test. It can't hurt your results, might make you more comfortable, and make keep your head temperature down.

In their articles they said that the exposure time is ten minutes per day. In their patent, they state, "A factor here is the period of irradiation and, preferably, the period should be at least a specified minimum of 30 seconds at a repetition rate/frequency of 450-800 Hz and preferably for at least two consecutive days and up to several months more preferably still the treatment is over several weeks.

Preferably, the electromagnetic radiation is applied to the affected area for at least a few minutes and up to an hour. A typical exposure time is in the region of 3 minutes per day.

Preferably, the electromagnetic radiation is applied for at least two consecutive days and up to several weeks depending on the nature and severity of the condition. "

It's important to relaize that in medicine more is NOT BETTER. For example when you take a drug, more might not help you and might hurt you. In physical therapy as in any exercise, more can actually have a detrimental effect. Be cautious and prudent.

You may not see any effect from the LEDs at the lower wavelength. We need the experiement to be repeated with several other neurology researchers, but for now, you might only see results at LEDs in the 1072nm range. I would carefully read the patent again. Realize that if the researchers could have used cheaper LEDs (the more common ones you have found) they would likely have used them. Keeping the price down is a factor, so if there is efficacy at the lower LED wavelength, I'm sure they would have used them. From their patent, it appears that they tried many different wavelengths to find an optimum range.


Gook luck,
N

I do plan on going to 1072nm in the future. Presently I'm concentrating on making a new version that will encompass a larger area of the brain.

There is very little heat from 15 LEDs operated in pulse mode.

On another note, I think you all might be interest in this cbs interview:



uh sorry not allowed to post a link to another site.

Ciao to Everybody,
sorry for my bad english. My mother has got Alzheimer and I read this article. Please, is there anybody who can tell me exactly how to make it at home? In the simplest way of course.. I went to the sites that sell the leds.. but if I buy the leds.. then what have I got to do?
Thank you friends

I'm I reading the manufacturers site wrong? This is the pricing that I found:

Part No. L1070-66-60 $347.14 (1- 9 pieces)
Lens 13 (+/- 13 degree half view angle) $30.86
Lens 55 (+/- 27 degree half view angle) $40.50
Heat sink $17.36
Assembly fee $3.21

Total w/ Lens 13 = $398.57 PER UNIT

Per Aquathought's comments:

We don't know the exact 1072 nm LEDs. There are two so far that I have found in the US. Another person found another source in Britain. The expensive 1072nm infrared LED is the one you quote. We should be careful with that one. If you look at the amount of power it produces, and the neccesity of using a heat sink, and the fact that that one must use a fan to disperse heat, it's a llikely candidate. Recall that the helmet depicted requires three large cooling fans per helmet. There's no doubt this one light energy would penetrate the skull.

The alternative 1072 nm infrared LEDs have a power output perhaps 1/60 of the more expensive one. They do not require fans to operate, but just as a precaution, I recommended sitting in front of a fan while using them for cooling. You know how people are, they often over do it, and a high brain temperature could have serious reprocussions.

Until someone actually sees a helmet up close, or disassembles one, we're not going to know how it's constructed. We're simply trying to reverse engineer it from the patent, articles we've read, and applying our medical and electronic opinion and expertise.

You see the issues with trying to build one? I have mixed feeling sharing my answers, much less a schematic.

If it really does help, even at $400 it's extraordinarily cheap. Realize that all the parts you have listed do not include a dc power source, a circuit board to hold the array of LEDs (including resistors), and a housing to keep the whole thing from shorting out. If you're an electronics tech, you could probably easily build one from scratch, or simply follow my previous advice of purchasing an inexpensive array, and then substituting the proper LEDs with the correct wavelength. Actually, I believe you could make one for under $200 using the hints I posted.

Some people are trying to use different wavelength LEDs in an attempt to assist their neurological conditions. Imagine it this way... When you sit under a light, different results could occur. Light exists in many parameters. It has brightness, power, wavelength, etc. Taking a simple example, if you sit outside you are exposed to many wavelengths at once. If you sit indoors under an incandescent you exposed to a very short range. If you sit under a fluorescent, the light is actually flickering very rapidly, and at a different wavelength. If you sit under a ultraviolet light you can get a tan. You cannot just substitute one for the other.

The only information we have thus far is from ONE study and patent. They mention two beneficial ranges (1072, and another I believe in the ~1340 nm range). Good luck finding the later. If you don't want to waste your money you might:
a. wait until the test has been repeated by other researchers
b. try to get in a study (good luck)
c. try to get one made
d. do nothing but follow the medical protocol you're currently using.

Prudence dictates waiting as the most responsible method. If you have the technical capability, you might make one and be very cautious about its use. If you don't have the technical capability, you might find some friend who does. We cannot tell you exactly how to make one, it is obviously a closely guarded secret.

I'm sorry not to give out more information. I think a measured release of information is far more responsible than telling people how to make something, and then not knowing if they actually follow through the application. All self-made machines have the capacity for harm.

I noticed in one of the articles about the device used to treat cold sores with 1072nm NIR that they claim that water is opaque to most of the IR spectrum, EXCEPT for a "window at 1072nm". So, could an ordinary infrared heating lamp be used as the source? I found sources for industrial IR lamps too. However, one can buy 250W IR heating lamps of the type used in bathrooms or to keep food warm in restaurants for about $3. Could a ziplock bag full of water be used as a filter to block the heating IR while allowing the 1072nm light to pass? Since the treatment time per day is short, about 10 minutes, such a lamp connected to a timer switch and a bag full of distilled water might be a real cheap source for this light.

Well that's a lot of watts. In essence sitting under one would cook your head if you sat there long enough. It's true a filter could be devised, but how would you measure the wavelength received? The box mihgt specifiy the lumens or candela which is to say the amount of light cast, the watts or power cast, but I doubt it has the wavelength. I seriously doubt you cold fine turn the filtering enough to get the proper wavelength.

My read of the infrared LED is different than yours on the cold sore device. I think that the LED is largely casting light at the 1072 nm range. Most infrared LEDs unless multiple LEDs encapsulated within the same one, cast at a narrow range.

Also, the main point of that is that the water aspect of the wavelength of 1072nm is that the LED light is being absorbed at that frequency "within" the body. I believe that that is the "mechanism" by which they believe the efficacy is created of a 1072 nm LED.

If you put a bag of distilled water as a filter, would you not in effect defeat the purpose and hence the infrared heat lamps energy would all be absorbed in the water, with no useful energy passed along to you?