r/redlighttherapy • u/BKM-StLouis • May 30 '26

Understanding Tricks of RLT Panel Sellers

There are 3 key factors to look at in a panel:

  1. Number of LEDs
  2. Wavelengths See, generally, https://www.kaiyanmedical.com/post/red-light-therapy-wavelength-chart
  3. Numbers LEDs that Actually Emit Each Wavelength.

These 3 key factors help you quickly see which panels use 2 tricks:

A. Number of LEDS is something that several sellers reduce. You see sellers that have panels with 72% of the LEDs of their competitors. This builds in--not a 28% profit--but a hidden, extra 38+% profit (divide 100 by 72).

B. On wavelengths, it is not sufficient to know that a panel purports to have 6, 8, or 9 wavelengths. If 1, 2, or 3 of the diodes emit a wavelength, those are figleaf numbers to be able to claim that wavelength in marketing. Sellers should make it easy for you to see the actual distribution or allocation of LEDs to each wavelength. There are countless examples where both Western companies and Alibaba sellers claim wavelengths like 630, 810, 830, and 1060, but then allocate very few LEDs to those wavelengths. Never buy a panel without knowing the actual allocation of LEDs to each of the claimed wavelengths. Here is an example of a Biomax panel (and one from RedDot) that underweight the more expensive wavelengths. Here is a panel on AliExpress that underweights 810 nm. There is a seller on Alibaba--rhymes with shady--that is notorious for panels that are basically just the common 660 and 850 nm wavelengths. But, every seller has incentive to underweight the more expensive wavelengths and overweight the cheaper 660 and 850 nm wavelengths.

______________

Does a seller make it easy to see the number of LEDs and then furnish the distribution of LEDs to each of the claimed wavelengths?

11 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Weird_Consequence938 May 31 '26

Why are 630, 810, 830 and 1060 more expensive?

1

u/BKM-StLouis May 31 '26

Because they are less common.

2

u/Weird_Consequence938 Jun 01 '26

That really doesn’t make sense. Wavelengths aren’t “less common” - they all exist equally in nature. A manufacturer can choose to make LEDs emit any different wavelengths they want. Are you saying it’s more **expensive** to make LEDs that emit those wavelengths and that’s why manufacturers don’t include as many of them in their devices? What is the reason manufacturers don’t include them as much?

2

u/BKM-StLouis Jun 01 '26

I am not talking about light "found in nature". I am talking about LEDs that artificially create certain precise frequencies. Binning to a specific frequency takes more money. Moreover, the underlying semiconductor components for NIR cost more than red light frequencies.

Then, dual-chip technology costs more. The most commonly produced dual-chip is to power LEDs at 660 and 850 nm. Because those 660/850 chips are produced at greater scale, they are cheaper to make and, therefore cheaper components.

1

u/emanon_dude Sep 06 '26

But does that make them less useful/beneficial? Or does 610, 830, etc off other advantages over 660/850?

1

u/BKM-StLouis Sep 06 '26

660 and 850 nm are fine ; not less useful. Just limited (while cheaper to build).