Do you see actual improvements from using these devices? Do you have a link for them? Thanks.
DIY Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus on a Budget — LLLT Under 100,-
- Thread starter Cityjohn
- Start date
Do you see actual improvements from using these devices? Do you have a link for them? Thanks.
Member
I'm actually happy to read about Light therapy in this thread. The fact that it's light is more important than what generates the light, in my opinion.
We don't really care what generates the light, whether an LED or a laser: we care about the results - what works, what doesn't, and what protocol seems to be the most effective.
This thread seems appropriate for that. I'm not sure why the discussion of light therapy through LED is such a problem to you.
Ok, if a 20 dollar flashlight can help, im willing to try anything, but just how exactly would you use this? like you just shine it in your ear canal? how can you be sure you're getting the angle right? couldnt a small shift in your hand massively change the direction of the light, and its ability to get through to the cochlea? Especially since I have very narrow ear canals.
Hope you reply, thanks.
Feel free to point a flashlight into your ear but discuss about that in another thread.
The topic of this thread is: DIY Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus on a Budget — LLLT Under 100,-
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
@Zechariah
You seem a bit confused about how light therapy works
From a human inner ear cell point of view, there isn't any distinction between a photon coming from a laser, a LED, a IR device or the light of the sun.
Have you gone over Hamblin explanations on YouTube ?
He is the most knowledgeable LLLT specialist and he has no business agenda selling or promoting any particular device or treatment - he is his a phd Harvard university professor.
LLLT can also mean Low Level Light therapy there isn't anything magic about lasers.
For our intent and purposes - treating inner ear damage with light therapy at a budget under 100 dollars - there isn't any need to separate threads by light sources.
We already have 3 separate LLLT threads the way this forum is structured is to have similar subjects disscussed into one thread instead of creating multiple threads variants which will make info hard to find.
Whatever light source you use, the goal is to have :
1 a deep penetrating light Ray becuase the cochlea is cast in bone and not floating right behind the ear drum - it's at an angle
2. A deep penetrating light Ray becuase damaged auditory nerves are located further behind tissues and bones
3 a beam that delivers the correct dosage - no too much as its detrimental
4 a beam that's able to cover the whole cochlea and around - good coverage
5 a safe device - burning your retina or cells inside you ear is possible with high power lasers that don't have a properly unfocused beam
And all this under 100 and readily available because the studies show that the more time you loose after damage , the less effective it will be.
The longer wavelengths deliver less photons per time unit so you need to increase time exposure but those wavelengths penetrate much deeper into tissues
You seem a bit confused about how light therapy works
From a human inner ear cell point of view, there isn't any distinction between a photon coming from a laser, a LED, a IR device or the light of the sun.
Have you gone over Hamblin explanations on YouTube ?
He is the most knowledgeable LLLT specialist and he has no business agenda selling or promoting any particular device or treatment - he is his a phd Harvard university professor.
LLLT can also mean Low Level Light therapy there isn't anything magic about lasers.
For our intent and purposes - treating inner ear damage with light therapy at a budget under 100 dollars - there isn't any need to separate threads by light sources.
We already have 3 separate LLLT threads the way this forum is structured is to have similar subjects disscussed into one thread instead of creating multiple threads variants which will make info hard to find.
Whatever light source you use, the goal is to have :
1 a deep penetrating light Ray becuase the cochlea is cast in bone and not floating right behind the ear drum - it's at an angle
2. A deep penetrating light Ray becuase damaged auditory nerves are located further behind tissues and bones
3 a beam that delivers the correct dosage - no too much as its detrimental
4 a beam that's able to cover the whole cochlea and around - good coverage
5 a safe device - burning your retina or cells inside you ear is possible with high power lasers that don't have a properly unfocused beam
And all this under 100 and readily available because the studies show that the more time you loose after damage , the less effective it will be.
The longer wavelengths deliver less photons per time unit so you need to increase time exposure but those wavelengths penetrate much deeper into tissues
bill 112
Member
@I'm currently using the Konftec 808nm and 606nm(I believe).
Is this laser enough to do the job or is it far too weak to have any real value?
As of late in doing 30 minutes of 808nm wavelength followed by 15 minutes of the 606 for two days with a one day break in between.Your opinion would be greatly appreciated,thanks in advance.
Is this laser enough to do the job or is it far too weak to have any real value?
As of late in doing 30 minutes of 808nm wavelength followed by 15 minutes of the 606 for two days with a one day break in between.Your opinion would be greatly appreciated,thanks in advance.
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
I ordered the 5w lamp at 12 dollars and also the 10w at 50$
That's really high power - will let you guys know how these compare to the 3 light devices I used so far
I plan to use it against the ear canal 10 min per day switching on/ off and wear a cheap black eye mask like the ones given on airplanes
That's really high power - will let you guys know how these compare to the 3 light devices I used so far
I plan to use it against the ear canal 10 min per day switching on/ off and wear a cheap black eye mask like the ones given on airplanes
Can you answer my question regarding how you would position the flashlight to ensure it is effective? I'm desperate for treatment, and this sounds cheap enough, but I have a hard time imagining how you'd do it? Are you gonna push the flashlight onto your ear, or what? How will you hold it still at the right angle with your hand?
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
the way I use the other 1800mw light device and the 10w is to hold the probe/lamp against the ear and vary the angle from time to time..i move it around the ear a bit if it gets too hot or switch if off and start gain a few seconds later
I only need to do it 10 minutes per ear twice a week if its 5 w
I only need to do it 10 minutes per ear twice a week if its 5 w
@Bobby B
I was looking at this website and it says it is important to know the "power density" of the phototherapy device in order to calculate the treatment time. It goes on to say that a "solar meter" will show the power density.
Any thoughts on this in terms of the 5 watt 850 nm device from Amazon?
https://redlightman.com/blog/complete-guide-light-therapy-dosing/
By the way, the first sentence is helpful in explaining that there are many words to mean roughly the same thing - the medical use of light:
"Light therapy, Photobiomodulation, LLLT, phototherapy, infrared therapy, red light therapy and so on, are different names for similar things – applying light in the 600nm-1000nm range to the body."
I was looking at this website and it says it is important to know the "power density" of the phototherapy device in order to calculate the treatment time. It goes on to say that a "solar meter" will show the power density.
Any thoughts on this in terms of the 5 watt 850 nm device from Amazon?
https://redlightman.com/blog/complete-guide-light-therapy-dosing/
By the way, the first sentence is helpful in explaining that there are many words to mean roughly the same thing - the medical use of light:
"Light therapy, Photobiomodulation, LLLT, phototherapy, infrared therapy, red light therapy and so on, are different names for similar things – applying light in the 600nm-1000nm range to the body."
bill 112
Member
So when you say hold it against the ear, do you mean so that the earlobe would close over the ear canal? Or do you hold it at an angle so that the earlobe is open? (When i say earlobe i don't mean the part of the ear that is typically pierced, I mean that little fleshy bit outside the ear canal that you can push in with your finger to close the ear canal) Know what I mean?
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
@SilverSpiral
order that 12$ lamp now and let us know how wide the lens is - from the picture it seems wide enough to just roughly hold it against the ear canal and that ensures good coverage around it .
I won't receive the item until a few weeks from now as I live overseas.
BTW when did you have your noise trauma and how ?
order that 12$ lamp now and let us know how wide the lens is - from the picture it seems wide enough to just roughly hold it against the ear canal and that ensures good coverage around it .
I won't receive the item until a few weeks from now as I live overseas.
BTW when did you have your noise trauma and how ?
@bill 112
My Konftec model is the emLas-520BC.
This comparison table shows all the popular tinnitus phototherapy options except for the Lucky Laser Combi-Laser model LK-Combi (and the cool 5 watt 850 nm device from Amazon for $12 posted by @Bobby B):
http://www.konftec.com/html/EN/Auricular_Laser_Comparison.htm
The topic of this thread is: DIY Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus on a Budget — LLLT Under 100,-
(I bolded the relevant part - maybe you won't miss it this time). And additionally this is about building your own laser.
And yes I've seen that interview. There is nothing that would convince me that the flashlight therapy works. Especially when you, who claim to have improvements, have failed to deliver any audiograms before/after the treatment and you have done this treatment for a some time.
No offense but I will not engage any rational discussion with you about this flashlight therapy. You will filter every word of criticism out and keep referring to this only professional in the world who hasn't said a word that flashlight therapy would recover cells in cochlea. You even deny that this thread is about building a laser therapy device by yourself. You live in some sort of weird upside-down-denial mate.
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
In that interview Hamblin explained that a high power LED IR floodlight had a very positive and powerful effect on the brain..he mentioned at several occasions that LED are as good as lasers but cheaper (for the same power) and of course much safer ！
Why would you even risk an eye injury using a small DIY laser pen on your head if you can have a high power LED light source delivering a lot more light in a wider radius, being far safer AND cheaper without even DIY hassle ?
Why would you even risk an eye injury using a small DIY laser pen on your head if you can have a high power LED light source delivering a lot more light in a wider radius, being far safer AND cheaper without even DIY hassle ?
And you still keep talking about flashlight therapy in addition to dodging my question about your audiograms. Well done m8!
@Zechariah I'm really not sure what your gripe is here. This thread is really a focus on the how to do light therapy without going the Wilden, etc commercial route. You're splitting hairs with "laser" being in the acronym, especially since the device we've discussed most heavily for 16 pages - the one built by @Cityjohn - also uses LEDs.
Seems to be you're just breaking @Bobby B balls. While we'd all like to see his audiogram, it seems you're becoming just as guilty as dodging rebuttals as nobody here is bothered by his discussing LEDs except you, as it actually is relevant to this thread.
Seems to be you're just breaking @Bobby B balls. While we'd all like to see his audiogram, it seems you're becoming just as guilty as dodging rebuttals as nobody here is bothered by his discussing LEDs except you, as it actually is relevant to this thread.
Well I admit that I got too frustrated about Bobby. He just keeps blindly telling his own story without really addressing any concerns which others bring up. That's why I gave him some of his own medicine - ignoring all the troublesome parts. Sorry about that. I'll just let him do his own thing from now on.
If people think that laser that light is close enough to laser, so be it. I won't try to change that either.
But I genuinely think that there should be at least one separated thread for this light therapy because I bet that half of the people who look at this tread are scared away because it seems that you must build something by yourself. All the instructions about buying ready IR light is buried in this thread or in LLLT experiences thread.
EDIT: And you guys who have decided to order that 5W hunting IR light. Use this page to calculate the proper distance that you don't scorch your ears. As you can tell, 1W IR light would be enough as well.
https://redlightman.com/blog/complete-guide-light-therapy-dosing/
Very helpful guide. Thank you for that. I guess we really don't know how much of the light reaches the cochlea from these flashlights at the various power levels. As this is really new ground, a lot of trial and error will be required.
I share your concerns about Bobby. While he has been extremely helpful in some ways, many of his statements are inconsistent. He has said several times that chronic T will likely not respond to LLLT and yet he himself continues to treat his own T well into the chronic stage. When anyone questions if LLLT can reduce T volume, he says no and that it is mostly meant to restore hearing. However, earlier in the thread, he mentioned his T becoming less bothersome (thinner, higher pitched) after treatment. He now raves about the LED light therapy as a full replacement for laser use and yet dodges questions about the effectiveness of the light therapy on himself. And of course, there's the lack of an audiogram.
I don't really mind if all light therapy is included in one thread but the above is a reminder that we must do our own due diligence and not take the word of someone on the internet.
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
My T is a high pitched hiss that is well above the 8khz that my ENT can test - and that's where most of my hearing loss is also.
I called about 8 large clinics and none of them had testing equipment above 8khz so its hard to know what is happening above 8khz.
I am not saying that lasers don't work, any light source like laser, LED or filtered IR will work.
I spent the last 8 months doing a lot of laser sessions of my ears with the lucky laser, so I know it did help a bit with H and perceived sound quality and sound range, but I feel the more powerful, broader diameter 1800mw device gave me better results and faster.
Its also much easier to only spend 10 minutes per ear twice a week instead of using a laser for 30 or 45 minutes a day 5 days a week if you were to follow Wilden procedure for the low power laser..and its a 3 years treatment that's a significant total time difference.
There is a reason why Wilden and his son in Germany are not using the small 80mw laser they sell at their clinics on their patients - they use a 20W pulsed laser with broad coverage as per the photo I posted before - so that the beam covers the area around the cochlea as well.
So this is what we should aim for - the type of effective sessions done at Wilden clinic not copying the under-powered lasers he sells.
The issue with high powered lasers is that it is hard to unfocus laser beams - you need expensive lenses setup and there is no forgiveness for mistakes because laser beam can burn tissue and very quickly cause damage inside the ear if some of the rays are not unfocused.
I look at my lucky laser 650nm beam projected to a wall and can see that the beam is made of distinctive smaller dots, not a smooth even light radius like my other 1800mw device.
I tried 500mw on the 808nm laser and it gave me vertigo. The 10w filtered IR device - a lot more power thant 500mw - never gave me vertigo, just some heat sensation if applied too long at the same spot.
Lasers can be dangerous as they focus too much energy in one spot and can heat up the cochlea liquids which causes vertigo.
This is a non-issue with LED : you can have high power AND safety - of course don't overdo it - and low price at the same time, because the LED are already perfectly unfocused to start with.
As for power, the above site is saying that:
(Power densities over about 200mw/cm² are not typically indicated for skin treatment as they are too powerful, however they can still be used for short periods to target deeper tissue. Power densities in the 500-1000+ range offer excellent penetration, useful for muscles, joints, brain tissue, etc.)
I called about 8 large clinics and none of them had testing equipment above 8khz so its hard to know what is happening above 8khz.
I am not saying that lasers don't work, any light source like laser, LED or filtered IR will work.
I spent the last 8 months doing a lot of laser sessions of my ears with the lucky laser, so I know it did help a bit with H and perceived sound quality and sound range, but I feel the more powerful, broader diameter 1800mw device gave me better results and faster.
Its also much easier to only spend 10 minutes per ear twice a week instead of using a laser for 30 or 45 minutes a day 5 days a week if you were to follow Wilden procedure for the low power laser..and its a 3 years treatment that's a significant total time difference.
There is a reason why Wilden and his son in Germany are not using the small 80mw laser they sell at their clinics on their patients - they use a 20W pulsed laser with broad coverage as per the photo I posted before - so that the beam covers the area around the cochlea as well.
So this is what we should aim for - the type of effective sessions done at Wilden clinic not copying the under-powered lasers he sells.
The issue with high powered lasers is that it is hard to unfocus laser beams - you need expensive lenses setup and there is no forgiveness for mistakes because laser beam can burn tissue and very quickly cause damage inside the ear if some of the rays are not unfocused.
I look at my lucky laser 650nm beam projected to a wall and can see that the beam is made of distinctive smaller dots, not a smooth even light radius like my other 1800mw device.
I tried 500mw on the 808nm laser and it gave me vertigo. The 10w filtered IR device - a lot more power thant 500mw - never gave me vertigo, just some heat sensation if applied too long at the same spot.
Lasers can be dangerous as they focus too much energy in one spot and can heat up the cochlea liquids which causes vertigo.
This is a non-issue with LED : you can have high power AND safety - of course don't overdo it - and low price at the same time, because the LED are already perfectly unfocused to start with.
As for power, the above site is saying that:
(Power densities over about 200mw/cm² are not typically indicated for skin treatment as they are too powerful, however they can still be used for short periods to target deeper tissue. Power densities in the 500-1000+ range offer excellent penetration, useful for muscles, joints, brain tissue, etc.)
You seem to have trouble realizing there is a difference between LED and laser as a light source.
Do you know how laser is used for many skin conditions and other medical uses? They can't replace laser with LED.
You use LEDs in flashlights and room lights, to lit up a space. You don't use LEDs to force a change in tissue. You use laser for that.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! And LED won't work for the cochlea. Only laser can!
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
@gotyoubynuts
And you don't have any scientific source to back this claim up I presume.
You are probably confused with laser skin resurfacing where laser are used to burn or cut the skin and yes this cannot be done by LED.
But for Low Level Light Therapy, LED or other light sources like the filtered 600nm-1500nm device I use can work as well.
This is clearly mentioned in the other site above as well.
This is exactly what Hamblin is saying in that interview in much details. Listen to that interview and then tell us you know more about Light Therapy than he does.
Yes maybe 5 years ago LED did not have sufficient power to replace laser, hence the therapies and many studies are based on the technology available back then, but LED have evolved so fast that now we have 10w of power at 850nm in a ready to use package for $50 and yes this can replace any mw range laser.
No need to be so negative here - you can still spend time building your laser if you so wish but, as a person who did a lot of various LLLT sessions for the last 12 months, these new LED high power NIR lamps are a godsend.
Now everyone can afford this and use it without dangers.
And you don't have any scientific source to back this claim up I presume.
You are probably confused with laser skin resurfacing where laser are used to burn or cut the skin and yes this cannot be done by LED.
But for Low Level Light Therapy, LED or other light sources like the filtered 600nm-1500nm device I use can work as well.
This is clearly mentioned in the other site above as well.
This is exactly what Hamblin is saying in that interview in much details. Listen to that interview and then tell us you know more about Light Therapy than he does.
Yes maybe 5 years ago LED did not have sufficient power to replace laser, hence the therapies and many studies are based on the technology available back then, but LED have evolved so fast that now we have 10w of power at 850nm in a ready to use package for $50 and yes this can replace any mw range laser.
No need to be so negative here - you can still spend time building your laser if you so wish but, as a person who did a lot of various LLLT sessions for the last 12 months, these new LED high power NIR lamps are a godsend.
Now everyone can afford this and use it without dangers.
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
http://www.har-journal.com/archives/1326
Low-level laser therapy and near-infrared LEDs have similar effects on inflammation and wound healing. Some studies have demonstrated that near-infrared LED is more efficient at speeding up wound healing compared to laser therapy [3-7]. Near-infrared (NIR) LED therapy has been shown to improve inflammation and accelerate wound healing, as well as helping to control pain. NIR-LED devices for light therapy are affordable, portable and easy to use, unlike other light therapy sources, such as lasers or incandescent light. Furthermore, they have improved dramatically in quality since the late 1990s, when they had rather unstable power outputs and divergent wavelengths. Older generation NIR-LEDs were not able to produce a meaningful clinical reaction to tissues. A new generation of NIR LEDs, also called the "NASA LEDs", developed by Whelan et al., have a lower divergence and also a more stable power output [8].
Low-level laser therapy and near-infrared LEDs have similar effects on inflammation and wound healing. Some studies have demonstrated that near-infrared LED is more efficient at speeding up wound healing compared to laser therapy [3-7]. Near-infrared (NIR) LED therapy has been shown to improve inflammation and accelerate wound healing, as well as helping to control pain. NIR-LED devices for light therapy are affordable, portable and easy to use, unlike other light therapy sources, such as lasers or incandescent light. Furthermore, they have improved dramatically in quality since the late 1990s, when they had rather unstable power outputs and divergent wavelengths. Older generation NIR-LEDs were not able to produce a meaningful clinical reaction to tissues. A new generation of NIR LEDs, also called the "NASA LEDs", developed by Whelan et al., have a lower divergence and also a more stable power output [8].
- Nov 25, 2015
- 1,705
- Tinnitus Since
- 11/2015
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Large caliber rifles&machine guns, +30 years of loud clubs
http://photobiology.info/LLLTis.html
Kendric C. Smith
Emeritus Professor, Radiation Oncology (Radiation Biology)
Stanford University School of Medicine
Low-Level Light Therapy
So many acronyms are used in this field that it is confusing to readers, e.g., low-level laser therapy (LLLT), low-power laser irradiation (LPLI), low-power laser therapy (LPLT), low-energy laser irradiation (LELI), etc., etc. It would be a great boon to the field if there could be some standardization of nomenclature. Since lasers just produce light, I would urge the use of the simple and correct term, Low-Level Light Therapy (LLLT).
Lasers Are Not Magical
All too often the laser phototherapy literature is written as if a laser is magical. Lasers can seem magical if their unique properties of micro-dot focusing, high intensity, possibility of ultrashort pulses, coherent radiation (i.e., the light waves are all in phase), and monochromaticity are all made use of. If the first four properties are not useful in a particular application, then a laser is just an expensive light bulb, whose emitted radiation follows (except for coherence) all of the same laws of physics and chemistry that the same wavelength of radiation from a conventional (non-coherent) light source follows.
Kendric C. Smith
Emeritus Professor, Radiation Oncology (Radiation Biology)
Stanford University School of Medicine
Low-Level Light Therapy
So many acronyms are used in this field that it is confusing to readers, e.g., low-level laser therapy (LLLT), low-power laser irradiation (LPLI), low-power laser therapy (LPLT), low-energy laser irradiation (LELI), etc., etc. It would be a great boon to the field if there could be some standardization of nomenclature. Since lasers just produce light, I would urge the use of the simple and correct term, Low-Level Light Therapy (LLLT).
Lasers Are Not Magical
All too often the laser phototherapy literature is written as if a laser is magical. Lasers can seem magical if their unique properties of micro-dot focusing, high intensity, possibility of ultrashort pulses, coherent radiation (i.e., the light waves are all in phase), and monochromaticity are all made use of. If the first four properties are not useful in a particular application, then a laser is just an expensive light bulb, whose emitted radiation follows (except for coherence) all of the same laws of physics and chemistry that the same wavelength of radiation from a conventional (non-coherent) light source follows.
If they are such a godsend, why aren't you sharing the specific results you've achieved with them? Have these LEDs lowered your T volume? Your H? Improved your hearing?
Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!
Similar threads
