UV Lamp advice please

[Alexgem7777]

There are high UV emission bulbs and Low UV emission bulbs and they both work off 36 watts which is the amount of electricity needed to power the lamp. Using a weaker light with less UV light output will under-cure Shellac.

Then there is the placement of the bulbs in the lamp so that the hand or foot will be in the centre where the highest UV output is found.

Then there is the distance of the fingers from the light which has to be considered.

Then there is the convenience and the placement of the bulbs to ensure a 5- finger (whole hand) cure of all nails with the thumbs being at a different angle.

To ensure all these things CND have produced the perfect lamp, placement, UV output, distance etc to ensure a complete cure of Shellac.

Then there is this which your research should have found first.

http://www.dougschoon.com/nailpros/article-ProBeautyAU_7-Secrets-to-Curing.pdf

I did take all that in to account with my research. The question is and remains is how does the UV output of the CND lamp bulbs differ significantly then other similiar 36 watt UV lamps with 9 watt UV bulbs. If anyone can provide an answer to that I would be very interested. Thanks.

 

[busybee32]

OMG People, Im sorry but is there really any need to keep this dragging out. The original question was about it being necessary to use the CND lamps to cure Shellac, The answer is Yes!
Question over , why is everyone new deciding to go against the experience of the chemists and scientists involved in the manufacture of Shellac and the lamps and use a completly unrecommended lamp.

Stop arguining with the people in the know and do what you have been advised if you dont want to listen to the answers given or take any notice of the answers then please kindly keep your opinions to yourself.
There have been countless threads on here over the last few months about Shellac, Gelish and Lamps etc, check out the group pages on here or better still do a search.
I suggest that maybe some of you re read the geek commandment no7
7 - Thou shalt search for thy answers Have a burning question? So have thousands of others (where do you think the 500,000 posts have come from?). Try a search to find your answer. If you cant find it or you are not fulfilled with the results feel free to post away!http://www.salongeek.com/how-do-stuff-site/31101-commandments-geek.html
Please stop posting the same questions over and over and then arguing with those in the know when the answers have been given.
This is a professional forum not a slanging ring or a debating ring.
Sorry if this offends some of you newbies out there but it has to be said.
Jen

 

[Dinkydot]

Well said!!! x

 

[Ruth Mills]

OMG People, Im sorry but is there really any need to keep this dragging out. The original question was about it being necessary to use the CND lamps to cure Shellac, The answer is Yes!
Question over , why is everyone new deciding to go against the experience of the chemists and scientists involved in the manufacture of Shellac and the lamps and use a completly unrecommended lamp.

Well said! The Shellac lamp from CND will have been designed and tested specifically to work with Shellac, and will have had all design parameters optimised accordingly.

With Shellac being such an innovative and novel technology, it makes sense to use the lamp specifically designed for it, rather than risk sub-optimal results from a generic lamp or a lamp designed for products with very different chemistry!

 

[Alexgem7777]

I am sorry but until someone can factually answer my question "So if anyone can show how the 9 watt UV bulbs that CND uses in their lamps produce more usable UV-C watts then please post that information and the source so that I may be enlightened." then I remain unconvinced that the CND lamp cures Shellac better then other similiar 36 watt UV lights.

There is a difference between subjective data (which is basically a person's personal experiences and beliefs) vs. objective data (which is scientific proof that can be recreated in a laboratory).

So no matter how loud someone shouts on a forum, no matter how many times they say that I have to believe it because they say it is the truth I wlll not believe until I have proof. Many years ago you could be put to death for saying that the world was round when everyone said it was flat.

So- Here is the challange. I want OBJECTIVE PROOF!!!!! Bring it on, give a current, researchable scientific source that can be checked and proved authentic and I may become a believer. Until then it does not matter if there are 5, 50,000 or 5 million posts about it being better to cure Shellac then other similiar 36 Watt UV lamps. Prove it.

 

[busybee32]

I am sorry but until someone can factually answer my question "So if anyone can show how the 9 watt UV bulbs that CND uses in their lamps produce more usable UV-C watts then please post that information and the source so that I may be enlightened." then I remain unconvinced that the CND lamp cures Shellac better then other similiar 36 watt UV lights.

There is a difference between subjective data (which is basically a person's personal experiences and beliefs) vs. objective data (which is scientific proof that can be recreated in a laboratory).

So no matter how loud someone shouts on a forum, no matter how many times they say that I have to believe it because they say it is the truth I wlll not believe until I have proof. Many years ago you could be put to death for saying that the world was round when everyone said it was flat.

So- Here is the challange. I want OBJECTIVE PROOF!!!!! Bring it on, give a current, researchable scientific source that can be checked and proved authentic and I may become a believer. Until then it does not matter if there are 5, 50,000 or 5 million posts about it being better to cure Shellac then other similiar 36 Watt UV lamps. Prove it.

Tell you what,
Pm Doug Schoon one of CNDs scientists behind Shellac and author of nail structure and product chemistry, and appointed chief scientist for the INA and the lamp I'm sure he will be able to give you the answer you are looking for you wont get any better answer other than from the horses mouth. Stop adding to a thread where the original posters question has already been answered.
I also dont believe that I have been shouting just stating the facts. You are new to the site so you will be forgiven but we dont take to kindly to people trying to cause a stink on here.
Do as I suggest and contact Doug im sure he will be happy to answer any of your queries.

 

[Ruth Mills]

Tell you what,
Pm Doug Schoon one of CNDs scientists behind Shellac and author of nail structure and product chemistry, and appointed chief scientist for the INA and the lamp I'm sure he will be able to give you the answer you are looking for you wont get any better answer other than from the horses mouth. Stop adding to a thread where the original posters question has already been answered.
I also dont believe that I have been shouting just stating the facts. You are new to the site so you will be forgiven but we dont take to kindly to people trying to cause a stink on here.
Do as I suggest and contact Doug im sure he will be happy to answer any of your queries.

You took the words out of my mouth there! I was also going to suggest getting in touch with Doug Schoon, he is a genius and the GURU!

There's more to lamp design than just the wattage of the bulb; things like the shape and angle of reflectors will make a big difference too.

One thing's for certain - Doug Schoon and his team will have left no stone uncovered to get every last inch of performance out of the lamp design - and perhaps there's just a chance that using a lamp that gives out *more* UV than specified in the design will lead to inferior results too...

 

[Ruth Mills]

Incidentally, there are a couple of 400W UV cannons in my back bedroom that will easily out-UV a puny 36W bulb, but it would be insanity attempting to use *those* to cure nails

 

[busybee32]

Incidentally, there are a couple of 400W UV cannons in my back bedroom that will easily out-UV a puny 36W bulb, but it would be insanity attempting to use *those* to cure nails

Hahahahahahahah :lol::lol::lol:
Love it Ruth!

 

[BobSweden]

Because CND gel appears to use less photoinitiator in their gels than other companies. As a consequence, the CND UV lamps have a higher UVA output in order to cure in the recommended time.

Try using another manufacturers gel under these lamps and you will notice a much bigger heat spike because of the higher UVA output.

This means if you try to cure CND gels with most other lamps then you will almost certainly undercure if you only leave the nails in for 2 minutes.

Why CND decided to use less photoinitiator I have no idea (well I do, but it's beyond your question).

However, I beg to ask the question - is it really too much to invest in the correct tools for the job rather than trying to find a cheap fix? From my experience, people who continually try to find cheap miss the bigger picture and don't make money anyway.

 

[Alexgem7777]

Because CND gel appears to use less photoinitiator in their gels than other companies. As a consequence, the CND UV lamps have a higher UVA output in order to cure in the recommended time.

Sorry Bob- that just doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if I put a UV Gel or a potato under the lamp bulbs. The UV output of the bulbs is not determined by what is under them.

Still- and I am not trying to be cocky or anything but I am looking for proof. That means you can prove what you are saying. Anyone?

 

[persianista]

Because CND gel appears to use less photoinitiator in their gels than other companies. As a consequence, the CND UV lamps have a higher UVA output in order to cure in the recommended time.


Sorry Bob- that just doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if I put a UV Gel or a potato under the lamp bulbs. The UV output of the bulbs is not determined by what is under them.

Still- and I am not trying to be cocky or anything but I am looking for proof. That means you can prove what you are saying. Anyone?

Honey, why are you asking people who have gone to the trouble and expense of buying the correct tools which the manufacturer recommends, to justify the purchase? If you don't want to buy one, don't.
You are in danger of being accused of trolling this thread, and it is getting tedious. The search button will tell you all that everyone on here knows.

Doug Schoon is on twitter, so maybe contact him that way if you require a scientific answer.

 

[Ruth Mills]

Because CND gel appears to use less photoinitiator in their gels than other companies. As a consequence, the CND UV lamps have a higher UVA output in order to cure in the recommended time.


Sorry Bob- that just doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if I put a UV Gel or a potato under the lamp bulbs. The UV output of the bulbs is not determined by what is under them.

Still- and I am not trying to be cocky or anything but I am looking for proof. That means you can prove what you are saying. Anyone?

No, you are misunderstanding what Bob has said. Bob has implied that the chemistry of CND gel uses less photoinitiator (a chemical which splits into free radicals when molecules of it absorb UV light - which subsequently initiates the polymerisation reaction of monomer in the gel) than many other products on the market. CND gel therefore requires more photons of UVA light within a given period of time to cure properly compared with other gel products. As a consequence, CND will therefore specify a bulb with a higher UVA output to be compatible with their products.

Likewise, as the other gel products Bob mentioned contain a higher concentration of photoinitiator - hence using a CND lamp (with the higher UVA output - so more photons of UVA emitted within a given length of time) will cause a "heat spike" as the product will be receiving *too many* photons of UVA within a given time period.

So whether you've got a potato or a Flux Capacitor under your UV lamp, that's not the issue here anyway... the issue is one of companies designing their respective lamps to be compatible with their products - where consequently using the wrong lamp may lead to either too little UV being delivered to the product (causing insufficient curing) or too much UV (causing heat spikes).

I guess a similar analogy is making sure you use the correct power supply for an electronic product - you'd be a fool to try and save money by buying a cheap power supply of the wrong voltage to power your expensive iPod...

 

[NoLimitNails]

First of all they use high intensity bulbs, but never mind that as I cannot comment on this.

But imagine the lamp is the sun: the closer you get to it the more uv-exposure right? Imagining spreading foil around the back of the sun: more uv-rays will be directed your way right?

Both the foil and the angles it is wrapped and reflects the rays intensifies the uv-output, SO the CND lamp has the foil liners in specific angles to reflect the uv-output as much as possible and the DISTANCE between the nails and the bulbs is specifically designed to ensure higher uv-output.

This is why it gives out a higher UV-output, don't know much about the bulbs, but maybe they add to it too.

Problem is that Shellac needs the more intensified/higher output to fully cure, but as you cannot see/hear/feel if product is fully cured (will feel cured when 70-80% cured as far as I remember) There is no lamp out there designed quite as the cnd-lamp, hence the fact that it will probably not cure the shellac.

Does this give a better answer? It's not bout the bulbs, it's the WHOLE lamp working as one unit...:hug:

 

[Alexgem7777]

Honey, why are you asking people who have gone to the trouble and expense of buying the correct tools which the manufacturer recommends, to justify the purchase? If you don't want to buy one, don't.
You are in danger of being accused of trolling this thread, and it is getting tedious. The search button will tell you all that everyone on here knows.

Doug Schoon is on twitter, so maybe contact him that way if you require a scientific answer.

Sigh........this is why I do not post on forums except a few. I will check back periodically to see if anyone has the answer I posed. Or even tried to produce any facts to the question posed. If so it would start out with "The 9 watt UV bulbs that CND uses are significantly different, produce more UV output then other similiar 9 watt UV bulbs because........."

Until then I cannot take any other response seriously. If that makes me a troll then please consider me someone who refuses to drink the Kool-Aid until I am sure it is Kool-Aid. That is an American saying for do not believe everything you are told. Anyone can buy and use the CND lamp as the manufacturer intructs to cure Shellac. But for anyone to say that another similiar 36 watt UV light used to cure Shellac may undercure the Shellac would be premature and perhaps down right false until proven otherwise.

Back to my regularly programmed and scheduled life......

 

[mum]

Does this give a better answer? It's not bout the bulbs, it's the WHOLE lamp working as one unit...
Today 07:40 PM

Exactly!

Isn't this thread getting completely out of hand??? YES, it is about the whole lamp! The UV tubes in question are 'incandescent' and need the correct distance from the output and the correct reflector definition.

What is the problem with some people on this thread that have to continually question and try to prove that the manufacturers recommendations are wrong!!??

The general working nail professional is not really interested in the deep scientific facts about a 'system'. Basic understanding is essential but... really this deep??? Is all this "I know better than you" really necessary?

If you but a widescreen TV or an HD version, would you keep carping on about the correct controller to use to make it work??

The photopolymer chemistry with the advanced products available to our industry is a carefully balanced chemical equation. Why cannot nail professionals just go with the 'manufacturers instructions' that is required by all of our insurance policies without having to listen to some 'geeks/nerds' that feel the need to show off their 'superior' knowledge.

 

[NoLimitNails]

So no matter how close you are to the sun you will be exposed to the same amount of uv-output?? And the reflecting foil has nothing to say (or even how reflecting)???

Ok you obviously refuse to use pure logic.

Let me put it this way: maybe there is a lamp out there that can cure shellac also because it's BUILT EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, but as you cannot home-monitor uv-output, you will not know which one it is, and guestimating would probably cause you clients, so is it really worth it???

 

[VHunter]

yes its simple. yes I get it. yes I am a qualified chemist and electronics engineer so speaking from a very sound source... just happy to enjoy the forum and all its supposed to be for..... not to be rediculed or spoken to like numpties.....(great choice of words) enjoy being the voice of reason and if I find you ever have something useful to contribute in the future I may well write again........

JUST WHO do you think you are, that makes you so special that you would have the temerity to refer to some of the most respected, educated, knowledgeable people in the industry as 'numpties'??
You refer to us as numpties, and yet you can't even spell properly??????

I'm flabbergasted.

I'm going to speak VERY plainly here... so I apologize to the mods in advance.....
HOWEVER...........

I'm growing very tired of all the "numpties" talking out of their A**es because their foul breath that stinks like S**t is polluting our air!!!!!!!

Instead of arguing, why not take up the suggestion of speaking to Doug Schoon himself and verifying the information that has been shared?
As opposed to attempting to appear like semi-intelligent when all you've proven is your ignorant arrogance.

AT LEAST Mr Doug Shoon has effectively proven his expertise in this field and is recognized WORLDWIDE, unlike the rest of the loud mouths creating a ruckus on this forum spouting self-importance.


For now, I'm stepping outside for some fresh air. I need to clean my nasal passages of the foul emissions I've stumbled across today.

 

[Martigirl]

To be honest I couldn't give a flying feck about the UV output or why we really need to know!!!

I bought 2 new CND lamps (now I have 6 lamps in total) and they are the best lamps I have invested in , they give me a 5 finger cure with easy timers and they are easily sanitised and provide me with what I need to do a speedy and a great job! What more do I need??????????????

so for me that is all that matters I am a Beauty Therapist not a Scientist!:lol:

 

[catsaremad]

mmmmm think Victoria has probably said all that needs to be said...................well apart from.................
please do go take your brand of 'intelligence' elsewhere its not needed here................l