Data from our Optics Lab: Comparing the LaserCap to a Popular Off-Brand

A little ventilation can go a long way folks. As discussed in a prior post, the LaserCap is specially engineered for superior management of heat. Here is some data from our optics lab to prove that.

In this experiment, we compared the output of the LaserCap 300Flex, the LaserCap MC2, and one of the most popular off-brand 272 diode laser cap copies.

We measured the intensity of each device at 30 second intervals, over 5 minutes of continuous light emission.

As can be seen in the graph below, we found that the output delivered by the off-brand cap was dramatically different than that of our LaserCaps.

First, the off brand cap (shown in purple), starts at only a fraction of the intensity of the LaserCaps. Furthermore, over 5 minutes of continuous emission, heat build-up causes intensity to drop by nearly 30%.

By comparison, the LaserCap 300Flex (shown in blue), has more diodes, can deliver almost 4x the intensity of the off-brand cap, and loses only 22% intensity over 5 minutes.

The LaserCap MC2 (shown in red), also with more diodes, and similarly delivering much higher intensity than the off-brand cap, loses less than 9% intensity over 5 minutes.   

This off-brand 272 diode cap is one of the more popular devices out there, and is sold at the same price as the LaserCap 300Flex. It has a nice look to it, but is low power, and is poor at managing heat. As a result the dose delivered to the patient is dramatically less than what would be delivered by the LaserCap.

We feel it is important to highlight these differences, because in the end patients are being mislead and mistreated.

Anyone can put light bulbs in a hat, add some cosmetic fluff, and claim that it will regrow your hair.

However making an effective therapeutic device requires a little more attention is paid to good to science and engineering.