Why Near Infrared is better than FIR and US

A dose ‘too high’ would be when the temperature grows beyond what you consider comfortable.
In the end it really isn’t much different than sunbathing, with the difference that you don’t need sunscreen to reduce UV wavelengths.

Unlike FIR (and perhaps US, but I know too little about it), you won’t cook or make your penis fall if you use NIR for 1hour instead of 30 minutes.

If you’re worried that, in order to reach 44°C deeper into the tissues, you have to reach a temperature too high on the outside, you have to disable 660nm emission and use only 850nm, which pass through the outer layer rather than just stop there.
Considering the cylindrical irradiation I’d expect the temperature increase to be A LOT more uniformly, since as I said it’s true radiation decreases with the depth, but it also gets more focused towards the cylindrical axis.

My personal experience is that after 30 minutes, using both 660nm and 850nm, the outside temperature is nowhere near being uncomfortable, and heat seems to be quite diffused - it’s easy to pull cold skin (the base outside the pad wrapping) and feel it conveys heat coming from underneath.

While I work in a IR related research facility, as I said and as you can guess, the PE application not only is outside the scope of my work, but it makes close to impossible to use lab equipment to test on myself, not to mention my own penis.

That said, I’m sorry I’m not going to slip a thermocouple in my urethra. For a horrible moment I actually considered it, or to be precise, I considered using a needle thermometer. I’m happy to say I quickly dismissed this idea: I’m not going to cause a potential damage just to bring measures - that, by the way, would of course be just as much in doubt as everthing else I can say here. It would actually be stupid, considering I’ve been saying that NIR DO NOT RELY on heat.

While I do agree that ‘everyone seems to be looking for shortcuts’, I just don’t believe the hardcore, more difficult approach has to be the only (or best) one delivering results. I think you’ll agree the worse that can happen is people using dangerous equipment just because they read online it can grow their penis. Of all the different methods, NIR is by far the least dangerous, and I hope we can all agree on this.

I want to add another minor remark. Sometimes I feel like I’m proving something that was actually obvious.
Are we really testing that IR radiation is good for body regeneration? Our ancestors, used to live much more out in the open - IN THE SUN - could probably tell that already.
Obviously I’m not saying all radiation is good by itself; we came to understand the risks with UV, for example. But, the positive effects of sun exposure have been common knowledge for centuries.
So in the end I feel like I’m answering about the risks of drinking water. Yes it can kill you, if you drink 20 liters of it. But really, there are so few things less dangerous I can think of.

Not saying anything like it if you read it over one more time. I was talking about reaching even 39 C inside would need such a superficial heating method to reach 44°C outside. If you consider the NIR application to be anything but a superficial heating method I am afraid we need something more than your word. For which I offered a method in a silver plate. I would be happy to be proven wrong of course. FIR guys got it there abouts but still not convincing anyone.

There are things you don´t take into count seriously enough as the superficial tissue has such an effective cooling mechanism as does the cavernous tissue as well. I am sure you are not aware of it at this point.
At around 10 to 12 minutes of heating the perfusion rate reach its peak and thereafter the body´s own thermoregulatory system makes it a task to keep the inner temperature even with ultrasound.

No one asks you to promise anyone any gains. At that point, you would lose all the credibility already build.
Correct me if I am wrong but you came in saying to have vast expertise in this field and claiming you have a better solution than anything contested. We are supposed to just take your word?
You do realize you are offering an application not proven in any field of therapy, so even if you are not obligated to convince anybody, would it be reasonable to ask for it?

That we all can agree NIR will be far safer than any other mentioned method.
Don´t take this personally as there seems to be zero resistance for such a honey dripping method someone should take the critical aspect if there are parts missing in the story. That would me then I suppose.

You would only be stupid to deny the temperature rise not being indirect proof of significant intensity left not absorbed in the skin already. Send me a copy of your pad and I would be glad to do it. Putting four probes collecting thousands of data points in 15 minutes. Plotting a nice convincing graph shutting some mouths like mine and getting deeply interested about bringing the idea forward.

No, the last thing you need is my word.
Once again, I invite you going through the scientific papers published in particular after ~2014. There really is a lot of them, and I hope we can agree that’s shared knowledge now. That’s not my word or yours.

Different papers can show different numbers, for example about penetration depth. Let’s say it’s fine.
They all agree, though, that 800/850nm wavelenght pass through the external layer of the skin much more than others wavelengths.
They all agree melanin, which at those wavelengths is by far the strongest absorbing factor, is mostly located in the epidermis, which is <1mm thick.
They all agree that the widest majority of emission power pass through the epidermis and reach AT LEAST lower levels.
This is all proved beyond any doubt.

What does this mean? That NIR is NOT a superficial heating method: 660nm red light would be, not 850nm. This is not an opinion.
So the only real question remaining is, how deep it really generates heat?
On a penis the skin is ~1mm thick, and we know only a minor fraction of NIR radiation get absorbed there. You certainly know more about penile physiology than I do, so I’ll try referring to what you previosly said:

So, since most of the radiation gets absorbed below the skin, it actually is the other way around: both heat and biochemical growth responses actually happen in the cavernous tissue and are only minimally transferred to the skin. [That’s actually why in most applications 850nm is coupled with 660nm]

Unfortunately I feel like discussing with you always brings back the focus over heat, and as a consequence discussing how deep the radiation gets absorbed translates in how deep temperature is increased. But I only have a minor, minor interest in that.
Good thing is, this is another issue all papers agree upon, so you don’t have to take my words for it.

The truth is, this is so common now you can actually ask ChatGPT about it too, and it’s going to tell the same:

Do you remember the pads emits in the 660nm wavelength too, right?
That’s what causing heat in the dermis: 660nm doesn’t go much deeper than that.

Since I do not focus over heat at all and it doesn’t get to an uncomfortable level (but i never tried going over 30 minutes), I had no reason to exclude that 660nm wavelength; I’m perfectly happy if that part of the emission power gets absorbed and impacts the dermis, while most of the power anyway is emitted in the 850nm and gets deeper.

Three people, myself being one of them, put a thermocouple up their urethra to check heat penetration with FIR. I wouldnt say things were half way. People do what they can and add information over time. Best to let it happen naturally.
What is more worrying to me is the folks that over inflate their approach and try to make people believe there is a guaranteed method out there by making them believe there is a definitive science. There is not a definitive science here just folks trying stuff and trying to make sense of it. We can look at what the science says for heat, tissue stretching etc but all we have here is the application and testing of various approaches to see what works. As we all know, what works for one might not for another.

Thank you for clearing it out, since the 660nm heats only the most superficial layers, there is pretty much no significance in monitoring the skin temperature with this solution.
It is pretty much a worthless effort (660nm) in the first place and could be turned down. As if the skin is not heated the perfusion rate is not accelerated and therefore the cooling effect is minimized.
IF someone aimed to heat the inner tissues off course. Nice skin regeneration and health tool though(660nm).

You keep being very adamant that 850 nm has a potent intensity at the tunica level and beyond, reaching cavernous tissue. That´s fine, if it is not measured how could there be any debate about it?

I keep bringing the heat up for obvious reasons. If there is significant heat elevation in cavernous tissue, there are significant non-thermal effects as well. Don´t you agree?
If you are not interested in heat, how come you are not interested to see the latter indirectly in reality?

If the thermal measuring does not fit your intentions, why would you not insert a fiber optic probe inside the urethra and find out NIR directly? I would.

If there is a heated build-up significant enough, we could consider the gains being (partly if not completely) because of it.
If not but finding out there is still significant intensity of NIR exposure, your hypothesis would be proven right.
If neither occurred then you had just most probably gained with an extender.
Of course, you are not obligated to. Some of us volunteer for the sake of common interests from time to time though.
Peace out. I´ll keep hanging on to see what you are up to.

Few data points here and there won´t make it I am afraid. Better than nothing, of course, the application is not confirmed yet though. That´s what I meant.

You are right, there is no guaranteed method available. For reasons not understood some stay non-gainers whatsoever. Some gain rapidly great gains and then nothing no matter what.
Even if the gains can be accelerated with some methods there seems to be plateaus that might be definite.

What is the emission power measuring tool you are using in the picture.

My understanding is that with Near it is only a small portion of the therapeutic effect that is the heat component. It’s the other portion that I was wondering if you had thoughts about.

It’s a common solar power meter. Why?

Not really. As I mentioned, a reason to keep using the 660nm emission is getting a clear, visible reminder of when the pad is on and when the 15/30 minutes timer stops it.
That doesn’t mean there are no detectable effects. After a couple minutes for example you start feeling a general warmth. Tissues relax, resulting in much easier (and wider) stretching in the extender. And of course, there’s the growth I observed over the weeks.

These are not major, evident signs, it’s true. In the end for me it’s not that dissimilar from a tanning bed: you don’t get immediate results in a matter of minutes, and yet you see its long term effects on your body.

Obviously it’s not the ‘thermal’ part I’m against. I just have no exuberant desire to insert things in my urethra, that’s all. Especially if I’d have to do it at work.

From a scientific point of view, I can’t provide a measure of what’s ‘too much’. We just never observed ‘too much’ in our experiments (not talking PE).
In a way, it’s like asking for how long you can leave a penis under a common lamp’s light, or more precisely for how long you can stand in front of a fireplace.

Then there’s common sense. Everything can kill you, even light (it only has to be so intense).
Even if I think 1 or even 2 hr irradiation wouldn’t cause problems (just a personal opinion, I have no data to back this up), I wouldn’t go beyond 30 minutes. Unless of course your objective is exactly to increase penis temperature to get to that range (40/45°C) where collagen destabilizes. If that’s your objective, don’t use NIR: stick with FIR and US and you’ll probably be better off.
As i mentioned in my first post, there are also conflicting results about the efficacy of repeated, prolonged exposure: as a consequence, I wouldn’t bet that doubling the exposure will get you better results.