Page 3 of 5

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:17 am
by Jay Aitchsee
Max, building the IR camera is easy. Just get a cheap webcam, open it up and take the IR filter out of it. Once the filter is removed, the visible light will wash out the camera so you'll need a visible light filter. Exposed film works good, but lots of other things will work, black plastic garbage bag, for example. I used film, but I didn't put it back inside the camera, I just put it on the outside. The light source is just some radio shack infrared LED's in series with a limiting resistor.

See here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65101&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... 15#p609795
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65101&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... 15#p609795

Liz, E=I*R, Where E is your voltage source, I is the stated current rating of the LED, and R is the size of the limiting resistor you're looking for. Or, in this case, R=E/I

Jay

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:20 am
by MaxDarkside
Jay Aitchsee wrote:...lots of other things will work, black plastic garbage bag, for example
Weird. So you take out the IR filter and cover the lens with a black garbage bag and it can SEE in IR? How strange.

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:40 am
by Jay Aitchsee
Yep, that's it. The receptor in the webcam already "sees" IR, that's why they put the filter in it in the first place, to keep the IR from washing out the visible light. When you take it out, the visible light will wash out the IR, so you use a visible light filter. Actually, in a dark room you probably won't need the filter to do the actual recording. It's just that if you're setting up the cam in visble light it'll be washed out.
The visible light filter would be most needed if you wanted to see IR in the daylight or with the lights on.
The LED's I used were radio shack Infra-red LED's

Jay

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:45 am
by MaxDarkside
Jay Aitchsee wrote:Yep, that's it. The receptor in the webcam already "sees" IR, that's why they put the filter in it in the first place, to keep the IR from washing out the visible light. When you take it out, the visible light will wash out the IR, so you use a visible light filter. Actually, in a dark room you probably won't need the filter to do the actual recording. It's just that if your setting up the cam in visble light it'll be washed out.
The visible light filter would be most needed if you wanted to see IR in the daylight or with the lights on.
The LED's I used were radio shack Infra-red LED's

Jay
I'll run to BestBuy today and get a cam I can hack up. Any particular brand / model I should get? How do I know what the IR filter looks like, presuming it's not obvious sheet of clear looking film.
EDIT: Oh, I see you used a Microsoft LifeCam VX-3000. I'll get one of those unless you say otherwise.

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:33 am
by Jay Aitchsee
Max, any inexpensive webcam will do. I think that one I used cost about $25. Cheaper is OK. You might look for one that looks like it might come apart easily (has screws) and/or has some software you might want. I think Liz used one that cost about $10, but she'd have to verify. Search You Tube for many examples of hacks. (something like "convert webcam to infrared')

When you open it, you will see a pink glass piece sitting over the aperature or lens. That's the filter. Just pop it out and put it back together and you're in business. You now have webcam that's "seeing" the ir spectrum plus the visible spectrum.

Have fun.

Jay

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:14 pm
by MaxDarkside
Well, I got a Microsoft LifeCam HD-3000 and popped 'er open, went through 3 layers of screws (good thing I got a computer repair kit too, cuz them screws were very dinking), found the IR filter. It was between the CCD (?) array and the lens. It seemed to be coated glass and it was in there 'real good' and so the IR filter did not survive the operation. No worries. I plugged it in to make sure the camera survived... it did. I reassembled it all again, plugged it in and "Wa - La" Nifty! OK, so, for a light source I don't have anything so I took the student desk lamp, put it on a chair in the corner and stuck it's head into an empty Folger's Coffee red plastic container with no lid. I put a jacket on the back of the chair so the container/lamp are not visible from the bed and the red light is very low. I stuck the web cam up in the the venetian blinds mount between the window frame and the blinds and it's positioned well to view the bed. I tried various software, including Flix.... works super duper.

Thanks!

Oh, I do notice that after my "operation" the picture got grainier.

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:57 pm
by Jay Aitchsee
OK Max, we'll be waiting to see the show! Cool light.

Max, I read above about your use of naproxin. See VVV's thread here for some anecdotal and published evidence regarding it and disturbed sleep: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69730&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... 45#p664875
I found it to produce very bad drug hangovers and it seemed to reduce restorative sleep. I also had similar drug hangovers with benadryl. I found ibuprofen and acetominiphen to be effective at increasing deep sleep, but I seem to be intolerant of acetominiphen and because I have had ulcers, I think ibuprofen is to risky for me to use long term.

Jay

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:04 pm
by MaxDarkside
Jay Aitchsee wrote:OK Max, we'll be waiting to see the show!

Max, I read above about your use of naproxin. See VVV's thread here for some anecdotal and published evidence regarding it and disturbed sleep: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69730&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... 45#p664875
I found it to produce very bad drug hangovers and it seemed to reduce restorative sleep. I also had similar drug hangovers with benadryl. I found ibuprofen and acetominiphen to be effective at increasing deep sleep, but I seem to be intolerant of acetominiphen and because I have had ulcers, I think ibuprofen is to risky for me to use long term.

Jay
Thanks for the input. I intend to do some sort of study on myself varying levels of various things, other than the prescribed meds, of course. I can take acetominiphen but I am told not ibuprofen due to interference w/ the bp meds. There are so many variables and many may have interactions, and the results vary so much even when holding all factors as constant as possible, I'm thinking I will see an effect of the alcohol, but the others, they will be buried in the noise. Just a hunch, for me and how I react, or not, to these things.

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:46 pm
by MaxDarkside
deltadave wrote:What medications are you on and when do you take them? Given this reverse nocturnal HR response from the other night: (HR should drop down and stay down), your "hypoglycemic" event (which sounds more like a cardiac event) and sudden bouts of tachycardia: (the response to apneic events is brady-tachy, not the reverse), IIWY I'd be thinking more about a Holter and less about about a Zeo.
For you, sir, is a series of nights' HRs for your chin rubbing wonderment. Most trend up, Some are domed. Is there any clinical significance to this other than me just being "interesting"? I *have* been noted for LVH in EKG, 5 diagnostic features that were pointed out by most excellent internal medicine Dr, but the subsequent echo says "normal". However, I've learned that echo cardiograms have their limitations. I do still have arrhythmias I'm finding, to my disappointment.

Thanks.
Image

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:11 am
by HoseCrusher
Not bad for a Klingon...

Very interesting. Do they do overnight EKG's?

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:19 am
by MaxDarkside
HoseCrusher wrote:Not bad for a Klingon...
(Max raises a Spock-like eyebrow)
Very interesting. Do they do overnight EKG's?
Ya, I think they are called Holter monitors I think I might need to borrow one for a few days.

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:56 am
by deltadave
MaxDarkside wrote:
deltadave wrote:What medications are you on and when do you take them? Given this reverse nocturnal HR response from the other night: (HR should drop down and stay down), your "hypoglycemic" event (which sounds more like a cardiac event) and sudden bouts of tachycardia: (the response to apneic events is brady-tachy, not the reverse), IIWY I'd be thinking more about a Holter and less about about a Zeo.
For you, sir, is a series of nights' HRs for your chin rubbing wonderment. Most trend up, Some are domed. Is there any clinical significance to this other than me just being "interesting"?
IIWY, I'd get rid of the diphenhydramine:
  • It's not a good choice for a sleep aid because of it's long and unpredictable half-life
  • The heart rate pattern suggests that it is caused by something taken at bedtime, circumstantially leaving diphenhydramine as a subject of interest
  • Diphenhydramine has anticholinergic properties (like increasing your heart rate)
  • Combining diphenhydramine with an ACE-inhibitor may not be a good idea, especially if you feel like passing out
  • The combination of hydrochlorothiazide, an ACE-inhibitor and diphenhydramine, then, even more so.

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:04 am
by deltadave
BTW, what medications were you taking during your "near-death" experience? It sounds more like a "plumbing" problem rather than an "electrical" problem (Cardiology Humour).

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:07 am
by deltadave
deltadave wrote:
  • The combination of hydrochlorothiazide, an ACE-inhibitor and diphenhydramine, then, even more so.
Also, mixing alcohol and ACE-inhibitors creates problems.

Re: For the Technically, Analytically Inclined

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:33 am
by deltadave
MaxDarkside wrote:I *have* been noted for LVH in EKG, 5 diagnostic features that were pointed out by most excellent internal medicine Dr, but the subsequent echo says "normal".
Not surprising, as Dr. Mohamad Sinno at Henry Ford Hospital notes a false positive rate of 77-82% in using EKG to diagnose LVH.