h a l f b a k e r yA few slices short of a loaf.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
You could put silvering on the back of the lens (in contact with the cornea) to further limit light entering the pupil. |
|
| |
I don't think it's wise to put a thin container of peroxide or phenol into one's eye, not to mention broken glass. Unless you're intending a fundamental redesign of the glow stick process, this is extremely unsafe. |
|
| |
What we need is a way to wear flashlights in your eyes - contacts that double as night vision goggles. Glowing is optional. |
|
| |
That the barrier between the chemicals would not be glass is a given. I was thinking more along the lines of a flexible membrane that would tear from the side of the inner lens when bent or rubbed hard.(Maybe even a hard blink, for a cool effect) As for the chemicals, yeah we are stuck with the ones [tatterdemalion] mentioned. But after searching around I found that besides some redness and stinging it shouldn't cause too many problems. |
|
| |
No, glowing contacts are not new but this method is. Glow-in-the-dark variety are everywhere. The problem with glow-in-the-dark is you need a light source to "charge" them up. (Or a UV/blacklight) With this idea the chemical reaction produces the light. Lasts much longer without need of external light. The light from the chemical reaction also shines more brilliantly than glow-in-the-dark. |
|
| |
"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long ..... and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy." |
|
| |