h a l f b a k e r y
Oh yeah? Well, eureka too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Some time ago, I saw that some bright spark had made
some one-type-fits-all glasses. Each lens consisted of two
pieces of clear plastic with an equally clear liquid in
between. Using standard syringes, the amount of liquid
could be varied. The plastic bulged to various, and
allowing the glasses to be tuned to
the indevidual needs.
Here, I'm stealing that principal for a magnifying glass.
The large magnifying glass should be, like above, be two
clear plastic films filled with a liquid. The liquid should be
varied by having a resevoir in the handle. The handle
should be a two-part squeezy pump type thing. The idea
being that you can vary the magnification by squeezing the
handle. Including a locking mechanism wouldn't be a bad
There's also scope for fixed, mounted version, with the
magnification varied by a foot pedal. This would be useful
for electronics, or the super tiny surgery that people
occasionally let me do.
[bs0u0155, Jun 02 2015]
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jun 03 2015]
||This is utterly, preposterously remarkable.
||Five minutes ago, I posted "Digital Magnifying Glass" -
which was to be a conventional-looking magnifying
glass with a camera on one face and a circular screen
on the other. It had functions including "zoom" and
||As soon as I'd posted it, I Googled "Digital Magnifying
Glass" and found many hits, so I deleted my idea.
||well, has to happen occasionally, or something, right?
||As good as screens are, I think regular lenses will have a
resolution advantage for a while. Also, my eyes at least can
operate between different focal planes. A screen might
screw that up.
||I very nearly just poked myself in the eye with a scalpel
while moving loupes up. Might be about time to start
wearing glasses I don't really need.
||I think screens will soon (or already do) match the
eye for resolution. Remember, you'd be holding the
screen at a comfortable distance, and things like the
iPhone's retina display are already dense enough that
I, at least, can't discern pixels or pixellation at
normal viewing distances.
||As for the depth issue, I'm not so sure. Depth
perception through a standard magnifying lens is
pretty screwed up already - if there's any depth to
the image, it's common to close one eye. So bringing
things onto a flat screen may be OK (though not the
same as a binocular microscope, or a head-mounted
magnifier with a lens for each eye).
||Also, what are you surging?
||tail vein mouse, AAV9, heart-specifically messing about with
mitochondrial Ca2+ channels/regulators.
||Cool. I was about to ask if adenoviral vectors can
work on mitochondria, but I presume this a nuclear-
encoded gene? (I've never done either mousework or
||That's right, just overexpression. The other half of the
project is a KO mouse.
||that's a little sensitive right now!
||As far as I can tell, most knockouts just serve to
prove that any gene, no matter how central it is to
how many pathways, can be eliminated with no
discernible phenotype. Howevertheless, I hope your
mice turn out badly, so to speak.