If you go back to the older videos she has like a decade of experience messing around with modular synths to make music live that is actually listenable.
She is also a main developer on the strudel project. If you want to contribute, it is open source:
Weirdly enough, the ITU already chose the superlative for the bigliest radio frequency band to be Tremendous:
- Extremely Low Frequency (ELF)
- Super Low Frequency (SLF)
- Ultra Low Frequency (ULF)
- Very Low Frequency (VLF)
- Low Frequency (LF)
- Medium Frequency (MF)
- High Frequency (HF)
- Very High Frequency (VHF)
- Ultra High Frequency (UHF)
- Super High Frequency (SHF)
- Extremely High Frequency (EHF)
- Tremendously High Frequency (THF)
Maybe one day some very smart people will make Tremendously Large Language Models. They will be very large and need a lot of computer. And then you'll have the Extremely Small Language Model. They are like nothing.
"The Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (OWL) was a conceptual design by the European Southern Observatory (ESO) organisation for an extremely large telescope, which was intended to have a single aperture of 100 metres in diameter. Because of the complexity and cost of building a telescope of this unprecedented size, ESO has decided to focus on the 39-metre diameter Extremely Large Telescope instead."
I like tremendous as an adjective for a frequency range because etymologically it can be traced to the Latin word for 'shaking'. Tremendous, horrendous, terrible all kinda mean "makes you shake".
Horrendous being based on the Latin root for "trembling with fear", tremendous on another Latin root meaning "shaking from excitement" and terrible deriving from a Greek root for, again, "trembling with fear".
Yes it is trivial for the scope of presidential interpretation to extend over the executive branch. And this excerpt posits nothing about the oversight authority of other branches.
The more interesting phrase is about the AG. While the AG is already constitutionally understood to serve at the president's pleasure, this EO curtails any informal independence that the AG is afforded from past norms.
So I suppose it's declaring that AGs under a Trump administration shall serve as rubber stamps with no independent authority to interpret the law, granted via his claimed constitutional supremacy over the executive branch.
Perhaps it is a edict to AGs who've resisted orders from the President recently, to notice them that job title is the most supreme form of legal analysis in this executive branch. IANAL
More is not better. Research suggests optimal mJ/c^2/s dosages for each wavelength. Stuff on amazon is not going to be calibrated at all to dosage or even wavelength. Aside from being ineffective, there aren't dangerous side effects except prolonged exposure if staring into high intensity NIR.
Can you explain more about optimal dosages and which products deliver those dosages? We get about 0.05 J/cm²/s of infrared irradiance from natural sunlight, so we'd probably want to be at that level, or above but less than an order of magnitude above it?
One challenge is the irradiance drops off as a square a distance. So like 5 inch away vs 1 inch away is a difference of 25x irradiance.
A family member of mine is involved in research into using red/NIR light to improve brain injuries outcomes. Apparently it can also irradiate passing blood which then circulates with the same mitochondrial clean up signals, so it has some secondary effects on non-penetrated areas.
I got to try a prototype LED helmet that blasts 90 watts of lensed, circumspaced NIR beams through the skull for 4 minutes. I can say that an hour later it leaves me feeling mildly buzzed. The main effect I can identify is a mild and general sense of stamina/energy. I used it before/after an all-nighter and didn't feel as impacted as I should have; analogous to how you feel the next morning after drinking at age 20 vs. age 30. All anecdotal of course.
They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
I have so many questions about both apparatuses. 90W input or irradiated? Pulse width modulated/dimmed? Lasers? LEDs? 850nm? 830nm? 810nm?
For the panel, 1800W is a LOT of power to put through 2 feet. Is it actually 1800W? What wavelengths? PWM?
I've been using a NIR belt flipped inside out on my pillow the last few weeks. It's only 6W of 850nm, but I've been feeling less dumb recently. Not sure if it's correlated, but until I settle it for sure, I'm going to keep on using it.
The prototype came with a power supply that is set at 24V, 5A and consumes 90W when running. Not sure how the control circuits work but its pretty simply operated with a 3P2T switch for 650nm/Off/850nm. Each module contains a fan cooled array of LEDs behind a plastic lens. I think it has some thermal shut off protection circuit as well.
I just dug out the spec sheet for the other device and you're right. It says "LED Power Class 1800W", but lists power consumption as 350W.
I really like it's potential to improve the right kind of symptoms when applied correctly and I'm also wary of people with bottom line incentives filling in any scientific uncertainty with miracle cures. But I agree, it's definitely worth using. It's a one time purchase with no side effects, so the worst case risk is just disappointment.
infrared, yes. Although depends on skin colour wrapping the skull. Melanin absorbs everything under the sun. It has very high absorption of UV but somewhat absorbs infrared too in this range of frequencies. Darker the color of skin, higher the melanin and higher the absorption by skin.
Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a near-infrared (NIR) light-based therapy technique and has shown therapeutic effectiveness for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including MDD. The transcranial PBM (t-PBM) technique delivers NIR light through the scalp and skull.
Near-infrared spectroscopy in the brain is made possible by the relative transparency of biological tissues (including bone) to light for infrared wavelengths ranging from 650 to 925 nm.
Penetration of light from an 820 nm gallium-aluminum-arsenium laser diode through a sample of fresh human skin. Data extrapolated from data presented in Kolari (25) and shown in the blue columns. A line of regression is shown by the black dotted line. The regression line indicates that light from a low-power laser diode can penetrate less than 2.2 mm into human skin.
This says that a 820nm laser penetrate 2.2mm into human skin. That is 0.08 inches. That is about the width of a groove on the top of your finger. How does that square with saying that it could go through skull bone that is 3.5x as thick while being more dense than tissue?
I assume you had a cut-n-paste failure with that link. I think you meant https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3..., which I assume you picked because the title. It is an interesting article, should you ever decide to read it beyond cherry picking the caption from 'Figure 2'. But TL;DR: It doesn't say what you apparently think it says. The author is questioning the therapeutic value of low power infrared light therapy, and demonstrating what is required for medical effect. He is not questioning whether or not infrared light can penetrate skin and bone, because it does. For example:
We have demonstrated that our multi-watt NIR data delivers an estimated 1.65–3.7 J/cm2 to a depth of 30 mm. As shown above, this is within the biologically meaningful fluence range (1, 2, 4, 6, 47) and is more than 100-fold greater than the fluence delivered by an LED system or by a low-power infrared light system according to the findings of the authors cited above (7, 18, 21, 37, 38, 48).
and
Patients receiving 10–20 treatments of multi-watt infrared light, each lasting approximately 20–30 min, have experienced significant, and often, dramatic improvements (47, 48). The fluence of combined 810 and 980 nm light delivered during each of these treatments was, on average, 81 J/cm2/treatment. Correcting for forehead skin, skull, and 1 cm of brain tissue, this delivered a fluence of fluence of 0.41 J/cm2 to the neurons 1 cm below the cortical surface.
NIR in the power range of 10–15 W at 810 and 980 nm can provide fluence within the range shown to be biologically beneficial at 3 cm depth. You can't ELI5 more than that.
Understanding does take work, and given your posting history of mostly low effort negative snark, I probably spent more time than I should have. But it was an interesting diversion into something I otherwise wouldn't have known.
Now, the skin of the forehead overlying a portion of the frontal lobes is approximately 2 mm thick. It is possible that tiny amounts of infrared light from lower powered emitters could penetrate the forehead skin; however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin. Nevertheless, the remainder of the scalp, over which hoods, helmets, and posteriorly placed LED pads are emitting low-power light, is an average of 5.1–5.8 mm thick.
Simply put, it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head if the light energy from that LED cannot penetrate through human skin further than 3 mm. The energy of low-power devices simply will not penetrate the thickness of the scalp overlying much of the skull.
Some have suggested that NIR energy from low-power devices penetrates deeper if longer exposure times are used. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles that scatter, absorption, and refraction play in degrading NIR energy as it passes through tissue.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue – often several cm below the surface.
Longer exposure times will simply pump more energy into the epidermis and dermis of the skin/scalp.
Longer exposure times do not yield deeper penetration. These limitations on penetration only take into consideration the skin and scalp; however, the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light, because people can't see it (and possibly no animals can). If you drop the frequency enough something will get through (a tiny percent) and if you keep calling it light then you can make the false claim that light passes through bone, when we know that isn't true because we can see bones and they aren't transparent. We could say radio waves pass though people too and therefore light goes right though people.
however, only 9–11% of the light from a 10 W emitter penetrated that thickness of skin.
Yes. The study discusses this. Its why the researchers moved to more powerful sources. To provide the results you refuse to read. Which I explicitly pointed out in my reply so you didn't have to worry about struggling with reading comprehension yourself. Which you ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.
it does not matter how long an LED is shone on a human head
Yes, that is what the researchers said. LEDs don't have enough power; they measured that. That's why they didn't use regular LEDs. And they measured that change. And gave you the parameters of their setup for you to check (well, not you...for people into facts and science and such). And cited the people who had similar results. And cited people who had different results. And other science things that people who actually read this stuff for comprehension appreciate. That you ignore.
The energy delivered to the skin surface is different from the energy that penetrates to the depth of the target tissue
Different...energy? Physics would like a word with you. But physics does expect you to have done your homework, so I'll let it know you won't be around any time soon. I told it to be nice, and remember not everyone has a high school level understanding of physics, and they might say silly things. Be excellent to each other and all that.
often several cm below the surface.
Yeah. How about 3cm? Like the researchers said. In their measurements. That they didn't guess at.
the skull is a formidable barrier to light penetration, as well
Yes. The researchers discuss skulls in detail. Not just people skulls...sheep skulls and mice skulls too. 3cm on people; all the way through in mice. Sheep somewhere between. And a lot about hands, but I don't figure you care about those. They wrote it down and it got published. After actually doing the science.
This is all moot however, as NIR is not light
There it is! Ding ding! The audience watching at home knew this was coming.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!" a couple of exchanges back and moved on to easier targets with less annoying 'facts' and 'proof' and 'published works of science by experts' around for anyone who cared to check. I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium.
Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
If it was 'moot', you would have said "Acksually, infrared ain't light so STFU. Duh!"
I did mention this in my first reply, I don't know why you feel the need for this manic response.
I guess even the most seasoned troll gets to a point where their own contrived protests become too silly to keep up with a straight face, and the lazy out is to not just move the goalposts, it's to move them to a different stadium. Go forth and declare your victory, brave internet warrior. You have outlasted my ability to whip between WTF and LOL and Kagi is telling me "dude, you can't out-research aggressive ignorance". Besides, there's a hockey game on and my wife made cocktails.
I don't understand where these insults are coming from. It doesn't seem like you're addressing that lower frequency EM that no animal can see isn't light. Saying "WTF and LOL" and trying to be patronizing doesn't confront what I posted.
You realize for most of your post you are replying to your own source right? I didn't write that, I took it from your link and put the most relevant stuff in italics. When you are quoting "Simply put" and replying: "The siren cry of ignorance everywhere." that's from your link, not me.
Radio waves do with no trouble. Blue does not at all. Everything between is on a sliding scale; there are no qualitative changes until you get to ionising radiation.
Though there’s a bit in the middle where it matches the resonant frequency of water molecules, yes.
> They took the helmet away to give to a kid with an recent brain injury, but swapped it with a hefty 2-foot, 1800W panel. It comes with tanning goggles and instructions saying to be nude and 12 inches away from it for 20 minutes per day--so a bit quacky. But it's apparently big in professional sports clinics for speeding tissue and joint healing.
I think the commercial model here is a tanning bed config with LED tubes. Goggles on, hop in the healing tube.
It sits right on the head with a ~1 inch foam spacer. The lens might change the fluence, which I think was a key part of the pending patent. Also 90W is the power draw for all the modules in the helmet. I can ask though what the targeted mW/area is and reply if I can get an answer.
I have a TBI which resulted in a number of chronic symptoms including decades of memory loss, although thankfully I retained my functional intelligence at least so I can keep working (although I still have many ongoing issues including atypical migraines leading to cyclic vomiting etc).
I have been exploring red light therapy using cheapo panels as well as fischer wallace devices (and have the OAK preordered via the IPO stock options), so I'm definitely trying out all the 'technologic approaches' since traditional medicine has been largely of no use (shout out to ondandestrone though, the best nausea suppresant I know of which can help fend off the migraince/vomiting episodes).
All that to say:
Is your friend interested in any more TBI test subjects? Happy to pay for the device assuming I can afford it and provide detailed notes to help with any studies; this sounds like exactly the type of thing I need to try next.
No worries if not, but figured it couldn't hurt to ask.
I mean, it is kinda quacky to treat someone with that until it's demonstrated by science. I'm open to the idea that light is an important regulator, but that effect should be easily observable if it's truly effective.
I'm no expert but my gist is that light interacts with an enzyme in the electron transport chain (cytochrome c oxidase). CCO is embedded in the inner membrane of mitochondria, and nitric oxide binds to CCO which temporarily inhibits cellular respiration as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress. Red and NIR light can photodissociate NO from CCO with the right intensity and wavelength, which restarts cellular respiration and ATP production. The release of NO into the bloodstream can secondarily trigger other chemical pathways involved in vasodilation and reactive oxygen species management.
In general, with a very few exceptions, if the body has a regulatory mechanism there's at least some reason for it, and tinkering with it without understanding it can have unpredictable downsides.
>as a natural metabolic regulation to control oxidative stress
That sounds like something I'd be very wary of manipulating without a good deal of clinical trials. Isn't oxidative stress one of like three primary hypothesized mechanisms of aging?
The body has regulatory mechanisms formed 100k to 1000k years ago, and some even older. The life was a bit different then, as was humans' mental capacity and knowledge.
This is why humans have to actively overcome and sometimes subvert various mechanisms that presume the need to conserve the energy: they hit a gym which the body doesn't like, they limit sugars and fats which the body craves, they consume caffeine, nicotine, or even cocaine to trick the body into working harder and complaining less.
Compared to that, hitting the body with some NIR radiation seems very benign. You can get a lot of that just by walking in the sun, and there are no known adverse effects of that, unlike, say the use of the chemical substances. If anything, it's a promising field of research.
The topmost comment in this comment thread starts with the fact that there are over a thousand studies on this already, no? Even if the whole effect isn't well understood, it seems like there is some science behind this.
One could argue that the research goes all the way back to Dr Frederick Cook aboard the Belgica during an Antarctic expedition I which they became trapped by the sea ice. The men suffered from multiple maladies, scurvy included, with one of the prescribed treatments being to stand nude near a blazing fire for an hour. If his notes are to be believed, the men saw some immediate changed in their overall health beyond simply getting warm. By some accounts, he became a bit of a fanatic about how much we humans need the sun, after that.
Or it could be vitamin D, or sunlight killing ticks, or fungal pathogens, or it could be the release of endorphins due to mild sun burn, or any number of other things.
I'd say it's all those things, likely in different combinations based on the circumstances. Cook's notes indicate that he may have considered it a panacea of sorts, triggering a bunch of different stuff that helped overall health, but keep in mind this was something to tune of 150 years ago, so the information he was working with may have limited the scope of his understanding. For all his otherwise infamous reputation, his work aboard the Belgica was nothing short of pioneering for the time. His life after that expedition over-shadows any positive contributions to science he made, unfortunately.
Vitamin D is not an outcome of standing by fire. It is from UV spectrum which is entirely absent from fires. It needs high temperature fire like fusion to be emitted. Totally doable by sun but not by your campfire.
i dont know what you mean by science. There are literally 1000s of research papers showing mitochondrial "horsepower" with red light on every type of tissue. Cells heal themselves as first thing when they get extra energy. Do you want your neighborhood clinic to validate before trying some light samples out?
I don't think so. He is rather talking about the properties of emergence in complex systems, and claims that the predictive theories we rely on to navigate the world will not hold in a dynamic system this interconnected ('no effective dynamics'), so we ought to be regularly retesting our assumptions.
This is such a cliche, not to mention inevitable pattern, for any ambitious research or development project if any date is mentioned.
But we all want to talk about dates anyway, so we get “delays” that are not delays at all because the dates are never, could never, be real.
A better way is to look at ambitious date projections as targets. If we don’t talk about dates, we feel less pressure and go even slower. But if we talk about dates, we get some urgency even when we miss them.
“Target date” is a good phrase that communicates we know we can’t beat that date, but if absolutely everything went to plan, we might hit it, so we are going to try for it. Knowing that as long as we keep having to learn anything whatsoever, we are going to have a moving target.
She is also a main developer on the strudel project. If you want to contribute, it is open source:
https://codeberg.org/uzu/strudel
reply