Infrared touch screen

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by frostschutz

The way it was reported on German sites, they took over the whole thing, and Kobo won't be selling their new Kobo devices in Germany anymore because they want to concentrate on the Tolino brand.

No one knows what it will really be like, neither Kobo nor Tolino have announced any new devices for Germany since the tolino takeover. The new h2o edition 2 is not available here in any case.

It's all speculation ( http://allesebook.de/e-book-reader/k...-tolino-70925/ )

OK, I mainly read the thread in the news and don't remember anything about the devices. The comments in the article make sense. The real question will be which firmware they will decide to use.

[Ken Maltby]

I don't see how this could be a problem, after all the greater IR exposure reflected into your eyes from paper books read in sunlight, should have your eyes already covered in cataracts. The same if you read on your device without the frontlight on, but in the sunlight. There would be much more Solar IR reflected back directly into your eyes, by the white paper or the device's substrata than any produced by the touchscreen.

Luck;
Ken

[Anak]

Originally Posted by frostschutz

and Kobo won't be selling their new Kobo devices in Germany anymore because they want to concentrate on the Tolino brand.

For the time being... as the Tolino brand is the most known ereader brand in Germany (next to the Amazon Kindle) and rebranding outright will hurt sales. But, at some point Rakuten will introduce a new reader under the Rakuten or Kobo brand, may be first by releasing a reader as "Rakuten Tolino" or "Kobo Tolino" to switch over to the "Kobo" or "Rakuten" brand smoothly.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by newday07

If the front light is across the screen, why did they add the blue light filter?
This means that light comes the same in your eyes, isn't it?

And, I repeat, one thing is the ambient light, another thing is reading books with the rays pointed in the direction of the pupil...and for several hours a day

If you check the studies on IR and cataracts, the causative effect is the heating of the lens by the IR. If you can't feel the heat, you are very unlikely to have any issues caused by the IR exposure. Hence the studies that concentrated on workers in the steel and glass industries. If your ereader was as hot as molten steel or molten glass, you might have something to worry about.

As for the frontlight, it is distributed across the screen by light guides to give more even coverage and is intended to be reflected off the screen towards your eye. The blue light reduction is due to some studies that suggest exposure to blue light disturbs some people's ability to sleep. The IR touch screen LEDs have their emissions directed parallel to the screen and they are not intended to be reflected off the screen towards your eye. They are NOT pointed in the direction of the pupil.

If you read with an incandescent light source or by sunlight, you are getting a lot more IR from those sources in both direct exposure and reflected from your ereader screen than from the IR touchscreen LEDs. You do notice that you and your ereader both get warm out in the sunlight? The majority of that heating is produced by IR.

The comment that comes to mind is that you are making the Andes out of a mole hill. Stop worrying and start reading!

[newday07]

However, the strange thing is that there are no data on LED emissions and safety tests.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by newday07

However, the strange thing is that there are no data on LED emissions and safety tests.

If you want information on standards and safety testing methodologies for LEDs, check IEC 62471-2006 (Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems) for a standard based on an American developed standard in 2005 called ANSI/IESNA RP-27 which were extended to cover LED light sources.

One item to note is that under IEC 62471-2006 or ANSI/IESNA RP-27, if a device is determined to be potentially a photobiological hazard, it must display at least a warning sign (check a laser pointer for an example of such a warning).

A quick check of various web sites from LED manufacturers will yield an overabundance of information. One example being Eye Safety from OSRAM's site. Please note that they are discussing eye safety and exposure as if you were looking directly into the IR LEDs at a 200mm distance. For information on visible light LEDs used in Cree's products, see Eye Safety With LED Components. I picked these two samples since I was already familiar with OSRAM since the IR touch screen I disassembled used OSRAM LEDs and phototransistors and Cree since I owned a Cree flashlight.

[sebastian]

Originally Posted by newday07

However, the strange thing is that there are no data on LED emissions and safety tests.

I congratulate you, that is some first class trolling.

[glenk]

Yep, he really reeled them in. I had more than a couple of facepalm moments reading this thread.

[newday07]

Originally Posted by DNSB

If you want information on standards and safety testing methodologies for LEDs, check IEC 62471-2006 (Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems) for a standard based on an American developed standard in 2005 called ANSI/IESNA RP-27 which were extended to cover LED light sources.

One item to note is that under IEC 62471-2006 or ANSI/IESNA RP-27, if a device is determined to be potentially a photobiological hazard, it must display at least a warning sign (check a laser pointer for an example of such a warning).

A quick check of various web sites from LED manufacturers will yield an overabundance of information. One example being Eye Safety from OSRAM's site. Please note that they are discussing eye safety and exposure as if you were looking directly into the IR LEDs at a 200mm distance. For information on visible light LEDs used in Cree's products, see Eye Safety With LED Components. I picked these two samples since I was already familiar with OSRAM since the IR touch screen I disassembled used OSRAM LEDs and phototransistors and Cree since I owned a Cree flashlight.

Thanks. https://www.osram.com/os/products/in...010185000100b6 But, I was referring to tests made on the ereader screens directly.
Some people say there is no emission, others that the emission is 40mW for a single LED, but it depends on the exposure (time*Quantity). It seems odd that there are no data. For this I asked. We can say everything and nothing.

Originally Posted by DNSB

If you check the studies on IR and cataracts, the causative effect is the heating of the lens by the IR. If you can't feel the heat, you are very unlikely to have any issues caused by the IR exposure.

But is the Lens innervated? Can we feel warm? Even looking at the fire in the fireplace we do not feel warm in the eyes.

Anyway infrared screens have now been overcome by capacitive screens for different reasons that we know. I was wrong to get a product now outdated.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by newday07

But is the Lens innervated? Can we feel warm? Even looking at the fire in the fireplace we do not feel warm in the eyes.

You are obviously being deliberately obtuse. Any particular reason?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

You are obviously being deliberately obtuse. Any particular reason?

Because he's (not a troll because troll does not mean what you think it means) a goblin.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Because he's (not a troll because troll does not mean what you think it means) a goblin.

I know what trolling is, and it's usually far more amusing than this.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

I know what trolling is, and it's usually far more amusing than this.

Trolling is someone in a chat room trying to get someone to have cybersex. This is the definition of trolling from back before the Internet was public. Back in the days of online services such as Compuserve.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by newday07

Thanks. https://www.osram.com/os/products/in...010185000100b6 But, I was referring to tests made on the ereader screens directly.
Some people say there is no emission, others that the emission is 40mW for a single LED, but it depends on the exposure (time*Quantity). It seems odd that there are no data. For this I asked. We can say everything and nothing.

Given the testing methodology is for a light source aimed at the "eye" from a distance of 200mm, it's going to be hard to argue that potential diffuse reflection from the surface of an ereader screen from that same light source is going to be an issue when the source involved has an 'exempt" rating. Do you often read with your eyes 2cm away from your screen? It seems a bit idiotic to demand testing of the assembled IR LED/phototransistor array when the IR LEDs are not considered a photobiological hazard when directly viewed?

Originally Posted by newday07

But is the Lens innervated? Can we feel warm? Even looking at the fire in the fireplace we do not feel warm in the eyes.

Congratulations! You are now getting a clue—if you can't feel the heat, your eye is not going to be damaged by the IR. Your touchscreen is not in the same category as molten steel or glass when it comes to worrying about photobiological hazards.

Originally Posted by newday07

Anyway infrared screens have now been overcome by capacitive screens for different reasons that we know. I was wrong to get a product now outdated.

A bit hard to comprehend what you are attempting to say. What "different reasons that we know".

As for buying an outdated product? The common and, sadly, very often correct quote about electronic devices is that if you can buy it, it is obsolete. My laptop doesn't have an AMD Threadripper or an Intel Core i9-7980XE CPU. Oh, horrors! OTOH, it still lets me run multiple virtual machines with decent performance.

I'd suggest stopping whinging about a non-existent hazard.

A few quotes come to mind:

“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.” — Maurie Switzer

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” — Thomas Paine

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” — Mark Twain

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Trolling is someone in a chat room trying to get someone to have cybersex. This is the definition of trolling from back before the Internet was public. Back in the days of online services such as Compuserve.

Jon, Jon, Jon... I was around then and trolling was not used in regards to cybersex. Trolls were persons who found amusement in disrupting newsgroups, messaging systems, chat rooms, games, etc. by posting inflammatory content.