Turn a smartphone into a microscope for free?

A while back I found a neat idea for turning a smartphone into a microscope. The idea was you 3D-print a clip to house a minute glass bead (around 1-3 mm across). This essentially acts as an objective lens, considerably magnifying the object in front of the lens (supposedly up to 1000-fold, though I remain sceptical).

Problem is... who has glass beads lying around?

As a nice hack, you can get a little way towards recreating the effect with just a drop of water or oil right in front of the lens (best do this on an old phone, people).

1) Kyocera KC01 (budget JP smartphone) with a blob of water over its lens (circled red to give an idea of the extent of the water droplet). The droplet is a little too large and slightly off centre, but illustrates the general idea.

The problem with water is that it evaporates very quickly, and so the magnification strength is lost very quickly. Vegetable oil was much better; I made one application and it lasted for several dozen minutes.

So, demonstration photos:

2) Photograph of thyme leaf broken at the petiole (leaf stem), showing detail of bristles. Taken using a Aquos Crystal with a droplet of vegetable oil approx. 1 mm across. Backlit using a single 100-yen-shop LED light.

 

3) Photograph of thyme leaf, showing detail of spots on the leaf. Taken using a Aquos Crystal with a droplet of vegetable oil approx. 1 mm across. Backlit using a single 100-yen-shop LED light.

For (2) and (3), Much of the blur around the edges is due to the droplet not filling the entire field of view. The clarity isn't exactly great elsewhere, possible because it was a real pain trying to keep my hand still.

The thing I like most about (3) is that I didn't notice those spots until I looked at the magnified image, so even these relatively poor images do help bring your awareness down to the micro level.

4) Photograph of human hair against paper. Taken using a Aquos Crystal with a droplet of vegetable oil approx. 1 mm across.

5) Photograph of Japanese bill at minimum focal distance of Aquos Crystal without modifications. The letters in the white area are around 2 mm across.

6) Photograph of Japanese bill taken using a Aquos Crystal with a droplet of vegetable oil approx. 1 mm across. Backlit using room light (approx. 3000 lux, according to lux meter)

I took (6) to get a rough idea of the magnification. On my computer screen the character extends 7 cm across my display without too much blurring (though, this may be more of a problem of my hand shaking, rather than the optics), which would suggest a magnification of around 70 mm / 2 mm = 35 fold. However, I should also account for the fact the unmodified camera produces characters of about 1 cm across on my screen, which in itself corresponds to a magnification of 10 mm / 2 mm = 5 fold. So in fact, the oil droplet was only 7 times more powerful than the unaided device.

Nonetheless, the patchiness of the printing is a feature that is almost impossible to detect with the naked eye, and yet became very prominent on using the oil droplet.

But, at only ~7 times better than the standard smartphone lens, I guess dishing out for a cheapo magnifying glass would give better results.

Unsurprisingly, seems people have already thought of this approach, here. Seems that by using polymers instead, you can bake them into permanent lenses. Cool!

I'd be thrilled to hear of any improvements to this. My first thought is to attempt producing a bead by melting clear plastic to flow along a wire into some cold water, which should hopefully solidify the bead in a... bead shape. I don't expect it to work, but it would be better than buying a box of 15000 beads and having 14999 spare beads...

Unless I can think of a use for 14999 glass beads...

EDIT: So, some obvious improvements:
1) You can buy a screen protector -they are clear and don't interrupt with the light getting to the lens too much-, which means you can use oil without worrying about damaging the lens.
2) You can apply PVA glue to this screen protector. When it dries, it becomes transparent, and you can indeed get a lensing effect from it! Decidedly more of a permanent solution that water and oil..

C25K, cardiovascular risk, and running in the morning

My wife's first words to me this morning were "You shouldn't run in the morning, it increases your risk of stroke" - in the background a man in a white lab-coat gesticulated on the TV, but I didn't stop to listen*.

The reason for this permutation of the words "good morning, treasured soul-mate" is my recent foray into exercise, particularly the morning run which I've incorporated into my week in an attempt to make my body more resistant to the risk factors incurred by my inability to peel myself away from a computer screen.

In particular, I've gone through the podcast-based "C25K" training program, with some minor alterations**. My main aim here was to bring my resting heart rate to a more reasonable level (I measured 90 or so, which is right on the upper limit of normal), so I recorded it the whole time I was doing the program.

For the record, heart rate is a pretty strong indicator of cardiac risk, and being at the high end is probably not what you want, especially when you factor in the proportion of deaths due to cardiovascular problems in developed countries.

So what did I find? The C25K program was effective at reducing my heart rate. I'm not sure by exactly how much, however, due to my somewhat inconsistent method for taking my pulse (I became more fussy about when I took my pulse in the latter half of the program, which is probably a big source of bias considering how much my pulse changes during the day). Nonetheless, maybe I reduced my pulse by 10 beats per minute or so, 20 beats per minute at the most.

Using the diagrams on the previous link ("High heart rate: a cardiovascular risk factor?" - Cook et al. 2006), that corresponds to a reduction in risk of heart failure by anything up to 50%. Given the reduced cardiovascular risk, I'm fairly sure I'm better off running, and risking a morning stroke, than not running at all. I cant run in the day because it is simply too hot***, and I don't fancy running in the evening on a belly full of dinner, or in the dark*4*.

While I had a hard time finding any evidence to the contrary*5*, I just managed to dig up this paper, which states that "the protective effects of exercise were more significant in the afternoon and evening group than in the morning and forenoon group". This sounds fair enough to me: its not a bad idea to run in the morning, but its likely a better idea to run in the afternoon.
 

*TV/radio knowledge is somewhere behind oral tradition in my mental filing cabinet. In my mind, anything heard on a program not even ostensibly about science means nothing more than something to perhaps look up on the internet later. Of course, the internet can be far, far worse, but at least you can find peer-reviewed science on it.

**specifically, I juggled around the order of the runs slightly so that the length of the runs increased more linearly. Those familiar with C25K will remember looking at week 5 and thinking "WTF!?". I recommend juggling around the days as you see fit: the person who made C25K doesn't appear to have had any formal health/exercise qualifications at the time he designed the program, so I can't imagine you'll do yourself any additional harm by applying logic, especially since it will make the progression less intense.

*** To me, this sounds like a damn good way of getting heat stroke.

*4* And this, a pretty good way of distributing my brain on the bottom of an irrigation ditch. Morbid? Me? Noo...

*5* Maybe more due to lack of familiarity with the subject than an actual lack of evidence