Talk:Near-infrared spectroscopy

OCT vs DOT

I started writing a bit about diffuse optical tomography (DOT) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in the medical application section, because someone had dropped the diffuse from DOT to make it just OT. Because the two techniques are both Optical Tomography but have extremely different resolutions and uses I restored the diffuse component and added a small thing for OCT with a link point to the OCT page. *but* while I know that DOT is a spectroscopic technique, OCT is a interferometric technique. Does that mean that OCT is not an NIRS method even though it usually uses NIR light? The debate for me is spectroscopy vs interferometry. Azurex120 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

NIRS

There was another page that was created titled "NIRS". I believe they should be combined under this page. --Tjr9898 03:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree

I think they should be combined under this page also. The text on the current NIRS page needs some work, but it should be included here. Still 21:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge/expansion

Since we're all agreed, I went ahead and started the merge :) The other article might actually be better merged into fNIR, which is what it actually talks about. I copied the info on the history of NIR, and used the other to expand the info here on medical application. It still needs: References(!), maybe more on the history (or at least a thorough check of what's present), more details on the applications, and perhaps more "theory" (where the NIR bands originate).

I'm not really an expert although I can get this done eventually -- anyone who's actually done any NIR? /Jaeger5432 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done some NIRS stuff, and really think that Near Infrared spectroscopy and NIRS should be combined, since NIRS is just the acronym for Near Infrared spectroscopy. Silentsong707 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, combine... I'm using NIR spectroscopy in testing biodiesel contamination.

Sounds like everyone's agreed, then -- they should be combined. This requires someone to actually do the work of merging them. This would perhaps be better done by someone with experience in the technique, so feel free to get started or to continue expanding what's here. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which means that anyone can do the merge... why not you? ;) Jaeger5432 | Talk 18:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions from 75.24.197.26 and RLDeran, moved here from the "See Also" section of the article:

Need info on specific gases such as C02 and H20. There seems to be little easily available literature on optical density of typical greenhouse gases like these for calculation of global warming, for example. Most information shows relative absorption as a fraction without specifying absolute absorption given path length and partial pressure.

Jaeger5432 | Talk 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vendors info...

http://www.sartorius.com/pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.173.186.167 (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help to add the following info as I'm having difficulties to access to it--124.78.213.253 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.foss-nirsystems.com/ --222.67.209.194 (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.foss.dk/

--222.67.209.194 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perten Instruments http://www.perten.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.59.84 (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Journal info.....

Publication quality....

Could anyone who knows the journal, please provide the ISSN for the following http://www.impublications.com/nir/journal/jnirs --222.67.209.194 (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Near-infrared spectroscopy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717051918/http://spin.ecn.purdue.edu/fmri/PDFLibrary/MehagnoulSchipperDJ_HBM_2002_16_14_23.pdf to http://spin.ecn.purdue.edu/fmri/PDFLibrary/MehagnoulSchipperDJ_HBM_2002_16_14_23.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601115429/http://www.neonatologie.usz.ch/Documents/LehreUndForschung/Publikationen/Muehlemann%20Wireless%20miniaturized.pdf to http://www.neonatologie.usz.ch/Documents/LehreUndForschung/Publikationen/Muehlemann%20Wireless%20miniaturized.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bisp.kaist.ac.kr/papers/Ye09_NeuroImage.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016094619/http://dare.ubn.kun.nl/bitstream/2066/19136/1/19136_quannespi.pdf to http://dare.ubn.kun.nl/bitstream/2066/19136/1/19136_quannespi.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707004601/http://www.neonatologie.usz.ch/Documents/LehreUndForschung/Publikationen/Wolf2007JBOReview.pdf to http://www.neonatologie.usz.ch/Documents/LehreUndForschung/Publikationen/Wolf2007JBOReview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Theory I am not a NIRS expert. That said, as a reader I find the section Theory quite unsatisfactory, and I do think it should be rewritten from scratch.