tsl8.app / examples / fiber-sensing
Distributed Fiber Optic Sensing Platform
A duffle-packable catamaran that records polysomnography-grade signals from the body lying on it.
Things I haven't solved: the interrogator is still a rackmount box, the FDA pathway is unclear, the data model for continuous whole-body tensor capture is not like anything a clinician's workstation wants to display, and the privacy story is harder than the hardware. This is a research direction, not a product. I'd rather hear what's wrong with the approach now than after I've built the second prototype. — Tom Ellsworth · sent to a photonics researcher · Jan 2026
This is a TSL8. The sender is Tom Ellsworth, verified via linkedin.com/in/tomellsworth. The cargo is a v0.3 research brief for a distributed-fiber sensing sleep/health platform, bracing against a skeptical photonics researcher and a domain-expert clinician.
Trust model: shared academic pre-print. References are citable; vendor quotes are anonymized. The envoy at the bottom of the page has read the fourteen research papers, the five vendor quotes, and the two BOM spreadsheets, and will cite specifically when asked.
A pair of woven polymer-optical-fiber mats, joined at the head, that unfold across a sleep surface like a catamaran. Distributed acoustic and strain sensing along the fibers captures respiration, heart mechanical signal, limb movement, pressure distribution, and — preliminary — gross EEG-equivalent through skull-surface vibration.
The interrogator is a rackmount box today; the research question is whether it can be reduced to a shoebox that ships in the duffle with the mats. The cargo is one-night polysomnography-grade recordings from a user's own bed, at a price and a privacy envelope that no current sleep-clinic instrument can hit.
- Distributed acoustic sensing is cheap enough for non-infrastructure use. DAS on telecom fiber is now being used to detect earthquakes, whales, and intrusions. The cost curve per channel dropped an order of magnitude between 2018 and 2024. It is finally in the range where a home-deployable device is imaginable.
- Polymer optical fiber handles mechanical deformation. Glass-fiber DAS is rigid and fragile; POF is cheap, woven-fabric-compatible, and survives being slept on, washed, and folded. The engineering trade is sensitivity (POF is worse per channel) against deployment envelope (POF is usable in a bed).
- The recording density replaces the sensor stack. A full PSG exam today is fifteen electrodes, belts, thermistors, and oximeters. A fiber mat sees everything those sensors capture (plus some they don't) from a single strain-and-acoustic substrate. Fewer consumables. No adhesives.
- Home-only deployment solves a real problem. First-night-effect in a sleep lab is a well-documented confound. The recordings produced by this system are by construction in-bed, in-home, multi-night, normalized against the subject's own baseline.
The mat produces a 2,400-channel × 1 kHz acoustic + strain tensor, continuously, for the duration of a recording. This is ~10 GB per night uncompressed. The novel and difficult piece is that the physiological signals of interest are all embedded in this tensor at different spatial and temporal scales — respiration is a slow, large-amplitude pressure wave; heart mechanical signal is a faster, localized thoracic strain; limb movement is sharp and spatially discrete; gross EEG-equivalent lives at the boundary of what the fiber can resolve at skull contact.
Clinical workstations are not built for tensor data. The display model is as much of a research question as the hardware is. Early work with spectrograms per body region shows promise; a trained clinician can read the four-zone (head, thorax, pelvis, legs) spectrogram stack with ~20 min of training and extract the PSG staging from it.
Eleven in total; these are the four category labels, each with one representative.
The interrogator has not shrunk.
State-of-the-art DAS interrogators are rackmount units consuming 200–400 W. A consumer-price, shoebox-format interrogator is a research program, not a purchase. Without it, the platform is clinic-grade or nothing — which defeats the home-deployment thesis.
Candidate: a fan-out scheme with a lower-channel-count consumer interrogator (existing, ~$2,000) accepting reduced resolution in exchange for form factor. v1.5 target.
The data model does not match any clinical workstation.
EHR systems accept discrete waveforms on named channels. A 2,400-channel tensor is alien. Even if the staging is correct, no clinician can adopt this without a translation layer that reduces to the waveforms they already read. Which loses the information we're trying to capture.
Clinician-facing output is a PSG-equivalent report plus a raw-tensor archive for research; the research archive becomes valuable for longitudinal studies as a side effect.
The FDA pathway is unclear.
If the device is a diagnostic (identifies sleep apnea) it's Class II at best, predicate unclear. If it's a wellness device (tracks your sleep) it's Class I with significant constraints on what can be said about the output. The bifurcation is hostile: the most useful version of the platform is diagnostic, but the most shippable version is wellness.
Two-track: wellness SKU for consumer launch, diagnostic SKU for sleep clinics after 510(k) with a named predicate. I need an FDA regulatory consultant's read on the predicate question.
A whole-body nightly recording is a privacy asset of a weight I don't fully understand.
10 GB/night of body mechanics. Heart rate variability, respiratory patterns, movement signatures are all identifiable. This is arguably the densest behavioral biometric data a home device has ever collected. The right default is local-only storage with opt-in cloud; the right policy is clearer than the right technology.
Edge-only processing; nothing leaves the home without explicit per-recording opt-in. Data is keyed to a device identifier, not a user account. An ethicist should read this before v1.
Talk to the envoy before you reply.
The envoy has read the full brief, the fourteen citations, the five vendor quotes (anonymized), and both BOM spreadsheets. It will tell you when a number in the facts strip is load-bearing and when it's a placeholder. It won't flatter the approach.