I guess I was looking more for long term changes in my life to help with daily living and to help me cope rather than a medication in the long term. Short term was OK but I don't really trust doctors that much. It all seemed too much like trial and error to me.

But.... big but, that is just me.

Many people find certain medications very helpful.

I understand what you mean about the difference between the rational fears and the irrational fears too.

I hope you persue the support option with your studies.

I wish you well.

katharsis,

Regarding your insomnia. You may have blood sugar problems. I and many others have found having a late night snack helps us sleep better and longer. Complex carbs, some protein, or other snacks to give you a source of energy that lasts through the night.

I have dealt with insomnia for 15 years. I tend toward hypoglycemia. When I learned to have a snack, my sleeping improved. Magnesium helps (500 mgs 1 to 2 hours before bed). I also have to start preparing to sleep at least 2 hours before bed time. No serious conversation. No intense cognitive effort.

If you need to study facts, record them so you can play the recording back in a loop while you go to sleep. Then, let those facts bore you to sleep. You will wake knowing the facts and with some rest.

My best to you.

This is excactly the reason why i started this thread. I was going insane by being worried for several hours a day, instead of resting.

Mark, one more question(I hope so)

I also managed to bump my forehead against the edge of a table, while I wanted to switch on the computer(under the table). It wasn't really hard but I would be glad if you could calculate the G's once more. The distance to the table was just about 10 cm when my head started to move forward. I would say the speed was not over 1 m/s.

(btw I still don't know the exact formula you are using for the calculations)

Griffin,

Post #33 in this thread has the calculations for this. The paragraph about an angled hit against the wall uses .94 m/s. The question for you is how much did the table/desk move when you bumped it ?

btw, I never turn my computers off. I let the energy saving sleep mode kick in. Then, all I need to do is hit the space bar to wake the computer and log in. Although one can, I don't password lock a sleep/awake log in so I just hit the Enter key.

I may do a full shut down once a month or so. Microsoft shuts down and restarts my computer more often than I do when Windows Update needs a reboot.

This would save you from needing to duck under the table/desk.

You mean 94 cm/s, right? 94m/s would be extremely fast.

In my case, i would say that the table moved only about 1 or 2 mm.

I would really like to calculate all this on my own, but I found out that it strains my brain too much

Griffin,

You missed the . before the 94 m/s I said "point" 94 meters per second which would also be 94 cm/sec. Point 94 m/s is very close to 1 meter per second.

"If the 3 mph speed (134 cm/s) was not directly at the wall, you would need to calculate the velocity vector perpendicular to the wall. At 45 degrees, the speed perpendicular to the wall would be 2.1 mph (94 cm/s). At 1 mm (.1 cm) deflection, then, 8798 divided by .2 divided by 980 is 44.9 G's. You need to make sure everything is in the same units: meters, centimeters or millimeters. "

If the table moved 2 mms, the G force would be 22.45 G's.

Here's a link with formalae for Had Injury Criteria.

http://www.eurailsafe.net/subsites/o...age3.3.1.3.htm

Though I do feel the need to remind you that the calculations you have been doing are based on very loose estimates and that the forces you are dealing with are small. The calculations in the link are used to calculate probability of serious injury.

It may be comforting to work things out (I certainly found it so!) but you must also seek a balance in perspective. Try not to fixate on one element, but explore the variables and subject as a whole. It is good to exercise your brain.

In unrelated research I have been exploring prime sequences and geometry, and sometimes I get an odd warm feeling like a peice of the puzzle slipping into place. Its strangely like the damaged parts/interuped info flow have become like a child that needs to remember what are useually fundamental processes.

PerhaPs our proprioception filters tend to get a bit squiffy under pressure.

Getting better but I still trouble with reading numbers. However, I believe, looking at the data graphs, that this is the formula used to calculate in the study with the helmets that was discussed earlier in thread.

This is also why I mentioned geometry and so, proprioception.

I think if you read the qualatative data of my last link, it speaks of the variables and how difficult they would be to calculate. Most head injuries do not occur under measured circumstances.

These sort of figurings leave the viewer with a sense of spheres of likelihood rather than facts and certainties.

But one constant that all posters here can be sure of: the impact/force that caused their c/tbi.

It is good to know these spheres for developing protective wear for the arenas, or vehicle design or preventative measures...though often it is pure Outside Influences and little an individual can do to escape the hubris except persevere and seek balance.

Proprioception has nothing to do with head impact forces and the amount of these forces that cause injury. Proprioception is the term used to define the nerve function that tells the brain the position of a limb/muscle and the amount of force that muscle is exerting. I know this concept well because I had proprioception problems early in my recovery. The limits of our proprioception systems is taught to Little League Baseball infielders. They are taught to make a short bounce in their legs as the ball leaves the pitcher's had to excite the proprioception system so active motor/muscle control happens faster.

I addressed the geometry in post #33 when I showed how G forces are reduced when the impact is angled. A 45 degree angle reduces the speed by about a third and the G force by about half since the G force is related to the square of the speed.

The eurailsafe article had nothing that relates to the helmet research done. Nor did it show the qualitative data/graph mentioned. It is a weak attempt at looking at the issue. I can see what they are trying to do with the HIC formula but it appears they are missing some of the issues at hand. The assumptions they make far exceed the assumptions we have made.

But then, I only got an A in Physics 101A (Weight and Motion) and I did it with an old fashioned slide rule like my father used to build space launch vehicles. He was an expert in acceleration/vibration forces incurred during launch.

I would say that these are rough estimates at best. The are way too many variables with unknown measurements to come up with a simple one number answer. You would need to account for many random errors in your calculations which would result in uncertainty that I would suspect would be pretty high. It's an interesting idea to attempt to calculate these force amounts, though. It would be a good idea for a website.