From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 11:13:27 MST
--- "Dickey, Michael F"
<michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Tymes [mailto:wingcat@pacbell.net]
>
> "Actually, I think I may have been the one to
> describe the device you
> mention."
>
> If so, I do think it an excellent idea.
Thanks. ^_^
> > A cheap, simple implant anyone could get.
> Ideally,
> > it would be even better
> > if such a device could power external electronic
> > devices.
>
> "It'd produce miniscule amounts of power - but then,
> many devices only need
> miniscule amounts of power.
> So, no using yourself as a battery for an electric
> car, but you could maybe
> use this to run (or at least
> trickle-recharge, when it's not actively being used)
> a PDA."
>
> It would be nice, at least with later versions, if
> you could alter the rate
> at which it is processing carbs. But to start with,
> a very simple, small
> egg like device is implanted that burns around 100
> Calories per day.
Actually, when I tried writing a biz plan for this
device, it relied on this generational effect: first
generation is calorie consumption only; later
generations add features like generating useful
amounts of power. The projected adoption rates for
the former dominated that for the latter: there are
many more people who just want to lose weight than
would (presently) get much utility out of a
body-powered device. (Not that there aren't a lot of
the latter, just that there are far more of the
former.)
> "though what energy they do generate would have to
> be disposed of somehow
> (possibly via an inductive loop, the second part of
> which is placed on or
> near the skin near the implant every day, maybe
> week, to activate the
> discharge so as to avoid needing wires or sockets
> permanently sticking out
> of the skin)."
>
> I am no electrical engineer, but I think the
> inductive loop method is the
> best way to go as well for tapping any energy
> created by the device. For
> starters though, 100 Cals per day isnt much, an
> average adult male has an
> RDA of ~2200 Cal, and disapates all the heat readily
> from that. I don't
> think an additional 100 Cals will make a big
> difference, in fact the body
> will probably be able to dissapate that heat quicker
> than it is generated
> from the device. Coupling that with the fact that
> the bodies normal
> diffusion processes will remove all the by products
> of such a device, it
> should end up being cheap, simple, and small.
I am an engineer (at least, that's part of my job
title at the moment), and I did my thesis on devices
like this. There have been several studies showing
that conductive electricity transmission breaks down
the skin - which effect is being used for some needle
replacements under development. But since we don't
want skin breakdown for this device, inductive is the
way to go. (It's also apparently the best way to do
transmission of control signals and data across the
skin, as in prosthetics, in addition to sheer power.)
As to the heat dissapation - yes, it's a small
fraction of the whole, but remember that this device
would be an even smaller fraction of the body volume.
100 calories across the entire body surface is one
thing; 100 calories across just the belly button is
quite another. Still, it might be possible for the
first generation to get rid of all its energy that
way; this might be part of the development studies.
But it might not be desirable to develop that: for
sheer glucose consumption, getting rid of the energy
with an implant you can forget about is more
utilitarian that with an implant you have to wave an
inductive wand over once every so often. Which means
that if we develop towards heat-only disappation, we
don't have to worry as much about efficiency of
conversion to electricity, which retards the goal of
using this device to power other things. A local
maximum, as it were.
> "It's the biochemical parts that present the biggest
> challenge. But the
> biggest challenge, at least to us, would seem to be
> the practical matters of
> actually doing it."
>
> Of course, but with the various backgrounds on the
> extropy list, and the
> collected intelligence of it, there is no reason it
> shouldn't be doable.
> Quite frankly I am surprised it has not generated
> more interest, here we
> have a perfect example of an extropian piece of
> technology, that no one
> appears to be working on, that will likely be
> readily accepted by the
> average Joe, will clearly demonstrate that
> technology can be used to
> direclty solve individual humans problems. Imagine
> the press this could
> generate for extropian ideals if it brandished the
> logo of the EXI
> institute. People would start to realize that the
> business of using
> technology to better our lives has some potential.
> Here they have some real
> technology that directly makes *my life* better,
> *right now*... (I know all
> technology has a significant impact on our lives,
> but the average Joe
> doesn't think about it or recognize the value of
> electricity or combustion
> engines, etc.)
I was a bit surprised, too. Especially in the current
economy, one would think there would be a number of
people with the relevant skills looking for work -
and, as I indicated, one could well form a business
around just this product.
> "How would we test it? (Yes, it's great to say, "in
> theory, one could do
> animal testing". Does
> any of us have the appropriate equipment or licenses
> for this? If not, how
> could we obtain such?)"
>
> Well thousands of companies do similar things all
> the time, so it should be
> doable. Besides, those two egregiously overweight
> cats that spike posted
> would probably volunteer if we could explain it to
> them, if not their owners
> might be volunteer them.
Yes, it's doable in theory. The problem is, to
actually do this we have to go beyond theory into
practice - and neither you (apparently) nor I
(definitely) know exactly how to do this. The problem
isn't getting the volunteers to test, it's how do we
construct the device? I know some of the steps, but
not enough to do it all myself - at least, not without
spending a lot of money I don't presently have, and
I'll need to go quite a bit further than where I am
now before I could turn to the VCs.
> "Granted, one could start up a business around this
> product alone, so that
> presents one possible source of
> funding (VCs)."
>
> I think one could as well, and I think it could be
> quite profitable. I plan
> to pursue it once I finish laying the foundation for
> my current venture, but
> a collected extropy member effort could bring about
> such a device much
> quicker.
If there is anyone else on this list who could, and
would like to, help turn this device into reality.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 11:20:32 MST