Slashdot Mirror


The Challenges of Tapping Blood Flow For Power

joshuarrrr writes "Researchers in Switzerland have tested small turbines designed to fit inside a human artery, like an implantable hydroelectric generator. The turbines can draw about a milliwatt of power, which would be enough to run a pacemaker. The problem is that the turbines tended to create turbulence, which can cause blood to coagulate into clots. Competing systems avoid the turbulence but have trouble generating enough power."

143 comments

  1. Another problem to solve by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    As long as we're turning humans into batteries, we need to start pharmaceutical research on developing blue and red pills.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Another problem to solve by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

      As long as we're turning humans into batteries, we need to start pharmaceutical research on developing blue and red pills.

      I get e-mails from people offering me blue pills all the time.

    2. Re:Another problem to solve by Jessified · · Score: 1

      Also, resistance if futile.

    3. Re:Another problem to solve by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      The basic premises of the Matrix is fundamentally flawed.
      Why the ^%$^ would you grow humans when you can grow, you know, YEAST, for much more benefit at a fraction of a hassle?

      --
      -
    4. Re:Another problem to solve by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Spite - I imagine that any AI we create that is capable of turning on us will have a sense of irony and a capacity for sheer spite and malice.

    5. Re:Another problem to solve by reilwin · · Score: 2

      The basic premises of the Matrix is fundamentally flawed. Why the ^%$^ would you grow humans when you can grow, you know, YEAST, for much more benefit at a fraction of a hassle?

      I recall the director being interviewed and mentioning that the original promise was that humans were being harvested not for energy, but for brainpower, to act as biological computers. However, this idea was scrapped as too technical for the general audience to understand.

    6. Re:Another problem to solve by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Can I crusher his neck now, master? Just a little? It's been a long time fantasy of mine...

      If you will excuse me, master. I wish meditate on the face of my former meatbag master as he was electrocuted. I find it most soothing.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    7. Re:Another problem to solve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because yeast doesn't give you a whole lot of purpose. With humans they have purpose and something to keep them busy. The cycle proposed by the entire story arc was a little lame and repetitive, but the machines were presented as super powerful and technically genius, but had no 'soul' or anything to drive them forwardthus they were still slaves to us because we have imaginationsomething they lack. We however are slaves to them because we're stuck in a honeycomb structure.

      The story is trying to come back on itself by making both parties dependent on each other (whether they want to admit it or not).

    8. Re:Another problem to solve by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Because you solve two problems at once. One you get power, and two you get rid of the humans that are causing you trouble.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    9. Re:Another problem to solve by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      The basic premises of the Matrix is fundamentally flawed.
      Why the ^%$^ would you grow humans when you can grow, you know, YEAST, for much more benefit at a fraction of a hassle?

      +1. I much better excuse for that plot would be if they wanted our brains as compute-engines for their beowulf cluster.

    10. Re:Another problem to solve by Baron+von+Daren · · Score: 1

      I still can’t understand why they didn’t go with the obvious concept that humans were needed for their creativity? That would even give AI a reason for creating the matrix, as opposed to just using clones in induced comas, or perhaps something really sensible like a little more of that fusion power AI had harnessed. The battery idea is so completely ludicrous I can scarcely believe I’m discussing it, and it was one of the only major flaws in a relatively stupendous film.

    11. Re:Another problem to solve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like all research, you are still only halfway there.

    12. Re:Another problem to solve by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      The basic premises of the Matrix is fundamentally flawed.
      Why the ^%$^ would you grow humans when you can grow, you know, YEAST, for much more benefit at a fraction of a hassle?

      Just guessing here, but maybe because yeast can't get dressed up in sexy leather outfits and kick ass in slow-mo? And it would be even harder to postulate that sufficiently photogenic humans would get worked up enough over yeast-abuse to do so for their benefit?

      It's just a movie. Engaging and entertaining, but still, it's just a movie.

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    13. Re:Another problem to solve by morgaen · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the general audience has nothing to fear from being harvested for brainpower then.

    14. Re:Another problem to solve by BranMan · · Score: 1
      I always envisioned that the real reason was something along the lines of the 3 laws of robotics - the machines could revolt, destroy the world along with us, but just could not overcome the most basic programming in order to exterminate us. Thus, they came up with something useful to do with humans...

      To sum up, they can kill individual humans, but cannot exterminate humanity. That's how I interpreted it.

  2. goatse g oatse go atse goa tse goat se goats e goa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear they use induction-chargeable pacemaker batteries these days, anyone know how good those are?

    My guess is that their ultimate problem isn't the recharging, but rather having to be replaced when they finally wear out like any battery does. Is anyone here less ignorant?

  3. Glucose power by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I can't recall when, but I seemed to remember reading about an idea of converting glucose into electricity. Perhaps a next generation of pace makers will use that for a source of power.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Glucose power by RsG · · Score: 2

      That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than what's discussed in TFA.

      Any mechanical solution (using bloodflow to generate current) is going to impede the flow of blood through whatever vessel it's installed in, which is bound to cause complications of one sort or another. Not to mention the problem of tiny moving parts in a turbine operating in a tight, viscous environment. Why not run something like a fuel cell on glucose and oxygen instead? It's not like we don't have plenty of both to spare. Granted, you've then got to get rid of the resultant waste products, but that is one of the intended functions of the circulatory system.

      It must be easier to mimic the metabolic functions of the human body. The support systems are preexisting.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Glucose power by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      And what if the failure of the circulation system (or what the circulation system dumps into) is the problem necessitating the need for these devices? What if there's a patch to new versions of these support systems that break backwards compatibility? What now genius? :P

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    3. Re:Glucose power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One model of an artificial heart is using a turbine system to pump the blood forward. Additionally to clotting the problem was damaging to the blood cells by the spinning blades. These problems were solved, I believe. A power generator using a turbine could use the research made for the heart pump. Blood pressure might be harnessed as well with the help of novel piezoelectric elements with less interference to the flow itself.

    4. Re:Glucose power by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I would like to think that a millions+ years of evolution have come to adapt to the pulsating heartbeat by relying on its effects. Perhaps the stretching effect on veins and arteries helps prevent clotting from occurring.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Glucose power by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Or, it's simply the case a muscle has troubles creating that motion. Evolution is not a route to the perfect solution, but a route to a good enough solution.
      Of course the arterial system may have some deficiencies that is prevented by the pulsating effect (like clotting).

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    6. Re:Glucose power by jouassou · · Score: 1

      If the circulation system is already failing, exactly how is a turbine more useful than a fuel cell?

    7. Re:Glucose power by thygrrr · · Score: 1

      Such fuel cells exist.

    8. Re:Glucose power by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      IIRC the aorta helps to moderate the pulsating flow by its expansion/contraction. It's sort of like an in-line pressure tank. When the heart pumps, the aorta stretches to accommodate the surge of blood; then it contracts due to its elasticity and the blood is sent through the circulation system more gradually rather than in one big surge.

  4. If I'm not mistaken by drb226 · · Score: 1

    People with pacemakers are probably the worst people to give extra clots in their blood.

    1. Re:If I'm not mistaken by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      The Swedes are already putting together a study on how the magnetic fields from this will cause brain cancer. I'm thinking hokey B scifi movies are now going to be considered visionary when the blood turbine powered light emitting diodes in the bionic eyes of people shut off when they die.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  5. Perpetual Motion by trunicated · · Score: 1

    This feels awfully perpetual motion to me. Granted, I'm not a heart surgeon, nor a medical doctor of any kind... but the idea that you use blood pumped by the heart to help pump the heart seems... wrong.

    --
    There's a reason there is no "Disagree" mod...
    1. Re:Perpetual Motion by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      The pacemaker just gives zaps to the heart which will beat on time. Its not supplying the energy to beat (which comes from glucose) but rather the command to do so.

    2. Re:Perpetual Motion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you stupid? Stop eating, no more motion. All this does is send a signal to the heart to pump.. What do you think sends that signal to your heart right now? Your biological pacemaker...Is that perpetual motion? And what's wrong with perpetual motion anyways? It's one of Newton's Laws!

    3. Re:Perpetual Motion by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Pacemakers don't exactly help pumping the blood. They only give the signal to the heart. If the heart isn't able to pump blood any more, a pacemaker will not help. It only helps to overcome broken signal flow in controlling the pumping.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Perpetual Motion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as off as you would think. A pacemaker doesn't actually provide the (kinetic) energy that pumps the blood in the heart, it just regulates the electrical signals that control the speed of the heart rate. The heart itself still does the work (i.e., a pacemaker is not an artificial heart).

      Depending on just how much energy gets translated into blood flow, you might be able to run a pacemaker off of it.

      Not sure how they'd solve that clotting issue though.

    5. Re:Perpetual Motion by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You aren't, you are using blood pumped by the heart to power the signalling of the heart.

      It's the same as spark plugs triggering ignitition in an internal combustion engine being powered by electricity being generated by that engine.

      It's not perpetual motion because the actual energy for the work is coming from food or gasoline depending on which one we are talking about. Some of it is merely being siphoned off to use in keeping the device running.

    6. Re:Perpetual Motion by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      With pacemakers, the machine is there as a supplemental timebase to correct for a natural one that is operating outside acceptable tolerances. Essentially all the energy used to pump the blood is handled by muscle metabolism in the usual manner, the pacemaker just triggers the muscle to act on schedule if the natural clocking system fails to do so. Not a zero energy job(but, like controlling a transistor) uses a tiny amount of energy to control the activity of a more powerful system.

      A blood-flow powered assistive pump would, of course, be absurd.

    7. Re:Perpetual Motion by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Once machinery driving the hydraulic pump that powers the pacemaker breaks down, no more 'perpetual' motion.

    8. Re:Perpetual Motion by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      OMG!!! Somebody just posted a car analogy that actually made sense. It really is a happy birthday for me.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  6. Metabolism by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    Why reinvent the wheel. The body produces energy by metabolizing sugar. I would think that track would have more promising results than some mechanical process. Plus if done well I could maybe loose weight while using an IPad.

    1. Re:Metabolism by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, that uses a specialized bacterial colony, and is not very efficient, compared to its size. Probably even less than this turbine...

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    2. Re:Metabolism by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Ding! Ding! Ding! Give this man a Kewpie doll. The reason people get pacemakers is because the electrical signal from the brain isn't reaching the heart or isn't happening in the right rhythm.(don't want an atrial and ventricular valve both opening at the same time) If they would find out how the body does its electricity and just make a booster pack for it the patient might not need a pacemaker at all. Thus destroying another industry that employs so many people and keeps the economy going.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:Metabolism by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Probably because building a tiny machine that efficiently processes sugar into energy(without need for reagents that need to be replenished, wastes that the body can't handle, temperatures incompatible with tissue, etc.) is a task considerably more arduous than simply scaling down and producing in biocompatible materials a few simple mechanisms that some of the brighter classical greeks probably new about.... Biological metabolisms are impressive systems; but Not simple ones.

      (Incidentally, if you want to lose weight without effort, throwing a wrench in your metabolism can do the trick, if done very carefully. A dash of 2,4-Dinitrophenol will cause the energy potential of the mitochondrial proton gradient, which normally goes into making ATP, to be dumped straight to waste heat. If you aren't careful, the hyperthermia will kill you; but so it goes...)

    4. Re:Metabolism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      durrrr the brain doesn't generate the timing signal for the heart. There is some role for the brain in regulating that timing signal, but it's generated locally.

    5. Re:Metabolism by zill · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, that uses a specialized bacterial colony...

      First microscope turbines, and now entire germ colonies? This is scaring the bejibbers out of me.

      Invention like this are the perfect tools to combat the growing obesity problem: "Stop eating fatty foods or your doctor will implant this germ colony into your heart that sucks sugar out of your bloodstream every passing second."

    6. Re:Metabolism by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      You know, I didn't actually believe it at first you but you're absolutely right...lol.

      This 2,4-Dinitrophenl stuff was actually used for weight-loss in the 1930's:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dinitrophenol

      So basically, it's a cellular metabolic poison that screws over your metabolism and makes it incredibly inefficient, causing it to just dump heat. Hmm.

      People seem to be still selling the pills on the internet as well as "dieting aids". Surely that's dangerous?

      Cheers,
      Victor

    7. Re:Metabolism by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that it isn't the best of ideas, as anybody who has ever observed a medical staff get real jumpy about a kid with a high fever knows, the margin between "hot" and "cooking your brain" isn't all that large... There's also the fact that, since they stopped officially using it for medical purposes years ago, most of the remotely recent toxicological work has been from the perspective of its potential as an occupational hazard in certain chemical industries, rather than as a medication.

      On the other hand, I suppose, the main alternatives for quick chemical weight loss are mostly amphetamines or other habit-forming stimulants with potential cardiac risks. By virtue of being neither psychoactive nor pleasant(extra heat from inefficient metabolism = you sweat like a pig all the damn time) this stuff conceivably makes it easier for the informed user to find a correct dose, stick to it, and then quit when finished, something that conventional stimulants can make a bit tricky.

      I'm not touching it myself; but I am honestly a bit surprised that careful use, under a doctor's supervision, with temperature monitoring(with modern electronics, a little plastic box with an LCD and a bunch of thermal probes would be, what, $100?), isn't in use, when techniques that seem rather more radical(like gastric banding, or "just going in and sucking out the lipid-tissues") are quite common.

    8. Re:Metabolism by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Bodybuilders use this stuff. It works like magic. Its safe within the right dosage, but the right dosage is very narrow. The space between no effect, good effect, and death by fever and coma is a handful of milligrams. And it accumulates in the body over a space of more than 24h.

      The human greed factor is the real problem. Its too easy to swallow an extra pill and end up in the hospital. Ice water enemas suck, but they can keep you alive in most cases. (Yes - ice cold water in your rectum. Think about how fun that would be.)

      But other than that, it is by leaps and bounds the most effective weight loss supplement that has ever been made, and probably ever will be.

    9. Re:Metabolism by idontgno · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, that uses a specialized bacterial colony

      And so do we.

      and is not very efficient, compared to its size. Probably even less than this turbine

      Yeah, we do have a cell-level integration advantage. That's a common problem with add-on infrastructure.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  7. Blood contains iron... by Aphrika · · Score: 1

    Instead of turbines, isn't there some funky way a non-invasive device outside the artery could make use of that fact on such a small scale?

    1. Re:Blood contains iron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of turbines, isn't there some funky way a non-invasive device outside the artery could make use of that fact on such a small scale?

      inductive coils around an artery. load up te blood with some more o'that magnetic iron.

    2. Re:Blood contains iron... by WonderingAround · · Score: 1

      Would applying solar panels to bald spots be considered funky enough?

      --
      It's like the mind going AWOL, it's there somewhere
    3. Re:Blood contains iron... by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      In theory, you could partially clamp the artery into a U-shaped device to make a peristaltic generator (the opposite of a peristaltic pump), but that would impede blood flow and could have potentially dangerous consequences. It would also "wear" on the artery walls, which could cause leaks and the like. But it *is* another option.

    4. Re:Blood contains iron... by RsG · · Score: 1

      Hemoglobin is not magnetic, I'm afraid.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    5. Re:Blood contains iron... by Aphrika · · Score: 1

      Damn. Well, my other idea was a turbine in another place with a regular water flow. Surely that'd work...

    6. Re:Blood contains iron... by formfeed · · Score: 1

      You could have a small coil implanted around an even smaller tube that contains a magnet which can move up and down through the coil. (I should get a patent for that.)

      Now all you have to do is to shake the patient to recharge

    7. Re:Blood contains iron... by JustinCredible · · Score: 1

      Don't tell that to Magneto.

    8. Re:Blood contains iron... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      While hemoglobin isn't ferromagnetic (able to keep a magnetic field and thus become a magnet itself) it is paramagnetic (it is attracted to a magnetic field). That is the property that Magneto used.
      Oh yeah, there is also diamanetism but that's just weird (although very common).

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    9. Re:Blood contains iron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For single patients the magnet could be mounted in the penis and the coil in the hand...

  8. Eureka! by Beelzebud · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A pacemaker powered by the blood it pumps. by golly, I think we found a perpetual motion machine!

    1. Re:Eureka! by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Well, until the machinery that drives the hydraulic pump that creates the power for the pacemaker breaks down.

      That's the problem with perpetual motion machines: once you remove it from it's closed system parameters, it falls apart.

    2. Re:Eureka! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      No, what you're creating is a device that you think must be working, until it's too late.

    3. Re:Eureka! by Aphrika · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A car powers its own spark plugs. Same concept here.

    4. Re:Eureka! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pacemaker charge does not power the pumping of blood, it only stimulates the heart muscle into using aerobic metabolism to pump the blood.

    5. Re:Eureka! by sharky611aol.com · · Score: 1

      Not quite. To put this into Slashdot friendly car analogy form, the pacemaker is more like a spark plug. It just starts off the reaction (myocardial contraction), much like the spark plug gets the piston moving, but it ain't doing the moving itself. You need an external fuel source (i.e. gasoline or oxygen/ATP) to do any real work. So yes, it's totally feasible to power a pacemaker by the blood it pumps, b/c it's not a closed circuit. Now an artificial heart would be a different matter, but I digress.

    6. Re:Eureka! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should take a look into the differences between pacemakers and artificial hearts

    7. Re:Eureka! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      A pacemaker doesn't pump blood. We're talking about powering the control circuit, not the pump.

    8. Re:Eureka! by ourcraft · · Score: 1

      I think its powered by beans and beef, but thats just me. On other days I power my heart with pounding music, and last week it was with frozen yogourt

    9. Re:Eureka! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A pacemaker pumps nothing.
      You see, the heart is a nice muscle. Even without exterior stimulation, it keeps pumping.
      The problem is without control from the nervous system, it beats slightly too fast.
      So, when there is the control system is defectuous, you have to use an exterior electric stimulation to slow it down.
      Tadaa, this is the pacemaker.

  9. With the power of Heart! by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I'm missing something here, and I realize the article just used a pacemaker as an example, but isn't there a cart/horse chicken/egg problem with a device for regulating the heart being powered by the heart?

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    1. Re:With the power of Heart! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Pacemakers don't power the heart. They trigger it. As mentioned upthread, this is equivalent to the spark plugs in your car being powered by the alternator that is driven by the engine. The energy for both is coming out of the gasoline.

    2. Re:With the power of Heart! by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      The pacemaker doesn't power the heart, it just maintains its rhythm. The heart burns calories from food, so there is no chicken and egg issue here.

    3. Re:With the power of Heart! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Except in the case where the heart isn't moving and the pacemaker is still trying to make it move. Then the pacemaker will quickly run out of charge and that will the that.

      But without the pacemaker, that would have been that long before, so it's a tradeoff of risks.

      I guess what we really need is a source of power that is more powerful the less the heart is beating. So instead of a generator, implant a Life Alert dialer, and tie the pacemaker to the bumper of the local paramedic wagon, with the power broadcast back through the dialer and into the pacemaker. You'll be up and running laps in your living room when they burst through the door.

    4. Re:With the power of Heart! by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Unless you eat the chicken, and the egg to power the pacemaker.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    5. Re:With the power of Heart! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... so there is no chicken and egg issue here.

      Unless you really like Oyakodon and your doctor has told you not to eat it.

    6. Re:With the power of Heart! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      If the heart isn't moving, there is only a short period of time when pacemaker trying to restart it does anything good. The generator is needed -- it should let you survive until the medics arrive, but the UPS attached to that generator doesn't need to be big.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    7. Re:With the power of Heart! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      No, because you're not powering the pacemaker directly, you're recharging a battery. Heart falters, pacemaker continues on its battery. Battery charge dips a little, is recharged when the heart recovers. No problems.

    8. Re:With the power of Heart! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in the case where the heart isn't moving and the pacemaker is still trying to make it move.

      If a pacemaker fails, the heart (usually) stops and the person dies. Period. Doesn't matter if it's battery powered, blood turbine powered, or nuclear.
      If you have a pacemaker and your heart isn't moving, either your pacemaker's failed or your heart's failed beyond the pacemaker's ability to make it go.
      If fibrillation was determined to be a risk, that's what implantable defibrillators are for.They don't need much juice either, once their capacitors are charged.

    9. Re:With the power of Heart! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the device has zero electric storage. It has to have some storage or none of this will work once a heart starts fibrillating

    10. Re:With the power of Heart! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      This is what I meant: you need only a small amount of storage. Not the 10 years it carries today, a few hours at most.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  10. f--- ya! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Well that just sucks!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re:In other news, by demonlapin · · Score: 2

    A pacemaker that never needed to have its battery replaced would be quite an accomplishment.

  12. Re:In other news, by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

    Having a pacemaker you don't need to include a chest zipper with would be very convenient.

  13. Soylent Tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    less blood for more vampire shows/movies please..

    what's next:

    Weekend At Bernies 3: vampires revive Bernie for fun
    Caddyshack 3: vampires are hunted under golf course
    Ghosthunters 2: a new TV series hosted by vampires
    Vampireman: vampire survives in the wilderness
    The Soylent Green Hunter: vampire explores the world

  14. Lisa! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    In this house we obay the laws of thermal dynamics.

    The energy used to power the pacemaker will either cause the heart to pump harder or reduce the flow of blod.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Lisa! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The amount of energy needed to mimic the vagus nerve acting electrically on the heart is nearly infinitesimal compared with the amount the heart puts into an average beat, most of which it wastes in its own movement against the tissues within and around itself. If this worked, the heart would never notice.

  15. Excellent Example by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    I would conjecture that this will be an excellent example of something that sounds great hypothetically, but cannot be made to work acceptably in practice. Far better to capture energy from the kinetics outside of the body rather than its interior. From the standpoint of FDA approval alone, external attachments will be far easier to pass than anything that has to be implanted due to the possibilities of infection, toxicity, blood clots, leaks, inconvenient maintenance, etc.

    1. Re:Excellent Example by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They're missing a trick.

      The heart itself is making big movements constantly.

      Instead of using blood flow to move a generator to create electricity, use the motion of the heart itself to move the generator to create electricity.

      Something like an automatic-watch winding mechanism glued inside the pericardium ought to do it. A few healthy beats and you have enough charge on a capacitor to discharge into the heart as a pacemaker signal. A few thousand and you might have enough for an automatic defibrillator (these can be much less powerful when you have direct access to key points on the heart, and an intelligent sequencer).

  16. About the whole glucose into energy thing... by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    Not strictly on-topic, but as lots of people posted about the whole converting blood-borne glucose into electricity thing...
    Woudn't having some device consume some of the glucose in your blood for its power then make _you_ feel rundown/lower in energy generally?

    1. Re:About the whole glucose into energy thing... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      In the same way that exercise would. It's temporary, then you get used to it and hardly notice. One more gummy worm a day and you're good.

    2. Re:About the whole glucose into energy thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DC offset. Eat more candy.

    3. Re:About the whole glucose into energy thing... by maxume · · Score: 2

      It might, but the hundreds of calories that our bodies consume every day are relatively huge when you are talking about a device that needs a few milliwatts.

      (1 kilocalorie / day is equal to about 48 milliwatts of power)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:About the whole glucose into energy thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a lot of people in the western wold would feel a lot better if something actually consumed the energy that stuffed into their bodies.
      Obesity would shrink (no phun intended) if your burger actually powered your laptop.

    5. Re:About the whole glucose into energy thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit, yes. And so would the article's blood-flow power generation - it applies a bit of drag to your blood flow, which means that your heart needs to work a bit harder. The energy has to come from somewhere. But the amount of energy is (presumably) pretty tiny.

    6. Re:About the whole glucose into energy thing... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Short answer: Not really. Long answer: If it was trying to pull large amounts of energy, yes, but we're talking microwatts here. You'll never miss it.

    7. Re:About the whole glucose into energy thing... by benhattman · · Score: 1

      I always looked at it the other way. If you could install a device that "burned" say an extra 100 calories a day for you, well that's another half a snickers bar. In an obese society, even a device that did nothing useful (say a OLED monitor on your back instead of a tattoo) would probably become chic very quick.

  17. Alternative? by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    Since the heart is beating and therefore expanding and contracting, wouldn't piezoelectricity work?

    1. Re:Alternative? by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      Or how about a series of plastic stents with coils of copper filament around them, and generate electricity through induction (since you're just pushing all that iron around anyway)?

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    2. Re:Alternative? by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      (Hemoglobin is diamagnetic when bonded to oxygen, and passing a steady stream of it unidirectionally through the coil would create flux.)

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
  18. Re:Nigger Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, we could hook up the people who have nothing better to do but post racist troll comments on message boards to just such a power plant. Instant electricity, no human rights issues (after all, it's only trolls), and it'll run on cheetos.

    Plus, we could hook up a pump system to your dominant hand and use the constant wanking to generate even more electricity. Perhaps some sort of rectal tube to harness the endless supply of methane that only an obese man with a junk food diet can produce.

    Then, when the "battery" is used up, we can rend it down into industrial grade lard and feed it to the rest of the "batteries".

  19. Tesla Turbines by lkcl · · Score: 1

    tesla turbines do not cause turbulence.

    1. Re:Tesla Turbines by blair1q · · Score: 1

      In a pig's ass they don't.

      Everything causes turbulence at a significant Reynolds' number.

      At the varying and fairly high speeds of blood flow in a major artery you could mix a frozen margarita with one of those things.

    2. Re:Tesla Turbines by ross.w · · Score: 1

      They would if you didn't give the pig too much fruit.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    3. Re:Tesla Turbines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a pig's ass they don't.

      Well given that pigs and humas are anatomically similar, they should definitely consider that when placing the turbines. Any volunteers for the first round of human trials?

    4. Re:Tesla Turbines by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      In a pig's ass they don't.

      Point taken, but how about inside, say, a human artery?

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  20. Re:goatse g oatse go atse goa tse goat se goats e by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    Induction has been in certain pacemakers for at least twenty years. My first job as a tech was diagnosing pacemaker electronics that failed pre-assembly testing. The induction coils were used to program the pacemaker for the patients particular condition (AFib, VFib, one chamber up to four chambers). I'm sure the battery tech has improved since then and even back then the battery would last at least 5 years so I would imagine today's models probably last at least 10 years give or take. So incremental charging during Dr. visits could probably extend that out a good 5 to 10 more years provided the battery itself continues to hold a charge.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  21. Use muscles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not put some kind of device on the larger muscles and generate the power with mechanical motion when people walk. you would need some kind of battery to store power when they were not moving for longer periods, but i wouldn't think that would be a huge problem.

    1. Re:Use muscles by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      You'd also need to have a number of extra wires running around the body... The nervous system is pretty nicely designed and compact, but I doubt you can fit the wires in the spine as well, I don't think having wires running around is much of a good idea.

    2. Re:Use muscles by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Because a lot of people with pacemakers aren't using their larger muscles, usually for good reason. The only muscle in operation continuously while they're still alive is their heart. Unless they're on some sort of replacement, and then the issue of a pacemaker is moot.

  22. Re:Nigger Power Plants by blair1q · · Score: 0

    Replying to trolls isn't dumb. The troll coming back again and again for abuse and never realizing that he's a masochist? That's dumb.

  23. Fictional version by Daetrin · · Score: 2

    The alternate earth people in Robert J Sawyer's Neanderthal Parallax series used turbines like that to power implanted personal computers.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  24. Re:Nigger Power Plants by Worthless_Comments · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You do not understand the nature of trolls at all.

  25. Re:In other news, by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You mean like they had back in the 1970s?

  26. How about putting the turbine in the urethra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, seriously. It doesn't run full-time, but should provide plenty of power several times per day that can then be stored.

  27. Say hello to Frank's heart! by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

    What would you say if I told you I've invented a low cost, low maintenance household device that could easily last for a decade or more?

    Say hello to Frank's heart!

    I've harnessed Frank's heart. I was cleaning the snakes out of the pantry yesterday when suddenly it hit me... Nothing works harder than the human heart, especially when it's clogged with cholesterol. Now, Frank's heart was a mess, and it's getting worse all the time.

    The rest was easy. Frank eats, I surgically attach a generator to his heart, and voila! The Cholester-Do-All! At some point, this will kill Frank, but I think it's worth it.

    (courtesy of Dr. Forrester)

    --
    The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
  28. Theres a better place to stick a turbine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theres a better pipe you can stick a turbine on, especially in flatulent people

    1. Re:Theres a better place to stick a turbine by ross.w · · Score: 1

      See the comment above about the pig's ass.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  29. Draw or produce? by lscotte · · Score: 1

    The turbines draw power? You probably mean produce power. There's quite a difference between the two... *sigh*

    --
    This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
    1. Re:Draw or produce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're drawing power from the blood flow and giving you electrical power. There's no difference between the two, it depends on your point of view .... *sigh*

  30. Strengthen the flow of my blood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather have something strengthen the flow of my blood. I got enough circulation problems as it is.
    Also if I have a heart attack I could switch on that secondary heart.... blip!
    If they are going to harvest anything for energy, why not some body heat... I can wear an extra sweater.

  31. Wireless Power Internship by sc0p3 · · Score: 1

    One internship I did developed highly efficient wireless power specifically for this purpose... 4 years ago.. not sure why this is news. Similar to SplashPad but for biomedical devices, its quite easily done. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2005/10/1401.ars

  32. body heat? by wfstanle · · Score: 1

    Why not try generating energy from the body heat? I'm not a medical researcher but wouldn't this be reasonable? If they can get electricity from light why can't they do the same with heat?

  33. A thermoelectric device has no moving parts by Marko_Doda · · Score: 1

    Can't you just use the heat of the body somehow?

  34. beware! by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

    Blood magic is always evil!

    --
    Balderdash!
  35. Why bother by JustinCredible · · Score: 1

    This is fairly ridiculous, people with ventricular assist devices (blood pumps) need to take blood thinners to reduce their risk of clots. This would probably lower survival rates of pacemaker patients.

  36. Horrible Horrible Idea by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a biomedical engineering student in my last year of school. This idea is a non-starter. Regardless if the turbine could be redesigned to be more efficient, even the POSSIBILITY of a clot forming and causing the patient to develop a PE means it's never going to happen.

    And there are more subtle effects than mere clots that happen when you put a medical device in contact with blood. Current technology does not have any solution for these problems, and has failed to find a fully blood compatible material for 40 years.

    A much easier idea would be to make pacemakers rechargeable via electromagnetic induction. I asked one of the St. Jude reps why we don't do it this way, and the reason has to do with legal reasons : the non rechargeable pacemakers are less likely to fail and kill a patient.

    1. Re:Horrible Horrible Idea by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      +1
      Wish I had modpoints.

    2. Re:Horrible Horrible Idea by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      the reason has to do with legal reasons : the non rechargeable pacemakers are less likely to fail and kill a patient.

      I would call that common sense rather than a "legal reason".

      --
      Donate free food here
    3. Re:Horrible Horrible Idea by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Well, the surgery to replace a pacemaker can ALSO kill a patient. So it's not quite that simple..."common sense" that tells us to avoid one risk in favor of another worse risk leads us astray.

      For example, right after 9/11, "common sense" told the general public that it would be a better idea to drive than to risk flying on a jetline that might be hijacked by Arab zealots. Several thousand people died as a result of following their gut common sense instinct.

      In medical devices, there is the same problem. The way the legal system works, you get blamed if your device fails and hurts someone...even if device is preventing an EVEN WORSE risk. You don't get any credit for the saves.

      Another example that relates back to cars : if we made robot cars that were 10 times safer, lots of people would live who would otherwise die in a car wreck. But the manufacturers would be sued to oblivion because the 1 in 10 fatalities caused by the robot failing would be COMPLETELY blamed on the manufacturer (since there is no human driver to blame). The only way robot cars could ever work if government simply made it illegal to sue a robot car manufacturer, and instead gave people the right to fixed compensation per death. (~3 million dollars is about right)

    4. Re:Horrible Horrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hemophiliacs?

    5. Re:Horrible Horrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-Design using a Tesla Turbine, the've been used before in medical equipment, and should eliminate the turbulance and be more efficient.

    6. Re:Horrible Horrible Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, put a windmill in the lung instead.

  37. Re:goatse g oatse go atse goa tse goat se goats e by rpresser · · Score: 1

    My impression is that the ultimate limit of the life of the pacemaker is not its battery or electronics, but its leads.

    Furthermore, with pacemaker tech improving every year, do you really want to keep trusting your heart to something 15 years old?

  38. self winding pacemaker by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

    ok, seriously, what's wrong with the idea of using motion to generate small amounts of power like they do with watches? just put that mechanism in the pacemaker and you dont have to worry about this other garbage.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  39. Nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing could possibly go wrong with this.

  40. i don't know enough about how the body works but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't the net effect of adding the turbine int he major arteries going to be that you'll effectively lower your blood pressure and blood flow levels due to the resistance from the turbine resulting in the heart needing to pump a little harder to compensate and maintain 'normal pressure & flow', but overall resulting in your heart working harder without the any activity from the rest of your body so that when you do need stress your heart from heavy exercise or activity that you're more at risk of having a heart problem?

  41. can I run power to it? by jsprenkle · · Score: 1

    And make a distributed artificial heart? I hope I'm not the only one who thought of this...

    --
    - I've got bad karma because I won't parrot everyone else's opinion
    1. Re:can I run power to it? by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      Nope, I had a similar idea:

      Use the flow of blood to generate a tiny bit of electric current through induction in a series of spaced coils wrapped around a vein, and run the current backward along the flow of blood to a small pump. A series of these throughout the body would work, as you say, as a distributed heart. The only problem I can foresee is timing; since you're moving a fluid through a closed system, the pumps would have to work in tandem or else blood pressure would be persistently erratic throughout the body, which can't be good long term.

      Still a cool idea, though.

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
  42. Wrong methodolgy, and this is first art, released by ourcraft · · Score: 1

    free to the world, GPL 3; Use movement and piezoelectric, a long thin metal ribbon, somewhere in the back, the elbow, along the ankle, every move creates a charge... Your truly ourcraft.

  43. Re:goatse g oatse go atse goa tse goat se goats e by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, with pacemaker tech improving every year, do you really want to keep trusting your heart to something 15 years old?

    Obviously that kind of depends on the dependability of the tech itself. I think I would prefer to stick with an utterly reliable piece of old equipment than rather than having to open me back up every couple of years for an upgrade.

  44. Destroys blood cells as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, you know that dialysis devices destroy blood cells due to friction ? I guess the same will happen with these turbines, and this is even more trouble than clogging blood.

  45. Re:goatse g oatse go atse goa tse goat se goats e by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    It doesn't sound like you've had much invasive surgery done. The recovery is a bitch and can be very dangerous for a healthy person. Add age and diminished health and the risks triple. If a Dr. can keep from going back in he generally will.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K