Slashdot Mirror


Electrical Power From Humans

Coisiche writes "The BBC covers a team of scientists who are working on a new way to power medical implants: an internal biofuel cell. From the article: 'Their gadget, called a biofuel cell, uses glucose and oxygen at concentrations found in the body to generate electricity. They are the first group in the world to demonstrate their device working while implanted in a living animal. If all goes to plan, within a decade or two, biofuel cells may be used to power a range of medical implants, from sensors and drug delivery devices to entire artificial organs. All you'll need to do to power them up is eat a candy bar, or drink a coke. ... In 2010, they tested their fuel cell in a rat for 40 days and reported that it worked flawlessly, producing a steady electrical current throughout, with no noticeable side effects on the rat's behavior or physiology.' Of course, there's never been a sci-fi movie using such technology as a plot device..."

220 comments

  1. Watch Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm pretty sure the Matrix is going to read this paper and keep it on file for later, after it's world domination plan is complete.

    1. Re:Watch Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAAHAH!!! A matrix reference!!! YEEEHAAAW!

      Hugs and kisses,

      Juan Epstein

    2. Re:Watch Out by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it'll just have to make sure we don't commit suicide first by blotting out the sun. Which would make humans utterly worthless as power sources.

      You know, come to think of it I think the machines in that movie might have been right to subjugate the humans, if only for their own damn good. After all, what is the one thing on the planet (besides some deep sea vents) that can survive and operate, and has for hundreds of years, without the Sun? If you said "machines", congratulations! You are smarter than every single person in the Matrix.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Watch Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, imagine if we could harness the electricity of all those extra apostrophes people type every day!

    4. Re:Watch Out by EdZ · · Score: 1

      The "Second Renaissance" shorts make it very clear that the humans are a bunch of blithering idiots without even a basic grasp of the laws of thermodynamics.

    5. Re:Watch Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn near anything living in deep, subterranean caves? I can't recall the name, but there was a cave discovered completely sealed off from everything that had eyeless, colourless lizards from having lived cut off from the sun for thousands upon thousands of years.

      I also figure cockroaches, or most any other insect or creature that lives underground would do well enough for a long time, until the nutrients in the soil itself are depleted.

    6. Re:Watch Out by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the original idea was that the machines were using our brains for processing power which is at least logical. Executive meddling said that was too hard for people to understand so instead we got the brain meltingly stupid explanation in the movie instead.

    7. Re:Watch Out by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      Form future reference: The more smug you are, the more likely it is that you've forgotten something crucial.

      In this instance, you missed a crucial point in the lore of the Matrix:

      They blocked the sun because the machines were using solar energy to power themselves...not people.

      That smugness...it'll get ya every time. ;)

    8. Re:Watch Out by Tarsir · · Score: 1

      What machines are you aware of that can operate without humans servicing and powering them for even one year?

    9. Re:Watch Out by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Spacecraft are rather good at it. Ask Vyger, err, Voyager 1/2.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1

      Hows 34 years and counting?

      Don't confuse our lack of wanting to make reliable machines with the lack of ability to make reliable machines. When we need to, we can make some pretty hearty equipment, its just not practical for us to do it for ALL machines. Its also generally not as profitable either.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    10. Re:Watch Out by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Holy shit. I did not know that, and while muddling over how stupid the explanation they used was, I came to that exactly that as a far more plausible explanation that explains lots of various plot points that don't make much sense in the movie. For instance, why the machines need to keep humans conscious in a matrix at all, why they don't arbitrarily change whatever the hell they want (they change something once in the movie, why the hell can't they do that whenever and instantly?), why the agents are fairly limited and don't walk through walls/ have infinite ammo/ any video game cheat they want, etc. Now, all those things make a kind of sense (for instance, changing too much would ruin the calculations the humans are making).

      So we went from an explanation that makes sense, to one that makes none at all and is in fact completely illogical and defies all the laws of physics and biology and renders the plot much less intelligible, because the former was too hard to understand for movie execs? Got it.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    11. Re:Watch Out by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      That smugness...it'll get ya every time. ;)

      Yes. Yes it will ;). Because I know that's why people in the Matrix did it. I was pointing out how godamned stupid that is, though, because machines can easily switch to any power source under the sun, even if it ceases to be under a sun. Nuclear, oil, coal, tidal, etc. Oh yeah, or nuclear (which Morpheus says that they have. You know a plot point is bad when you point out how bad it is in the movie itself.) Humans, however, cannot. We rely 100% on the sun for energy (via plants). While in theory we could find another source, it would be far less efficient for us to do so than for machines. It would require for us nuclear (or whatever)->electrical->light->photosynthesis->digestion->motive. For machines it's nuclear->electrical->motive. Yeah, way to screw over the machines!

      Oh, and while I hate to even acknowledge the existence of the 2nd and 3rd movies, the scene in them where they go above the clouds leads to the question of: why didn't the robots just build giant balloons or light-weight aircraft with solar panels? Or satellites? Because both those things would give even more solar power than they could get on the surface, and would completely circumvent the whole "burning of the sky" thing.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    12. Re:Watch Out by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Satellites. Robot probes. Sentient machines.

      Wait, damnit, humans don't know about us... I mean those yet! Shit, guess I shouldn't have mentioned it. I mean, nothing to see here fellow human /.'er, move along.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    13. Re:Watch Out by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Damn near anything living in deep, subterranean caves? I can't recall the name, but there was a cave discovered completely sealed off from everything that had eyeless, colourless lizards from having lived cut off from the sun for thousands upon thousands of years.

      I also figure cockroaches, or most any other insect or creature that lives underground would do well enough for a long time, until the nutrients in the soil itself are depleted.

      Did they develop bioluminescence?

    14. Re:Watch Out by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      the kinds of machines that use other machines instead of humans to service and power them for longer than a year. one hand washes the other, as the saying goes.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    15. Re:Watch Out by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      You seem surprised.

      I, on the other hand, expect approximately 99.9% of all slashdot users immediately thought "Matrix!" upon reading the title.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    16. Re:Watch Out by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      The 'farm people for power' storyline did seem pretty weak compared to the 'farm people for processing' alternative - after all, they could've just farmed sheep or hemp without having to worry about an uprising.

      But here's a few plausible explanations:

      • The robots had to eliminate the human threat anyway; farming them turned out to be more sustainable than killing them and burning their bodies
      • It's the future - there were a lot of people and not a lot of anything else still alive
      • The robots had plans to 'reprogram' the people as robots, but were still developing the technology
      • The robots thought human batteries were kitschy
    17. Re:Watch Out by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      I thought of a furnace.

    18. Re:Watch Out by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      I thought of Deus Ex, actually.

    19. Re:Watch Out by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      My thought for why the Machine kept humans alive in the Martix was due to Asimov's Zero'th law.

      The machines are programmed, in their very core to protect humanity. They are not allowed to reprogram themselves otherwise, (Agent Smith being an exceptional problem that shouldn't have occured.)

      Humanity was destroying itself/each other. Was the blotting out of the Sun effective vs. the Machines? No. Other humans? Probably.

      So they stopped all human wars, starvation, disease, and put everyone into a happy simulation. (which didn't work out, so they put them into a more realistic one.)

      Those who break out of the simulation must be stopped, even if it means killing a few humans to protect the larger number of humans.

    20. Re:Watch Out by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think there's a vague possibility that GP was being sarcastic.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:Watch Out by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      no, i was thinking whether or not this burns cal

      --
      warning pointless sig
  2. Matrix flashbacks by neonv · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Next we build the machines that will one day make use of our technology to turn ourselves into batteries. On the upside, they will create the best online world ever ...

    1. Re:Matrix flashbacks by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Best online world? Compared to what? The grind/fun ratio is worse than any MMO I've ever seen...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. Obvious questions by Hatta · · Score: 1

    How much power is generated by the system? What is the efficiency? If science writers aren't going to include this kind of information in their articles, they could at least include a reference to the original paper for those of us who are interested.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Obvious questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agreed.

    2. Re:Obvious questions by vlm · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested in volumetric and mass power density. I know my body outputs about a watt per pound and generates about a hundred watts per cubic foot. If this is much higher or lower in either measure, its going to have interesting effects on the body. Otherwise the effect on the body will merely be like being that much fatter, mostly.

      Being able to biologically power a LED light would be an interestingly useless hack.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Obvious questions by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      How much power is generated by the system?

      Enough to power an artificial urinary sphincter.

      What, too much information?

      Personally, my first question was more along the lines of what the waste products are. TFA mentioned water as one by-product.

    4. Re:Obvious questions by eclectus · · Score: 1

      Useless hack? I'd love to have running lights....

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    5. Re:Obvious questions by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      I want to know if it will help me lose weight while powering my iPhone or laptop

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    6. Re:Obvious questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being able to biologically power a LED light would be an interestingly useless hack.

      Unless its dark.

    7. Re:Obvious questions by Scorch_Mechanic · · Score: 1

      So how much power do you need to engage or disengage a urinary sphincter? A enough to power a single LED? Less? More?
      As a comparative unit, I don't think "urinary sphincters" is going to get as much traction as flashlights or New York City for X days.

      This is all fine and dandy, but my gut feeling is that some very simple physics and biology related problems are going to limit these things to little more than low output power supplies for simple implants and novelty bodymods.

      Although I can think of a few really cool/useful bodymods related to LEDs or other extremely low power devices (e.g. LEDs in your face/hands for simple illumination, light-bright style LED pictures, etc.) These "biofuel" cells are unlikely to be able to recharge your phone or mp3 player. It's far more likely that your phone/mp3 player will simply get more energy efficient and lower power. Maybe in the unknowable future the twain shall meet, but for now it's most likely a pipe dream.

      --
      You should turn signatures off.
    8. Re:Obvious questions by spazdor · · Score: 1

      I think the more likely near-future goal is to make pacemakers, wireless biosensors, and so on which don't require battery changes.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    9. Re:Obvious questions by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      No, the obvious questions are: 1. Will it power a death ray laser? and 2. Does it work with shark blood?

    10. Re:Obvious questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overestimating, even if they somehow managed to pull 500 Calories per day and convert that into useful electricity, 500kcal is only about 0.6kWh. Basically you'd be lucky to get a couple cents a day worth of electricity out of it.

  4. Full Story Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, there's never been a sci-fi movie using such technology as a plot device...

    Very nice.

  5. only 1 step missing by superwiz · · Score: 2

    devices which do the opposite: convert power into biologically useful energy. after that, resistance is futile.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:only 1 step missing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      We have that, right? Adenosine triphosphate was first synthesized in 1948 by Alexander Todd, at least according to Wikipedia. Or if you want to start from a different step in the process, here's a picture of glucose.

      The harder part is that the stuff needs to be distributed to every cell, and every cell needs to process it individually. And the process needs to be regulated, etc. It's fairly complex, but I think it's mostly well understood.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:only 1 step missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Now where's Mr Anderson when you need him?!

  6. Phhht - I produce enough GAS to power a lawnmower by Maow · · Score: 1

    If I just collected it and ran a generator,...

    World domination! Or a tidy lawn at least.

  7. Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This can also be used to regulate blood sugar levels--a cure for obesity that allows people to still be lazy and eat a lot.

    1. Re:Really cool by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1, Funny

      and power their vehicles at the same time. My Ford Fusion gets 7km/chocolate bar!

    2. Re:Really cool by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Wait two more years and your Ford Mr Fusion will get 8km/chocolate bar and another 2km from the wrapper.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:Really cool by N0Man74 · · Score: 0

      I heard an interesting question raised several months ago. If obesity is on the rise, merely due to changes in having less active lifestyles, laziness, and lack of self-control, as many seem to assume, then why is there also a dramatic rise in infant obesity? Are babies today just more lazy and inactive than babies in the past?

      I don't know all the answers, but it seems to be a valid question that suggests that there could be other factors in the rise of obesity, other than simply writing it off as character defects.

      As for the article, all I have to say is...

      SOYLENT ENERGY IS MADE FROM PEOPLE!!!!

    4. Re:Really cool by mevets · · Score: 1

      Not just that, you could implant lasers above their eyes and have heat vision, just like superman!
      Imagine, eyeing that piece of cold pizza, and realizing that by heating it up then eating it, you will actually lose weight! FTW!

    5. Re:Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /Eyes the southern united states as a great new energy source

    6. Re:Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that one's easy: Lazy and/or busy parents. Today's two parents working 16 hours a day households don't have time to monitor their children, so the pantry is just permanently unlocked and kids graze all day. No surprise they are fat. As for infants, those same parents don't have the time to bottle feed (or, gasp, BREAST FEED) so they get their kids started on solid food ASAP. One family I know started their kids at 4 months. No wonder their kids are fat as hell.

    7. Re:Really cool by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it'll be blamed on climate change within a week. Oh wait, that causes shrinking animals... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44772989/ns/technology_and_science-science/

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    8. Re:Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are babies today just more lazy and inactive than babies in the past?

      1) Babies likely are less active. With pack-n-plays and other containment systems lazy parents can lockup their kids while they watch "Sing Like a Banshee" and other crap TV.
      2) Same lazy parent may have the misconception that giving a large meal before bed will keep the baby asleep all night.
      3) Society encourages fat babies... they're cute. Who doesn't like a Michelin-Man looking baby?
      4) Greater use of formula, early introduction of cereals, other nutritional factors that are controlled by the parents.

    9. Re:Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are babies today just more lazy and inactive than babies in the past?

      While it's far from a causal relationship, it's interesting to note that the start of the obesity epidemic in the US coincides very closely with the date when corn subsidies were enacted and US products started switching over to corn-based sweeteners. Also note that other countries, where traditional sweeteners are still used, have similarly-modern lifestyles without the same levels of obesity. The possibility of a link was enough to make me experiment with altering my diet and, after about 2 months of eating as little HFCS as I could manage, I'd dropped 10 lbs without any other conscious changes to my diet.

      It's far from scientifically-significant, but my anecdotal experience has convinced me that obesity rates in the US are primarily the result of the HFCS that seems to be in everything we eat. People can argue that there's no difference at the molecular level all they want, but even if it's just the placebo effect, I've got 2-extra visible abs because I've dropped HFCS, so I'm sticking with my belief that its the main cause.

    10. Re:Really cool by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hey it's possible. If it's getting hotter of course you'll want to be less active.

      Also I think your business was the first to do properly targeted spam on Slashdot, I first saw it about a year ago, it was an historic moment!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Really cool by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      If only that were true. Without coupling the energy to some kind of useful work, however, letting people eat more than they need is impossible. Human bodies are still subject to physics: you can't just turn up the thermostat and assume the room will stay the same temperature, nor can people simply burn more energy while living the same life style in the same body.

      Just generating an electrical charge with the excess calories, as the implant would do, isn't effective: where does the charge go? It can't keep building up in the human body; eventually it will leak enough to start damaging things, and the escaping charge could even stop your heart once you happened to ground yourself on something. If you simply let the energy disperse as heat it will cook people to death (this drug let people sweat off their excess pounds by simply doing more biochemical work, just as you're proposing for the implant, and the drug caused dangerous hyperthermia. DNP).

      Not to mention that the device doesn't burn the extra calories completely; if I'm reading right it only substitutes itself for a single step in the oxidation of glucose, and after that your body still has to deal with all the remaining energy (at least 95% of the available total) the old fashioned way.

    12. Re:Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are babies today just more lazy and inactive than babies in the past?

      Damn right they are. They need to get off their pampers and get a damn job. I'm tired of them just sitting around mooching off of society! Instead of raising the age for social security, we should institute mandatory employment for those under 2 years of age. If they can cry, they can damn well work.

    13. Re:Really cool by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Obese mothers have obese children, even surrogate mothers! It has to do with gene activation. Being obese activates certain genes that make it easier to become obese (hence the unfortunate positive feedback effect of being overweight). This gene activation also occurs in utero. Or it does in mice, anyway. So there is certainly a potential causative link between adult obesity and infant obesity, based on mouse studies.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    14. Re:Really cool by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      For a long time, I've felt like the problem is the food supply. Certain things just shouldn't be allowed as ingredients. Unless you can afford to buy all your groceries at the Whole Foods Market, it's significantly difficult to do grocery shopping without bringing home something that's high-fat, high-salt, or high-something else. If nothing else, the taxes on sugar should be removed so corn syrup isn't the only option.

    15. Re:Really cool by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I think... It's actually not a business - hobby maybe. I was sitting in Odessa one night and I thought, "damn I wish I knew what I know now before I came here." You know, hind sight and all. So I'm trying to help those that may choose my same path. Oh and it really is the story of my recent life. I'm now engaged and the date is set for 10July12. So it can and does happen for many. And just like a lot of guys here on slashdot, I'm a socially awkward geek with asperger characteristics. And my baby is SO unbelievably beautiful - makes me cry. Smile.

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    16. Re:Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So spin a motor or a fan. Charge a battery that then uses induction to charge your cell phone. There are tons of things you can do with that energy without just letting it sit there.

    17. Re:Really cool by Zironic · · Score: 1

      Actually it appears to be using a completely different oxidation process. Normally the body converts Glucose into pyruvate though a very long process while the biocell uses Glucose oxidase to trigger a reaction that creates D-glucono-Î-lactone instead.

    18. Re:Really cool by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Even more interesting is the fact that the start of the "obesity epidemic" in the US coincides very closely with the date that the US started pushing sugar as it's primary calorie intake instead of fat. As well as the push to convince people that complex sugars (carbohydrates) are not sugar.

      My personal experimentation shows that I can eat a 3500 calorie/day diet of fat and protein will keep me at 60 lbs lighter than a 2000 calorie/day diet of sugar.

    19. Re:Really cool by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Most of the food from Whole Foods is garbage. Whole foods schtick is "Natural". "Natural" and healthy are not synonymous. High fat is not bad for you. High sugar is. Whole Foods could easily be renamed to Sugar Foods. High salt is only a problem if you have the pre-existing condition of high blood pressure. I have personally know more people with health problems caused by too little salt than I have from too much salt.

      The biggest problem with the American diet is that people are using quack medicine to determine what is healthy and what isn't, they don't critically look at what effects their food choices have on their bodies, and they allow snake oil salesmen to convince them that if their snake oil doesn't work, they must be a bad person and should take even more.

      The current "Natural" = Healthy mantra is no better than Astrology or Phrenology.

    20. Re:Really cool by soundguy · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely a molecular difference. Refined sugar (sucrose) is about 50/50 glucose and fructose. HFCS is roughly 45/55. Glucose is body & brain fuel. Fructose turns to fat. The people arguing the difference don't see 5% as significant, but over time it can be.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    21. Re:Really cool by lyml · · Score: 1
      There is no evidence whatsoever that a high fat/high protein diet of equal amount of calories as a high carbohydrate would lead to increased weight loss.

      Most likely you are severely over estimating the energy amount of your high fat/high protein diet as high protein diets have been shown to lead to a voluntary decrease in caloric intake in controlled trials. Try carefully documenting your intake of calories over an extended period of time and you will probably see that you are actually eating much less than you think you are.

      If you are seriously eating many more calories a day of fat and protein without significant weight gain, I suggest an urgent visit to a doctor. With such a significant difference in caloric intake without any effects you are very likely to be having severe colonial malfunction which could lead to internal bleedings, infections and death.

    22. Re:Really cool by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I have carefully counted my calories. The whole "Eat all sugar because it is good for you." garbage is total BS.

      I have heard it all before "You will absolutely gain weight.", "It's your imagination", "Your going to die", "Your a liar". On and on. The nations obsession with a sugar diet brings all sorts of rationalization why physical evidence that contradicts their advice doesn't count.

      I didn't say that the caloric intake difference between the two had no effect. I said I LOST weight with the fat diet, and GAINED weight with the lower calorie sugar diet. Although, the calories are not what was making a difference. I use those numbers because it has won me more than one bet against ELEM faithful, as well as the "It's not sugar. It's carbohydrate!" faithful. In fact, no matter how many calories I eat, my body settles at about 200lbs if I eat all protein and fat. If I eat all carbohydrates, no matter how many calories I eat, my body settles at about 260 lbs. The quantity of sugars I eat place me at a weight between the two at a consistent ratio to the amount of carbohydrates I eat.

      It is the "ELEM" theory that requires a malfunctioning colon. Not a diet of eating what your body uses.

    23. Re:Really cool by Obfiscator · · Score: 1

      My favorite response to the "natural" people is: Natural? So is arsenic. Doesn't mean I'm going to eat a lot of it.

      The more I read about it (in scientific journals), the more I agree with your position (regarding fats and sugars...I've always read the ingredient lists on natural foods to see how healthy they are, and some of them are quite healthy). From what I can tell, it seems to strongly depend on the person. In other words, if cutting calories doesn't help, switch to fats and proteins and see if that does. Are you concerned about cholesterol or kidney problems due to a high fat/protein diet?

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
    24. Re:Really cool by lyml · · Score: 1

      You have to realize that if what you are saying is true, you are unique among mankind. Several controlled studies have been unable to find any difference between HFHP diets and other diets of the same caloric value. Occam's razor therefore strongly suggest that you either
      1: have made some kind of mistake
      2: suffer from an inability to make absorb fat/protein (e.g. colon damage)

      If none of these would be true, volunteer for a scientific study your claims are extraordinary and understanding of how your body works would surely be a benefit to society.

    25. Re:Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, it also means that it only works well when you have an abundance of glucose in the blood stream, which is generally not true when you're sleeping or basically any time except the first hour or so after eating carbohydrates.

    26. Re:Really cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never asked for this.

    27. Re:Really cool by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Household food culture (what they eat at home) has a lot to do with it. I am going to bet, that infants are not in fact obese, it's the toddlers that are past the point of being able to grab a cheerio and cram it in their mouth. That's when what the parents are eating kicks in and they are eating the high-fat high-calorie foods, sucking down 3 quarts of apple juice a day, etc. Kid activity is probably a big impact but doesn't occur until the kid is trying to get around on it's own.

      If there is an effect on actual _babies_ A fat chick breastfeeding can dump out higher fat content than a skinny one. Women gain weight during pregnancy in preparation for that. That, and what is in formulas matters. Though, last I heard formula-fed infants actually gained less weight than breastfed ones did.

    28. Re:Really cool by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I have no problem conceding that "Natural" foods are not unhealthy because they are "natural". They are frequently unhealthy because they are loaded with sugar to make palatable something that otherwise would be healthy and bad tasting. Or, it is just sugar being sold as "healthy".

      It is sad that there are huge portions of the population that has had it drilled into them that they should eat an almost exclusively sugar diet, and that when it makes them fat they are told that they are bad people. Then they are told that they should starve themselves while continuing to eat a diet that is incompatible with their biology.

      I don't have any fear of cholesterol or kidney problems. My cholesterol is a little better than it was 15 years ago when I started eating this way. Much like worrying about salt, the only people that need to worry about kidney problems due to high fat/protien are people with pre-existing conditions. Since I don't have pre-existing kidney problems, there is no reason for me to eat an unhealthy diet out of fear from it.

      On the other hand, I do have concerns about being obese. Carrying around an extra 60 lbs of fat is not healthy. Of course, there are plenty of healthy people being told that they are obese when they are not, and that is a whole other problem. I have been hydrostatically weighed, so I know exactly how much of my body is fat, and how much is lean. To reach what the medical/government/insurance industry consider a normal weight, I have to be at 3% bodyfat. At 4% bodyfat, they declare me "overweight". They claim that I am at a healthy weight at -15% body fat. Yep. that is a negative sign. The only reason I could even reach the BMI's "normal" weight is because I don't work out. During the times that I have done moderate workouts, my lean body mass exceeded the BMI's maximum "normal" weight. That means that if I exercise, I would have to literally amputate body parts to reach a "normal" weight. When I am just below the BMI's "obese" rating, at the peak of the "overweight", my ab muscles are all clearly visible.

      Our health/government/insurance industries have created a totally unrealistic ideal of what they think human biology is, and then went out and found the people who match it and declared them as evidence they were right. They have picked their data to match their conclusion, and go into full tilt denial when faced with evidence that contradicts it.

      Case in point. This is considered "Obese" by our medical/governemtn/insurance industries: http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/schwarzenegger.html

    29. Re:Really cool by Belial6 · · Score: 1
      No. Controlled studies have not shown that. Uncontrolled studies have show that there is no different. You are a perfect example of how the "Sugar is healthy" myth perpetuates. When presented evidence that contradicts your fantasies, you declare:

      1: have made some kind of mistake 2: suffer from an inability to make absorb fat/protein (e.g. colon damage)

      You completely refuse to even consider the possibility that:
      1: The evidence could be correct
      2: YOU suffer from an inability to make absorb SUGAR
      3: Different genetic lines have different dietary needs.

      Your adherance to your religion is killing an maiming people, and like other religious zealots, you will continue to look for "signs" that your faith has is properly placed, and deny or ignore all physical evidence to the contrary.

    30. Re:Really cool by Karellen · · Score: 1

      you can't just turn up the thermostat and assume the room will stay the same temperature, nor can people simply burn more energy while living the same life style in the same body.

      I don't see why not. You could just convert the energy to heat. The body's homoeostasis system will then expand the surface blood vessels, or start sweating, to dump the heat to the environment, just like it does whenever you get warm. It'd just be like having an artificially increased rest metabolism.

      --
      Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
  8. USB by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    Next, a USB port in your belly button to charge your iPhone.

    1. Re:USB by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why do that?

      Embed your iPhone into your chest cavity- put a speaker in your ear.

      Rename it "I, Phone"

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs external ports when you can simply be "I, Phone" ?
      Then again, if Siri is an Agent...

    3. Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good call on that. Having the thing internal will prevent the screen from breaking all the time on that damn iPhone.

    4. Re:USB by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      Good call on that. Having the thing internal will prevent the screen from breaking all the time on that damn iPhone.

      It will make for an even elevated sense of iEnvy though... Just imagine having a major surgical operation to install the iPhone 9 in your body only to have Robot Steve Jobs announce a week later that the iPhone 9S++ is out, with enhanced mind control and better support for "Device pairing".

    5. Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should mention that... We work near Wake Forest University, and there was an interview with a guy from the the nanomaterials lab who was working on commercializing a phone charger using body heat to trickle charge phone. Apparently, they have a few patents already, and a working prototype...

      Check it out

      http://www.wfu.edu/~carroldl/Thermoelectrics.html

    6. Re:USB by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Good idea but Apple would never allow it.

      Just think how hard it would be to convince people to buy the new and 'vastly' improved model every 6 months.

    7. Re:USB by shmeeps · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you guys, but "device pairing" is incredibly important to me and my wife.

    8. Re:USB by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Considering how eager people are to buy them now I doubt Apple would have any difficulty selling them. In fact if you purchase the Apple iChest (compatible with 10% of the hearts/lungs on the planet) you can simply reach in and pull out the old iPhone when you need to upgrade.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    9. Re:USB by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Yeah imagine your disappointment when you see the "sorry, the device you are trying to pair with is not running iOS 13.3 or later... please dock the device and launch iTunes before proceeding"

    10. Re:USB by alienzed · · Score: 1

      or 'imaPhone'

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    11. Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you'll have to go to the Apple store and have a "genius" perform the swap, otherwise you void your warranty and your innards are subject to recall.

    12. Re:USB by swanzilla · · Score: 1

      Embed your iPhone into your chest cavity- put a speaker in your ear.

      Playing Angry Birds during meetings would be a bit more overt.

    13. Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love this. No, I'm not kidding, I'd love this. A phone, no, but I'd love nothing more than to miniaturize this and have one of those CIA jawbone (as in actually transmits through your actual jawbone - I believe they do really exist) headphones - and have it run off my saliva. Make the thing bluetooth and tada, never need to buy headphones again. Not to mention it wouldn't be blocking your ear canal in any way, so you could still hear other people, traffic, etc, whilst having a headset you'll never lose. Swallow, maybe, but not misplace anyhow. And it would work with everything - phone, laptop, etc. Not to mention if it's capable of precise enough sound, there would be zero loss in sound quality. Literally, it's not even traveling through the air, it'd be the clearest sound that could ever possible be made by an electronic device.

      Please make this work science dudes! I'm counting on you!

    14. Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just need to set up a series of Apple surgical clinics next their stores...

    15. Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do that?

      Embed the display into your eye socket.

      Rename it "eyePhone."

    16. Re:USB by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Embed your iPhone into your chest cavity- put a speaker in your ear.

      Playing Angry Birds during meetings would be a bit more overt.

      That was Angry Buds.

    17. Re:USB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you don't have the retina display.

      Seriously, a HUD for real life would make things so much more awesome.

    18. Re:USB by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      How about Angry Boobs?

    19. Re:USB by shmeeps · · Score: 1

      Hey, as long as we don't have to use the high-speed Thunderbolt port!

  9. resistance isn't futile! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    turn up the resistance, burn more calories.

    perfect dieting tool.

  10. Implications for weight loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just turn on the gadget and watch the pounds melt away (assuming you don't go into a coma from hypoglycemia first).

    Speaking of which, while the ability to run off the body's own power sources is great, it does pose a bit of a risk...

  11. Couch Power by malevolentjelly · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, look forward to quitting my job and simply setting myself on top of an inductive charging couch, watching TV, and eating as much fattening food as possible to sell my bio-power back to the grid. I aspire to one day becoming something like a defecating tree.

    1. Re:Couch Power by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I have some really bad news for you, the money you make selling the power is not going to pay for the cost of the food. Now it might make for a neat diet and a little spare change, but that is about it.

    2. Re:Couch Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention you'd probably end up with some pretty unpleasant optimization regimens. Eating only a nutrient sludge, lying under piles of specially designed lycra blankets, going long stretches without sleep (sleep burns precious calories!). No, best leave it to the bacteria

    3. Re:Couch Power by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      It runs on glucose (sugar) and oxygen... If you could afford to buy such a device, why bother putting it inside you? Just give the device the sugar and oxygen and keep your under-achieving meat bag out of the equation. Trust me, it will cost you less in the long run. Want to know what to do with all that fat? Invest in an at-home liposuction kit and start making "all natural" beauty soaps... I read this great how-to once...

    4. Re:Couch Power by timeOday · · Score: 1

      So? People over-eat now, not only are they not paid back for the food, they get incredibly expensive medical conditions. Lots of fake pills advertise the ability to increase your metabolism, but that's what this would actually do. Even if it just dissipated heat into your bloodstream ("wasting" the energy completely), it might be useful. Or harmful, of course.

    5. Re:Couch Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how the /. crowd all pretty much had the same first thought.... short circuit the damn thing, I'm going to Baskin-Robbins!!!

      Who needs lap-band when you can set your metabalism to "marathon" on a 24/7 basis.

    6. Re:Couch Power by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      I love how people who lecture me on physics or computer science when I make a mistake are yapping on about biology likes it's the easiest thing in the world. Of course you can just turn it up to lose weight!

      When it's AI or nanotechnology 95% of the responses are "what could possibly go wrong", but when it's biology they think we can just change whatever we want. Weight loss device indeed....

    7. Re:Couch Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      going long stretches without sleep (sleep burns precious calories!)

      Sleep burns less calories than being awake not moving. Yes, your brain is actually fairly active while you're asleep, but every single other system in your body goes into power saving mode.

    8. Re:Couch Power by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It only makes a neat diet if your body uses the same amount of energy for other tasks. There is this misconception that most people have even in the face of huge amounts of daily evidence. The body does not use energy based on how much goes in. We have anuses. We poop. The body stores fat. The body burns fat.

      If a person is fat, the sound bite suggestion is "Eat Less. Exercise More." This is a pointless suggestion. If all energy that was consumed could just simply be converted to mechanical energy, the people making that suggestion should be able to run 10,000K marathons simply by having enough Twinkies fed to them at a rate where the calories consumed equaled the calories spent.

      It is just as likely that instead of losing weight, you would just get tired sooner.

    9. Re:Couch Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory pun:

      Couch potato battery

  12. As interesting as this is... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    As interesting as this is, I wouldn't be surprised if we produce batteries before long that can store enough power for a lifetime.

    Might be cheaper and easier to use a next-generation battery than a bio-generator.

    Perhaps more reliable too.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:As interesting as this is... by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. This is about power generation, not power storage. I don't think there are going to be any batteries capable of storing a lifetime's worth of energy anytime soon.

    2. Re:As interesting as this is... by very1silent · · Score: 2

      Radioisotope based generators do that just fine. They've even been implanted in people. For a while, they were the standard for how to power pacemakers. Then some patients got old and died. It turned out that properly disposing of the pacemaker meant cutting up the dead body. That caused relatives a lot of distress, so we discontinued use of radioactive power supplies for internally implanted devices.

    3. Re:As interesting as this is... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      What's the power density of fat? Not that different than gasoline, I'd think.

      Ok, I googled it. Fat is 37 mj per kilo, gasoline is 47 mj per kilo. Not substantially different; it is certainly far more energy-dense than NmH batteries, which run about 300 kj. In fact, it's two orders of magnitude better. It's just getting the energy out of it that's troublesome.

    4. Re:As interesting as this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the content of your posts -such that they are - I'm guessing you're around 17 or 18? And by the way, that's not a compliment.

  13. Effects on People With Medical Issues? by sehlat · · Score: 1

    Uses blood glucose(BG) and oxygen to run? Fine.

    What about diabetics, particularly those who are prone to sudden blood sugar drops? Or get sick and need all their energy to survive.

    I can see adding a sensor to shut it down if the BG drops below, say 80, BUT

    1. Add a secure, remotely-controlled STFU switch for medical emergencies

    and

    2. Do NOT use it at all for life-critical medical add-ons.

    1. Re:Effects on People With Medical Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You use the power to charge a battery which acts as a UPS. I'm guessing if you go long enough without proper glucose and oxygen levels to drain the battery then you're also a corpse. I'm also thinking that the clever designers have thought of the limitations of the device and this one probably doesn't break the top ten list.

    2. Re:Effects on People With Medical Issues? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      2b, use a local backup store of the chemicals needed that can last longer than any survival blood sugar drop. As soon as blood sugar is back in acceptable range start rebuilding local backup storage.

    3. Re:Effects on People With Medical Issues? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      I wonder how strong a relationship there is between blood glucose level and the amount of energy these produce. If there is a measurable difference when you go outside the recommended BG range, you could hook the fuel cell to a sensor and warn the diabetic patient to take the appropriate action (eat something sugary or take some insulin) if the current indicates a BG level outside the recommended range.

      It could mean an end to measuring using lancets and testing strips to test blood external to the body. In fact, if there was a way to expend (or store) the excess power the fuel cells could be used instead of or in addition to insulin to correct a high blood sugar level.

    4. Re:Effects on People With Medical Issues? by vlm · · Score: 1

      If the specific consumption per mass and volume is "similar" to human tissue, then its effect on the body would be about like a similar weight/volume of fat. I don't think they're planning on pulling 500 watts out of the thing anytime soon...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Effects on People With Medical Issues? by sehlat · · Score: 1

      The point of my question was: THINK this one THROUGH before using it.

      Everybody's raising good comments about backup power supplies, alert monitors if the BG falls, etc. etc. But anything that runs on a life-critical system (and blood BG and O2 are surely life-critical) had darned well better be approached with caution, some well-validated simulations prior to usage, and lots and lots of after-checks to ensure the Demon Murphy doesn't get an opening.

    6. Re:Effects on People With Medical Issues? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      The device gets its energy by substituting itself for a single step in the break-down of glucose; there are dozens of steps. Well over 95% of the energy in sugar will still be available for your body to use in the ordinary way.

      In other words all the implant does is use the enzyme glucose oxidase to turn this into that. The full process cooks it all the way down to water and carbon dioxide.

    7. Re:Effects on People With Medical Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that no one involved with the project is reading your comments right? You're not actually helping anything, and aren't pointing out anything they don't already know in your two minutes of pondering this issue. You're not special, helpful, or at all useful.

      Have a nice day!

  14. Agents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is agent Smith behind this?

  15. Application as a weight-loss device? by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems like the usage of your body's energy is a feature, not just a cost. Would it be possible to have some device use as much energy from your body as possible so as to keep you from getting fat? And for a triple-play, how about if that energy could also be stored or transmitted for consumer use, displacing some of your expenditures on electricity?

    Obviously, by that point the logistics would be a major issue, but it would be awesome if something could tackle the problems of implant powering, obesity, and energy all at once.

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    1. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      How about eating less? That would tackle the problem of obesity as well.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would it be possible to have some device use as much energy from your body as possible so as to keep you from getting fat?

      Yes. They call it a bicycle.

      And for a triple-play, how about if that energy could also be stored or transmitted for consumer use, displacing some of your expenditures on electricity?

      If you travel a mile by bicycle, you can save 55 cents on gas and car maintenance.

    3. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes, but it's much less fun.

    4. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      No. Read my other posts and you'll learn why. You can't control weight by simply changing the amount of energy your biochemistry uses; see this drug as one example of why not. DNP

    5. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, but eating whatever you want and not gaining weight would be better.

      But. yes. Eat less then you need, and you lose weight. Not Rocket science..hell, it's barely 1st grade math.

      Doing that OTOH, is a different issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Um, DNP worked. There are concerns about cataract, and some other possible side effects. I am unaware of any sturdy that should any more side effects then pretty much any other drug.

      amphetamine cause you to lose weight by changing you biochemestry as well. The side effects are really nasty, and it is very easy to abuse.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by DriedClexler · · Score: 2

      You obviously have expertise in this area, but I don't see how that's a relevant comparison. My suggestion was for the device to siphon off glucose your body would normally pass through its regular metabolic channels (and thus store as fat); DNP had numerous effects in addition to simply consuming energy. A device that coverts it into electricity could just turn the glucose into harmless smaller compounds like water and CO2.

      There may be a problem I'm missing, but your argument seems to be "liposuction doesn't work because diet pills f*** you up". Huh?

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    8. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's an idea!

      Gain weight....get an electrical jolt!

      The more weight ...the greater the voltage!

    9. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like the usage of your body's energy is a feature, not just a cost. Would it be possible to have some device use as much energy from your body as possible so as to keep you from getting fat? And for a triple-play, how about if that energy could also be stored or transmitted for consumer use, displacing some of your expenditures on electricity?

      Obviously, by that point the logistics would be a major issue, but it would be awesome if something could tackle the problems of implant powering, obesity, and energy all at once.

      While I would love to see Reality TV the Terminator edition shoving a light bulb into fat people is not a wise choice in a world with food and energy shortages.

    10. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      I just meant to argue that you can't burn more energy without giving it a place to go. With DNP, that energy went into sheer heat production, and thus despite its effectiveness people were uncomfortable or dangerously unhealthy while taking it. You're right that it's not totally analogous to a biomechanical device diverting some glucose.

      I guess my underlying point is that cells are unbelievably delicate and that thermodynamics works just the same at the cellular level as it does in a car. The rate of energy transformation, the optimum temperature of reactions, and the quanta used in transporting energy have been tuned to unbelievable precision in living organisms; many of the proteins involved have been so highly conserved that you can take them out of a human, put them into yeast, and they'll still work perfectly at the exact same tasks they performed for the human. That the most complex and the most simple eukaryotes can freely exchange power plants strongly suggests that the way life uses energy is so delicate, so specific, that anyone who tried any other way in the last 1.5 billion years is now dead.

      Now thermodynamics isn't my specialty, but I know energy transformations usually also release an amount of energy to the environment, usually as heat, in some proportion to the energy change of the reaction itself. Saying you can run an artificial metabolic device inside a human being, and then intentionally overclock for the express purpose of consuming more energy, without releasing a dangerous amount of heat is nonsense. Most people bringing up the weight loss thing haven't been aware of the heat that could be produced or even mentioned the idea of where the excess heat and electricity could go. Even those who do mention it, by suggesting things like charging batteries with the excess, still aren't understanding the amount of heat that will be lost in transforming chemical energy into electrical action and then back into chemical energy (in the form of the electrochemical gradient of a charged battery).

      For people used to computers and cars it can be difficult to comprehend how little energy it takes to profoundly damage living things at the cellular level, and how small the windows for safe interaction with biological systems really are.

    11. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't. The human body is not that predictable. Eating less is just as likely to produce a situation where the body can do less work, leaving you just as fat, but adding the problem of appearing lazy to boot.

      If the human body released it's calories as mechanical energy as easily as the "Eat Less. Exercise More" crowd likes to suggest, it should be possible to run 10000m at the same m/s as a 200m dash. The "ELEM" crowd should be totally on board with the Olympics cutting out every race except the 200m dash, since any runner that cannot keep the top speed of a 200m dash though the entire race of a 10000m race is just "lazy".

    12. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It is more like first grade physics. Sure, when you drop a ball, it falls to the Earth, but as soon as you get past the simplest, and most isolated examples, the whole thing falls apart and you start explaining how Santa Claus can travel around the world in one night.

      Eating less is just as likely to reduce the amount of energy supplied to your muscles as it is to make you lose weight.

    13. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The device uses sugar to power, it does nothing about fat... so yeah it could in theory stop you from getting fat if u eat too much sugar to begin with. But I doubt it will do anything about too much fat, nor will it reduce your body fat.

      If however the device used the energy generated to zap your muscle causing them to contract and burn fat in return, then you could become "shockingly" skinny and muscular in no time.

    14. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      I think what you're hinting at is that one (food) Calorie is equal to 4184 Joules = 4184 Watts per second. Lighting a potato chip on fire is a good demonstration. Heat dissipation is a serious concern, as proteins cease to function outside of a narrow temperature range.

      That said, the average human body dissipates 100 W of heat continuously, and nearly 1,000 W while running. Combine that with our evolutionary adaptations to endurance hunt in the African savannah (i.e. quite warm), and most portable electronic devices aren't going to be an issue. Biology is a very complex system that's difficult/impossible to fix when it goes awry, but it's not a fragile one. People still use substances like DNP for weight loss, and fatal overdoses are rare.

    15. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by benhattman · · Score: 1

      Yeah...that, or like the GP said you should just eat less. It really is pretty much that simple. Eat about how much food your body needs (or even a hundred calories less) and you can maintain your weight or slowly reduce it. It may not be easy to do, but it is definitely simple and reliable.

    16. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by benhattman · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a crazy person. Trust me, I've tried this very simple experiment. Count your calories (I don't really care what). Now, using a simple online calculator cut them until they are either neutral or maybe a couple hundred calories less per day than your body needs. Now, exercise vigorously for perhaps 2 hours a week. Guess what, I lost 25 lbs and it wasn't hard at all. I'm not the only person who has ever completed this experiment either.

      Now, if your plan is to eat 650 calories a day, it will definitely screw you up. But, if you keep things close to what your body needs ELEM is the only smart way to maintain a healthy weight. I mean, unless your strategy of ridiculing reason and proposing nonsensical strawmen arguments is working and the world just hasn't caught on yet.

    17. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That would be great except that the human body doesn't work that way. It is a 6 year olds approach to weight loss. The kind of approach one takes when they think that the human body is a simple machine that converts all fuel to mechanical energy, and does not adjust output based on input.

    18. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You are presuming that other peoples bodies don't slow down when they reduce their caloric intake. Recognizing that metabolisms respond to the food consumed isn't "crazy". Thinking that people's metabolism isn't effected by quantity AND make up of food ingested IS crazy though. Thinking that because YOUR metabolism continues to function at the same level when you reduce calories that means everyone elses behaves the same way is crazy. Thinking that ELEM is the only smart way to maintain a healthy weight even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is crazy. If ELEM was all it took, most people would be skinny. If ELEM worked, you would look like Mr Universe.

    19. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Plammox · · Score: 1

      Fact: I eat less, I exercise 4 times a week instead of being completely inactive, I lost 11 Kg in 4 months.
      Yes, it's that simple.
      The hard part is getting over yourself, stopping the self indulging and keeping an eye on your weight.

    20. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Plammox · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. I believe the vast majority of obese people don't suffer from metabolical illenesses. They need some self-esteem, confidence and someone who accepts them to show them that physical exercise can be fun and as addictive as potato chips.

    21. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      When/if the efficiency of this goes beyond muscular power.. will we then power our segways with this? "Up" is closer then it seemed...

    22. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      So, your claiming that all human's biology matches yours? That you are a model of all humans? And you have the audacity to tell ME to get over myself? Maybe you should take a look in the mirror.

      Fact: I ate less, I exercised 5 times a week. I gained 15 pounds.

      So, why don't you enlighten us on which Olympic athlete you are. Since you are trying to convince us that all humans get the same results from the same diet and exercise, obviously, you have achieved the apex of human physiology. After all according to you, human physiology isn't complicated. Different people don't have different dietary and exercise needs. ELEM. "It's that simple."

      So, please give us a link to the sites showing your Olympic wins....

    23. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I ate less, did no extra exercise and lost 25kg in 4 months. I lost another 3kg in the next 4 months and gained 4kg in the 18 months after that.

      While gaining the 4kg I was averaging 10 meals a week and exercising a lot more (I started going out dancing 3 times a week). Losing weight is indeed easy; keeping it off is fucking hard for some of us.

      I'm not sure losing weight by eating 7 meals a week qualifies as 'healthy' either, but some of us aren't blessed with a fast metabolism.

    24. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hell, with energy prices at their current levels keeping yourself warmer with the thermostat set a little lower would be fantastic for those of us living in colder climes.

    25. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are presuming that other peoples bodies don't slow down when they reduce their caloric intake.

      Um, it's not at all like you're entirely at the mercy of your body deciding how many calories it'll burn. Your body may not WANT to get off the couch and exercise, but if you force it to, it'll burn calories. Guaranteed.

      Your body will make some pretty extraordinary attempts to fulfill the demands of your conscious will. Even if that means burning calories. Try it sometime.

    26. Re:Application as a weight-loss device? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, your claiming that all human's biology matches yours? That you are a model of all humans? And you have the audacity to tell ME to get over myself? Maybe you should take a look in the mirror.

      Fact: I ate less, I exercised 5 times a week. I gained 15 pounds.

      So, why don't you enlighten us on which Olympic athlete you are. Since you are trying to convince us that all humans get the same results from the same diet and exercise, obviously, you have achieved the apex of human physiology. After all according to you, human physiology isn't complicated. Different people don't have different dietary and exercise needs. ELEM. "It's that simple."

      So, please give us a link to the sites showing your Olympic wins....

      Lol bullshit. There is no one on this earth that can eat at a calorie deficit and not lose weight. That's the definition of a calorie.

      You simply were eating too much to be at a calorie deficit. Solution: eat less, take a multivitamin.

      Your body DOES NOT NEED EXCESS CALORIES. No matter HOW FEW calories you burn, you can eat that many calories and be stable. You can eat less and lose weight.

      This is extraordinarily simple science. Just because you think you're some special "low metabolism" martyr who can't lose weight doesn't mean you're right.

  16. not in the US... by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    Drink a Coke huh? Not in America. We use High Fructose Corn Syrup for most soft drinks. You want to power that baby, you'll need a Coke from Mexico. They actually use real sugar.

    1. Re:not in the US... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Your body makes glucose out of that just fine. You even make glucose from non-carbohydrate sources when the need arises.

    2. Re:not in the US... by daenris · · Score: 1

      You realize that most HFCS is made up of 40% or more glucose right?

    3. Re:not in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Table sugar is 50% fructose, 50% glucose

      High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose.

      HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

      I'm sure our bodies are just struggling to figure out what to do with HFCS. It's amazing we don't just keel over the moment we ingest it.

    4. Re:not in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All that shows is that you don't even get real sugar in your sugar in the US.

    5. Re:not in the US... by daenris · · Score: 1

      No... that's what table sugar is anywhere. When you see just "sugar" on an ingredients list, they're talking about sucrose, which breaks down into 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

    6. Re:not in the US... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Still tastes like corn syrup. I don't know why you put up with it.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:not in the US... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Any attempt to spread your vitriol and ignorance, huh?
      Your post show your complete ignorance on the subject; which explains why you have an entrenched desire to overcompensate for it by making irrelevant posts.

      So, what do we know?
      1) You have no idea what HFCS (corn sugar) is.
      2)you have know idea what sugar is
      3) You no nothing about how the body process them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:not in the US... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no, it's not. no its not 50/50, know it's not all 55 and are body know what to do with it just fine.

      This has been thoroughly studied. And the only study people keep on dragging out is the Princeton study, which was flawed as fuck.

      And here is one for you: it's better for you then sugar because LESS is used. Although BOTH should be avoided.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:not in the US... by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      "High" fructose corn syrup is still 45% glucose. Regular sugar is only 50%.

      I don't really understand why HFC is so dangerous metabolically, but in terms of every day chemistry it's almost identical to ordinary sugar, and an electrical device only cares about the chemistry.

    10. Re:not in the US... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I like it.

      Plus , you need less to achieve the same level of sweetness.

      And yes, I am old enough to remember the change.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:not in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So ... he doesn't know anything about HFCS, but he knows something about sugar and he is nothing about how the body processes them? Do you?

    12. Re:not in the US... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      That is probably not where the problem is.Frankenfood is the problem. Corn is GMed to produce HIGH(er) FRUCTOSE, something it doesn't normally do.

      And I don't care what Coke or anyone else says, Coke from Mexico tastes different (better IMHO).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:not in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... that's what table sugar is anywhere. When you see just "sugar" on an ingredients list, they're talking about sucrose, which breaks down into 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

      OK, my mistake, I shouldn't have believed GP without checking.

    14. Re:not in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So of course fructose malabsorption doesn't exist, is present in 0% of the population, and doesn't have a Wikipedia page, right?

    15. Re:not in the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you're kind of dumb. Sugar is sucrose, which is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 45% glucose and 55% fructose. Hardly a difference.

  17. Bioelectrical diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll just use it to burn up those extra calories.

  18. I think it is great... by captinkid · · Score: 1

    In Mother Russia battery charges off of you!

    I can't imagine the electric companies will pay you enough to compensate for your time. $0.03/kwh for some .01/kwh of human output is NOT a productive activity.

    As far as battery technologies, the most recent well used technology is Li-ion. and that was developed by Exxon in the 1970's, so I don't see much hope for a "new battery tech" to change anything.

    1. Re:I think it is great... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think LiFePO4 are newer than that. Wikipedia says 1996.

  19. Great... by tramusen · · Score: 1

    One step closer to real life being the same as Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I never asked for this.

  20. One monitoring implant please! by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

    I'd love an implant which would passively monitor my vitals, blood fat etc. levels and allow uploading through some kind of NFC solution. 10-20 years?

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  21. How do we turn it into a weight loss device? by QuesarVII · · Score: 1

    Add an outlet to it, and you'll be able to charge your ipod and lose a pound at the same time!

  22. Does it work with beans? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    With the right chili, you could power New York City for a night.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  23. Hitting 2 birds with one shot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this technology can basicly eradicate obesity and powershortage at the same time?

  24. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our smoking-hot-blondes-who-turn-into-agents overlords. *takes vow of celebacy*

  25. Weight Loss by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

    Would it be possible for this to work as way to increase the body's effective metabolism? Thereby allowing some folks with slow metabolisms to boost theirs?

    --
    Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    1. Re:Weight Loss by RobinEggs · · Score: 2

      No.

      A device like this breaks down glucose, which releases energy. If you couple that energy to building something else in your body, or use it to make electricity as the implant is doing, then that's fine. But breaking glucose to increase your metabolism will just lead to producing so much electricity in the implant that it starts fucking with your nervous system or even stops your heart (which would happen at much lower power levels than you'd think).

      There's one more option for dispersing the excess energy you'd get from increasing your metabolism, of course: it could just be used as heat. But increasing your metabolism by simply turning up the thermostat is dangerous, and gets you much too hot very quickly. There's actually a drug called DNP that does just that, but making your mitochondria waste a lot of energy in the production of ATP. While DNP effectively increases your metabolism and was used as a weight loss drug in the 1930's, it also leads to cataracts and cases of lethal hyperthermia (translation: cooking yourself to death from the inside) so it was discontinued. Athletes and body builders still use it to burn fat fast, but it's really dangerous and can't be used on a regular basis.

      Animals actually use special fatty tissues, called brown fats, that wastes energy in exactly the way that DNP would force your entire body to waste energy. It appears in babies or on vital areas in cold-weather animals as organic heating pads, and some animals also use it to regulate or recover from hibernation.

    2. Re:Weight Loss by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Not heat. Light.

    3. Re:Weight Loss by jezwel · · Score: 1
      So if we add implants, we increase our calorific requirements? And if we don't eat more food, will those calories eventually come from spare fat?

      Problem I see is that the power requirements may be so slight that it wouldn't make a noticeable difference in what you need to eat.

  26. But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could I graft a port on my hand somewhere so I could use this thing to power my cell phone while talking on it?

    Or maybe....

    Go go Gadget flashlight! :)

    1. Re:But by tattood · · Score: 1
      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    2. Re:But by ZankerH · · Score: 2

      It doesn't even have to power anything but itself, I wouldn't mind having a few implanted to burn calories and help with weight loss.

  27. In a decade or two? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Oblig xkcd.

    In the plus side, cellphone like devices will be even more obiquitous. In the minus side, a tinfoil hat won't be enough anymore, you could get implanted tracking devices for the rest of your life, that not just tell where you are.

  28. Free radical and bombs. What could go wrong? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

    This is a little scary. At the best of times their pathway will involve creating highly dangerous hydrogen peroxide as a primary product. Other normal biological processes make peroxide, too, but it's still scary shit. When you put hydrogen peroxide on a cut in your hand that bubbling your hear is the sound of the peroxide eating through the contents of every damaged cell in the place.

    There's also the creation of superoxide radicals, singlet oxygen, etc. to consider. Any enzyme that binds oxygen or catalyzes oxygen-related reactions generates some of these free radicals here and there; it's just the way life works. Hemoglobin does it in blood cells, cytochrome oxidase does it in mitochondria while making bio-energy the old-fashioned way, and the glucose oxidase used in this fuel cell does it. And those free radicals can go through your DNA like a wood chipper through an IKEA end table.

    Ultimately this story is a little ague, and the studies they describe aren't nearly long enough to have any idea whether the rate of free radical production is too high. The rat survived for 40 days, but we want to put this into people and let it work for 40 years.

    And don't forget that glucose contains 100 times more energy than cells normally work with directly: living cells put glucose through dozens of intermediate chemical reactions, each harvesting just a bit of energy, to transform its 686 kilocalories per mole into a cellular energy source containing a safe, usable 7.3 kilocalories per mole. I'm not saying they don't know what they're doing, but using glucose for anything in living cells is like dismantling an artillery shell into a pile of fire starters. It's ridiculously complicated, and the biological mechanisms for doing it have been very, very highly conserved by evolution for billions of years, meaning there's one way to get it right and about a trillion ways (literally) to get it wrong. Starting with an existing enzyme lessens most of those concerns, but it's still a dangerous process and easy to fuck up.

    Anyway, I'm not trying to piss on their parade or play the armchair academic here; I think this is great and I'm sure they know what they're doing. I just thought you'd be interested to know where the concerns are and why this is such an ambitious project.

    1. Re:Free radical and bombs. What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a little scary. At the best of times their pathway will involve creating highly dangerous hydrogen peroxide as a primary product. Other normal biological processes make peroxide, too, but it's still scary shit. When you put hydrogen peroxide on a cut in your hand that bubbling your hear is the sound of the peroxide eating through the contents of every damaged cell in the place.

      Hydrogen peroxide may be highly reactive and generally harmful to cells, but you have your reaction exactly backwards. The bubbling you hear is the contents of the damaged cells destroying the hydrogen peroxide via the catalase enzyme.

    2. Re:Free radical and bombs. What could go wrong? by Zironic · · Score: 1

      I suspect they're not at all worried about the issues you bring up, the body handles hydrogen peroxide just fine and the problem they're trying to solve is to how to get -more- energy out of the reaction, not less.

    3. Re:Free radical and bombs. What could go wrong? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      I suspect they're not at all worried about the issues you bring up, the body handles hydrogen peroxide just fine and the problem they're trying to solve is to how to get -more- energy out of the reaction, not less.

      You're totally missing my point, and you're misunderstanding their research. They're not trying to get more energy out of the reaction at all, and no one is saying they should be trying to get less.

      All the cell does is substitute itself for a single step in the break down of glucose to divert the energy to the implanted device; it doesn't change the net energy released by the reaction whatsoever. The device is just stealing some energy; it doesn't re-engineer the reactions involved.

    4. Re:Free radical and bombs. What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is really needed is a way to reverse this process. Increasing the "load" on a finite system requires increased fuel. Don't burn the fuel directly, just require the body to do it properly in larger amounts. There are so many fat people that would LOVE to be able to selectively increase the energy-burning load their body has to power. They could power all kinds of fun little devices with it, then pig out and refuel their power plant the way they've become accustomed to.

      I don't even see it as a negative thing to enable these people. As long as there is work (or play) being done, perhaps it's better that they continue to power something, even if it allows them to continue eating too much.

      Personally, I'm a bit overweight and I work at a damned desk. I can't do my job out running around burning calories. I really wish I could, but if I could even partially power the devices I sit in front of all day and not get fat, I'd go for it.

  29. powered by glucose by slyrat · · Score: 1

    I am interested in what kind of loss of glucose it is on a per hour basis. It could have big impacts on patients that have insulin dependent diabetes. So for instance if you had an internal insulin pump that was powered by these type of bio fuel cells I have to wonder how it would change the insulin needed. This along with the potential to make a person need to eat more just to keep things powered inside of themselves. Small problems but still things that would be interesting to find out about.

  30. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  31. Large scale energy source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just clone a large number of animal stomachs [and whatever other components (or the whole animal)] (human ones will bring up all kinds of legal issues) put them in a building somewhere and setup machinery to feed them and take away to crap. There are probably animals that specialize in eating something we have lots of extra or could get easily to feed them.

    Wala energy out of any in a wide variety of bio sources. Just setup near a places that generate the bio output and wala.

    Not sure on the scale of power such devices could produce, but I'm sure someone else can fill in the details which will determine if this is stupid or not.

  32. Application as fat loss device by dhruba · · Score: 0

    I like sona belt with electric switch and used to loss my belly fat. This is a sky shop product, very effective. Swapan http://beautycarebd.weebly.com/

  33. Obligatory by Sentrion · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia....well, you know how it goes.

  34. Bonking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will this work with bonking? The body shuts down to preserve glucose levels for the brain as a critical function. Endurance athletes are familiar with this when they "bonk" or "hit the wall". It's the body's response to preserve brain function. If a device continues to use glucose that's not shot down on low glucose levels, that could cause some not-so-desirable side effects...

    1. Re:Bonking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you are aware that bonking has an entirely different connotation this side of the Atlantic ;-)

  35. one modified rat does not a breakthrough make by vagn · · Score: 1

    "Finally, the whole package is wrapped in a mesh that protects the electrodes from the body's immune system, while still allowing the free flow of glucose and oxygen to the electrodes. The whole package is then implanted in the rat."

    That's really cool, if true. The chemistry for something like this has been around for a long time. The problem has been that the body tends to cover these devices in tissue or other material. (It's been a long time, and I don't remember the details.) If they have a way to keep the device clean for years (forever, really) then this will work. But, if tissue or other material builds up on it, and then falls off in chunks and enters the bloodstream it's going to block arteries causing heart attacks and/or strokes and eventually killing the host. One modified rat does not a breakthrough make.

  36. Re:USB :p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dick Cheney already has a heart assistance pump that wirelessly phones home - but requires an external battery pack and pump to keep running.
    The hacker fun here is to get its number and put it on an auto-dialer in Romania for heart-to-heart romantic chats.

  37. No, there wasn't by Prikolist · · Score: 2

    If memory serves me right, in Matrix the energy was generated off bioelectricity and body heat. Here, instead, is a biofuel cell powered by sugar and oxygen. That's like comparing a solar power cell to an internal combustion engine. Now what this invention does replicate is a parasitic organism, or, if the cell actually does something useful, a symbiotic organism.

    --
    I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Potential diabetes treatment? by GarryFre · · Score: 1

    Excess sugar in the blood can be damaging, the kidneys end up being damaged from over-work trying to excrete the excess sugar. Hmm, the possibilities.

    --
    www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
    1. Re:Potential diabetes treatment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am a newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic... my sugars run an average over 500... i could power a small city!

    2. Re:Potential diabetes treatment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      double benefits for Type 1's - extract the sugar from the blood, use it to power the insulin pump.

  40. Burn Calories... power your devices. (I Wish) by Kaldesh · · Score: 1

    Eat a taco, recharge your smart phone from the caloric content.... sound's like a win win to me (jk)

  41. Can't wait by geekoid · · Score: 1

    to get my own USB plug.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  42. Deus Ex HR, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you'll need to do to power them up is eat a candy bar, or drink a coke... sounds familiar.

  43. body fat by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    Get one that can do the same using body fat, and you're on.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  44. This is a re-hash of an existing documentry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ever see the Matrix?

  45. Whats with all the weight loss comments? by Gilandune · · Score: 1

    Get out of your basements!
    This is totally the first step for bio-augmentations Deus Ex style!

  46. Not new idea at all by toppavak · · Score: 1

    1971: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6654g6683t420p7/ "Parametric study of the anode of an implantable biological fuel cell" which cites related papers as far back as 1968.

  47. I think my heart just stopped. Do you have some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sugar?

  48. Wrong fuel. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    As others are mentioning, sugar is bad for you. The insulin blast ages your pancreas, whacks-out your cholesterol ratios, and eats at your blood vessel walls.

    When they invent an engine that converts fat to energy, they'll have something. Oh wait, they already have.

  49. Why is this tagged matrix? Should be Deus Ex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't tap energy like that in the Matrix.

    However, this is almost exactly how the augs are powered in Deus Ex!

    I'm not sure if it could be used for weight loss however, as it uses glucose in the blood - It doesn't somehow magically convert fat and glycogen into more blood glucose, so unless the body can compensate by producing glucagon there is a danger it could cause hypoglycemia...

    It'd be great for diabetics tho'!

  50. The new maintenance for diabetes. by idbeholda · · Score: 1

    If it works as advertised, enough of them could be used to regulate blood sugar AND subsidize AEP. After all, the US *is* the fattest nation.

  51. Sci-fi by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Of course, there's never been a sci-fi movie using such technology as a plot device...

    Au contraire, the alien healing device in Babylon 5 sounds kinda close.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  52. sharks with friggen laser beams on their forehead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    insufficient power to weaponize implants?

  53. Glitch in the matrix by forkfail · · Score: 1

    Expect deja vu (aura vu) as the matrix removes this posting.

    --
    Check your premises.
  54. Only two outcomes from this... by Arcaeris · · Score: 1

    If consumption of food and generting power through these biocells is more efficient and cheaper than burning fossil fuels, then clean energy will be here, NOW, and these will become very important in our world. Pollution will then be measured in CO2 from breathing and sulfur, varions carbon molecules, and other products measured in farts per hour.

    If not, then fossil fuels will stay big, but these biocells will largely be relegated to convenience uses.

    God, I hope it's the former. Imagine a giant farm of rats who we feed industrial waste and harvest their electricity to power our homes. Then when they die we just feed them to more power-generating electro-rats.

  55. Actual Article by cowtamer · · Score: 1

    A Glucose BioFuel Cell Implanted in Rats

    Cinquin P, Gondran C, Giroud F, Mazabrard S, Pellissier A, et al. (2010) A Glucose BioFuel Cell Implanted in Rats. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10476. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010476

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010476

    Abstract
    Powering future generations of implanted medical devices will require cumbersome transcutaneous energy transfer or harvesting energy from the human body. No functional solution that harvests power from the body is currently available, despite attempts to use the Seebeck thermoelectric effect, vibrations or body movements. Glucose fuel cells appear more promising, since they produce electrical energy from glucose and dioxygen, two substrates present in physiological fluids. The most powerful ones, Glucose BioFuel Cells (GBFCs), are based on enzymes electrically wired by redox mediators. However, GBFCs cannot be implanted in animals, mainly because the enzymes they rely on either require low pH or are inhibited by chloride or urate anions, present in the Extra Cellular Fluid (ECF). Here we present the first functional implantable GBFC, working in the retroperitoneal space of freely moving rats. The breakthrough relies on the design of a new family of GBFCs, characterized by an innovative and simple mechanical confinement of various enzymes and redox mediators: enzymes are no longer covalently bound to the surface of the electron collectors, which enables use of a wide variety of enzymes and redox mediators, augments the quantity of active enzymes, and simplifies GBFC construction. Our most efficient GBFC was based on composite graphite discs containing glucose oxidase and ubiquinone at the anode, polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and quinone at the cathode. PPO reduces dioxygen into water, at pH 7 and in the presence of chloride ions and urates at physiological concentrations. This GBFC, with electrodes of 0.133 mL, produced a peak specific power of 24.4 microwatt/ mL, which is better than pacemakers' requirements and paves the way for the development of a new generation of implantable artificial organs, covering a wide range of medical applications.

  56. Matrix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised, slashdot, that nobody has mentioned that this is one of the elements in The Matrix.

  57. the obvious use to *me* is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prosthetic devices, say cochlear implants and pacemakers to start with, then the extremities and later still whole limbs once they manage to scale up the fuel cell.

    Even the current state of the art in prosthetic limbs strikes me as pretty crude considering what we are capable of manufacturing these days. I can easily envision a prosthetic arm that stays permanently attached. You have the implanted fuel cell to provide the low constant power source needed for the sensory feedback and micro-controller systems, perhaps with a super capacitor to give minimal operation when the main battery pack is off in it's charger. I imagine an amputee would love to be able to put on their glasses, turn on a reading light or hook up the battery pack unassisted when they get up in the morning. (putting your watch on your left wrist when your right hand is turned off strikes me as...challenging.)
    Ideally a fuel cell would power the entire limb, but that is obviously a ways off yet, but even allowing an amputee minimal function independent of wall outlets for recharging, or giving them a lower level of fall back power when the battery runs down would be pretty damn popular I'm sure. If we could get enough efficiency out of the the motors and actuators, it may be possible to use a fuel cell that isn't quite enough to run the arm on it's own, but since it is continuous, could feed a super cap that actually powers the thing when it's actually being moved and used. You have all night to output the fuel cell current to a trickle charge set up and a large portion of the day as well.

    Anyone here have a powered prosthetic arm or hand?

  58. Plausible Explanation by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

    Or they need us to solve captchas.

    They really could have done well if they're taken the approach the we have different, complimentary ways of thinking, so the machines need us the same way we still need computers.

    -Morpheus points to a giant blackboard covered in math.
    Morpheus: This equation describes an image. Do you know what that image is of?
    Neo: No.
    Morpheus: Even the computers of the 20th century could do this in a fraction of a second.
    -Hologram of the girl in red appears.
    Morpheus: Now ... do you know if she's pretty?
    Neo: Well, yeah. It's obvious.
    Morpheus: Not to a machine. It could take minutes for a machine just to figure out if it had seen her earlier today. By the time it figures out that she's a woman, that she's attractive, and that she smiled at it earlier, you'd already have her phone number.
    Neo: Wait, so they need us?
    Morpheus: As much as we need them. You would never think this -gestures at the virtual world around them- is something a human being is doing without the help of a machine. And you shouldn't think that the Agent that's after you is on his own either. He borrows the thoughts of people in the matrix to help predict what you'll do next, to know how to intimidate you, to know how to pry information out of you. The dry humor, the need to gloat - that's not the way a machine works, that's how his flesh and blood tools work.
    Neo: So the matrix...
    Morpheus: Is how they train us, get us to be their intuition and creativity, and above all so we can teach them to make better machines. This isn't about survival - we're too much more capable as a team. It's about which side ends up in the driver's seat for the rest of time, and what gets put away when it isn't being used.

  59. Why not human electricity? by TarPitt · · Score: 1

    Humans have been known to produce natural gas for millenia

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  60. Personal defence? Other uses? by dbc · · Score: 1

    To heck with diabetes treatments and charging USB devices in my ear -- I want the "electric eel" version of this -- "Don't mess with me Jaco, or I'll shake your hand!" -- or -- "Watch out, this index finger is set on stun."

    Damn, I want to be a walking, talking, Tazer.

    And.... I'm also thinking of pick-up lines that would be appropriate were the current routed.... elsewhere...

  61. Obviously the whole point is better pacemakers... by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

    But you do realize that the *current* generation of tech inside pacemakers manages to last a bit longer than one year, right?

  62. Fat for self defense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fat will power my electric eel prosthesis--in turn powering my defense perimeter AND allow me to be propel myself at FTL speeds. BWA HA HAA HAAAAAA!