Slashdot Mirror


Your Body, the Battery: Powering Gadgets From Human "Biofuel"

An anonymous reader writes: This article takes a look at the future of electronic devices powered by the human body. From the electric voltage in mammal ears called the endocochlear potential, to body heat, and muscle motion, there are a number of exciting new areas of energy research being explored. Ars reports: "Staying alive guzzles energy. In order to keep us ticking, our bodies need to burn between 2,000 and 2,500 calories per day, which is conveniently enough to power a modestly used smart phone. So if just a fraction of that energy could be siphoned, our bodies could in theory be used to run any number of electronic devices, from medical implants to electronic contact lenses—all without a battery in sight. Recently, researchers have taken important strides toward unlocking this electric potential."

67 comments

  1. Soylent Green? by weilawei · · Score: 1

    I didn't make it past TFH.

    1. Re:Soylent Green? by Megane · · Score: 1

      I think "copper top" jokes from The Matrix are more applicable here.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Soylent Green? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Fred, did you check to see if you put him in backwards?"

  2. enough to power a huge smartphone by close_wait · · Score: 2, Informative

    " which is conveniently enough to power a modestly used smart phone". Actually 2000 calories per day is about 100W. That's a pretty damned big smartphone.

    1. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Or a very efficient "computer", considering the things humans are capable of on 2000 calories.

    2. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually calories is short for kilo-calories, which is short for kilo-kilo-calories and so on. So you can power as many smartphones as you want.

    3. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by weilawei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      GP said calories (implying kilocalories) and did the conversion right. It's 96.9 watts according to Wolfram Alpha.

    4. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by behrooz0az · · Score: 5, Interesting

      wolframalpha has some more interesting numbers for "2k Cal per day in watts":
      ~~ (1 to 5) × typical laptop power consumption ( 20 to 60 W )
      ~~ (1 to 1.1) × human daily average power ( 85 to 100 W )
      ~~ 0.81 × power output from a 1 square meter solar panel in full sunlight at 12% efficiency at sea level (~~ 120 W )
      ~~ 0.75 × peak power consumption of a Pentium 4 CPU (central processing unit) (~~ 130 W )

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
    5. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      " which is conveniently enough to power a modestly used smart phone". Actually 2000 calories per day is about 100W. That's a pretty damned big smartphone.

      New smart phones are often more power efficient. The article is talking about a "used" one, the modest kind.

      Seriously, humans tend to shed far more than 100W of heat energy per day (~350,000 Jph), so - that's a "bunch" (psyntifik term) of those old Motorola bricks (nothing modest about those used phones, though they were consider smart in their heyday).

    6. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      Technically, it would have to have been either Calories or kilocalories. Note the capital letter in the former.
      Yes, it is very confusing.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    7. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, "calories" is short for "calories", while "Calories" (note the capital-C) is short for "kilocalories". Yes, that's an actual thing.

      US food labels use Calories-with-a-capital-C, which is just a different notation from European food labels, which use kcal.

    8. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You CANNOT trust unit capitalization. Between typesetters, editors, advertisers and marketting people, and the ignorant masses, unit capitalization is unreliable and potentially misleading.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by close_wait · · Score: 1

      Sigh. A Watt is a unit of power, not energy. Every second our bodies consume 100J of energy, which means on average we're burning about 100 watts (J/s). We consume around 8Mj per day, or 2000 Kcalories, or the equivalent of 40 of my laptop's batteries (56Wh) or 634 of my phone's batteries (3.5Wh).

    10. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Sigh. A Watt is a unit of power, not energy. Every second our bodies consume 100J of energy, which means on average we're burning about 100 watts (J/s). We consume around 8Mj per day, or 2000 Kcalories, or the equivalent of 40 of my laptop's batteries (56Wh) or 634 of my phone's batteries (3.5Wh).

      Seriously, the average human sheds the equivalent heat of a 100W incandescent light bulb. (~350,000 Jph)

      There, fixed that myself. (distracted by the more interesting Cicada/Cycura/Ashley Madison story)

      Thanks.

    11. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by Cederic · · Score: 1

      My problem is that I'm very efficient. I don't burn 100W.

      Anything that hooks me up to power something else without requiring my attention is worth exploring.

    12. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is very confusing.

    13. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is very Confusing.

      FTFY.

    14. Re:enough to power a huge smartphone by Frnknstn · · Score: 1

      Except of course in the many European places where they require KJ to be displayed instead.

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
  3. Maintenance by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Our bodies are also remarkably good at performing maintenance in either the form of repair or replacement (cells). Electronic gadgets that extract energy via chemical process means will inevitably require periodic reconditioning.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  4. More power to the Matrix :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now people will want to get paid just for living...

    1. Re:More power to the Matrix :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How arrogant that there are people who are alive that wish to remain so.

    2. Re:More power to the Matrix :) by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      How arrogant those people are for being parasites on others without taking responsibility for themselves and their spawn. You talk like a welfare queen

    3. Re: More power to the Matrix :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When can i start mining for bitcoins with my body

  5. Would I have to eat extra? by Edis+Krad · · Score: 2

    To generate extra energy to power my devices? I could see myself enjoying that :D

    1. Re:Would I have to eat extra? by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is an interesting question. The body generates that energy for a reason, to perform maintenance, to power up its system, and to store the excess as reserves in case of an emergency, right? So if we actually find a way of tapping into that excess, we could theoretically eat to our heart's content without a single worry.

    2. Re:Would I have to eat extra? by hooiberg · · Score: 1

      More power out, more power in. The balance is simple. On the other hand, it may help people who want to lose weight to do so.

    3. Re:Would I have to eat extra? by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Funny

      "The Motorola BioPhone 1 - it's not just a phone, it's a weight loss program too!"

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:Would I have to eat extra? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how its extracted. Put devices in your shoes to convert pressure differentials into electricity and you won't burn extra energy (save the added weight of the mechanism). Put some kind of mechanism on one or more of your joints to generate a little power when you flex them and you will. Same would go for more advanced systems (heat differentials, using sugars/carbohydrates from the blood, etc), some would and some wouldn't.

    5. Re:Would I have to eat extra? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      It might not take additional calories unfortunately. The body generates a lot of waste heat that could be used. The things we ware usually have a "hot" side against our bodies, and a "cold" side on the other; that kind of temperature gradient is exactly what is needed to capture energy.

    6. Re:Would I have to eat extra? by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I would think the answer would be a qualified yes. Athletes like marathon runners, hikers, swimmers, cyclists etc who participate at the competitive levels of their sports tend to consume a lot more calories and other folks at their same approximate height and weight; same for people who do physical labor, farm workers, construction etc.

      So on some level more energy out, means you will get to put more energy in. I suspect however you can't just "plug in" you 80W smart phone and double you calorie intake. Our bodies are complex systems of feedback and hysteresis mechanisms. Athletes and workers build up to those metabolic levels. Your body probably won't react appropriately to such a sudden change in demands. It might be possible to "work up" to being your phones sole power source.

      Then again I would be concerned about gadgets and the metabolic effects of disconnecting them or turning them off. An athlete does not put away the extra muscle tissue when its not in use. It might not consume as much energy as when its performing but its still there metabolizing and throwing energy off as waste heat. So for like a pace maker that is always on and goes everywhere you do this probably makes sense and would be something body adapts to like any other parasite. I don't want to plug in my phone and pass out from low blood sugar because my body isn't expecting the sudden load.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:Would I have to eat extra? by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      To generate extra energy to power my devices? I could see myself enjoying that :D

      We've already been on that merry-go-round with trying to shove corn into automobile fuel tanks. In all likelihood, powering your device this way will be dirtier and less fuel efficient than burning coal for the same amount of power.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    8. Re:Would I have to eat extra? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Eat extra? Sure, that would be a *benefit*..

      But I wish some of this stuff would provide enough power to be useful (let my phone last longer on a charge), but would be only slightly inconvenient, maybe imperceptibly slow. In other words, getting extra exercise throughout the day. Yeah, I realize it's probably impossible to get enough power without being noticeable (e.g. don't make it feel like I'm walking on the beach to get some power out of the walking).

      In other words, burn off what I'm already eating.

  6. Deliberate 'overextraction'? by mccalli · · Score: 1

    What if I had a machine that tried to extract, say, 4,000 calories worth? Would that lead eventually to automatic weight reduction?

    Off the top of my head I would think no, because I would still need to generate that 4,000 calories in a consumable form in order to make them available for extraction. From reading though, I can't tell if the devices are pure extraction or whether they also stimulate the conversion process.

    1. Re:Deliberate 'overextraction'? by Rhywden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The article talks, among other things, about biofuel cells which target glucose - so, actually, yes, using those devices would lead to weight reduction. Because that's one of the more important ways to distribute energy throughout the body: delivering glucose where it's needed which the cells then convert again in the citrate cycle to more readily usable stuff.

      Thus, using machines based on this kind of fuel would lead to weight reduction the same way it would when you exercise.

    2. Re:Deliberate 'overextraction'? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      The article talks, among other things, about biofuel cells which target glucose - so, actually, yes, using those devices would lead to weight reduction. Because that's one of the more important ways to distribute energy throughout the body: delivering glucose where it's needed which the cells then convert again in the citrate cycle to more readily usable stuff.

      Thus, using machines based on this kind of fuel would lead to weight reduction the same way it would when you exercise.

      That's what I was thinking, although it seems likely I would just eat more to compensate for any additional caloric expenditure.

      Personally, a device that sources power from my truck and prevents me from entering the drive-through lane at the Burger Palace would be a better solution for me.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Deliberate 'overextraction'? by Riddler+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Well, probably closer to the weight reduction seen when you have a parasite. Exercise is a fair bit more nuanced than just being an energy sink.

    4. Re:Deliberate 'overextraction'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could route power through your privates, to build muscle in that location.

    5. Re:Deliberate 'overextraction'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah.

      When people try to walk across the Antarctic continent, they have to force themselves to eat more. They cram super-energy dense foods down their throats, because _even if they do that_ they get to the far end looking skeletal. The maximum amount of sugars and fat from food your body can turn into useful energy works out slightly less than the energy budget needed to try to pull a sledge across frozen hills for weeks in what appears to be a semi-permanent snow storm, so you don't have any choice - in fact for a while it was assumed it would just be impossible and crossing without dogs or a powered vehicle wouldn't work but a few people have now proved this, barely, incorrect.

      Obviously one lesson here is: Walking across the Antarctic is a bad idea. But the other lesson is that your body is perfectly OK with the idea that energy demands are exceeding calorific inputs. "Feeling full" from a meal is not related to whether you have ingested enough calories, which is why when we've moved to diets with more calories in, while sitting on our backside all day, we get fat instead of eating less at a time.

      If you add a 50% energy drain, your body will not actually demand that you eat 50% more food. If you were currently eating too much, everything balances out, and otherwise you'll start to feel tired and get thin, indicating that your energy drain is too much.

      Deliberately adjusting the drain to let you have the delicious sauce on those pancakes should work. BUT when we try this with normal (ie not crossing a frozen wasteland) exercise we run into a problem:

      We don't do enough exercise to make a difference. 100 push-ups doesn't justify the full fat Coke you drink to celebrate. Let alone the burger with cheese, or the ice cream sundae. The Antarctic crossing is a full-time, every waking moment slog in conditions which genuinely will kill you if you stop trying. Your half hour at the gym (including a shower) is pitiful by comparison.

      Adding arbitrary extra consumption will help people who currently can't quite keep the weight off. The person you know who was sad at age 35 because they had to buy bigger trousers for example. A gadget might make it practical for them to have that sneaky bar of chocolate in the evening and not buy bigger clothes, or to look pretty good in a bikini and yet also put bacon on the breakfast plate. But it may very well not make enough difference for the person who shovels a whole packet of M&Ms down their throat as a "snack" while waiting for breakfast to cook in the morning. The person who thinks a 1kg tub of ice cream is "about right" for one person for a week. They need actual help.

    6. Re:Deliberate 'overextraction'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "full fat Coke"??? They started adding fat to Coke? Besides, cramming super-energy dense food down your throat may not be a good thing even for someone wanting to walk across a continent. The body can only absorb so much protein at a time, so they should probably be eating several times a day. Basically, their bodies can't repair themselves fast enough and the muscles are being broken down to make up for what they aren't eating.

    7. Re:Deliberate 'overextraction'? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      A gadget might make it practical for them to have that sneaky bar of chocolate in the evening and not buy bigger clothes, or to look pretty good in a bikini and yet also put bacon on the breakfast plate.

      This gadget of which you speak...

      It would be a rainmaker.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:Deliberate 'overextraction'? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think this is exactly where most people go wrong. It's very hard to not overeat, especially after working out. I'm into cycling, and after a big ride, I feel absolutely famished. I could very easily eat way more calories than I burned in a ride. And people also overestimate their intensity and how many calories they've burned. 20 minutes on a treadmill really doesn't burn that many calories. It would probably be completely offset by a single sports drink. Personally I really like cycling because it's really good at keeping the intensity up for a prolonged period of time. Went for a 2 hour ride tonight, and apparently burned over 1100 Calories (yes, I'm aware the numbers are probably not completely accurate). I don't think I could maintain that level of intensity for that period of time with any other sport.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  7. A new weight loss method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how many cals can you burn with these things?

  8. "could in theory be used to run any number" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any number as long they have only a TINY power requirement.

  9. If 2,000 to 2,500 calories are burned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....every day simply by staying alive, then it really tends to put a fine point on the amount of calories the average American lard-ass consumes.

    Wanna cure morbid obesity? Have all social media devices powered by human sweat. Narcissism alone would ensure an active lifestyle.

    1. Re:If 2,000 to 2,500 calories are burned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, us fat people sweat just sitting around. Jokes on you, umm or maybe me. Either way HAH!

  10. Yeah finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A metric fuck ton is a member of the set of "run any number of electronic devices"! There is an excuse for all those merking fat fuckers after all . They are a waddling power point for the rest of us.

  11. Voltage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said potential. Heh, heh.

  12. plenty of sugar by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    one serious problem that western society has is the overuse of sugar in our foods. it's lead to the fat american and has already infected europe. if these technologies can actually take the sugar out of our blood before it hits the liver, that would be great. however, seeing as how people are going to start dying off in droves from diabetes, i think there will be a correction in the food market before this technology is mature enough to be useful for general use.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:plenty of sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's just hold up a second. Our fat didn't infect you. You liked the look of those soft glowing yellow arches and then made your own choices.

    2. Re:plenty of sugar by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      if these technologies can actually take the sugar out of our blood before it hits the liver, that would be great

      Avoiding the liver will be difficult as bloodstream from the guts first goes through hepatic portal vein into the liver.

      However, sugar overdoses is a problem for the whole body, therefore even if it would be removed somewhere else, it would still be interesting. But in the context of fixing sugar overdose, that will make a lot of energy to deal with. We probably cannot convert everything to heat, we need to figure a way to use it (make vitamin C? Omega 3 fatty acids?) or to waste it (make acetone? lactitol? )

  13. Low tech solution by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    If all this walking seems like too much effort, and you don’t like their idea of people wrapping fabric around your heart, never fear—you’re also full of hot air.

    I'm afraid this hot air inside me could be made to generate electricity using a simple turbine...

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
    1. Re: Low tech solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until they find a way to tap our natural gas reserves.

  14. Now When Someone Says ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A lot of blood and sweat went into this thing", they can really mean it.

  15. Prescient xkcd, as usual. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  16. Reminds me of a sci-fi short story by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Many, many moons ago I had picked up some books about the size of a Reader's Digest which had stories from various authors. I cannot remember the name of the publication but one story in them talks about this very subject.

    In short, concerts of the day had people wearing headbands which drew upon the electrical energy from each person. This energy was then transmitted to the performers to power their equipment. The more energetic the fans, the more power.

    The lead singer of a group eventually uses this energy to commit suicide by wrapping herself in a metal mesh. She discusses this with the other main character in the story.

    If anyone knows the name of the story and/or what publication it was from, that would be great.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  17. Don't hate me... I'm just the messinger! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...They're going to re-insert my body into the matrix.... when I wake up, I won't remember a goddamned thing!"

  18. Sounds like the early days of Matrix by ashkante · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new mechanical overlords.

    1. Charge your phone from your body
    2. Enjoy this Direct-To-Brain entertainment.
    3. Real AI research.
    4. Matrix.

  19. I'm NOT FAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a large-capacity storage cell for my iPad.

  20. Sounds Familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't I watch a movie where this happened?

  21. new job market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Potentially, this could lead to a new kind of "job": Powering other peoples' small devices from your body.

  22. Combined with a form of fusion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why stop there? Why not gather all of the body heat produced by an average adult and use it to power whatever you desire.

    Maybe you could put people in suspended animation, and then allow them to play in a virtual world, while you harvest the power produced by their body, to run the simulation.

    Combine this with a form of fusion, and I'm sure this would look pretty cool.

  23. Seems a bit dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will await news of the first case of somebody literally starving to death from addiction to some phone app while running the phone off their body's energy. It's easy enough as it is for... susceptible individuals to forget to eat while engrossed in something like that. They don't need the phone to suck up their energy as well as their time.

  24. i know what kind of converter they should use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple of folks I know could reeeeally use a methane to electricity converter ... conveniently made into underwear!

  25. They laughed at my sweat stains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I laugh at their wattage.

    Or

    They laughed at my diabetes.

    Or maybe even.

    They laughed when I cried.

    But really the article is a little low on information for slashdot standards. What are the materials used , how much sweat etc. ,how much power was produced.