Parylene Coated Magnet Implants



  • edited December 2016
    Yes yes, agreed. 

    And again, I do not want to disqualify data. 

    If anything, there should simply be a little asterisk next to it...

    Again, to draw an analogy... Aluminum makes good pistons... Would aluminum work well in a high stress Diesel engine? Across the board, in most applications, Al pistons have become the norm for pistons in most car engines. Al pistons can be found in diesel applications, but in higher powered, higher stress motors, Steel has been proven to be superior.

    An argument CAN be made that maybe TiN's Durability and resilience makes it superior to Parylene, a plastic. But it simply cannot be said yet. It hasn't been established in a fingertip by doing those thousands of implementations under controlled circumstances. 

    in ANY case, both are Definately worth experimenting with, as we largely are now. It perhaps might be a little bit quaint to say what we are doing is still experimental, but largely, in terms of the broadness of research put into new technologies and ideals, We are still baby stepping. ^^

    I COMPLETELY agree on "This is kind of what happens". I have no debate with that. What I'm afraid of is people saying "This is what WILL happen".

    Color me fussy. ^^' Just flailing my arms around drawing attention so people who see these charts don't go "Parylene is better, over 85% success rate compared to 55% for TiN. TiN is garbage, Parylene is the way to go." Because yeah. ;_;

    It should also be noted that not all magnets are created equal, and with the variations of suppliers even... That chart shouldn't be taken to mean anything about success/failure rates across the board. 

    I could convince 20 people to buy a cheap 50 cent parylene magnet and stick it into their finger, and watch as most likely they all reject... Add another 20 failures to parylene... But that doesn't help establish anything other than maybe x or y supplier produced 0% usable magnets in a run. Quality is a huge deal, and we have no standard for it. ><

    We should write up a testing standard or develop a standard testing process to 'Certify' magnets. :O

  • edited December 2016
    Well, I am kind of fussy too, but more about being scientific and practical at the same time. We already had a lot of flack for using a Chlorin C6 to gain night vision:

    And we need a standard for the procedure as well as skill level. That's why the guild idea was a great idea.
Sign In or Register to comment.