Implantable edison project



  • edited December 2015
    Ok, perhaps I should have made my questions more specific.

    Why does your goal mentioned in (1) need to be implantable? What will you gain by having it be implantable? Yes, I understand the urge to want to shove technology under your skin but what's the justification for it here?

    If your intention is speech recognition and you intend on collecting the speech data via... I assume EMG? 2 channels? 4? You've got 40 GPIO pins and you're going to be using a very small fraction of that. You'll also need an amplifier, which means you have to off-board an additional component or two. You've not demonstrated for this purpose also why you need wifi, or even bluetooth for that matter. Overkill is far too gentle a word.

    @JohnDoe as far as I'm aware there is no reason here to use the internals of an iPhone over a traditional microcontroller and far as I know there aren't any publicly available tools to tinker with it. Much more work than it would be worth. And way more expensive than is necessary.
  • edited December 2015
    The IPhone uses the micro USB/serial port to interface with a computer and for charging, my point was that they make those way smaller than what he is using here, and (leaving my field of mild knowledge) wouldn't a smaller implant make for a safer implant?
    IPhone Tools
    and a look inside a IPhone, see how much smaller that is?
  • As far as I know, the edison rig @garethnelsonuk is using is smaller than that in terms of length and width(though it may be thicker). 

    Why implant it? Because you gain access to the endless potential of a modern day computer in a form that is waterproof and impossible to lose. Further, rather than having a shell of devices connected to the net(like the phones, fitness trackers, smart watches and other wearables of the current era), you effectively become a part of the net. Kinda takes the Internet Of Things to the next level. But that's not all. It seems to me that the big idea behind this and the cyborg communication protocol is to establish a kind of "plug and play" system for implants.

    Fundamentally, you gain an ability that other people don't have.
  • edited December 2015
    @JohnDoe you're absolutely correct, smaller is better if you want to stick it inside yourself, but that's not smaller. That's gigantic. And more expensive. And more difficult to program and modify. I'm not even sure you can remove most of those chips without destroying them.

    @TheGreyKnight I totally understand the desire to integrate oneself with a computer, to be able to instantly and seamlessly access and interact with any information you want. That's not what is being done here. You want to shove processors inside yourself? I'm all for it, but let's not pretend you currently gain any functionality by doing so. Waterproof? You get that just by coating it. Impossible to lose and always with you? Sure, that's kinda cool, but worth the trauma and danger of implantation?

    Do you become a useful part of the net? Can you do any of the things with this implantable device that you could with a smartphone? Fitness tracker? Watch? Can you tell time? Can you make calls? Can you even browse the internet? No, none of those features have been designed yet. They certainly could be designed, but that's not why this project is being developed. This project doesn't target a problem or try to solve anything. Do you see my point? The logic behind it is "Let's shove a computer inside ourselves, I know we could do some cool things with it". This is engineering going in the wrong direction, and for that reason it will fail. You are building a platform without anything to put on it, based on the supposition you will design those features in the future.

    Take a feature, even a single feature, let's say subvocal recognition. Get an external system working that does what you want, or even an implantable one. Based on your experience working with that system, select your device based on the requirements you now know for the application. You know you want to add additional features in the future? Great, then make sure whatever device you select meets requirements for projects you intend to work on in the future, while minimizing size and cost.
  • @BCIuser
    while you are right about the programming and modification, I would like to re-explain. I did not mean shove the whole phone in your arm  just the parts that are hugging the case and wrap around the battery, I am sure the cameras could be removed from the IOS via jail breaking and then removed from the bored it's self. This is all from the phone that would be going into the arm. My thinking is even though this is longer it is narrower than the Intel Edison, and will consume less power now that the screen in gone and all I/O is being done over WIFI or Bluetooth.
  • edited December 2015
    @JohnDoe again, I don't know that you can actually take the parts out without destroying them. Even if you could you wouldn't want to. You can buy smaller, similar parts more specific to your application (which is...?) for much cheaper that will be much less of a pain to deal with, such as an AVR microcontroller.

    EDIT: Why do you even want to use iPhone parts? What's the rationale?
  • My idea is they are always trying to make phone processors smaller, cheaper and to consume less power. Also yes you can take the parts out. Just need steady hands, extremely steady hands. I know a guy locally who repairs them. I dropped a phone on my locker and I have it just sitting around, I am hopeful that I can maybe salvage useable parts from it.

    John Doe
  • Phones are smaller and more efficient, yes, but that comes at the price of extreme hardware specialization. You cannot just use an iphone board like a compute unit, it does not work that way.
  • To be clear, i've already got a basic voice interface working via bluetooth, which means a subdermal bluetooth headset + the edison will in fact allow me to get online anywhere with wifi.
  • As to the iPhone - no, not a chance of making it work for this purpose.

    There's a slim possibility that an android handset could be made to work, but why bother when you can buy processors on their own without the fuss of trying to convert a phone into a general purpose computer?
  • because many phones (and all smartphones) are general purpose computers these already.
  • Not really, the iPhone for example is loaded with DRM crap and the average android handset won't really run a non-android linux reliably.
  • Okay I over looked a few things, if I follow that path it is because I know several jail breaker that can do just about anything, even passing the realm of the believe able, and I have the major parts laying around collecting dust. Moving on how was the HA created and applied?
  • Wrong dude never mind.
  • So, how's this project goin' @garethnelsonuk ?
  • Getting silicone coating soon, paid for it and will be posting the device off when I get round to it.
  • Any further along?
Sign In or Register to comment.