Parylene Coated Magnet Implants
I found some magnets on SuperMagnetMan that look pretty good, they are a good size for implant and are rated N52. I was previously planning on coating a magnet in rhodium, but I haven't found a jeweler who is willing to do this. Parylene should be safe to implant though, right? As long as there is no defect in the coating? These guys seem to think so.
I would of course examine the magnets under a microscope and test them in a saline solution before implanting. Just wondering if anyone has had much success with this, and if it is safe.
Tagged:
Comments
Parylene, if I understand correctly, is one of the more ideal choices. However, in terms of long term use, I have heard stories about it breaking down when measured in years. I think in terms of coatings, it's meant to be a temporary', and is not suggested for more than 1 year. :o
Please do use gravimetric/salt water testing. Please do optical examinations. Stress and strain and make sure the magnets are actually good. ANY failure is TOTAL failure, when it comes to magnet coatings. ><
@masterjasper This has been talked about many times before. A quick search for "parylene" on the forum should find you a lot of information. If the forum search isn't too great, you can just use google to search for that keyword on the site: https://www.google.com/search?q=site:biohack.me+parylene&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q5zeI1JH4aDChXedzSp0U9c0Vq3ePgdS4t7_V-sch40/edit#gid=0
I'm simply erring on the side of caution... Especially with where most people seem to get their their magnets... From much lower quality distributors... >~<
Looking at the spreadsheet and excluding the ones used for testing, I see 20 rejected m31s and 26 successful ones. (And one of those 26 has been giving me a little trouble recently.) That's not looking too great for TiN, and the m31s were intended for implantation.
been caught by testing/inspecting them before implanting.
Or some form of trauma or complication after the fact that caused damage and failure.
That's the jist of why I say 'too many variables for the chart to mean one thing or another in direct correlation to a single variable.' ;_;
Also, knowing how much you can extrapolate from imperfect data is a must-have skill. Otherwise you'll never be able to do anything new since there is never exact data available. Research is always shooting in the dark (with known information as a guide).
It will always be a risk and a gamble. Thing is available data provides a guide to minimize that risk. Pacemakers are completely different to finger implants, that is true, but when there is zero / not enough data available on the parylene implants for fingers should we consider the results from the pacemakers? We might have to unless we have something better. A flawed guide is better than no guide.
What I am seeing here sounds like "I am not going to consider any data about parylene implants unless it is made by the same person implanted by the same surgeon on the same patient one the same finger on the same time" which pretty much limits to one data set at best.
Pacemakers have no place in our chart for magnets. Nor do they have a place in our rfid chip chart. One could argue the misc. chart, but is anyone sporting a home made piece maker? ^^
We should be referring to a 'FDA complaint/certified' pacemaker chart, because of the differences in manufacturing, implanting, and the conditions of their operation and environment. ^^
The data should not be mixed. Data from pacemakers is not data for magnets. This does not mean it had no relevance, but needs to be proven and tested, then it can be part of the magnet chart. There are variables and conditions and differences that need to be differentiated between. ^^
A two and four stroke gasoline engine have much in common; their constructions make interchanging fuels usually disastrous. Accordingly, we make sure to carefully differentiate their fuels to avoid critical failure, despite the huge similarities in being engines.
So yes, pacemakers designed by teams of engineers, manufactured and tested to established standards, and implanted by trained surgeons shouldn't be grouped with single run manufactures, implanted by untrained recipients, if we want useful data that's completely accurate and completely relevant to us. ^^'
And again, these charts also do not explain every variable of everything going wrong. These charts, for example, should not be used to validate or disqualify a specific material as being 'good' or 'bad'; It does not control the variables to say that. >~<
At the very least with pacemaker / professional implants data we can still say "this is kind of what happens for parylene and TiN across the board for professionally made implants plus surgeon skill levels and procedures". I don't think there's enough data specifically for self-implantation with less-than-perfectly made magnets to even attempt to say anything (last I checked the google doc has only 5 data points for parylene magnets. Five! CI? What is that?).