Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CT Scans of Health Wearables

lumafield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#21

Post by leereeves »

realityfactchex wrote: post #19
leereeves wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those links are for the same book from 2015 (the fourth isn't direct to the relevant article but it's easy to find on the page). Has there been any new information since then?

The 50 studies in the cited 2015 book ought to span a range of time, and their keywords could be used to search literature for more recent material. > Has there been any new information since then? Since you asked, there apparently was a 2017 followup book by the same author. These links are for that book: https://harvoa.org/chs/pr/dusbk2.htm https://www.amazon.com/Ultrasound-Causation-Microcephaly-Vir... https://www…

That book claims:

> Microcephaly incidence increased 1000x within the area of The Network. This was first observed seven months after The Network began its remote prenatal ultrasound program. Do the math.

Almost every baby is exposed to prenatal ultrasound. What do you think was different about that ultrasound program? Why would prenatal ultrasound cause microencephaly there, but not everywhere?

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#22

Post by DJBunnies »

skyberrys wrote: post #11

The custom Lipo battery with thermal effects and weight considered is really beautiful to see. I've been curious about custom Lipo battery shapes for rings because my fingers get cold when I wear rings. Would a battery heating up just a bit help make that comfortable for me?

A battery. Which can catch fire. Around your finger?

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#23

Post by nerdsniper »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #10

Is it just me or did the tonality in this one change towards an infomercial?

They always were supposed to be for marketing, but I did like their in-depth technical analysis. I imagine that took a lot of work/time to write up though. I'm okay with them skipping that sometimes to get more public scans out for me to enjoy. But I also would love their analysis as well!

One thing I really enjoyed about the analysis was how it really explained the nuance of the technology they sell, and there were always lessons in it for how to tweak the machines on different objects/materials, and how to interpret things, and why certain areas looked the way they did.

For example, on the Omnipod[0], why can't I find an attenuation window to see how much medicine is left inside the reservoir? Is it empty? Is the medicine too low in attenuation to be seen? Is the medicine too similar in attenuation to the outer casing to isolate from it? Could it be isolated if the machine were set up / configured with different settings, and if so, what are the tradeoffs?

0: https://voyager.lumafield.com/project/16d13f1d-58f5-4572-b2a...

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#24

Post by nerdsniper »

I know people from Lumafield read these comments occasionally, and I'm grateful for all of this!

Why is the Omnipod available[0] to explore in Voyager, but the Dexcom is not? I'd like to send links to both for my diabetic girlfriend to enjoy, who uses those two particular devices.

0: https://voyager.lumafield.com/project/16d13f1d-58f5-4572-b2a...

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#25

Post by eichin »

mikestew wrote: post #5
paulwetzel wrote: post #4

Really love these scans! I would love to have on of these at home, just to tinker with devices and understand how they work. Then I usually want to check the price, see "Talk to sales" an decide probably not the price range that is good for private use. Nonetheless, great articles and an amazing device.

I’m sure there’s the small issue of radiological safety as well. Obviously one can be trained to not fry yourself with x-rays, but I wouldn’t, say, pick one up off Aliexpress and have at it.

Some of their earlier videos go into a lot of detail on the safety interlocks (including that the radiation near the device can be lower than ambient because it's basically a large chunk of shielding :-)

As for pricing, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45392896 had some numbers from 5 months ago. It seems like the kind of thing that you'd want as a nearby service, unless you needed to do continuous inspection (they have some automated conveyor sampling products too, it looks like.) My last company had a few 3d-printed components that would have been interesting to spot check after wear testing, but for a lot of things, the competition for the scan is "open it up with a screwdriver" :-)

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#26

Post by throwway120385 »

eichin wrote: post #25
mikestew wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure there’s the small issue of radiological safety as well. Obviously one can be trained to not fry yourself with x-rays, but I wouldn’t, say, pick one up off Aliexpress and have at it.

Some of their earlier videos go into a lot of detail on the safety interlocks (including that the radiation near the device can be lower than ambient because it's basically a large chunk of shielding :-) As for pricing, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45392896 had some numbers from 5 months ago. It seems like the kind of thing that you'd want as a nearby service, unless you needed to do continuous inspection (th…

I bet it's something you can lease with a traceable calibration certificate.

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#27

Post by mlsu »

jcims wrote: post #6

mikeselectricstuff on YouTube did a teardown on the Omnipod wearable pump a while back, very cool mechanism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2MQUUkubgs Insulin is incredibly potent and can easily result in life-altering if not fatal consequences at relatively low ratios of the therapeutic dose, so these things need to be dialed in and extremely reliable.

What's so wild (and a little disheartening) is that the omnipod is a disposable device. Use it for several days, and throw it out.

This is an extreme corner of quality/cost/reliability optimization. The delivery mechanism has to be extremely repeatable and reliable, it has to fail in safe ways, but at the same time, it has to be cheap enough to throw away.

Durable pumps are all made with very expensive precision mechanisms, lots of metal and high quality plastic.

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#28

Post by realityfactchex »

leereeves wrote: post #21
realityfactchex wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 50 studies in the cited 2015 book ought to span a range of time, and their keywords could be used to search literature for more recent material. > Has there been any new information since then? Since you asked, there apparently was a 2017 followup book by the same author. These links are for that book: https://harvoa.org/chs/pr/dusbk2.htm https://www.amazon.com/Ultrasound-Causation-Microcephaly-Vir... https://www…

That book claims: > Microcephaly incidence increased 1000x within the area of The Network. This was first observed seven months after The Network began its remote prenatal ultrasound program. Do the math. Almost every baby is exposed to prenatal ultrasound. What do you think was different about that ultrasound program? Why would prenatal ultrasound cause microencephaly there, but not everywhere?

> not everywhere?

Are you absolutely certain that there is not an unexplained uptick in brain damaged newborns/children in the USA?

And that its cause is not some thing(s) that "almost every" one of them is subjected to repeatedly?

And that it is not just a case of better/more/over diagnosis?

IDK about by you, but there are literal nurseries/schools for the brain-damaged kids popping up on Main Street. That's how many there seem to be.

So yeah, maybe they're not in that study. But that means they don't exist?

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#30

Post by tlb »

Great images, OK writeup. There are some bits of bullshit, like "The proximity of microphones to processing hardware minimizes latency". No, the speed of electrical signal propagation (around 2/3 the speed of light) is not significant for microphone placement.
Post reply on HN