The main thing I got from the MIT article is this:
"This system relies on an array of antennas that emit radio waves of slightly different frequencies. As the radio waves travel, they overlap and combine in different ways."
This is known as constructive interference, pretty nifty to see it used in this context. The range has been increased from 10 cm to 1 meter since the paper I co-authored on this subject. Impressive!
These kinds of applications have also been a long time coming. With IoT devices and NFC readers looming around the corner, I think it is likely that we will see some pretty innovative medical inventions. Likewise, as mentioned by NKosmatos, we need to take the security aspect very seriously. Some of these NFC devices are programmable, and should defend against attacks that could lead to events such as withholding life-saving medicine or misreporting biometrics.
For reference, check out this paper I co-authored:
Suitability of NFC for Medical Device Communication and Power Delivery (2007)
Isn't this description flawed though? Waves of different frequencies are independent in power. Thus they don't interfere (when time-averaged) -- at all. Zero. (this is because signals of different frequencies are orthogonal in the time-average integral of product sense)
What creates interference is difference is phase among waves of the exact same frequency.
It's odd that the paper author is making such basic EM theory mistake, and I wonder what the actual device construction is like. (since it cannot work the way he describes at steady state)
Maybe he's interpreting phase modulation as frequency modulation? Of course at steady state all frequencies would be the same, making this a weird/incorrect interpretation I think.
Radio waves are used to power cochlear implants. There is a chip & receiver unit that is inserted under the skin on the head, with electrodes that go into the cochlea. Externally there is an antenna that is held on the head next to the skin, using a magnet to hold it in place. Radio waves are sent across the skin to power the chip and control the electrodes.
Plenty of nefarious applications for this. The range alone blows away existing RFID designs, which will make it the preferred "chipping" technology for surveillance states everywhere.
There are positive uses. I can see this being useful for monitoring health in animals raised for food in addition to the medical applications the article mentioned.
That said, the potential for abuse is limited by what society will tolerate. We tolerate tracking and alcohol monitoring bracelets for people who drive drunk. If we tolerate tracking implants for sex offenders on parole or something I'm sure it'll filter down routine probation sentences eventually.
Because if it turned out to be dangerous it has been determined that the animals being hurt/killed is better than that happening to human test subjects.
Animals are the first step because testing in humans is more expensive. These devices will likely have to be tested in humans before commercialization.
Contrary to the other answers to this question, I suspect the real reason is that the prototype is expensive, and way easier to recover from a lab animal’s poo than the researcher’s.
One of the first "promises" of nanotechnology I ever read about was that you could create batteries so small that just calling your cellphone would charge them I wonder if that is fundamentally the same idea.
Interesting and for sure there are numerous applications for such devices, but they didn’t mention anything about security and possible interferences. Sounds very promising but scary at the same time.
More seriously, though, nanotech or relatively small implantables/injectables powered by radio or induction could do a lot for medicine... If anyone could afford it.
"One single implanted GBFC device of 0.24 mL volume (2.4 mL for the whole implant) produced the power required to operate, using a specially designed electronic circuit to charge a capacitor, two types of electronic devices: a LED and a digital thermometer."
I'm waiting for someone to invent the implantable chip that converts blood sugar into heat/light purely with the intention of wasting that energy.
Grab enough power to monitor blood sugar, to make sure you aren't putting someone into a coma, but otherwise just try to burn an extra few hundred calories a day.
The real question is can that conversion be done in an efficient enough way with materials that are safe to put inside someone and in a small enough package.
ffk|7 years ago
"This system relies on an array of antennas that emit radio waves of slightly different frequencies. As the radio waves travel, they overlap and combine in different ways."
This is known as constructive interference, pretty nifty to see it used in this context. The range has been increased from 10 cm to 1 meter since the paper I co-authored on this subject. Impressive!
These kinds of applications have also been a long time coming. With IoT devices and NFC readers looming around the corner, I think it is likely that we will see some pretty innovative medical inventions. Likewise, as mentioned by NKosmatos, we need to take the security aspect very seriously. Some of these NFC devices are programmable, and should defend against attacks that could lead to events such as withholding life-saving medicine or misreporting biometrics.
For reference, check out this paper I co-authored:
Suitability of NFC for Medical Device Communication and Power Delivery (2007)
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4454171/
And if you're interested in an early paper about RFID-delivered viruses, check out this by Tanenbaum et al.:
http://www.rfidvirus.org/papers/percom.06.pdf
darkmighty|7 years ago
What creates interference is difference is phase among waves of the exact same frequency.
It's odd that the paper author is making such basic EM theory mistake, and I wonder what the actual device construction is like. (since it cannot work the way he describes at steady state)
Maybe he's interpreting phase modulation as frequency modulation? Of course at steady state all frequencies would be the same, making this a weird/incorrect interpretation I think.
fouc|7 years ago
excalibur|7 years ago
dsfyu404ed|7 years ago
That said, the potential for abuse is limited by what society will tolerate. We tolerate tracking and alcohol monitoring bracelets for people who drive drunk. If we tolerate tracking implants for sex offenders on parole or something I'm sure it'll filter down routine probation sentences eventually.
jgroszko|7 years ago
pietroglyph|7 years ago
trhway|7 years ago
why animals? couldn't the researchers just swallow that "prototype about the size of a grain of rice" themselves and/or get several paid volunteers?
dear|7 years ago
s0rce|7 years ago
CamelCaseName|7 years ago
fao_|7 years ago
Insurance. I assume it's easier to get insurance for human testing if you've shown safety in animals first.
maxander|7 years ago
ThomPete|7 years ago
NKosmatos|7 years ago
ghostbrainalpha|7 years ago
I'd also love to start my car, without having to remember where i left my keys.
smolder|7 years ago
More seriously, though, nanotech or relatively small implantables/injectables powered by radio or induction could do a lot for medicine... If anyone could afford it.
JumpCrisscross|7 years ago
rhcom2|7 years ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01516
Pfhreak|7 years ago
Grab enough power to monitor blood sugar, to make sure you aren't putting someone into a coma, but otherwise just try to burn an extra few hundred calories a day.
rtkwe|7 years ago
mclightning|7 years ago
apocalypstyx|7 years ago