Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's a very creative way of spicing up a boring old glass eye! I imagine such "wearable" tech could also be the ultimate version of those snapchat glasses.

Putting a battery inside your eye socket seems incredibly risky to me, though. Especially one that can power a bright light like this for a while...



I wonder what power laserpointer you could fit in there without going overboard with the battery... Imagine being able to light matches by looking at them for a bit.

On the other hand, every mirror would be a great chance to lose your other eye as well, so maybe disregard my ideas.


A low-power laser pointer would still be very interesting and perfectly safe. Star Trek/X-men/Superman/Star Wars dreams of stunning enemies with a beam of light from your eyes, there's no to have power levels that can light matches, pop balloons, or otherwise cause destruction.

One cool use, IMO, would be a time of flight distance-measuring laser: With only a single working eye, OP lacks binocular vision for distance measuring. With the equivalent to a Bushnell rangefinder, they could stare at an object, blink twice, and hear a tiny voice literally in their head say "37.84 meters".


Might not even need a voice. I wonder if you could “tap into” the remaining bits of the optic nerve and send a signal that way. The signal would vary based on distance. Maybe simulate intensity of light or something.

Would probably require some kind of crazy training for it to work. Plus I have no clue what I’m talking about!


Wow, you have me excited. That would be so neat.


It would need to be an IR laser, or the jig is up for being a useful bar trick.

Heck, the old skool 1st/2nd ACs in the camera department would kill for this. No need to "pull tape" any more.


The issue with high power lasers is heat dissipation.


Perhaps you could add a temperature sensor as well? Heck it might be neat to go full tricorder-in-eye...


> On the other hand, every mirror would be a great chance to lose your other eye as well, so maybe disregard my ideas.

At those power levels? Probably every surface in general. A beam powerful enough to light a match or burn through a balloon is powerful enough for the diffuse reflection off a table or wall to blind you.


You could just wear laser safety glasses.

Wait..


Safety monocle.


I think we're making a supervillain recipe here guys...chill


Username checks out on multiple levels!


Homelander enters the chat


This is why Cyclops from the X-Men wears red sunglasses all the time, even when out of uniform.


Safety contacts?


And certainly burn the inside wall of the eyelid when closed and/or blinking.


"Do not look at mirror with remaining eye"


Imagine cooking your face from the inside!

I have some laser pointers capable of lighting matches. They get hot.


>On the other hand, every mirror would be a great chance to lose your other eye as well, so maybe disregard my ideas.

With great powers comes great responsibility.


Not much, laser diodes peak at 60-70% efficiency, which means 30% of that goes into heating the device. Altho short bursts, maybe ?

The other problem is that this small battery won't have that much current capacity


Wouldn’t it burn your eyelid too, from the inside?


If you're eyelids are closed, you can't be looking at what your aiming. Your chances of hitting the target increase infinitely if you keep your eyes open.


It would have a blink sensor that turns it off when a blink is detected or it points at your nose or something, right?


Try not to blink challenge?


Cool concept. I suppose there'd need to be a way to protect the inside wall of the eyelid, however.


Or a sweet predator targeting system.


Optic blast!


Maybe you don't need a battery and can go with wireless power transmission.

A scaled-up version of this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ3K0suY1Dc

To provide more power to the led you probably need a bigger coil inside the eye, it should work if you hide the induction transmission loop inside a hat.


Imagine getting an MRI with your induction powered eye and the LED just explodes from the massive amount of conducted power


Honestly while a lithium battery might worry me I’d be more worried about heat dissapation. Of course the dude says it isn’t an issue, but still.

I guess it might not matter much because the battery is so small that you’d be lucky to get more than a handful of minutes running that LED at max power.

This is all speculation based on a 30 second video though.


> Honestly while a lithium battery might worry me I’d be more worried about heat dissapation.

I mean...isn't it effectively water cooled?


You got plenty of water mass up in your cranium too!

All I know is my headlamp gets mighty hot when it is running at peak intensity. Like hard to touch levels of hotness.


Meat sink


> Putting a battery inside your eye socket seems incredibly risky to me, though

We already do this with pacemakers


And it is risky, but it beats the alternative.

Whether it is worth it for a cool gadget, is another question.


Not sure why putting a battery in your pocket at all time or one strapped to your wrist is that much safer.


The one in your pocket is dry, plus if it did somehow start conducting through you it'd zap your leg/wrist and hurt, maybe cause you to spasm and kick something, but that's it. If one on your heart/in your eye socket does it, it wouldn't take much for that to give you a heart attack or shock your optical nerves which is a very short wire into your brain, and as such I can only imagine it would be very very bad for you.


One is inside your body, the others are outside.

Would you rather have a battery in your eye socket catch fire and explode, or one in your pants pocket/on your wrist?


Not the same thing and we don't really do that.

Pacemakers are typically lithium iodide which do not have the same risk of uncontrolled burning (that's the nickel variety).

But also, the pacemaker sits outside the body with probes going inside. You'd not want another surgery just to change a battery.


Pacemakers and implanted defibrillators are both, uh, implanted inside your body. Typically they stick them in the front side of your left shoulder. They run the leads into a vein (or artery) and anchor them into the wall of the heart.

They can implant basically under the fat layer or under the pectoral muscle. Beneath the fat layer is easier both from a surgery and recovery standpoint, but less secure.

The downside of that is that it's possible for the device to flip over. They usually try to avoid securing the device to anything because that can lead to discomfort or pain if the device wants to move around, but they can if they have to.

And yes, they do have to repeat surgery to replace the device when the battery gets low. The leads AIUI are usually a lifetime part (hopefully for all the right reasons). For defibrillators, battery life will be maximized if the device doesn't have to deliver shocks and can stick to just pacing. It turns out if they implant a defibrillator, you get a pacemaker for free.


Screw batteries, just implant a nuclear generator inside the body instead. Perfectly safe :)

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-heart-pacemaker-dc-id...


How many amp hours is the battery and what is the voltage? I’d assume 3.7v if it’s lithium ion…


Search me :-) My experience is adjacent to an end-user, not as a doctor or engineer.


But that's not true... A pacemaker goes inside your body. It's replaced during a surgery every 15-20 years and has enough battery lifetime to last that long.

There used to be nuclear-powered pacemakers that could last many lifetimes but nowadays the doctors say it's better to replace the whole thing every once in a while, so the nuclear option is overkill.


One of the exceptions, nuclear pacemakers using Pu-238 or Pm-147.

"The History of Nuclear Powered Pacemakers" - http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/degraw2/

> Despite the often longer life-expectancies, nuclear pacemakers quickly became a part of the past when lithium batteries were developed. Not only did the technology improve, allowing for lighter, smaller, and programmable pacemakers, but doctors began to realize that this excessive longevity of nuclear pacemakers was excessive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaic_device says betavoltaic "devices include a 100 μW tritium-powered device weighing 20 grams".

That's about 5x the weight of a glass eye - https://www.muellersoehne.com/907.html .

Assuming linear scaling, an energy budget of 2μW isn't going to provide much light.


Good points. But a low-duty-cycle laser pointer eyeball could be more useful than a low-duty-cycle pacemaker.

You could use the 2μW to charge up a capacitor for 24 hours and then have a minute and a half of 2mW, which is enough for a visible laser pointer reaching a few meters. 2mW light output is quite a bit brighter than that but requires more like 20mW power input.

A 220 μF cap at 48 volts would hold 35 hours of 2μW, and there are ceramic caps that big that would easily fit into your eyeball.


"A 220 μF cap at 48 volts"

How much does that weigh? How big is it? What's the leakage current?

If it takes enough space away from the betavoltaic device, and thus reduces the power generation, then the cap will never fully charge.

Not knowing what you're thinking of, I picked https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/427/134d-1763800.pdf mostly arbitrarily. Note that I'm a programmer, not a hardware person.

The lightest weights 2.6 g, which is 1/2 the weight of the eyeball, so cuts the power generation to 1μW.

I think it's telling me there's a 10μA leakage current, which I think means the cap will power up to 0.1V before the leakage rate matches the power rate.

Now that you know my level of ignorance, what's your take?


Yeah, that's a wet tantalum cap, those have higher leakage currents. An X7R MLCC like https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/united-chemi-con/... will probably have lower leakage, though the datasheet doesn't specify. Digi-Key says it costs US$45, it's 20 mm × 28.5 mm × 10 mm which is 5.7 cc, and probably close to 15 grams.

Leakage current usually increases superlinearly with voltage, though. If the tantalum's DC leakage is 10 μA at 50 volts, it's probably closer to 0.1 μA at 5 volts.

In capacitors with a given dielectric, the maximum energy is proportional to the volume of the dielectric, so although a 47 μF cap charged to 108 volts stores the same energy as a 220 μF cap charged to 50 volts, it also needs the same volume.

(I'm not an EE either; I only play one on HN.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye says an adult human eyeball is about 23.7 mm × 24.2 mm × 23.4 mm, and a spheroid like that is π/6 of the corresponding cuboid, so you only have about 7.03 cc to work with.

So probably you'd have to settle for under 1 cc of capacitor, which (in the case of X7R anyway) means storing more like 15 seconds of 2 mW.


A glass eye filled with tritium would probably give enough light to read with, continuously, with a half-life of 10 years.

It might get a bit annoying when you want to go to sleep though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium_radioluminescence


Assuming I did the math right:

2 cd/m2 * (7mm * 7mm * pi) = 0.00030787608 candelas = 307 µ candela.

Doesn't seem like much light.


> But also, the pacemaker sits outside the body with probes going inside.

This introduces an opening into the body that will almost certainly result in infection.

Probably much less risky to periodically change the battery than get the portal infected


But then this one could be lithium iodide too. A replacement eye can also be replaced more easily.

Anyway, your statement about the pacemaker sitting outside the body with probes going inside is not correct; maybe it once was, but that was decades ago.


He does mention that "safety is paramount" and that the light is at low power for now. I'm glad he's not just winging it.


Maybe not winging it but definitely eyeballing it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: