Blink to generate power for smart contact lenses(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
Blink to generate power for smart contact lenses
https://spectrum.ieee.org/power-smart-contact-lenses
37 comments
It almost makes me glad that my tear ducts are defective and I can't wear contact lenses. I think I might genuinely be willing to live without whatever advantages people think these will provide if it means avoiding having all my visual attention monitored at all times.
It makes me happy I can wear analogue contact lenses so I can avoid wearing heavy hard objects around my face and nose 24/7, constantly dealing with smudges and spots on the glass, removing them to rub my eyes or itch around them, exercising, sweating, etc. Glasses are medieval torture devices set to slow burn.
Wow, it sounds like you've had an unusually negative experience with glasses. Mine aren't heavy, or even hard, and I certainly don't wear them 24/7. 16/7, I guess, but I definitely don't sleep in them!
Mine pretty much just let me see stuff. And they're kind of cute.
Mine pretty much just let me see stuff. And they're kind of cute.
Smart lenses able to count blinks could help prevent meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Which would be pretty fantastic. Though we'd need to make sure the tech isnt doing more harm than good.
MGD is on the rise, and the current theory is its due to changes in lifestyle (predominantly from stareing at a screen for too long, which reduces blinking, which causes the glands to stop functioning and eventually die permanently).
Also worth noting. If you're having issues with your eyes and you stare at a screen a "normal" amount by todays standards, go to a dry eye dr. You probably have MGD.
MGD is on the rise, and the current theory is its due to changes in lifestyle (predominantly from stareing at a screen for too long, which reduces blinking, which causes the glands to stop functioning and eventually die permanently).
Also worth noting. If you're having issues with your eyes and you stare at a screen a "normal" amount by todays standards, go to a dry eye dr. You probably have MGD.
Thanks for the recommendation. I know what my issue is, and it isn't that, but hopefully others can benefit from the info you've shared!
[deleted]
Already being done with glasses [1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/05/loose-fr...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/05/loose-fr...
This article was a big surprise to me for another reason: I've lived in a variety of regions in the U.S. and loose produce has been the norm my whole life, at least for items that aren't really small (berries usually come in packages). You can buy a sack of 10 oranges or something, but the norm is to select your own oranges one by one.
I'd very much have expected the U.S. to do whatever makes the most profit, so I wonder why there's such a cultural divide.
I'd very much have expected the U.S. to do whatever makes the most profit, so I wonder why there's such a cultural divide.
It's giving Ubik
Indeed. What I want is contact lenses that replace billboards by artwork.
Or contact lenses that just make billboards disappear. Contact lenses ad blocker. I bet even people with perfect vision would want these.
I read a sci-fi story in which someone managed to "disappear" in front of the protagonist's eyes; he found out later that the person wrapped themselves in a passing advertisement banner and was thus hidden by the personal adblocker everyone has.
Imagine a truck covered in ads ...
Add 3-5x zoom, thermal/night vision and you have 7 billion buyers
yes, youtubers and the like have made selling out cool
I almost won a hackathon based on something like this, although we were just using cameras to track where a person was standing.
Alas, my teammate managed to commit something like ten thousand jpegs to our git repo, which completely fucked up our ability to work on it. (Please resist the urge to give me advice on what to do to fix this situation, unless you can travel a decade back in time and give it to my younger self.)
Alas, my teammate managed to commit something like ten thousand jpegs to our git repo, which completely fucked up our ability to work on it. (Please resist the urge to give me advice on what to do to fix this situation, unless you can travel a decade back in time and give it to my younger self.)
I do have such a machine but I’m using it to collect shoppers future behavior to inform advertisers in the past how to best target them in their future purchasing. Turns out even better than tracking them in the present!
Retailers already do this. I worked at a company piloting (many years ago) cameras that can do eye tracking and provide things like a heatmap of physical shelves.
These are expensive so they're usually installed in a few major stores and the insights are extrapolated to everywhere else.
These are expensive so they're usually installed in a few major stores and the insights are extrapolated to everywhere else.
Would you think differently if the application does not model the individual user but rather treats them as completely anonymous? Like, the main interest is in stuff like: "a person that ended up buying product X was previous looking at the products on shelf Y for 23.4 seconds on average".
Just curious, I'm not in favor of such applications but I am interested in what privacy aspects are important to people.
I find that privacy is often held as a very high deed when considered on its own right out of any context. But in reality, people are happy to use cash reward cards or pay everything with credit card when they go shopping, or use gmail, or walk around all day with a smart phone in their pocket, etc. (Disclaimer: I do some of these things myself.)
Just curious, I'm not in favor of such applications but I am interested in what privacy aspects are important to people.
I find that privacy is often held as a very high deed when considered on its own right out of any context. But in reality, people are happy to use cash reward cards or pay everything with credit card when they go shopping, or use gmail, or walk around all day with a smart phone in their pocket, etc. (Disclaimer: I do some of these things myself.)
The disturbing aspect in my mind isn’t even the privacy per se, it’s that we have this fundamentally novel technology and rather than thinking of ways to truly improve people’s lives, their thought is “Okay but how can this be used to sell more coca-cola and designer belts?”
How could it possibly be anonymous? Would you be ok with your ring camera and external Tesla cameras being posted on a webcam streaming site (likely with no direct compensation to you) with filters for demographics, rough geolocation, etc as long as your name was not attached?
This is a false analogy.
I wasn't talking about publishing streams to the internet but about evaluating sensor data without any attempts to identify the subjects, instead leaving them anonymous.
I wasn't talking about publishing streams to the internet but about evaluating sensor data without any attempts to identify the subjects, instead leaving them anonymous.
> Then when the eye starts to blink, the tear electrolytes meet the magnesium anode, causing an oxidation reaction and the generation of electrons
Having my eye ball as part of the battery chemistry makes me feel a bit squeemish. I would have thought that MEMS vibration harvester would be able to produce more power.
Having my eye ball as part of the battery chemistry makes me feel a bit squeemish. I would have thought that MEMS vibration harvester would be able to produce more power.
It doesn’t seem like a MEMS given its mechanical nature would be a reasonable thing to build into a contact lens - a chemical battery can be built into the lens in a way that it’s totally unnoticeable especially if the electrolyte is supplied by the eye. I wouldn’t be the first one to try it on but by the time it reaches me I’m pretty sure it won’t corrode my eye out.
Tears contain chloride ions (>100 mEq/L). I'd be worried about chlorine gas generation (a toxic gas that goes after the respiratory system, eyes, and skin). Electrolysis of water starts at potentials as low as 1.23V (the paper reports 2.2-3.3V).
For the same reason they contain chloride ions, they also contain sodium ions.
Are we worried about the sodium in the tears reacting with the water, and exploding?
If we managed to react the chlorine and get it out of the water, would we be worried about the sodium exploding then?
(I don't know anything relevant. So I know that salt water spontaneously exploding is a non-issue, but I don't know why that is, and I also don't know how plausible it is to worry about catalyzing the release of chlorine gas from salt water. But the questions seem vaguely related, in my totally uneducated view.)
Are we worried about the sodium in the tears reacting with the water, and exploding?
If we managed to react the chlorine and get it out of the water, would we be worried about the sodium exploding then?
(I don't know anything relevant. So I know that salt water spontaneously exploding is a non-issue, but I don't know why that is, and I also don't know how plausible it is to worry about catalyzing the release of chlorine gas from salt water. But the questions seem vaguely related, in my totally uneducated view.)
Sodium (Na) in its pure state desperately wants to give away its electron. It will react with anything where it can dump electrons (e.g. H2O).
Upon meeting water, sodium (explosively) releases its electron to water, lowering its energy state to a more favorable state. The extra electron in the water serves to split H2O into H+ and -OH ions. After releasing it's electron, sodium becomes sodium ion (Na+).
Sodium ions (Na+) can only exist in solution. In the case of water and table salt, H2O + NaCl -> H2O + Na+ + Cl- . In other words, adding salt to water produce sodium ions and chlorine ions. Both of these forms are stable in solution, because they have their desired number of electrons (and are at in their most favorable energy states). At no time was sodium (Na) involved in the equation - rather, it's stable ion form (Na+) was involved.
As an aside: You can generate chlorine gas (Cl2) by running electricity through salt water. Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) is also generated, but is immediately split into Na+ and -OH since the generation of NaOH occurred in solution. The -OH makes the water more basic as a result. It would be a good exercise to look into why that is. NaOH loves water - it will suck it right out of the air.
Haven't stretched that chemistry muscle in nearly 15 years...Hope I didn't pull it!
Upon meeting water, sodium (explosively) releases its electron to water, lowering its energy state to a more favorable state. The extra electron in the water serves to split H2O into H+ and -OH ions. After releasing it's electron, sodium becomes sodium ion (Na+).
Sodium ions (Na+) can only exist in solution. In the case of water and table salt, H2O + NaCl -> H2O + Na+ + Cl- . In other words, adding salt to water produce sodium ions and chlorine ions. Both of these forms are stable in solution, because they have their desired number of electrons (and are at in their most favorable energy states). At no time was sodium (Na) involved in the equation - rather, it's stable ion form (Na+) was involved.
As an aside: You can generate chlorine gas (Cl2) by running electricity through salt water. Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) is also generated, but is immediately split into Na+ and -OH since the generation of NaOH occurred in solution. The -OH makes the water more basic as a result. It would be a good exercise to look into why that is. NaOH loves water - it will suck it right out of the air.
Haven't stretched that chemistry muscle in nearly 15 years...Hope I didn't pull it!
> Upon meeting water, sodium (explosively) releases its electron to water, lowering its energy state to a more favorable state. The extra electron in the water serves to split H2O into H+ and -OH ions. After releasing it's electron, sodium becomes sodium ion (Na+).
Something seems out of balance here. Water would form H+ and OH- ions in the absence of an additional electron. Once the donation from the sodium occurs, is it forming H+ and OH²⁻?
Something seems out of balance here. Water would form H+ and OH- ions in the absence of an additional electron. Once the donation from the sodium occurs, is it forming H+ and OH²⁻?
You’re right, I sort of hand-waived thru the equation. The stoichiometry was off
[deleted]
>So I know that salt water spontaneously exploding is a non-issue
Because the sodium as dissolved in water is already at its lowest chemical energy state. Elemental sodium, very high energy, like a ball on a high shelf. Ionised sodium, like in salt water, is that same ball on the floor. Not going anywhere.
That's the why. And why we also don't worry about table salt spontaneously releasing chlorine ions - unless we introduce something unusual like bleach.
Because the sodium as dissolved in water is already at its lowest chemical energy state. Elemental sodium, very high energy, like a ball on a high shelf. Ionised sodium, like in salt water, is that same ball on the floor. Not going anywhere.
That's the why. And why we also don't worry about table salt spontaneously releasing chlorine ions - unless we introduce something unusual like bleach.
I'd be worried about chlorine gas generation
[deleted]
Low battery. Stare directly into the sun to recharge.
Imagine hacking these and blowing up the tiny capacitors and blinding somebody for life.
... and run to cool them
What a dystopian prospect. This being the second possible application thought of (as a good thing!) by a team member is quite disturbing. Have people become so desensitized to the omnipresent ads and tracking that they only consider the monetary rewards anymore?