h a l f b a k e r yWhy on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Mammalian respiration is cyclic, a bit like a piston engine (suck, blow).
Piston engines are less efficient than turbines which have continuous flow.
This idea is for a prosthesis manufactured in the laboratory from the recipient's own stem cells, consisting of a framework of tubes matching the
lungs and trachea down to the level of alvaeolae, as detemined by MRI.
The exit of the trachea is brought externally to a discreet tracheotomy in the upper chest, into which a tube can be plugged when required.
The tube is connected to a reversible blower system. When the system applies pressure, the user is enabled to exhale continuously, allowing for new techniques of vocal sound production; or superior HEPA filters would prevent pollen etc. entering the body. In very cold conditions, air can be pre-warmed to prevent damage from frostbite.
When running, the pump is switched to suction mode.
Also useful for those with damage to spinal nerves who require respiratory support.
Bird lungs
http://en.wikipedia...ki/Lung#Avian_lungs
use air sacs like bellows to move air unidirectionally through the air-exchange region [Loris, Jul 22 2013]
Generic Organ Construction
http://www.popsci.c...icates-organs-order
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Jul 23 2013]
Continuous-flow heart
http://www.npr.org/...f-new-lease-on-life
[ytk, Jul 24 2013]
[link]
|
| |
This is an excellent idea, surprisingly. |
|
| |
As a bonus, it might allow gill-like respiration in a
suitably oxygenated liquid, since the force required
to move liquid to and fro is a major limitation in
traditional lungs. |
|
| |
As yet another bonus, a turbo-booster might allow
some kind of jet propulsive respiration. |
|
| |
I think the difficulty with this would be the surgery connecting up all the millions of tiny alveoli.
This isn't going to be viable with current technology. |
|
| |
Birds have lungs with directional flow like you're looking for. They are reported to be considerably more efficient. It might be easier to grow up replacement lungs from the patients tissue along the lines of the avian lung, and perform a direct internal swap. |
|
| |
(1) Replace the pleural fluid (which surrounds the
lungs, between two pleural membranes) with an
open-cell foam. |
|
| |
(2) Install a suitable connection to the pleural
cavity and remove the fluid. |
|
| |
(3) Apply a few bar overpressure to the lungs. This
should blow out all the alveoli and, with a bit of
luck, drive channels through into the pleural
space. |
|
| |
Recent advances in organ-construction from stem-
cell tissue (upon a synthetic scaffold) may allow
lungs to be designed that are different from what
the DNA is programmed to develop. So, the
trachea could divide down to the alveoli level, and
from there the pneumatic pathways reconnect to
form an "exit" trachea. |
|
| |
Then add a one-way valve, like a heart valve, and
implant the whole thing, with the new tube
connected, say, at
belly-button level. The diaphragm muscle does a
normal inhale, but the exhale is blocked by the
valve; the air has to go out the new tube instead.
It should be obvious that we want these lungs
installed so that the INTAKE is the LOWER
opening, else we would lose the ability to talk as
we exhale. |
|
| |
yeah I could use one of these. There were some classical composers who didn't think that choristers had to actually breathe occasionally. |
|
| |
//There were some classical composers who didn't
think that choristers had to actually breathe
occasionally.// |
|
| |
You can breathe when you're dead… Oh wait… |
|
| |
Anyway, the idea apparently works for hearts (link),
why not lungs too? |
|
| |
This idea sounds utterly practical to me. I wonder why this is not already in use. One need only add nitrous oxide. Bun! [+] |
|
| |
[Trivia Question: Do the Borg use lungs (their own, presumably) for breathing (as opposed to use of lungs as a marvelous sponge-like material for household tasks such as cleaning up breakfast dishes)? I ask merely out of curiosity, since much of what the Borg suggests is the result of intense objective study of (and/or) experimentation with our species. Or maybe cats.] |
|
| |
Pop in a continous flow turbo-heart to go with this and you've got something here. [+] |
|
| |
Can we pop in a one-way check valve between our existing lungs and another such valve at the outlet of the right lung? A simple bit of training would allow you to inhale with the left lung, transfer the air to the right lung for final exhalation. |
|
| |
Great... now I'm gonna have to try and sleep through one long continuous snore. |
|
| |
Your own, presumably. The concept of any
other specimen of Homo Sapiens being
prepared to share sleeping quarters with you
is just too sick and weird to contemplate. |
|
| |
"He'll have to sleep in the pigsty"
"But what about the smell ?"
"The pigs will just have to get used to it …" |
|
| |
T'would be pearls before the swine. |
|
| |
Politicians, auctioneers, lawyers [-]
Singing
Handel's melismata[+]
Redesigning SCUBA
equipment[??] |
|
| |
// Do the Borg use lungs (their own, presumably) for breathing (as opposed to use of lungs as a marvelous sponge-like material for household tasks such as cleaning up breakfast dishes)? // |
|
| |
// I ask merely out of curiosity, // |
|
| |
Dangerous thing, curiosity. |
|
| |
// since much of what the Borg suggests is the result of intense objective study // |
|
| |
// of (and/or) experimentation with our species.// |
|
| |
You say that like it's a bad thing. |
|
| |
As described, it would increase water loss (and heat loss), because air would be expelled at close to body temperature and close to saturation. The nose warms and humidifies when breathing in, and cools and dehumidifies when breathing out. |
|
| |
The deluxe version would feature counter-current gas exchange in the lung (not even birds have that, although fish gills do), and counter-current heat and humidity exchange. Heat and water loss would then be much less than with the traditional configuration. |
|
| |
//Piston engines are less efficient than turbines
which have continuous flow// Sure? |
|
| |
Turbines can have tremendous power/weight or
power/volume, can be very low maintenance.
They're not used in applications where out-and-
out efficiency reigns (cargo ships). At least for the
combustion rather than recovery phase. |
|
| |
You would need two holes. Ask any medic, holes
are trouble. |
|
| |
As mentioned, there will be additional water loss.
I'm not sure about the flow dynamics, but I think
that the inhale.... hold at moderately increased
pressure for a moment... exhale.... system is quite
well adapted for two way transfer of gasses, the
little pause is something exotic piston engines try
to replicate, provide a temporal opportunity for
more complete reaction. |
|
| |
From most to least efficient are (1) counter-current exchange (fish gills), (2) cross current exchange (bird lungs), (3) flood-and-drain (mammalian lungs). Our lungs are the way they are not because it's the best design, but because they evolved from an outpouching of the oesophagus of a fishy ancestor. They are an evolutionary cul-de-sac. |
|
| |
I wonder if the subtle affects, of such a change, would flow down to the nuclei. |
|
| |