Is This Object a Micro Electrode Implant for Ear Canal Remote Operation? Identification Help

246 37

#31 21663235 02 Aug 2012 10:09

Richard Comerford Richard Comerford

Anonymous

Post #31
21663235 02 Aug 2012 10:09

x
ADVERTISEMENT
#32 21663236 02 Aug 2012 10:10

Richard Comerford Richard Comerford

Anonymous

Post #32
21663236 02 Aug 2012 10:10

Also, and perhaps most importantly, this is a receiver, not a transmitter.
ADVERTISEMENT
#33 21663237 02 Aug 2012 10:19

Steve Lawson Steve Lawson

Anonymous

Post #33
21663237 02 Aug 2012 10:19

Well, yeah, if it's just a receiver then perhaps. I was keying on "earbuds that the secret service wears", which, I believe, is a transceiver.
#34 21663238 02 Aug 2012 10:33

Chuck Sydlo Chuck Sydlo

Anonymous

Post #34
21663238 02 Aug 2012 10:33

Why dont you start with what you know is possible. Here is a Cochlear ear implant. Look at the size of the thing. There is the implant, the smaller portion, and the microphone/transmitter part that stays outside the skin to transmit signal and power. Notice the large coils used to induce the power through the skin, 1 each on inner and outer device.
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/06/02/1226068/175412-cochlear-implant.jpg
Even if you found a way to eliminate those coils and the need for the power transfer the resulting device would be huge compared to what is being suggested. Remember there is a lot of incentive to reduce the size of this device.
ADVERTISEMENT
#35 21663239 05 Aug 2012 00:36

Jason Peterson Jason Peterson

Anonymous

Post #35
21663239 05 Aug 2012 00:36

So I guess what everyone is saying is that the verdict is it can't be ruled out that the device is not an implantable micro electrode for the ear canal, but it is not probable.

What if I said I have a boatload of empirical evidence that these things are in someone's ears, with people in the know demonstrating all sorts of crazy things to them in person that you would have to say God would be the only other explanation.
ADVERTISEMENT
#36 21663240 05 Aug 2012 01:14

Frank Bushnell Frank Bushnell

Anonymous

Post #36
21663240 05 Aug 2012 01:14

Well Jason, as you have brought the subject up, I can certainly confirm to you that God exists and that He answers prayer, even sometimes in ways that you would have to call miraculous.

I became a Christian through being totally skeptical, refusing to believe anyone but God Himself, carefully checking out the facts by reading the Gospels in prayer, and by discovering that Jesus' teaching actually works when it is put into practice.

Most people are so put off by the hypocrisy of denominational religion that they don't bother to experimentally check out the facts of the Gospel for themselves.

But I did check out Jesus' teaching, and it proves to be true. So please don't use God as the butt of foolish humour.

Thanks for listening.
#37 21663241 05 Aug 2012 01:19

Jason Peterson Jason Peterson

Anonymous

Post #37
21663241 05 Aug 2012 01:19

Thanks for the information about Jesus, but it wasn't meant to be foolish humor in the slightest way. My point is that the demonstrations would appear to be like magic--like something only God could do based on what we know about technology.
#38 21663242 05 Aug 2012 04:06

Frank Bushnell Frank Bushnell

Anonymous

Post #38
21663242 05 Aug 2012 04:06

My oh my, what a handsome creature !

His extravagant beauty is scarcely surpassed even by the loveliness I see in my bathroom mirror first thing every morning.
Create an account, log in here. You will receive points by participating in discussions.
Join this discussion.

Install Elektroda application

Topic summary

✨ The discussion centers on identifying an object suspected to be a micro electrode implant designed for ear canal remote operation via cellular or satellite signals. The image quality and resolution are insufficient for definitive analysis, leading to varied interpretations including a temperature sensor, a refrigeration unit component, or even a broken toilet roll holder. Technical feasibility concerns are raised regarding power requirements for transmission to cell towers or satellites, heat generation, and the size constraints of power sources and antennas in such a small device. Implantable MEMS devices with telemetry capabilities are referenced as existing technology, but current energy density and miniaturization limits challenge the practicality of a fully implantable, long-range communication device without external components. Wireless power transfer and energy harvesting are noted as potential power solutions, though limitations in battery size, charging time, and energy transfer efficiency remain critical issues. Comparisons to cochlear implants highlight the necessity of external components for power and signal transmission. The consensus is that while the object cannot be conclusively identified as an ear canal micro electrode implant, the probability is low given current technological constraints. The discussion also touches on the speculative nature of advanced spy technology and the gap between science fiction and present-day engineering capabilities.

FAQ

TL;DR: About a third thinner glass screens hint at miniaturization, but “You need a lot of power to transmit to a cell tower,” so a tiny ear‑canal transceiver is unlikely from this photo alone. [Elektroda, Steve Lawson, post #21663230] Why it matters: People search how to identify mystery gadgets and assess implant claims safely; this FAQ is for non‑engineers seeking practical, evidence‑based guidance.

Quick Facts

A single low‑resolution photo cannot prove implant function; screen glare can mimic features. [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663214]
Cell/satellite transmission needs substantial power; tiny devices risk heating nearby tissue. [Elektroda, Steve Lawson, post #21663226]
A receive‑only ear device is far more feasible than a full transceiver. [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663236]
“The only practical power source…is a rechargeable battery with wireless charging or energy harvesting.” [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663232]
Real implants (e.g., cochlear) use large coupled coils; the external unit supplies power and signal. [Elektroda, Chuck Sydlo, post #21663238]

Does the picture show a micro‑electrode ear implant for remote control?

No one could confirm that from the thread. The image lacks scale and clarity. Reflections may be display artifacts. Experts noted it could be a sensor‑like object, not an antenna, and said there isn’t enough data for conclusions. [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663214]

Could a tiny ear device transmit to a cell tower or satellite?

Unlikely. Transmission range requires notable RF power. That power in a very small enclosure risks heating tissue and needs a battery that tiny form factors cannot support safely. “It would get hot enough to cook the ear,” one expert warned. [Elektroda, Steve Lawson, post #21663226]

Would a receive‑only earpiece be more realistic?

Yes. A receiver consumes far less power than a transceiver. That makes miniature receive‑only devices more plausible than units that also transmit. One expert summarized the assumption: “this is a receiver, not a transmitter.” [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663236]

What power options exist for very small implants?

Options include a rechargeable micro‑battery plus wireless charging, energy harvesting, or both. Energy harvesting is not new; think self‑winding watches. Practical capacity and coil size still constrain tiny implants. “The only practical power source…is a rechargeable battery,” said one engineer. [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663232]

Could body electricity alone power long‑range radio?

No. Harvested energy levels are too low for sustained long‑range RF. Small receiver coils also limit wireless charging rates and storage. Experts questioned whether enough energy could be harvested or transferred in the available volume. [Elektroda, Steve Lawson, post #21663233]

Would such a device overheat in use?

If it tried to transmit far, yes. High RF output in a confined ear canal would generate heat and could injure tissue. This is a key failure mode for undersized transmitters. [Elektroda, Steve Lawson, post #21663226]

What about the visible “holes” and the ‘rubber antenna’ in the photo?

Apparent features may be misleading without scale. What looks like an antenna could be a sensor element or tubing. Reflections can create false detail. Identification needs better imagery and context. [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663214]

Could it be a temperature probe or refrigeration sensor instead?

Yes, that’s a reasonable alternative. One participant identified the form factor as similar to a refrigeration temperature sensor mounted near a unit’s back panel. [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663209]

How do real hearing implants handle power and signal?

Cochlear systems split tasks: an external module with a large coil transmits power and data across the skin to the internal implant. This avoids large internal batteries but requires sizable coupling hardware. [Elektroda, Chuck Sydlo, post #21663238]

What is MEMS, and does it prove this is an implant?

MEMS means micro‑electro‑mechanical systems. They enable tiny sensors and actuators, including medical devices. A link was shared about implantable MEMS, but it does not identify the pictured object as one. [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663224]

Is there any consensus from the thread?

No. Suggestions ranged from temperature probe to unrelated household hardware, with jokes highlighting uncertainty. Respondents said a firm ID was unlikely without more data. [Elektroda, Steve Lawson, post #21663223]

How can I properly identify unknown hardware from a photo?

Do this: 1) Provide scale (ruler/coin) and multiple angles. 2) Share original, high‑resolution images. 3) Include context (where found, markings). These steps let experts compare known parts. [Elektroda, Joe Wolin, post #21663207]

Could MRI or CT confirm an implant like this?

The thread could not assess imaging detectability because the photo lacked detail and scale. An expert cautioned that even perceived textures might be display artifacts. Seek clinical imaging advice with proper context. [Elektroda, Richard Comerford, post #21663214]

Are secret‑service‑style ‘invisible’ earbuds two‑way radios?

Operational sets typically include a receiver in‑ear and a separate body‑worn transmitter/microphone. A full two‑way radio inside the ear is far harder due to power and heat. One participant revised assumptions upon this point. [Elektroda, Steve Lawson, post #21663237]