logo elektroda
logo elektroda
X
logo elektroda

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

57 37
ADVERTISEMENT
  • #1 21663205
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #2 21663206
    Richard Comerford
    Anonymous  
  • #3 21663207
    Joe Wolin
    Anonymous  
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #4 21663208
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • #5 21663209
    Richard Comerford
    Anonymous  
  • #6 21663210
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • #7 21663211
    Richard Comerford
    Anonymous  
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #8 21663212
    Richard Comerford
    Anonymous  
  • #9 21663213
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • #10 21663214
    Richard Comerford
    Anonymous  
  • #11 21663215
    Mike Clark
    Anonymous  
  • #12 21663216
    Frank Bushnell
    Anonymous  
  • #13 21663217
    Subham Chatterjee
    Anonymous  
  • #14 21663218
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • #15 21663219
    Steve Lawson
    Anonymous  
  • #16 21663220
    Sarah Harris
    Anonymous  
  • #17 21663221
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • #18 21663222
    Steve Lawson
    Anonymous  
  • #19 21663223
    Steve Lawson
    Anonymous  
  • #20 21663224
    Richard Comerford
    Anonymous  
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #21 21663225
    Subham Chatterjee
    Anonymous  
  • #22 21663226
    Steve Lawson
    Anonymous  
  • #23 21663227
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • #24 21663228
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • #25 21663229
    Chuck Sydlo
    Anonymous  
  • #26 21663230
    Steve Lawson
    Anonymous  
  • #27 21663231
    Jason Peterson
    Anonymous  
  • #28 21663232
    Richard Comerford
    Anonymous  
  • #29 21663233
    Steve Lawson
    Anonymous  
  • #30 21663234
    Richard Comerford
    Anonymous  

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.
Summary generated by the language model.
ADVERTISEMENT