4 ms·

A few comparisons: > forearm with hand [weighs] only 1 kg That is slightly below a human forearm with a hand. > This artificial muscles robotic arm is operat

A few comparisons: > forearm with hand [weighs] only 1 kg That is slightly below a human forearm with a hand. > This artificial muscles robotic arm is operated by water and consumes 200W at peak The ideal consumption necessary to raise this 7 kg dumbbell by 1 meter in 1 second is 7 watts. Human muscle is about 20% efficient, so it probably consumes about 35 watts. Almost a tenth the power. A human arm can also achieve about double the maximum output of that robotic arm: for instance this crank[0] offers 400 W max, with a more typical 50 W sustained output. > achieve human immortallity [sic] by transplanting the brain into the machine That feels like a stretch, given the complex needs of a brain (not just in glucose fed through veins, but also immunity protection and so much more). Brain transplant into an organic body seems easier, and even that does not address the fact that brain cells themselves age. [0]: https://www.electricpedals.com/hand-crank-generator https://www.electricpedals.com/hand-crank-generator

KronisLV 5y ago
> Human muscle is about 20% efficient, so it probably consumes about 35 watts. Almost a tenth the power. Being just an order of magnitude away from biology that took millions of years to develop and evolve is really impressive in my eyes! > That feels like a stretch, given the complex needs of a brain (not just in glucose fed through veins, but also immunity protection and so much more). Brain transplant into an organic body seems easier, and even that does not address the fact that brain cells themselves age. That said, this is probably the more reasonable argument. Ideally, eventually we'll just find ways to prevent much of the cell damage with aging - initially it probably won't lead anywhere near "biological immortality" (so it's pretty likely that everyone reading this will die and will cease to exist), but at the very least it'll lead to better quality of life at the more advanced ages and less human suffering overall! Definitely an area that should have anywhere from 10x-100x the resources that have been allotted to it currently. Of course, one can also dream about staving off the eventual and inescapable clutches of entropy, if that allows them to live without existential crises and dread sneaking up on them, as it does with me. Regardless, even advancements in robotics are immensely useful, paving way to everything from improving the quality of life for those who've suffered accidents, are differently abled in various ways, or have other factors that otherwise make their lives more challenging. As for robot transplants or even living transplants, unless you can connect back all of the nerve endings that map roughly to what the host body needs, it's likely that it'd be like being fully paralyzed. In that regard, cryonics would be a better bet, to preserve the human being until the medicine has advanced to the point where any ailments and such can be addressed. Of course, seeing how new and still fledgling (and niche) the industry is, it's unlikely that many if any of the people will ever actually be successfully revived, much like we can't unscramble the brains of mummies in tombs. But hey, if nothing else, it's an interesting pursuit and the trans-humanism movement is always curious to behold. Who doesn't enjoy racking their brains, imagining engineering solutions to problems that no one would have even considered a century ago?
zzzzzzzza 5y ago
> achieve human immortallity [sic] by transplanting the brain into the machine the intuition is that it's probably easier to figure out how to keep a brain alive than an entire body alive
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Brain without a body will feel really weird though.
  - bserge 5y ago
    Yeah, they better connect the "feel" parts to something, otherwise insanity/suicide/murder might ensue.
- spacecity1971 5y ago
  Your intuition is correct, and it’s already been done: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4
jaclaz 5y ago
>The ideal consumption necessary to raise this 7 kg dumbbell by 1 meter in 1 second is 7 watts. You sure? A HP is 75 Kg raised by 1 meter in 1 second (and is roughhy 750 W): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower Raising 1/10th of the weight by same distance in the same time should be 1/10th of that i.e. 70-75 W.
- amelius 5y ago
  energy = force times distance force = 7kg times 10N/kg = 70N (roughly) So yes, more like 70W
  - jaclaz 5y ago
    Good, so if we take for good the mentioned 20% efficiency of human muscles[1], the robotic arm wins largely, as 70W/0.2=350 W vs. the declared 200 W of the robotic arm. (I still doubt that the robotic arm can be almost twice as efficient as a human arm, however, so probably the 20% is not accurate or there is some other factor involved) . [1] which I have no idea if correct even roughly
- progbits 5y ago
  Yeah it is wrong. 68W ideal, assuming pure conversion to potential energy with no loss: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7kg*1m*%289.8m%2Fs%5E2%29+%2F+1s+in+watt https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7kg*1m*%289.8m%2Fs%5E2...

KronisLV 5y ago

> Human muscle is about 20% efficient, so it probably consumes about 35 watts. Almost a tenth the power. Being just an order of magnitude away from biology that took millions of years to develop and evolve is really impressive in my eyes! > That feels like a stretch, given the complex needs of a brain (not just in glucose fed through veins, but also immunity protection and so much more). Brain transplant into an organic body seems easier, and even that does not address the fact that brain cells themselves age. That said, this is probably the more reasonable argument. Ideally, eventually we'll just find ways to prevent much of the cell damage with aging - initially it probably won't lead anywhere near "biological immortality" (so it's pretty likely that everyone reading this will die and will cease to exist), but at the very least it'll lead to better quality of life at the more advanced ages and less human suffering overall! Definitely an area that should have anywhere from 10x-100x the resources that have been allotted to it currently. Of course, one can also dream about staving off the eventual and inescapable clutches of entropy, if that allows them to live without existential crises and dread sneaking up on them, as it does with me. Regardless, even advancements in robotics are immensely useful, paving way to everything from improving the quality of life for those who've suffered accidents, are differently abled in various ways, or have other factors that otherwise make their lives more challenging. As for robot transplants or even living transplants, unless you can connect back all of the nerve endings that map roughly to what the host body needs, it's likely that it'd be like being fully paralyzed. In that regard, cryonics would be a better bet, to preserve the human being until the medicine has advanced to the point where any ailments and such can be addressed. Of course, seeing how new and still fledgling (and niche) the industry is, it's unlikely that many if any of the people will ever actually be successfully revived, much like we can't unscramble the brains of mummies in tombs. But hey, if nothing else, it's an interesting pursuit and the trans-humanism movement is always curious to behold. Who doesn't enjoy racking their brains, imagining engineering solutions to problems that no one would have even considered a century ago?

zzzzzzzza 5y ago

> achieve human immortallity [sic] by transplanting the brain into the machine the intuition is that it's probably easier to figure out how to keep a brain alive than an entire body alive

Aeolun 5y ago
Brain without a body will feel really weird though.
- bserge 5y ago
  Yeah, they better connect the "feel" parts to something, otherwise insanity/suicide/murder might ensue.
spacecity1971 5y ago
Your intuition is correct, and it’s already been done: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4

jaclaz 5y ago

>The ideal consumption necessary to raise this 7 kg dumbbell by 1 meter in 1 second is 7 watts. You sure? A HP is 75 Kg raised by 1 meter in 1 second (and is roughhy 750 W): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower Raising 1/10th of the weight by same distance in the same time should be 1/10th of that i.e. 70-75 W.

amelius 5y ago
energy = force times distance force = 7kg times 10N/kg = 70N (roughly) So yes, more like 70W
- jaclaz 5y ago
  Good, so if we take for good the mentioned 20% efficiency of human muscles[1], the robotic arm wins largely, as 70W/0.2=350 W vs. the declared 200 W of the robotic arm. (I still doubt that the robotic arm can be almost twice as efficient as a human arm, however, so probably the 20% is not accurate or there is some other factor involved) . [1] which I have no idea if correct even roughly
progbits 5y ago
Yeah it is wrong. 68W ideal, assuming pure conversion to potential energy with no loss: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7kg*1m*%289.8m%2Fs%5E2%29+%2F+1s+in+watt https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7kg*1m*%289.8m%2Fs%5E2...