BREAKTHROUGH: Scientists Invent Particles That Will Let You Live Without Breathing

Originally posted by Echtelion
Woa... this means scuba-diving without a scuba, or even air tanks! Can stay at the bottom of the sea for half an hour without breathing... cool.

Oxygen requirements are slightly different depending on metabolism. The amount of oxygen needed to prevent brain damage is a lot lower than that needed to exercise.

There are some other problems with this. The main use for this would be heart attacks, but if the heart stops beating this form of oxygen still wouldn't be able to make it to the brain. And even at 3-4 times as much oxygen as blood, the amount you could realistically inject might not really put a dent in oxygen supply.

Need a shot for the gym.

How about introducing gaseous drugs this way...

reply to post by dogstar23


I'm not looking for the top thread, I'm just one man that is looking to give back what is lost to all.

We are told we need oxygen to live right? Wrong. It turns out that oxygen has a the right amount of electrons to keep us running. This is why orthodox scientist refuse the fact that we are electrical beings.

I'll get you through the basics of how it works. Your lungs act like sponges for electrons, when you breath in, your taking the positive charge of the oxygen and when you breath out your exhaling something stronger, CO2.

So in a basic sense, O2, is a positive charge,

Your lungs are a positive charge,

You take in the O2, and the blood passes through the lungs. They were previously a negative charge, now a positive due to the exchange.

Because of the exchange, the blood is repelled away from the lungs and the CO2 is exhaled out.

But to the Main Reason Why We Can Live Without Oxygen.

Like I said on how we are electrical being, and like electricity it needs a source. We can live without food or water even air. But because I'm typing this, I'm forced back to the basic breath in and breath out.

If there was a source so strong on the outside that was giving all of this (real word) life-force, then there will be no need for food, water, or air.

How so? Like oxygen, it has a positive charge, if you stop breathing, you'll feel cut off from your source, and will feel like dying. But if there was an everlasting source, then breathing is a burden.

Monks, people that focus only on meditation, and any of those who feel at peace, have the chance to never breath for however long they want.

But if scientist really want to do this, then do it with an outside source.

This may be a lot to take in, but I question; Why do I have to rely on a needle that injects a possible poison when I can do it in my room in a week, undisturbed?

Live?

15 minutes is not living.

Also -- this doesn't release the CO2 - you still have to breathe that out. It's an emergency technique for people whose lungs stopped working. In that situation it might have a use.

However, I wouldn't want to be injecting O2 directly in the blood stream as it will react with cells in unpredictable ways (e.g. Oxygen free radicals). Better to have O2 get inside a red blood cell than float around outside of one.

So this is just a novel application -- a brute force technique to get O2 into a person's body. This won't allow you to live on the bottom of the ocean or anything.

Originally posted by Dreamer99
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Considering this tech is in its infancy, I would think that in time scientists will discover a way of making this last far longer than 30 minutes. Imagine the potential applications of something like this, especially if they could make it last indefinitely.

Astronauts, for instance, may not even need to breathe. Instead they may get a shot once or twice a day. They can bring the oxygen levels down in the shuttle, reducing the risk of fire to zero.

Divers, firefighters, and mountain climbers would carry this on them always, not to mention lifeguards, EMT's, and soldiers.

So many ways this could save so many lives. We live in an amazing time, technologically speaking.

It lasts as long as there is a drip, it's just without a lung they have no way to get the carbon dioxide out.

This is 50% of the tech. If they could get the carbon dioxide out, we literally wouldn't need lungs anymore.


The 30 minute timer they have, is 30 minutes to get the lung to work to release the carbon dioxide. If this tech could be scaled down and isn't big and bulky, scuba divers could hook up a drip on the inside of the wetsuit and all they would have to do is exhale.

No need to big O2 tanks. But we don't know how these micro particles are stored.. the way they make it sound though, is that it's a shot.

If it's a shot, than the volume is small.

If the volume is small, you can say good bye to heavy pressurized tanks, and say hello to a small hip pack. Then think if you had a controlled drip... if 30 minutes a shot... you could have hours of underwater time in the size of a fanny pack.

This would work for firefighters too... they wouldn't need to breathe in, only out, so the smoke would be a non issue.


This could end up better in principle than a re-breather (not more efficient, however.)

However, the nature of a lung, is it must be inflated to have pressure to deflate.

I.E.

You can't breathe out with a deflated lung. So they'd have to solve that problem too.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Oxygen isn't there to balance us electrically -- and the air we breathe in USUALLY doesn't have a net electrical charge as these molecules are bound in structures. Oxygen without bound atoms is usually a net negative charge BTW.

We have respiration primarily because of the ATP cycle -- it's the conversion of the carbs we eat into energy. Mitochondria help our cells break down carbs faster, and cells the our muscles produce lactic acid and CO2 as a byproduct. If you didn't "breathe" you couldn't get rid of the excess CO2. There are aerobic and anaerobic (without oxygen) energy systems but we usually use aerobic until that energy gets depleted. Sore muscles arrive more often after anaerobic exercise.

Beyond just being at peace, you'd also have to find a way to create energy in your cells without the ATP cycle as your cells don't run on electricity.

Your need to breathe is an instinctual reflex brought on by the build-up of CO2 which occurs quite a bit before you desperately need to bring in more O2.

I've heard this idea of not needing food before. However, you'd have to find a way to stop growing hair and losing skin and having metabolic processes to accomplish this. The "not breathing" concept, is a new one -- but it sounds a bit trickier than the "use the energy of the cosmos to go without eating." So I'd start with the EASIER miracles and work my way up.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Because medics don't want to have to put dying patients in their room for a week and hope that they wont need to breath. I would trust the idea of these injections a lot more than your idea. But it's amazing that you haven't been given a noble prize for your amazing breakthrough.

So do you think this would take away the instinct to breath? Assuming you're holding your breath, or would the fact your body already has the oxygen take away that instinct?

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


yeah, try it. let us know how it went. lol.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Good News and a great post.
Wont be long b4 humans can imitate fish and swim like them.

Wouldn't this help keep the brain oxygenated thereby
making brain transplants possible?

Originally posted by Thunderheart
Wouldn't this help keep the brain oxygenated thereby
making brain transplants possible?

The issue is tissue rejection and connect the blood supply to the brain. You could keep a brain alive by mechanically feeding oxygen and nutrients to it but why if it is going to be deaf, dumb, blind and disjointed while fully conscious. That would be a frigging nightmare.

Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by DARREN1976

 

You wouldn't flash freeze in space.... How can you freeze in a vaccum, if you are producing heat through metabolism... It takes a considerably long time for objects to cool down in space, strikingly enough the bigger concern would be burning due to solar radiation, there is absolutely nothing to protect you from the solar radiation.
Space is a vaccuum( so we are told) so with out particles to transfer heat energy away from your body, it would be very unlikely that you would " flash freeze." If you look into any of the space suits to protect astronauts, almost all of the technology is there to protect astronauts from extreme heat, not the latter.

"Heat does not transfer out of the body very rapidly in the absence of a medium such as air or water, so freezing to death is not an immediate risk in outer space despite the extreme cold."


www.damninteresting.com...

edit on 6/30/2012 by Ilyich because: (no reason given)

Thank you for pointing that out, although I didnt mean flash freeze literally, obviously a bad choice of words on my part, just meant that cold would be a factor as well, and you came up with another issue involving "freefall" bareback, as it where, and thats the radiation problem!!

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by BIHOTZ

 

Obesity is rampant in this country. We sure do need the lastest weight loss drug. Obesity is a killer.

I disagree - obesity is, in most cases, by choice, which is why people are more interested in treatments which could help anyone who has a tragedy happen where they are unable to breathe. Weight-loss drugs are just tools to help the lazy temporarily lose weight, usually without any move toward improving nutrition.

Yes, obesity is a killer, and diabetes costs me thousands of dollars annually (nobody in my family has it, but a big part of our health insurance costs is to pay for the eating habits / lack of exercise of others), but more drugs is not the answer. Every drug has its drawbacks, and should never be taken when a behavioral change could do the job for 99% of patients. Yes, I realize pharmacies would go under, and "Big "Pharma" wouldn't be so big anymore, but better that a few darkside businesses go under than a nation's drug dependency worsens simply he ause the populace has become too weak-minded and uneducated.

So diabetes only strikes the obese and it's their fault your premiums are so high? Talk about weak-minded and uneducated. Nazi much?

There are genes that cause diabetes that also predispose people to become obese. It kind of goes hand-in-hand in many cases; obese because diabetic. Hard to avoid. Easy targets for blame though, so nice going.

There are diabetics that aren't obese that still require the drugs. What do you say to them? Die so my premiums can go down, i know you're not fat but you're still a burden on me? Who will you blame next? People with MS, or cancer, or anemia? Anyone with a chronic illness that is not on your blame list?

Stay on-topic mate, or did you just come here for a good rant? Because if so, then they have a good rant forum for that.

reply to post by curiousrb


it's not mine, some else made it possible and all I did was learn the physics of it.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Here is your re-sized avatar.