Jump to content

Talk:Artificial heart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Krishnadevaraya (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 19 April 2008 (Recent Developments: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMedicine Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Template:MedportalSA

An IP unlk'd Tom Christerson for lack of an article. Note that FindAGrave has enuf info for a stub.
--Jerzyt 05:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power needs

If there is a professional on the subject, what is the major problem in electrical power from the body?

  • Not an expert, but the human body only produces small voltages (couple of millivolts) and currents, not enough to power a device (otherwise we'd fashion instruments to charge our cell phones from our skin). Also, there's the matter of harnessing the energy since it's usually in the form of chemical energy. The only electrical "energy" available in the body is through action potentials, usually used for "signalling" (neurons, muscles), not "powering" them (which is done by ATP and other chemical reactions). Wikipedia brown 03:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense?

"On July 2, 2001, Robert Tools received the first completely self-contained artificial heart transplant in a surgery done by University of Louisville doctors at Jewish Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky. It is called the AbioCor Implantable Replacement Heart. Tom Christerson survived for 17 months after his artificial heart transplant."

First, the AbioCor implantable heart part is badly worded and in the wrong place, perhaps it should be added to the first sentence ("the heart implanted in Robert Tools at Louisville was the AbioCor Impla.." for example). Secondly, what does Tom Christerson have to do with it? I'm glad he lived 17 months after his transplant, but is that the longest survival rate on record, or was his surgery also at UofL? The whole paragraph reads like nonsense. 70.35.227.160 11:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heartmate II

This article needs some more development. Here's a link to a new device, recently implanted in a human. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17523&ch=biotech 69.49.44.11 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invention of Artificial Heart

According to "Total Artificial Heart" by O. H. Frazier/ Nyma A. Shah/ Timothy J. Myers, the inventors of this device are different. The authors use some references to their claims which I cannot have access to. Would someone who has this privilege check if the information they provided is accurate and if it is, can this article be modified to honor the real inventors?

Thanks in advance,

Hievda Ugur hievdaugur@engineering.ucsb.edu Undergraduate student Chemical Engineering Department, University of California, Santa Barbara —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.34.163 (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Winchell Bunk Needs Fixing

The tale of voice actor Paul Winchell inventing the artificial heart seems to be thoroughly debunked on the Winchell page. I'm not quite sure how to clean this up - the legend should still be mentioned, but then that begs the question of who was first? I'm marking it "dubious," hope someone beats me to fixing it.stephan.com 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some clean-up

I don't know how to work with the formatting, but refs 4 and 5 are the same sources used in multiple areas of the page. The same is true for 18 and 19. I don't know how this works: 4a, 4b? If someone can please repair this minor formatting problem. Thans. --NjEdelman 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Developments

Hi How can Asia's first artificial heart transplantation be a recent development in the field's body of knowledge? It could be news of significant importance for the hospital and the interested parties. Unless there is some procedural innovation or development, it should not be placed under the recent development sub-heading. Please elaborate that it's a recent development otherwise this will be moved to another section. Cheers, Krish