They do that stuff at work. The issue is, the experiments are pushing out petabytes of data, storing extabytes, and they are developing AI to sort through it all.
When I first realized I was gluten intolerant, the existing medical literature did not have my symptoms listed. My doc was smart enough to not crush me like a bug, despite my not being medically trained. He basically tossed a cheap shot at me, causing endless laughter..."if it hurts when you do that, well, don't do that".
Fast forward two decades...my symptoms are now on the list.
One issue I worry about is the tele-surgery. I'm not ready to go under the knife with the doc any further away than 2 inches. Comm breakdown, power outage, our infrastructure is not so robust that I would want to risk my life just yet.
I also worry bout the younguns writing the code for the remote robots... When I ask them how they limit the maximum speed the arm can move, they say "simple, I just code in a limit". Wonderful..
I ask em what happens if the encoder locks up at a value and doesn't set the error bit high? They respond...what's an encoder?
Jn
Last edited:
Yah, at least the discussion of the controversial subjects is allowed here.......I was getting deleted and warned of banishment from another audio forum before I came here.
I left before I gave them the satisfaction.....funny thing is the forum exists to support their online sales, they lost a good $3-$4k a year from me which will never return. Enough losses like like that would certainly effect the bottom line.
So in other words, all the harassment here is certainly worth the chance to at least be heard. 🙂
It is considered malpractice in most places for a doctor to treat you who has never personally examined you (telemedicine is something we could discuss too if anyone wants to get into that). After you visit Auburn and we do some listening together I will know if you are a trusted listener or not.
Having worked on two different robotic surgery platforms, I can assure you the people involved know what encoders are and the systems have incredible amounts of redundancy. I’m not sure you’ve talked to anyone involved with anything if that’s the answer you got.
Maybe ask Mark, he was the latest to bring it up in a non-BS context, something to do with the perceptions of "trusted" listeners, which is ironic don't you think?
Last edited:
I worry that assumptions are made when the tech gets sufficiently complex that people like higher level coders have no understanding of the underlying tech.
I'm sure the level of safety you speak of is the intent, and that an organization doesn't drop their guard when it comes to safety. In this day and age, some orgs try to go lean cost wise as production ramps, and sometimes they get bit. I hope that never happens, but remain wary.
Absolutely trusting an encoder only is never a great thing, as mechanical and electrical problems can arise. Software as well, s##t happens.
I work on quadruple redundant systems, and yet Murphy still lives.
However, to your point, I refer to coders at my work, not coders involved in medical robots. I am quite sure you are correct in the level of care taken in that industry.
Last edited:
Are you qualified? Sorry, I'm not gullible enough to fall for grooming experience only.
I wasn’t responsible for kinematics or motor control but you’ll find there’s basically redundancy everywhere in these systems and many failsafes. Multiple encoders on every motor, pose calculated at kHz rates, battery backup for the entire system, redundant processors to compare all critical calculations, etc. You’re right that anything can happen, but from what I’ve seen the risk analysis is quite comprehensive. The systems themselves sell for around 2 million each, but they really don’t care about the cost per unit because it’s the old razor blade model with consumables.
Now, the unfortunate thing is there is no real evidence that robotic surgery is associated with better patient outcomes than conventional laparoscopy. It’s getting pushed hard, though. Manufacturers like Intuitive have invested a lot in training and marketing.
I sat and watched 5 laparoscopic porcine cholecystectomy procedures for evaluation of the video path on one product, and I have a hard time believing these surgeons would maintain the same level of dexterity when using the hand controls on the console.
You are far too gullible in believing your own imagination. There is no grooming.
As I mentioned, a big concern is when an organization tries to go lean, there is only so much that can be trimmed before a critical point is reached. The desire to cut production cost is a big driver.
Jn
Yes, because Boeing seems completely mismanaged. It’s not only the skill level of the individual contributors that determine the quality of the output.
The relationship between the regulatory agencies is not the same either. Boeing appears to have been dictating to the FAA, whereas the FDA is not there to be your friend in my experience.
The FDA is not perfect, and IMO they do a crappy job on Class II devices, but certain types of devices get a lot of scrutiny and robotic surgery systems are one of them.
Last edited:
I've seen a lot in that field too and would agree. However, IME occasionally there have been some anomalies and or accidents. In some case engineers can't believe reported events actually happened, sometimes they are in denial the equipment could be at fault. Once reports come in from multiple customer sites and or after they see anomalous behavior for themselves, then they get busy and fix the problems.
ScottJ,
When the engineers see such unexpected things for themselves, it is not because they have been 'groomed' to do so.
.
Concur on the vast majority.. That said, one system I worked on (because of loss of control) had a load encoder, a motor encoder, 2khz servo cycle...and it failed nonetheless when there was a mechanical detach between end effector and the final encoder. On another, the end encoder locked position readout yet coders did not think to examine the motor encoder. I forced them to double the control loops, using one to calculate open loop position and compare it to encoder reported position and desired position. Encoder actually locked 1 nanometer away from set point and the loop integrated that error, slowly walking the system away from true desired position. All the while, motor encoder kept telling the system it was rotating.
It will take a long while, I'm sure.
Totally agree. I think tactile feedback is very important. But one of the seminar speakers did indicate that tactile feedback was being integrated in their remote surgery systems.
I do admit, when I'm doing hand work at 60x under the binocular scope, unaugmented tactile feedback is almost worthless, it is a big learning curve.
Jn
Last edited:
I don't know, Scott. The only listener I really trust is myself. And my confidence is very limited ;-)
What is strange is it lead me to an totally opposite position than some people, here.
When something I hear is obvious and reproducible, I don't need any other opinion. I follow my path.
For everything else (at the limit) I'm very interested by other's reports. Just to understand where I have to focus. And always experience by myself to make my opinion.
What is curious is that subjective listening reports seems problematic on this forum, and it seems that it is difficult to agree on feelings.
In the mixing studios, we work as a team, we exchange about these feelings, and we have, most of the time, no difficulty in agreeing.
As Mark seems to be very involved in DAC's sonic characters, I would be very interested if he could express the "feelings" behind his experiences. As these are fragile and somewhat personal things, it is not possible in the midst of the noises of a hostile crowd.
It frustrates me. This does not mean that I will follow his views blindly, but it would allow me to know where to direct my attention, reading between the lines. It is a domain in which I'm not enough experienced, for financial reasons.
The last thing I need is the admonitions from censors explaining that two DACs that perform well enough on the measurements sound the same. For a simple reason, my personal experience tells me otherwise.
Last edited:
At least one of the systems I worked on has force feedback to the hand controls, but it’s not really for general movements and more to let the surgeon know they are pressing against tissue. Movements with wristed instruments seem like they would be unnatural with the hand controls but I only played with them a few times. I’m sure it can be trained.
Watching multiple surgeons perform the same task is enlightening. I can tell you who I wouldn’t want operating on me 😛.
Mostly we listen for audible technical defects (we, meaning myself and my local trusted listeners). In terms of feelings, a great dac should be a pleasure to listen to no matter what kind of music is being played. It is the rendering of reality or lack thereof. Reason some people seem to like pre-SD dacs is because of something about the way they reproduce certain aspects of sound that is better than the way SD dacs do it. Of course they are much worse than SD dacs in other regards. The challenge has been to make a dac with the good things about SD dacs and the good things about the best pre-SD dacs. I'm getting closer to that, but still some details to work out.
About the time I am satisfied with it, a new dac chip may come out that will make it much simpler to get equally good or better sound quality. Rohm is the company I am thinking of. Luxman's newly announced high end dac will feature the Rohm chip in a roughly $10,000 dac product. The Rohm evaluation board looks much simpler than the AK4499 eval board. Very interesting to see what happens there. Can't get a Rohm eval board or sample chips here yet.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.