Re:Hacked Raspberry Pi turned into artificial pancreas
by rhinoceraptor on Friday August 28, 2015 @11:47AM
(#10136087)
I had enough problems running one that was hooked up to the wall, running it on batteries just increases the chances of an SD card/file system failure.
They could make the thing a lot more fault tolerant if they set up its fstab to mount the file system read only, and run in memory.
Re:Hacked Raspberry Pi turned into artificial pancreas
by natebleker on Friday August 28, 2015 @09:50AM
(#10135368)
I've had some mixed success with Raspberry Pi's spontaneously failing as well. This is perfect opportunity for a dual or triple redundancy lockstep MCU to take the place of the Raspberry Pi.
Re:Hacked Raspberry Pi turned into artificial pancreas
by userbinator on Friday August 28, 2015 @09:33AM
(#10135262)
I agree, this is a job more suited to a simple 8 or 16-bit micro without any OS.
Re:Hacked Raspberry Pi turned into artificial pancreas
by rmhsilva on Friday August 28, 2015 @10:25AM
(#10135565)
These days you may as well use a 32bit micro, in terms of cost, toolchain and silicon ability.
The extra dollar you spend on those 16bits easily pays for itself in the extra features you often get with modern 32bit micros.
Especially something like this where you might want to do relatively complex maths / algorithms.
e.g. see the stm32 family
Re:Hacked Raspberry Pi turned into artificial pancreas
by jasonoliveira on Sunday August 30, 2015 @02:21PM
(#10144084)
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?tag=mediatek
Re:Hacked Raspberry Pi turned into artificial pancreas
by afarrell on Friday August 28, 2015 @09:48AM
(#10135358)
At the same time, this is a really cool hobby project that someone interested in a future developing medical devices could try to replicate as they are learning.
Re:Hacked Raspberry Pi turned into artificial pancreas
by OopsCriticality on Friday August 28, 2015 @01:13PM
(#10136663)
I sure hope not.
This is an interesting personal project, but it is far from how medical devices should be (and are) developed. Where is the risk analysis, for example? Or the FMEA? Was the software developed under ISO 62304? Etc.
There's a lot of activity that happens in a regulated industry that is completely missing here, which is why I see this as a poor example.
It may work 95% of the time, but that's not good enough. There's a reason really good medical devices are based on simpler platforms that are more robust.