X-Message-Number: 28349
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:08:37 -0700
From: elliott <>
Subject: Re: Mechanical CPS


Have you seen the commercially available robotic CPR (not CPS)
devices?  See pricture at:

Excerpt from above:

Staffordshire Ambulance NHS Trust has become the first to fully equip around 100
ambulances and fast response cars with the Lucas CPR system, a robot that can 
perform automated CPR. 

According to the Daily Mail, the  6,000 
can perform CPR, powered by either compresses oxygen or air. Its chief 
advantage is its longevity -- it can keep going as long as its fuel spply rns 
out, and do it in a controlled manner, unlike a human. 

CPR using the device has gone on for at least an hour, the Mail reports
-John Elliott

At 02:00 AM 8/24/2006, you wrote:
>Message #28346
>From: "Jordan Sparks" <>
>Subject: Mechanical CPS
>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:14:48 -0700
>I have been considering how to best use the pneumatic piston.  I think that
>instead of using the push stroke, I will utilize the pull stroke.  Standard
>cylinders come with ports for both push and pull.  I will lay the cylinder
>down horizontally across the chest, and hook the ends to a wide strap that
>goes under the patient.  Cinch the strap down, and it's ready to go.  Each
>pull stroke will squeeze the entire chest.  This solves the problem of the
>cylinder sticking up vertically and trying to keep it from slipping off.
>One problem will be that the curvature of the chest will cause the middle
>portion of the cylinder to push tightly against the chest and will also put
>a lot of strain on the ends.  Not a great mechanical situation.  So I might
>put the cylinder on a flat board with a roller on the end to guide the strap
>into the perfect mechanically correct position.  Two cylinders of smaller
>diameter working in parallel might be better than one. 
>Jordan Sparks

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28349