81–90 of 91 posts
First thing I thought when I saw the title was: Linux, apache, mysql, php...
I'm not sure why you were downvoted, as I bypassed the article probably at least a couple times before realizing that it didn't say "Lamp Server" and just said "Lamp".
It's powered by a human lifting the weight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People couldn't lift the weight without consuming energy from food. Doesn't mean that it's powered by food. The machine converts gravitational potential energy to electromagnetic radiation. People generate the gravitational potential energy by lifting the weight using kinetic energy, which was likewise created by converting chemical energy. It's easier just to say "Gravity" because, without gravity, it wouldn't work…
I suppose it all ultimately comes from solar energy, which, in turn, comes from nuclear fusion.
The ingredients needed for fusion on the other hand are thought to have been created during the some of the early stages of the Big bang so fusion is truly independent of stars.
I use kerosene lights by choice in the winter in weeks like this one when there is no sunshine. So, here's my firstish world problems take on it. May not apply to people for whom a gallon of kerosine is a significant fraction of their monthly income. I have a hard time seeing myself using something like this, except as task lighting. I'd be fine to have to lift a weight if I was only going to be using the kitchen for…
This idea just hit me, and it's so powerful I'm still reeling. What if someone built a battery-powered weight lifter that would go off every 1/2 hour? You wouldn't have to keep getting up to do it yourself! Not sure if I should patent this, or just donate it to the greater good of mankind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's assuming a perfectly efficient dynamo and no mechanical losses. (Which are both huge assumptions.)
Exactly, and since they state that they think they can make it twice as efficient, that would mean they run at max 50% now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if you used a sufficient number to light a room you would have to hire people to lift the weights continuously, and if you have to to that, it would be far more efficient if you hired them to generate electricity using a pedal powered generator, because that is still the most efficient way to transform human labor into electricity. Come to think of it, pedalling for the time it takes to lift the weight and ch…
Like others have said, this is in no way a replacement for a pedal-powered generator, nor is it a replacement for a standing lamp. It's for folks in developing countries who would gladly trade lifting a pound or two of weight for 30 minutes of dim light. Be cynical about the math, sure, but if the math works, don't assume technology is useless because it doesn't have a place in a 25 year old's San Francisco apartment…
It's not being cynical to say "It doesn't work". Cynical would be to dismiss it without even checking. We gave it a full consideration, ran the numbers, and realized: It doesn't, and Can not, work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like others have said, this is in no way a replacement for a pedal-powered generator, nor is it a replacement for a standing lamp. It's for folks in developing countries who would gladly trade lifting a pound or two of weight for 30 minutes of dim light. Be cynical about the math, sure, but if the math works, don't assume technology is useless because it doesn't have a place in a 25 year old's San Francisco apartment…
A pound of two? We are talking about 50 pounds, every 30 minutes, for very dim lighting. It's not being cynical to say "It doesn't work". Cynical would be to dismiss it without even checking. We gave it a full consideration, ran the numbers, and realized: It doesn't, and Can not, work.
The numbers don't show that; that's your subjective judgment based on the numbers. But the judgment that matters is not yours, but that of the potential users. It's up to them to decide whether this is better for them than a kerosene lamp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hurts to look at it because it's focused into a very narrow beam. Very bright sure - in one tiny spot, and totally useless to illuminate a room. They even include a photo of the beam pattern - it's almost as focused as a laser. (You can tell on an LED by looking a the top - round tops are focused, flat ones spread out.)
That's fine! It's enough to read a book or do homework after the sun sets. We're not talking first-world style lighting; we're talking about a $5 light that is better than sitting in the dark because you have no electricity and ran out of kerosene to burn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can adjust the ballast weight and the height; instead of 20 kg over 1 meter, how about 30 kg over 2 meters? That's a factor of 3 difference.
How many people can lift 30kg 2 meters up? How about doing it continuously? You're also forgetting that it require human energy to power it, which requires food, which is usually more expensive than batteries or gasoline or kerosine.
Lifting 30 kg 2 meters requires about 600 Joules. If it takes 10 seconds to do it, using some kind of pulley arrangement, that's 60 Watts, which is not a strenuous level of effort for a human.
How about doing it continuously?
One 10-second lift every 30 minutes is not "continuously". Also, it would only have to be done when light was needed, i.e., during non-daylight hours when people were not asleep.
it require human energy to power it, which requires food
Humans require food whether they're lifting ballast to power lights or not. How much additional food would they require, if we assume that the entire energy required for the lights is added on (i.e., none of it gets shifted from other forms of exercise)? Let's see.
Suppose the light is in use for 4 hours a day; that means the weight gets lifted 8 times, for a total energy of 4800 Joules. One food calorie (which is actually a kilocalorie) is 4180 Joules. So we're talking less than 1.2 calories per day. What's that, an extra pellet or two of rice?