×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

119 comments

first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33582030)

would have posted earlier, but slashdot was down.

Re:first post (2, Funny)

ohiovr (1859814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582088)

If only data centers could be powered by forum posts like this. Theres an unlimited supply to draw from.

Infinite power (4, Funny)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582042)

Geez if I could hook up a storage battery and wire it to my wife I could go off grid.

Re:Infinite power (2, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582058)

Congress could power the whole country.

Re:Infinite power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33584272)

It runs on noise, not hot air.

Re:Infinite power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33586548)

Then a steam turbine will get the job done. Either way, the end result is the same.

Re:Infinite power (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33586078)

Lets wire something to the whores pussy. :)

Traffic solution? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582050)

People who live near highways and main roads know how hard it is to get rid of traffic noise... if such a system catches 100% sound wave, that's a wave that dies at that point and is no longer heard. And, if that gets converted back to power, that's worth something in money.

Just remember Newton's Law of Energy Conservation... and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.

Re:Traffic solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33582194)

Noether's Theorem is energy conservation. Newton didn't have a clue.

Re:Traffic solution? (4, Informative)

Lotana (842533) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582376)

...and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.

Stealing? Are you trying to troll by attempting to get people outraged that the device powers from the sound generated due to inefficiency of your vehicle?

It is technically true, the energy of the sound does comes from your fuel tank. But remember that your car would still be expanding just as much energy on generating the noise whether or not there is any sound-gathering device around. Driving on the country road in the middle of nowhere will not increase your fuel efficiency.

Really the term "stealing" is completely invalid in this case. Now if the headline was about some fancy road surface that converted traction into energy then you would be absolutely correct, because it would adversely affect the performance of your vehicle, thus increasing its energy expenditure, thus stealing from your fuel tank.

Re:Traffic solution? (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583620)

Tell that to the people who demand to be compensated for their positive externalities [wikipedia.org] such as people who own patents, and people who pay (via tax/etc) for public services. None of these people like your argument because they bare all the cost, while others benefit from it.

Also, people who demand to be compensated for others negative externalities [wikipedia.org] such as people who live near a polluting factory, and people who want to protect the environment. None of these people like your argument because if the costs and benefits aren't shared "equitably" between the 2 parties, then they suddenly lose a lot of their ability to impose the costs they calculate, on others.

This is the problem with externalities and the law. I'm sure that I could find many instances which would show you're not logically consistent, and are only separating this from other instances because you personally feel/perceive that this is different.

Re:Traffic solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33586524)

I don't think he's saying people would complain that you are generating power from their car's noise. He's just pointing out that if your phone is voice powered (rather than noise powered only while off a call) then your call quality will be terrible.

Re:Traffic solution? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582424)

Just remember Newton's Law of Energy Conservation... and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.

It's not, it's recapturing wasted energy. The gas is expended producing those sound waves regardless of whether energy is harvested from them or not.

This is very different from, say, harvesting electricity from a power line.

Re:Traffic solution? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583724)

Actually, driving over a power capturing road surface may cause your car to expend more energy than it would otherwise IF the road has more "give" than a non-capturing road.

The sound re-capture doesn't seem to have that drawback. It's not as if the car will make extra noise to fill the vacuum.

Re:Traffic solution? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582458)

if such a system catches 100% sound wave, that's a wave that dies at that point and is no longer heard. And, if that gets converted back to power, that's worth something in money.

Who cares about 100%? If you can harvest a tiny fraction of energy that someone else is paying for, then you get that energy for free where it would otherwise go to waste.

Just remember Newton's Law of Energy Conservation... and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.

Not stealing any more than you would otherwise expend. It's just harvesting what you waste in the form of sound.

This is sound waves that are coming out from you already ... it's not like a mechanical system which in a small way transfers some of your energy; so it's not embedded in the road. It's next to it (probably in lots of places I should think.)

I'm pretty sure this in no way can be considered to be stealing from someone's gas tank, however indirectly since it doesn't actually increase the energy usage.

Re:Traffic solution? (2, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583738)

Many would consider it to be recovering some bit of the peace and quiet the passing cars despoil.

Re:Traffic solution? (1)

Atryn (528846) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585456)

Who cares about 100%? If you can harvest a tiny fraction of energy that someone else is paying for, then you get that energy for free where it would otherwise go to waste.

Not to get too picky about it, but remember that the "tiny fraction" you harvest isn't "free". It needs to be worth at least enough to pay for the harvesting equipment, technology, deployment, maintenance, energy storage and transmission costs.

If we're talking about tearing up existing roads to install something and then also stopping traffic any time it breaks or needs service then most DOT's can tell you it had better have a LONG life with LITTLE chance of failure... The costs for road crews and the economic costs of traffic disruption are not negligible.

Re:Traffic solution? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589368)

Since it would be using WASTE SOUND ENERGY, then no it's not 'stealing' gas. Let me know when the force a reduction i efficiency to support sound wave energy, then it will be indirectly costing you money,

In fact, and device that capturer waste energy in any form doesn't cost you a damn thing in the way of gas consumption.

In some case it can SAVE you money. Like using it on a ramp for care going down. It means less wear on brakes.

And just so you know, 20% reduction in sound from traffic is worth something... A lot, actually.

How about (1)

ohiovr (1859814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582070)

A cell phone powered by radio waves? Like a crystal radio? The speaker would suck but hey.. at least the electronics mig

Re:How about (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582510)

A one-way cell phone would be useless. Crystal radios are just receivers. You need to transmit.

I could go one better (2, Funny)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582076)

Just make a phone that, while making a call, recharges its battery from the motion of the car. You've got a lot more energy to work with there than just sound energy, especially if you can derive energy from sudden stops.

Re:I could go one better (1)

LiquidLink57 (1864484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582188)

I think I might have seen this kind of futuristic technology somewhere... http://www.google.com/products?q=cell+phone+car+charger&hl=en&aq=f [google.com]

Re:I could go one better (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582278)

(I was going for a joke around the idea that the cellphone ecourages you to be on the phone while driving, with the power source being the physical motion, not from the car battery)

Great idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33582100)

The teenagers around here seem to think it's their 5K watts sound systems that makes their car moves anyway.

Great (4, Funny)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582122)

SORRY I'M YELLING, MY BATTERY IS LOW!!!

(off-topic lowercase to side-step /. yelling filters here)

The practical applications are impressive. (1)

Flamekebab (873945) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582138)

There may not be enough sun here in the UK to make solar panels that effective, but given the high population density and the tight layout of our cities, this kind of technology could be incredibly useful. If it can absorb noise it'd be great, if it can actually put the energy to use that'd be fantastic.

Re:The practical applications are impressive. (1)

jdoverholt (1229898) | more than 3 years ago | (#33586802)

I'm envisioning (haven't read the article) plates that you can buy and affix to your house, converting that nasty road noise into beautiful silence and free energy.

Old news (1)

jcwayne (995747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582140)

Wow, sound-powered phones [wikipedia.org]!

Re:Old news (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582252)

That was my thought, too. And, unless my memory's wrong, there's not enough power involved for a cell phone. Of course, my familiarity with them is from almost forty years ago, so I wouldn't argue the point if anybody disagrees.

Bogus (5, Informative)

dtmos (447842) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582182)

This is a bogus story that wanders around every now and then. Cell phones require hundreds of milliwatts of transmit power, an amount of power far beyond what the human voice can achieve -- even at 100% conversion efficiency.

Re:Bogus (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582284)

Presumably there would be a battery involved and the ambient noise would constantly charge the battery. I doubt anyone is claiming that you could just use one without a battery to talk for an infinite amount of time.

Re:Bogus (2, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582334)

You're completely misunderstanding how it works. A. The human voice produces a hell of a lot more power than a cellphone, you can disagree if you want but it's not even relevant because: B. Ambient noise. It's not just you powering the device, it's everything that makes noise around you. and then, don't forget: C. Energy over time. It's charging it all day long, even when you're not on the phone. They aren't talking about you literally powering the phone as you talk. They are talking about a device on the phone that helps recharge the battery as you talk. Just like breaks on electric cars recovering the breaking energy aren't going to power the car entirely, but they certainly will help make the battery last longer.

Re:Bogus (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33582482)

It's BRAKE you goddamn fucking moron.

Re:Bogus (5, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582514)

The human voice produces a hell of a lot more power than a cellphone, you can disagree if you want

Well, a human shouting is about 1 mW. A cell phone's antenna outputs in the ballpark of 250 mW.

Some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that if the entire area of a cell phone could pick up sound energy, the ambient sound level was at the pain threshold of 120 dB (1 W/m^w), and it achieved 100% energy conversion, this would generate about 15 mW. For just the 250 mW antenna, this means about 90 minutes of talk time per 24 hours exposure.

120 dB is very loud, and a far cry from how much sound a phone would normally be exposed to. Note that sound is measured on a logarithmic scale. If the phone was constantly exposed to 60 dB of sound, then it'd only generate 15 nanowatts.

Re:Bogus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33582660)

Just from his point A you get the feeling he's utterly and blithely pig-ignorant of simple physical reality. Probably a software moron too. Judging by his inability to spell "brakes", I'm *sure* he's a software moron. God save us from software morons!

Re:Bogus (1)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583136)

I was looking into this at one point and my numbers came up pretty much in line with Blueg3's. There just isn't enough power in sound to really provide significant mWh. No matter how advanced the collection technology if the power isn't there to start with you aren't going to get far.

Re:Bogus (2, Interesting)

complete loony (663508) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583144)

But could you use this trickle of energy to reduce or eliminate the battery drain when the phone is idle?

Re:Bogus (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583230)

Reduce, perhaps, but judging from the minimal amount of power available, you'd probably be better off throwing away the complex sound-harvesting technology and replacing it with a simple larger battery.

Re:Bogus (2, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33586512)

Not really. All of my estimates are very high (conversion of 100%, entire phone is covered in the sound-converting material, etc.), but the ambient noise level is the problem. In a crowded place like a restaurant, you're talking about maybe 60 dB of sound. An entire day's exposure to 60 dB of sound would get you less than 1 microwatt-hour. That's a uselessly tiny fraction of a battery's storage.

How loud is 120 DB? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583580)

As for clarification, 120 DB of sound is about like standing next to a jet engine at full power, or near the speakers at a rock concert. It's not "quite loud", it's painfully so.

Re:How loud is 120 DB? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33583998)

my chainsaw has 118dB @ 1m (it's a big one). Great, i don't need to charge my phone, just carry the battery-free sound-harvesting phone and a 7.3kg chainsaw, and gun that while i make a quick call to the ear clinic complaining about deafness.

Re:Bogus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33588756)

Well, a human shouting is about 1 mW. A cell phone's antenna outputs in the ballpark of 250 mW.

While this is true, you can convince another human to do far more than 1mW of work by shouting at them. A better line of research might be in learning how to convince everyone to crank a shaft on their cellphone - or harvesting it from the road Flintstones style + Tesla coils.

Facebook and social engineering to the rescue!

Re:Bogus (1)

Chucky_M (1708842) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583396)

So they would want you to keep the phone on and the microphone working 24x7 because nobody could possibly think of a way to exploit that - right?

1984 - I think they called it a telescreen.

Conservation of Energy (4, Insightful)

NF6X (725054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582190)

If only we could harvest energy from articles about operating multi-watt devices from nanowatt energy sources, all of the world's energy problems would be solved.

Re:Conservation of Energy (2, Funny)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583662)

I suppose we could go around wrapping dead scientists in copper wire...?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to patent the magnetic coffin.

sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33582196)

now I don't have to throw away all my incandescent light bulbs.

People use cell phones for conversations? (2, Insightful)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582204)

Cell phones are for apps, or texting. I didn't realise anyone used them to talk any more, except for members of an evil secret society dedicated to inflicting pain on users of public transport.

No thanks! (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582206)

"Sorry honey, you're about to cut out, just let me move closer to the traffic....hang on a sec, if I jump out in front of this car right here it'll honk and I'll get a power boost.....okay now that that's under control can you please talk a little louder? The traffic here in the middle of the highway is just shocking" *THUD*.

No thanks. Sounds like a bad idea. How efficient could the conversion be anyway? I'd rather a phone that was powered by my own farts. (Can you imagine an amorous conversation on that one?) I think i'll stick to my current phone.

Re:No thanks! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589560)

Yes, taking it to an stupid extreme for stupid people makes this seem like a stupid idea.

The sound waves produced a mild electrical current of about 50 millivolts. The article recognizes the fact that the current state of this technology would not charge cell phones. I suspect it won't work that way;however there are many other used.

Like putting it along walls near freeways and using it to charge a battery that powers LED overhead traffic lights. Because you would have about 30 meters by 3 meters are to use, as oppose to a small area of a cell phone.
So quieter traffic, and less energy being produced at a coal plant.

Hams have done it ... (5, Interesting)

EABinGA (253382) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582212)

A ham operator has built a voice powered radio and has made several long distance contacts with it.

Details are here [aa1tj.com]

Re:Hams have done it ... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583810)

That's pretty impressive! Of course most cellphone users won't be willing to haul a big antenna around and shout in Morse code...

This is a terrible idea (2, Funny)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582214)

So those people on their phones 24/7 (I realize that's a bit of a 90s comment right there, but you know who I mean) will only be rewarded with MORE battery power? They already won't shut up. Damn it.

IT'S CALLED YELLING REALLY LOUD (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582222)

AND ABOUT AS EFFECTIVE.

Re:IT'S CALLED YELLING REALLY LOUD (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583818)

Given how well cellphones work in some areas, yelling might be far more effective.

Apparently people on the train already think this is how their phones work.

It already does (2, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582234)

The phone already taps the energy of sound, if their was no energy in the sound then the microphone would not be able to pick up the sound waves and send the information on.

But even assuming that they can get the device to convert the power to small enough it does not matter, you would need a wide receiver, as the energy dissipates in all directions at a squared rate.
and I would think that even if you converted all the power it would still not even be close to enough.
think about it, you are basically saying the energy taken from a person speaking normally could be used for the same voice to be heard miles away, does not sound like it follows the laws of conservation of energy unless you think that it will be operating at 100% efficiency.

Re:It already does (1)

Ozoner (1406169) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582526)

But then sound waves attenuate much more rapidly that radio waves.

See above article on the voice powered Ham radio covering thousands of miles. .......

Re:It already does (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33589616)

They are saying they have a device that they can get 50mw at 100db, and the expect refinement to make it better.

That said, people should stop focus on cell phones and look at a bigger picture. Like walls along the sides of freeways.
Yes, the used cell phones as a way of grabbing attention, but educated people should realize that's all it is and focus on actual practical implication.

Oh the irony... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582492)

...thinking that the sound waves from my screaming voice will actually be providing power to the very device I'm yelling at the asshat in front of me to "hang the fuck up and drive!!!"...

50millivolts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33582570)

... the article says its not a lot of power, because volts isn't a measure of power, fail :(

I worked on piezoelectrics a few years back, and its quite easy to produce voltage with them. I guess from the article sound waves produce 50millivolts. We were using blunt impacts, we could get impulses of a few hundred volts actually... but the current was on the order of some nanoamps from the samples we had... useless to power and normal electronic, especially a cell phone which is so inefficient (like how they get warm in an area with poor signal)

Really? (3, Funny)

pookemon (909195) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582630)

From TFA - "Just as speakers transform electric signals into sound, the opposite process -- of turning sound into a source of electrical power -- is possible"

I never would have guessed that. Maybe now they can make something capable of turning sound into electrical impulses. I will patent that idea I think - and call it an anti-speaker. Or an audioelectictransmogrifier for short.

Re:Really? (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33584844)

While we're quoting the article - this rather tickled me. Particularly strange when it's taken out of context, but nicely indicative of the sort of language you get in tech articles trying to cater to laymen:

"The researchers blasted that sandwich with sound waves, which at 100 decibels were not quite as loud as a rock concert."

From the Article (3, Informative)

PiAndWhippedCream (1566727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582674)

The sound waves produced a mild electrical current of about 50 millivolts. The average cell phone requires a few volts to operate, several times the power this technology can currently produce.

Wrong, so very wrong. Millivolts is not a unit of current, and volts is no unit of power. Nor is power current. I've seen journalists not understanding electrical units before, but never have I seen something quite so wrong as this.

Re:From the Article (2, Funny)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33582762)

Shhhh. Your going to confuse average joe-sixpack even more. The editors must have assumed that their tripe would pass the standard jargon filter. Does anybody have a regex for finding all the jargon in some text, so you can subsequently replace it with stuff this guys says? [youtube.com]

I am sure six-pack wouldn't notice.

Re:From the Article (1)

munozdj (1787326) | more than 3 years ago | (#33586686)

You didn't see the article published in my university newspaper: "The new faculty elevator can work at 20.000 Hz"

Sound-Powered Telephone.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33582746)

Hmm.. Sounds a lot like the "Sound-powered Telephone" that's been in use with the US Navy (and probably many other navys) for over 6 decades....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-powered_telephone

That's nothing (-1, Flamebait)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583122)

I invented a cell phone powered by stupidity. Unfortunately, the instant I handed it to a typical cell phone user it overloaded and exploded violently, killing the test subject.

So it wasn't a complete waste...

Combo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33583232)

1. Soundwaves-to-electricity converter
2. Methane powered mini powerplant
3. Back pockets

Lots of wasted energy (0, Redundant)

bm_luethke (253362) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583276)

There is a great deal of energy lost out there. Lots of heat, sound, inertia, etc that just bleeds away (well, at least with respect to forms we find useful). The question is can we *efficiently* gather it back up - not *can* we gather it back up. The same things goes with any recycling of "waste" products - it isn't always good to recycle them. Sometimes the wast products from capturing that energy is worse than letting that energy go away (I know for a long time the waste products from solar panel production/disposal were *significantly* worse than any carbon emissions you were saving) and sometimes it is cheap (and therefor mroe resources can go towards fixing the long term issue) to *not* recycle.

That's a good question for most "environmental" questions and it isn't easy. Lets take Corn based ethanol fuels - there are a number of studies out there that show it takes *more* energy to create them than if you just stayed with oil based products. The gains are probably not in that arena, they are either in emissions or dependence on a number of not so great human rights nations. Then we can take into account Wind Power - something that looks great in all these things. Well, that is, until you look at the impact on bird wildlife in those regions - is it worth the cost? Hard to say, if you are primarily worried about carbon emissions then very much so, if you are primarily worried about avian life then most assuredly not, if you want the best over all then all you pretty much get are both sides battling it out for which one is correct (and IMO neither one is).

So, if we cut carbon emissions by 50% but increase sulfur emissions by 15% to collect all this sound energy it isn't too good for us, though under certain people views that is a "win". I do not know and I'm not trying to say it is a good or bad (in this case there may be no downside whatsoever) idea - just that this article (along with the vast vast vast majority of environmental articles and studies out there) do not really address this well. In the long term we will bump against levels where we have to do this, but for right now we are still in an infantancy stage and we are better off looking for better processes than refining our current ones - unless our current ones are so bad that we need to refine them now (and energy loss to sound is minor compared to the rest of the system).

Don't tell anyone, I obtained a copy of the patent (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583456)

"A patent for a mobile telephony network requiring no power. Telephone A, consisting of a hollow cylindrical object with a hole drilled into the bottom, is connected via a high tech, string-like device, to Telephone B, another cylindrical object with the hole cut in the bottom. Range is excellent provided you buy lots of Monster brand string, it can even reach my super-secret treehouse!"

if you yell loud enough (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 3 years ago | (#33583560)

if you yell loud enough, you don't even need a cellphone. that's the case in my village.

electricity fail (1)

laxergreg (1901558) | more than 3 years ago | (#33584994)

"The sound waves produced a mild electrical current of about 50 millivolts. The average cell phone requires a few volts to operate, several times the power this technology can currently produce. ...
The Korean scientists agree: 50 millivolts is not a lot of power, but they also say their research is proof of concept. As they continue their work, they expect to get a higher power output."

volts = current = power! a new physics is at hand!

The friggin' microphone??? (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585152)

Scientists from Korea have turned the main ingredient of calamine lotion into a tiny material that converts sound waves into electricity.

"Just as speakers transform electric signals into sound, the opposite process -- of turning sound into a source of electrical power -- is possible,"

Wow, somebody has to tell these Korean scientists that they are 134 years late in discovering the microphone. Perhaps they should work on the next big problem Korea is facing : Fan deaths [wikipedia.org]...

PS. I hope talking about measuring power & current with volts is the journalists fault.

Ridiculous times 100,000 (2, Insightful)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 3 years ago | (#33585546)

Ridiculous. Phones need about a watt. If you SHOUT into a microphone, you will maybe generate 50 millivolts across 600 ohms, or (E^2/R) about FIVE BLEEPIN MICROWATTS.

We're a good five powers of ten below what is needed.

Doesn't anybody do math anymore?

Re:Ridiculous times 100,000 (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#33588356)

Ridiculous. Phones need about a watt. If you SHOUT into a microphone, you will maybe generate 50 millivolts across 600 ohms, or (E^2/R) about FIVE BLEEPIN MICROWATTS.

We're a good five powers of ten below what is needed.

Doesn't anybody do math anymore?

No, because we got peeps like you to do it for us.

thanks!

Shinjuku/Shibuya Footstep Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33585630)

I was in Japan a few months ago and while in Shinjuku, at the million-person intersection, came across this development they were doing that would use the resounding power from thousands of footsteps 24/7 to power all of the lights in the area. Can't seem to find an article on it now. Anyone more familiar have a link? It sounds like the concept is really similar.

Re:Shinjuku/Shibuya Footstep Power (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33586238)

There's a big difference between using people's weight to make electricity (whether by piezoelectrics, or simpler physics of gravity and moving parts) and doing so by the force of exhaled breath touching an area some distance away.

And what you miss is that these people are *also*, somehow, using their own energy to power the lights. It's no different to having a pedal-powered bike to power the lights - the effort is just spread across a lot of people. Those people still needed to use the energy, so it wasn't "free" or "profit" unless you're taxing the people who have to buy more food to cope with their ever-so-slightly more strenuous walk home.

Rule #1: If you can't power an old-fashioned walkman using a device smaller than said walkman to power it, it's a waste of money, materials, design, consultancy, engineering and effort to produce that electricity.

A Gee , a sound powered telephone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33587530)

Don't tell the navy they'll want one.
Oh: they already have one.
never mind.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...