Posted on 02/22/2008 11:27:17 AM PST by blam
We bought some and put them in the bath. When I get up in the morning, it’s nice to have the lights brighten up slowly - much better for my poor eyes......
Jeez, Guy! At that speed, would you for Cripes sake keep your eyes on the freakin' road?
“Therefore I call his invention BS. There is NO WAY that device is generating 600-800 lumens for four hours if it doesn’t weigh half a ton. I’ll bet that it only puts off maybe 100 lumens at the most.”
You’re being way to generous... For this to be practical, a typical woman should be able to lift the weight, so let’s say it weighs 30lbs (even that may be too heavy), that means it would generate roughly (round numbers) 1/1000 of the light they claim or 0.6 lumens. Might as well get a firefly!
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It really shows how pc is destroying everything including science education. Can you believe that a joke like this won 2nd place in a national science fair? On second thought, considering who the sponsors are, I do believe it!!
What you described sounds like an automobile alternator. I hooked one up to a stationary bicycle. You would need a battery source, and some means of controlling the voltage, but you could easily generate energy with it.
I'm surprised more exercise equipment manufacturers don't build such devices into their machines. It might make a good selling point:
"The Power's gone out? Then it's a good time to exercize, on your 'Light Duty' Cycle!"
Yes, he comes out with similar numbers (he assumes a higher lumen per watt value for LED’s), but it’s still in the thousands of pounds of weight.
This should be a national disgrace and speaks volumes of the ignorance created by politically correct education.
Oh, that’s a great thread there - reminds of the ones we have here every time some basic laws of physics defying perpetual motion (or close to it) device is put forward. Idiots who don’t understand the most basic laws of physics and thermdynamics arguing how those of us who do understand them are part of some sort of close-minded conspiracy against their crazy scheme, as if physics was some sort of matter of opinion. Maybe it is, at its bleeding edge, but not where the basics are concerned. Some of these folks seem to think that wanting something to be true badly enough will make it so.
Let me take that back - they’re not idiots, just woefully ignorant of the subject, and like most of the ignorant, ignorant of their own level of ignorance on the subject.
I’m not aware of those.
You mean they store the energy from a crank within an internal spring—like a windup clock . . .
And that spring, as it unwinds over several hours, powers a generator which lights the LEDs?
I have reproduction of a 15th century clock that uses weights to power the mechanism. Every 12 hours they have to be raised to the top
They work or at least the ones I have work.
reference bump —
I liked "hey dude. it's your turn to replace the gravity in the stupid lamp."
There seem to be quite a few people who doubt that this lamp can work as described.
I remembered the name. Bayliss. Here are some links:
http://windupradio.com/trevor.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Baylis
and
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/wind-up-emergency-radios/freeplay-plus-radio.aspx
(Freeplay was formerly Baygen, iirc.)
Looks like you’re right—they do seem to use a clockwork mechanism.
Cool.
good place to bump this thread
Wow. When I was a kid, I had a windup Marx train set because we did not have electricity. (No, not because it hadn’t been invented yet!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.