Gravity powered lighting
Great idea, I hope to see more of this king of stuff soon in the future.
|
06:53pm 01/01/13 Permalink
That's not gravity powered, that's human power being stored in a potential-energy battery :P. Though it's perhaps more efficient to have a human eat plants and do that than to convert it to bio-oil first, I can't imagine that it is...
|
07:06pm 01/01/13 Permalink
That's not gravity powered, that's human power being stored in a potential-energy battery :P. So all we need is some potential energy battery that can store the human power from masturbation? |
07:20pm 01/01/13 Permalink
If you want to donate you can do it here;
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/282006 They had a goal of $55,000 and they are currently sitting on (at time of posting) $298,581 So awesome :) |
07:32pm 01/01/13 Permalink
That's not gravity powered, that's human power being stored in a potential-energy battery :P. Though it's perhaps more efficient to have a human eat plants and do that than to convert it to bio-oil first... yes it is, the method to raise the weight is your whole argument, which is pretty petty, it is a simple, good light, but how many of these great ideas really make it? (to those that need it that is) |
07:38pm 01/01/13 Permalink
pretty damn awesome concept, hopefully it takes off now they have the funding.
|
07:46pm 01/01/13 Permalink
yes it is, the method to raise the weight is your whole argument, which is pretty petty No what I mean is, that energy actually has to come from somewhere, and it comes from food. To put out any decent lighting, you'd have to mathematically match the same amount of energy as any other source, so I'm skeptical of whether it's actually cheaper to transport food to human bodies and then get them to do the work powered by said food chemistry, it seems like it has to be a less efficient way of converting energy into light mathematically, somehow. Though I'm under the impression that nobody in the world is starving any more except for where food-controlling warlords and dictatorships are involved, so maybe it's easier to just power by inevitable excess food consumption. (I mean you could achieve the same thing with a crank, and call it 'free energy', though this is probably a better battery). |
08:06pm 01/01/13 Permalink
And yet another thread is ruined by Nerfy. Because questioning amazing claims about seemingly free energy is a bad thing? |
08:23pm 01/01/13 Permalink
The effort required to ignite a kerosene lamp, go and collect fuel all the time for the lamp requires food energy as well. I think there would be more effort and food energy consumed in the people walking to a place of fuel every day/week/month than it would take to lift a bag of dirt.
So even in your food energy argument nerfy, they are still mathematically better off. |
08:33pm 01/01/13 Permalink
From what calculations I could find, this would power a remotely decent bright light for about 14 seconds, not including all the energy that goes into manufacturing, transport, wear & tear, etc.
Gravitational Potential Energy: I'd recommend they spend the $5 on Kerosene or 2 bags of sugar which they could burn. It will provide more light during it's lifetime. ^ i.e. the food would go (a theoretical) 125 times further if it was just burned instead of eaten first... This is less efficient than just burning food for light. |
08:40pm 01/01/13 Permalink
We have lights like that at work. It has a wind up handle. Spin the handle a few times and you have light.
|
08:56pm 01/01/13 Permalink
What the f*** do you mean it comes from food?
Just lift a bag up and done, the f***? Any way, it can all be traced back to "energy comes from the stars, therefore it's star powered" ????!!!? Just enjoy the technology and the goal they are trying to achieve. |
09:00pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Well what he means is that every action your body performs requires energy, and that energy is provided by the food you eat.
Where did you get that equation from? I can't see it on the linked page. |
09:07pm 01/01/13 Permalink
What the f*** do you mean it comes from food? Where does the energy that powers your body come from? i.e. what is the fuel that powers you? How efficient is it to gain, consume, and work it, compared to gaining and burning kerosene? How much light will you realistically get for that amount of energy? (according to those equations, negligible amounts). It would be more efficient to just burn food for light, than put it through the human body and try to convert its energy into potential energy. Where did you get that equation from? I can't see it on the linked page. It was in the comments, 2nd page I think. |
09:10pm 01/01/13 Permalink
So all we need is some potential energy battery that can store the human power from masturbation? You mean this? |
09:12pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Simple but effective, uses the same ideas as the wind up one, but instead uses a weight. Good stuff, always love seeing old ideas transformed into something useful today.
Ignore Nerf... it's not complicated how it works, and he just wants to seem smarter than he is o_0 |
09:12pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Nerfy, where does the energy come from to create food?
|
09:17pm 01/01/13 Permalink
It was in the comments, 2nd page I think.Well there is no way I can check it myself but if it's accurate it makes this whole thing a scam doesn't it? Nerfy, where does the energy come from to create food?A literal f***tonne of different sources. |
09:19pm 01/01/13 Permalink
The same place as the energy used to create kerosene, which is just s***loads of compressed solar power. At a much more efficient ratio to weight, at that.
Well there is no way I can check it myself but if it's accurate it makes this whole thing a scam doesn't it? I think by omission that the laws of physics prevent providing a realistically comparable light to kerosene without spending far more on food than you would oil, yes, it is an intentional lie and thus a scam. If food ever becomes cheap enough for this to be equal value for money to kerosene, then biofuels or just burning the food outright would still be better than using the human body to do a lossy conversion of the energy into lifting and then potential energy. |
09:20pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Perpetual motion machines will solve world hunger. It already exists and the lizard people elite living inside the hollow earth are keeping it a secret.
|
09:22pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Perpetual motion machines Pretty much this. Anybody who claims to offer 'free' power is lying or stupid, there is always a cost somewhere - the cost of whatever the energy source is. And it takes a whole crapload of solar grown biomass to match the same amount of light from kerosene (compressed solar grown biomass), putting it through the human body first is even more costly. |
09:32pm 01/01/13 Permalink
I posted this in the Physics Questions thread on SA where some serious physics gurus post. I suggest you do the same on reddit nerf :P
|
09:33pm 01/01/13 Permalink
You mean this? Yeah just create a law that has one or two strapped to 14 year olds.... |
09:39pm 01/01/13 Permalink
So are you saying if I had to lift a sack up a few times a night I'd be spending so much more on food that it would be cheaper to buy kerosene?
|
09:40pm 01/01/13 Permalink
So are you saying if I had to lift a sack up a few times a night I'd be spending so much more on food that it would be cheaper to buy kerosene? To get a comparable amount of light, yes. |
09:46pm 01/01/13 Permalink
It would be more efficient to just burn food for light, What the f*** fantasy world do you live in? So lifting a bag of rocks a couple of feet in the air gives them half an hour of light, how much energy do you think you have to expend to lift a bag of rocks a couple of feet in the air every half an hour? I'd be guessing not very f*****g much. So how do you ever reach the conclusion that its more efficient to burn food than to lift a bag of rocks a small distance every half an hour? |
09:47pm 01/01/13 Permalink
What the f*** fantasy world do you live in? So lifting a bag of rocks a couple of feet in the air gives them half an hour of light, how much energy do you think you have to expend to lift a bag of rocks a couple of feet in the air every half an hour? I'd be guessing not very f*****g much. So how do you ever reach the conclusion that its more efficient to burn food than to lift a bag of rocks a small distance every half an hour? The mathematical explanation was pretty clearly provided in the quotes? It's not hard to understand. * Burn fuel (i.e. food) directly == the chemical bond energy released as light. * Put fuel through human body to then lift wear-and-tear machine == multiple stages of inefficient energy loss. No comparable amount of light without immense lifting and a lot of fuel (food). It's just like powering a generator to turn another generator, there's a lot of lost power. |
09:50pm 01/01/13 Permalink
I think the thing is that 30 minutes of light is a complete false, and in reality it is only seconds of light being generated from their system if it's a 15 watt bulb.
As soon as I saw gravity powered I suspected it was a scam. The same way I suspect things when the creators claim it is magnet powered or whatever. Scammers always use things like gravity and magnets (how do they work?) to bamboozle people because they seem to act like magic. |
09:52pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Nobody's claiming free energy. The places where this would be useful is where lighting fuel is expensive compared to manual labor. Also, burning things is always going to be a highly wasteful way of generating light - all that heat produced is energy not doing useful work.
|
09:55pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Nobody's claiming free energy. The places where this would be useful is where lighting fuel is expensive compared to manual labor. They're claiming usefully comparable light, which is impossible without eating the equivalent amount of energy (or more, actually). nerf are you assuming that when you burn the kerosene/sugar/whatever that 100% of it's energy is converted into light? Far more than the amount of energy from food that is getting converted into light here. Not that all light isn't hot anyway... Both sources are using the stored solar energy which bound the organic molecules together, breaking the bonds in a human body or in a fire is going to release the same amount of energy, but the human body has far more stages to pass through where energy is going elsewhere, before lifting a rock to then spin a magnet to then generate new light with the remainder of that, which will generate more heat then anyway. |
09:59pm 01/01/13 Permalink
They're claiming usefully comparable light, which is impossible without eating the equivalent amount of energy (or more, actually). Incorrect, burning kerosene is not an efficient release of energy as it releases a substantial amount of heat energy. Since an LED has a much much higher light:heat ratio it is converting energy in a far more efficient manor, therefore requiring less energy to create the same amount of light as it is not wasting as much to heat. |
10:04pm 01/01/13 Permalink
They're claiming usefully comparable light, which is impossible without eating the equivalent amount of energy (or more, actually). Isn't that what I just said? |
10:07pm 01/01/13 Permalink
nerfy, you are wrong and these are the following reasons
1) because 2) using maths, f*****g your sister/mother/goat is best as it expends the least amount of time/effort/money 3) kero (to power the lamps) has to be purchased from somewhere, which may take time, and money, it will also take energy, and as some of these places are over a days walk to the shops, pulling a weight is much easier 4) many of these place grow (little) food, the time saved by not getting fuel can be used to grow food stuffs (the extra food needed to cover the difference) this is done at no price, (so already youre not having to outlay money so are better off) 5) kero isn't grown locally or even in many of these countries, so that all all money that is leaving the country, food however is often grown, that would mean that the money stays in country, and famers invest back into the farm, which in turn would make the food cheaper! (again countering the extra food required) so, hope that gives a little more to think about (also, friends dont let friends f*** thier own family, so no more of that okay) |
10:07pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Cree have made a LED capable of producing 254 lumens per Watt: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20120423/214494/
Whereas a kerosene wick lamp produces about 0.081 lumens per Watt http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/machala1/ |
10:29pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Since an LED has a much much higher light:heat ratio it is converting energy in a far more efficient manor But the food energy doesn't go into the LED, only a little bit of it does. According to wikipedia "A kerosene lamp producing 37 lumens for 4 hours per day will consume about 3 litres of kerosene per month." So presuming 30 days in a month, that's 0.1 litres of kerosene for 4 hours of 37 lumens light. "Some highly efficient white-light LED lighting fixtures can achieve efficacy of over 40 lumens per watt" Watts = Joules/Time Joules = Watts * Time Joules = 1 * (1 * 60 * 60 * 4) = 14400 So for 4 hours, a good LED (which, from what I'm reading, may only work directionally, drops off faster, and may not be good for viewing details like colour) will need 14400 Joules to produce a similar brightness (40 lumens). According to the above calculations, one lift of 10 kilograms to 2 metres, before any loss with rotating pullies etc, would produce at best 197.58 Joules. So you'd need to lift the thing 72 times to get the same amount of light as .1 litre of kerosene, or 10 kilograms 9 times per 30 minutes to get the same brightness. Which, is actually better than I thought at least :P, but still nothing like as advertised, and that's presuming best-theoretically-possible power generation for 10 kilos at 2 metres. kero (to power the lamps) has to be purchased from somewhere, which may take time, and money, it will also take energy, and as some of these places are over a days walk to the shops, pulling a weight is much easier As does food. There is a reason that we still burn oil in our cars, and not biofuels. Cree have made a LED capable of producing 254 lumens per Watt: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20120423/214494/ Those kind of numbers are listed as a myth due to improper testing conditions here: http://www.ledlightingexplained.com/led-lighting-myths/#myth3 |
10:32pm 01/01/13 Permalink
where the math for engery required to get the kero
also, there isn't any accounting for the money side of things, because honestly if the cost of the food required to creat the engery to lift the weights is less than the cost of the kero, then you're ahead already also nerf, there is a BIG difference between between us using oil in our cars etc, and some poor village that has to hike a day for fuel oil this seems to be a big thing that you are overlooking in an effort to sound knowladgable |
10:36pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Ok then we'll play it your way just for s**** n giggles, how much energy to lift the kerosene off the truck, pour a measured amount into the lamp, move the lamp to height, lift the book of matches, strike the match etc etc, see where I'm going with this?
also given LED's with 200+ lm/w as already pointed out are available, your efficiency for LED is way off. |
10:42pm 01/01/13 Permalink
where the math for engery required to get the kero As I said, there is a reason that we still burn oil in our cars, and not biofuels. There is a cost to getting food, and there is a cost to getting oil. When food becomes more economical for energy than oil, we will change, and that's not even considering food as a fuel to be inefficiently put through the human body for manual power. It would take 9 lifts of 10 kilos to 2 metres in a best-possible-theoretical power generation to achieve similar brightness to burning kerosene as they currently do (and LEDs seem to be far less pragmatically useful from what I've read). Ok then we'll play it your way just for s**** n giggles, how much energy to lift the kerosene off the truck, pour a measured amount into the lamp, move the lamp to height, lift the book of matches, strike the match etc etc, see where I'm going with this? You guys keep not getting this. If food was a cheaper power source (before even considering using an inefficient machine like a human body for converting it) then it would be cheaper than oil. It's not, because oil is the same thing but extremely compressed. As oil becomes harder to find, then food will become comparable in value. |
10:48pm 01/01/13 Permalink
but nerf, currently the fuel insome of these country's IS more costly than food
and it isn't a matter of a short walk to buy fuel (they dont have cars), as i said, it can be upto a days walk just to get to the shops, many aid org's dont provide fuel, just food |
10:52pm 01/01/13 Permalink
A sailing blog is your point of reference?? Lol, not for the maths, for a description of what LED versus Kerosene light is like for those who have tried both. Give it a break really, nobody's impressed. What does this even mean? "We don't like no maths around here, we've already decided that we want it to be true and are applying special pleading to the cost of acquiring food kilojoules compared to oil power." If you want to live in a fairy tail land free from the limits of reality, I can't stop you. I'm just hoping that people understand that the claim is very suspicious before donating to this. |
10:55pm 01/01/13 Permalink
You guys keep not getting this. If food was a cheaper power source (before even considering using an inefficient machine like a human body for converting it) then it would be cheaper than oil. It's not, because oil is the same thing but extremely compressed. As oil becomes harder to find, then food will become comparable in value. no nerf, you dont seem to be getting it, you seem to be disregarding the effort required to get the kero in the first place, fact is there is alot more effort in these countrys than in this one, nerf maths, energy of burning kero vs energy of lifting wieght real world effort required to get kero (excluding the cost/money factor) carrying the container to the "shop" effort required to decant into the container, effort to carry kero home then effort decanting heavy container into lamp lighting match/lamp vs lifting weight guess what, I know which will win hands down |
10:59pm 01/01/13 Permalink
but nerf, currently the fuel insome of these country's IS more costly than food That may or may not be true (I'd like to see where you get that from), but it doesn't change the fact that this does not work as advertised. For a (seemingly inferior) LED light, you'd need to lift - at a theoretical best - 90 kilograms 2 metres every 30 minutes, which isn't what they advertised. Since they're not going to achieve a theoretical best (I'm going to wildly presume 20% efficiency?) then that's 300 kilograms lifted 2 metres every 30 minutes for (reportedly inferior) light. real world And how much does the fuel cost to lift 300 kilograms 2 metres every 30 minutes? To transport that? When did food/plant matter suddenly become so much more economically energetically potent than super compressed plant matter? If manual power was so much more potent than oil, then we'd all be winding up our cars and saving a fortune. |
11:01pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Have not read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been pointed out.
Gravitational Potential Energy:You know they use s*** like magnets (don't ask me how they work lol!), resistors, coils and springs to generate the energy right? Probably like a wind up light or watch, so simply calculating the energy generated by the weight falling isn't going to give you anything, Also the whole Kerosine lights are better thing, they cause cancer. |
11:12pm 01/01/13 Permalink
wholly f***, where to you get 90kgs from for that little bag????
man, while comparing the burning of a modern kero to LED power lamp might be somewhere near right (I doubt it) you fail at understanding the other steps as to why this is BETTER and CHEAPER long term also, as for the fuel side http://www.aa.co.za/on-the-road/calculator-tools/fuel-pricing.html, this is the WHOLESALE price in places that it is cheaper to obtain, so, if my time in asia is a pointer, in the rural places, it it twice as high as in town rice i think is about 500-600 a ton, so, using my very basic maths here, 1 ton of rice 500-600 1000L of kero - 1100-2200 so, er, bam! |
11:15pm 01/01/13 Permalink
You know they use s*** like magnets (don't ask me how they work lol!), resistors, coils and springs to generate the energy right? Yes I know, that's why I said maximum possible efficiency, so it would be much worse than that. (It looks like the best dams can do 70 to 80%, I doubt that can be translated to small scale & cheap generators, since the big ones use gas and whatnot afaik). I'm not saying that kerosene is good, it's horrible for health and the environment. I'm saying that these guys are making some very misleading seeming claims. wholly f***, where to you get 90kgs from for that little bag???? In that working that I provided? And that's not what I said. I said to generate the same amount of light in the same amount of time, you'd need to lift the thing a s***tonnes of times. At 100% efficiency, you'd need to raise 90 kilograms to 2 metres to have enough potential energy to power a similarly-bright LED for half an hour. |
11:16pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Yes I know, that's why I said maximum possible efficiency, so it would be much worse than that. (It looks like the best dams can do 70 to 80%, I doubt that can be translated to small scale & cheap generators, since the big ones use gas and whatnot afaik).Where do you get that from? Unless you are an electrical engineer and know something that wasn't in that video, why are you assuming that the kinetic energy generated by the dropping of the bag is the only thing involved? |
11:26pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Where do you get that from? Unless you are an electrical engineer and know something that wasn't in that video, why are you assuming that the kinetic energy generated by the dropping of the bag is the only thing involved? I just said the opposite. There is loss in all the stages, I presumed a 20% efficiency before, though it may go higher (dams seem to achieve about 70 to 80). And I have done a few undergraduate semesters studying electrical engineering, not that you need it here to understand why a generator (food & oxygen powered human) charging up another generator (gravity potential) is not efficient. edit: Oh and the dam numbers are here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage So 90 kilograms to 2 metres at 70% efficiency, is 128 kilograms to 2 metres for 30 minutes of LED light. They advertised it as 9 kilograms to about 1.5 metres for 30 minutes, so unless they have a magical LED or better-than-theoretical-maximum-possible generator with no loss, they're selling this rather suspiciously. edit edit: Actually, those are for pumping-during-offpeak dams, the best dams may reach 90%, though I doubt this can be replicated in cheap tiny generators http://new.wvic.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=44 - and going through the human body first would lose so much efficiency on the food. |
11:28pm 01/01/13 Permalink
And I have done a few undergraduate semesters studying electrical engineering, not that you need it here to understand why a generator (food & oxygen powered human) charging up another generator (gravity potential) is not efficient. But as pointed out burning kerosene is not without it's energy losses (heat) or human mechanical effort either, you just seem to want to ignore that. As for the math, it does check out if you are willing to accept a very high efficiency in the generator, and since we don't have manufacturer specs available but do know high efficiency LED's exist within the required ranges, you cannot say that the device is not plausible. |
11:39pm 01/01/13 Permalink
But as pointed out burning kerosene is not without it's energy losses (heat) or human mechanical effort either, you just seem to want to ignore that. What? I answered that. As for the math, it does check out if you are willing to accept a very high efficiency in the generator, What? No it doesn't, I just did the math like 2 posts ago. Even at an impossible 100% efficiency it would take lifting 90 kilos to 2 metres to power a single weak LED for 30 minutes. but do know high efficiency LED's exist within the required ranges, you cannot say that the device is not plausible. Do we? http://www.ledlightingexplained.com/led-lighting-myths/#myth3 I'm hoping that one of you can actually tell me what is wrong with this when saying that I'm wrong:
|
11:45pm 01/01/13 Permalink
I think its f*****g retarded to compare lifting a bag up to start the motion of the device to be compared to the consumption of food to give enough energy to do so vs the cost of kerosene....
Why the f*** would you even consider it to start with, physical motion of lifting a bag of rocks is nothing in comparison to the travel requirements to get the kerosene etc. I would assume (I will let you do the math) that just the walk to the place and back, to pick up the kerosene would expend more energy, therefore more food power, than lifting the bag of rocks? Let's look at it holistically. |
12:22am 02/01/13 Permalink
Those kind of numbers are listed as a myth due to improper testing conditions here: http://www.ledlightingexplained.com/led-lighting-myths/#myth3Since they're talking about light fixtures, I'd say this is about LED droop (basically, LEDs are more effective in a low current setup like this gravity lamp than they are in a light socket). Of course, people are working on ways to fix that anyway: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/how-leds-got-their-shine-back.html |
12:33am 02/01/13 Permalink
I think its f*****g retarded to compare lifting a bag up to start the motion of the device to be compared to the consumption of food to give enough energy to do so vs the cost of kerosene.... The fact that food is so much less potent than kerosene is what reveals this to be a very suspicious claim, as the human needs to be powered in some way. Why the f*** would you even consider it to start with, physical motion of lifting a bag of rocks is nothing in comparison to the travel requirements to get the kerosene etc. That it is essentially nothing is why the maths doesn't work in their favour. It seemingly won't do what they say it will simply due to the laws of physics. I would assume (I will let you do the math) that just the walk to the place and back, to pick up the kerosene would expend more energy, therefore more food power, than lifting the bag of rocks? They'd have to carry back more weight in food than oil to power this by the same amount. Either way it doesn't matter, there simply doesn't seem to be a way for a human being to produce the same amount of lighting without lifting constantly (hundreds of kilograms to two metres per hour). If they use this as a bare minimum emergency lighting system, it's probably a plus, at the least this maybe could be used in conjunction with kerosene off-hours, but it almost certainly doesn't do what they imply. |
01:35am 02/01/13 Permalink
Dunno seemed to me to contain a number of spots for gearing which could make the transformer/magneto whatever run at a significant potential faster then the weight moves toward the ground.
I think the word "gravity" is being used too loosely, the bag isn't falling at the speed of gravity towards the ground, gravity and the weight of the bag as well as tightly wound gearing is causing whatever to spin at a rate exponential to the bags actual decent speed. |
01:51am 02/01/13 Permalink
I think the main thing is that a lot of the energy we intake as humans probably leaves us as waste. Obviously the amount varies wildly from person to person, but it's reasonable to say that for most people doing a bit of additional lifting is probably just going to be using some of the energy that would've otherwise passed on out. We probably don't have to consider that the exact amount of energy we expended lifting the weight, was needed to be supplied by additional food that we otherwise wouldn't have eaten.
Do enough extra work though and you most likely will need extra food to maintain it - the energy isn't free which is all nerf started out saying |
02:04am 02/01/13 Permalink
Dunno seemed to me to contain a number of spots for gearing which could make the transformer/magneto whatever run at a significant potential faster then the weight moves toward the ground. The potential energy doesn't change, there's no way to get more energy out of it than was used to lift it up to that height. but it's reasonable to say that for most people doing a bit of additional lifting is probably just going to be using some of the energy that would've otherwise passed on out. Yeah I mentioned at one point that if they're overeating, which perhaps more and more people are now, then it's at least not necessarily a food budgeting problem. They'll still never generate a comparable light to kerosene using it as it was advertised however, the raw maths simply demands lifting 10 kilos to 2 metres over 9 times per half hour with a maximum theoretically possible power generation method, or having an extremely dim light (which might be useful for being able to tone down kerosene when not eating etc, but they didn't advertise it as such). |
03:02am 02/01/13 Permalink
ok so you have an extra spoonful of porridge, still easier than getting kerosene, you're cutting a whole thing off the list, that'll save you
also I think the light the kerosene lamp gives off is more than needed, the energy it uses is way more than LED lights, and it is a wee bit dangerous |
03:03am 02/01/13 Permalink
ok so you have an extra spoonful of porridge, still easier than getting kerosene, you're cutting a whole thing off the list, that'll save you You're still ignoring that you can't even power a low level LED without lifting this thing dozens of times per hour even with improbably good $5 generator efficiency... |
03:10am 02/01/13 Permalink
I double posted it just to make sure that you understood how the maths doesn't add up here.
|
03:10am 02/01/13 Permalink
03:25am 02/01/13 Permalink
I stand by my earlier posting. Oh noes, he's bringing maths and the laws of physics to a very suspicious sales pitch. Anybody who thinks that I ruined anything here (aside for my own sanity after trying to talk to a few extremely simple folk) needs to get their priorities sorted. Somebody ran this same hoax a few years ago - http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/gravity_lamp |
03:29am 02/01/13 Permalink
you are all medication fuelled generators, bow before the nerflord
|
03:54am 02/01/13 Permalink
Using a human to charge a generator still has the same mathematical limits as any other power source. Though apparently being a c***y douchenozzle is more valuable than plain and simple scientific truths on this board, I don't know why I bother with you lot. Should have quit with Billy.
|
04:00am 02/01/13 Permalink
So whats your point nerf that the use of gravity in the name as though it suggests free power is bogus or misleading?
|
04:04am 02/01/13 Permalink
So whats your point nerf that the use of gravity in the name as though it suggests free power is bogus or misleading? That you can only power a kerosene equivalent light for a few seconds or minutes with 10 kilos raised to 2 metres, even if presuming incredible unrealistic kinetic-to-electrical conversion and amazing unrealistic LEDs. You could basically power one of those little keychain lights for like 1 minutes or something with this, for half an hour it would have to be so dim that it would be like a floater in your vision in the dark. |
04:08am 02/01/13 Permalink
I wish your avatar wasn't a picture of doctor who, you're making me hate doctor who.
|
05:22am 02/01/13 Permalink
Nerf has it right this time. Like fpot, I thought scam as soon as I saw the title. Watching the video just reinforces that suspicion. The computation really is as simple as Nerf gave. You will get jack s*** amounts of energy from lifting a bag of rocks up.
|
07:05am 02/01/13 Permalink
oh ffs,
this method of powering things is old, and works (grandfather clocks) the human body is using energy all the time, and lets be honest here nerf, you are glossing over a few facts to make a point while you might have to carry a higher wieght in food to make the same amount of light, you are not accounting for the fact that a) many of these people grow small crops at home, (far less walking) b) kero isn't sold in a nice package, you have to carry a container to the point of sale (extra energy) also, there are many places that get food drops, and have small outlets that sell/trade food, these are like 7/11's, everywhere however the places that sell kero are not as common, the market is much less, and the cost much higher this would mean that you would have to travel greater distances to get the kero, (this could be time better spent tending to other things) |
07:58am 02/01/13 Permalink
Pretty sure those f*****s in villagers pick up lots of bags of s*** all the time
I.e. sunk cost Economics says free lighting |
08:12am 02/01/13 Permalink
what if i eat the food, then burn my s*** and bask in the light and odours given off? You'd need to store your s*** somewhere and dry it in the sun. Depend on the s*** it could be runny in which it would be useless, but if it was a nice full s*** with a good shape you would need for it to dry for a few days and hope that the person has sufficient cellulose in their diet to burn. The flame wouldn't produce much light, it would most likely smoulder and cause an insanely awful smell. |
08:42am 02/01/13 Permalink
What i dont understand nerf is why you would argue this with us "simple folk" when you could post elsewhere and discuss it with people who know their s***. I mean if you think its fake, just call fake, but if you wanna prove it then i dont think here is the place to do it.
|
09:36am 02/01/13 Permalink
Nerf's entire argument is about getting the equivalent amount of energy from this device as a kerosene lamp, but isn't it possible that a kerosene lamp produces more light than they actually need, and because it's a flame, that the light is a lot less directable, so much of it is wasted?
An LED is a much more efficient, compact, concentrated and directable light source than a kerosene flame. OK yes, you can't create the equivalent amount of energy, but if it's still a useful, servicable amount of light, who cares? If I had the choice between buying fuel, storing it, and burning it in lamps (creating as much heat as light in an already hot environment) or never having to get fuel again, and simply needing to lift 10kg 1.5m every 30 mins for a couple of lamps that produce much less (but still enough) light, I know which one I'd choose. Beats me if it's a scam or not, but it seems like a bit too simplistic of an argument to say you can't create the equivalent amount of energy that a kerosene lamp releases therefore the entire concept is completely bogus. |
09:37am 02/01/13 Permalink
So much science denying stupid in this thread that it burns. :(
If you can't do maths, which it seems several of you can't, at least try to understand one of the basic principles of physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Nerf's entire argument is about getting the equivalent amount of energy from this device as a kerosene lamp, but did you ever consider that a kerosene lamp produces more light than they actually need Nah, aside from kerosene lamps being s*** anyway, my point is that you can't even power a very weak LED with this, even with impossibly good efficiency. |
10:09am 02/01/13 Permalink
A literal f***tonne of different sources. Ultimately its almost all from the sun. Non-solar sources of energy are pretty miniscule in the biosphere. Assuming it works, it seems like a good idea, depending on how expensive and difficult it is to create the devices, and how quickly the dynamo wears out. Kerosene is also stinky and dangerous. Edit: Shame its very likely bulls***. If we use the claimed weight of 9 kg we instead get almost exactly one tenth of a Watt (of course, this is assuming 100% efficiency). ... While gravity lights might sound like a good idea, by doing some basic calculations we can find that they simply don't store enough energy to be useful in real-world scenarios. You just don't store enough energy in lifting a few kilos to do enough work to create useful light. Canna beat the laws of physics, cap'n. |
10:16am 02/01/13 Permalink
just watched the video
I'd like to see a test of these lighting up a room in a useful way. as far as I can tell from some googling, they don't seem to be making any claims in LED tech and given that the energy converted by hanging some weight from a string is quite measurable and predictable, it sounds like these things wouldn't give off much light, and wouldn't give it off for very long. even the wording in their video says 'adjusted up for a task light, or adjusted down for a gentle glow which lasts over half an hour' I'm curious why they don't even seem to publish the output of it anywhere if anything, the biggest point of interest in this is how effective the LED is at replacing a kerosene flame. the power source is very weak as has already been demonstrated by maths in this thread and emotional outbursts about grandfather clocks are pretty useless really, unless you've seen a grandfather clock able to power a light to the point where you could use it to replace a kerosene lamp |
10:25am 02/01/13 Permalink
Nah, aside from kerosene lamps being s*** anyway, my point is that you can't even power a very weak LED with this, even with impossibly good efficiency. To be fair, they do specifically say in the video that "the brightness of the light can be adjusted up for a task light, or down for a gentle glow which lasts over half an hour", not that it will produce bright light for half an hour. So while the video does seem somewhat misleading in that they say it can produce half an hour of light at the start of the video while showing it at full brightness, I don't think it's a total scam, just not as good as the impression given in some parts of the video. |
10:27am 02/01/13 Permalink
what science denying?
fact is that getting power from a weight is a prove and old tech (this is a new aplication) the only thing in dispute is the comparision claims (which have many factors in which to calculate) |
10:29am 02/01/13 Permalink
fact is that getting power from a weight is a prove and old tech (this is a new aplication) Yeh, but 200 joules just isn't a lot of energy, there's a reason it sounds amazing and easy! Even with super efficient dynamos and new tech LEDs you're just not going to get much light lifting a few kilos of weight every 30 minutes. I think that the cognitive issue here is that holding 9 or 10 kilos for 30 minutes is a lot of work, but that's not the same as turning a dynamo. Now if you had a system that lifted a few hundred kilos via a pulley system or something you might get a useful storage of energy, but again you'd need to do a fair bit of work to store it. Might be a cool idea for a home gym, store your energy and power some low-level lighting around the house or recharge your phones? |
10:37am 02/01/13 Permalink
I guess it also depends on what use you need the light for (like in my first post, great for camping, at that point where you need the barest amount of light to help find the bottle opener or your next beer)
if youre studying then you'll need a bright light source, however, set to minimum my guess is that you'll have enough light to have dinner by, move around the place, and wipe up and put cookware away, |
10:42am 02/01/13 Permalink
however, set to minimum my guess is that you'll have enough light to have dinner by, move around the place, and wipe up and put cookware away, I reckon you're over estimating 10 lux. You'd need one every metre or so to attempt that sort of lighting, and meanwhile its super easy to just flick on a single, compact 9(12?)V lithium battery light for the task? |
10:53am 02/01/13 Permalink
Because questioning amazing claims about seemingly free energy is a bad thing? Dear lord. The cost of feeding the humans who have to fill, light and maintain the kero lights, versus the cost of feeding the humans who have to move a sack of weight? Your physics argument is null, because this is an economics question. |
11:27am 02/01/13 Permalink
Now if you had a system that lifted a few hundred kilos via a pulley system or something you might get a useful storage of energy, but again you'd need to do a fair bit of work to store it. Might be a cool idea for a home gym, store your energy and power some low-level lighting around the house or recharge your phones?The whole video aims at third world application. Not for around the house / home use. Its for areas that electricity is not likely to reach in the foreseeable future. In areas where there are no city lights, even a very weak LED can light up a small room / tent enough so you can walk around / not run into s***. The areas that they aim to provide for, don't exactly read novels and search for the TV remote. I understand the maths proves that the light will be very dim for a short period of time, but if they don't have to buy fuel, they will lift that bag 10 times an hour to get the light they need so they can buy food and clothes instead. |
11:28am 02/01/13 Permalink
Certainly are a lot of people in this thread who would have been scammed out of their money donating to this thing.
|
11:39am 02/01/13 Permalink
Certainly are a lot of people in this thread who would have been scammed out of their money donating to this thing. Not immediately dismissing a project as a scam is a long stretch from being willing to donate to it. What are people expecting in return from donating to this thing anyway? (Also f*****g lol at the "would have" as though you've valiantly saved all these poor fools from pouring their money into this heinous scam! What a hero!) |
11:45am 02/01/13 Permalink
What are people expecting in return from donating to this project anyway?Four people put down $5,000 on the project which means they get their logo painted on the lights, so clearly there's some marketing to be had! |
11:50am 02/01/13 Permalink
Your physics argument is null, because this is an economics question. Sigh, ignoring physics doesn't make physics go away. The insignificant amount of energy gained from such a system cannot simply be increased by ignoring the real world limitation of (at best equal) energy out for energy put in. Dear lord. The cost of feeding the humans who have to fill, light and maintain the kero lights, versus the cost of feeding the humans who have to move a sack of weight? There simply doesn't exist a mechanism to get power out of your body that you didn't have to put in first. If you want to get the same amount of energy from food as you're currently getting from oil, you simply just have to be spending significantly more on food than oil, as food is a worse power source (and even more if you plan on using a human body a the power converter, it would almost certainly be more efficient to just burn the food). What you're not understanding (still) is, that if you power this by a regular human's abilities, you're not going to get any light. Want more light? You'll need the fuel from somewhere, you cannot magically gain energy. Want more fuel? Well, buying extra food is more costly than buying oil, for the equivalent energy. |
12:08pm 02/01/13 Permalink
the stuff to burn is reserved for party members only.
getting poor people used to low lighting conditions is just step one on the road to prepping them for the spice mines. |
12:16pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Sigh, ignoring physics doesn't make physics go away. The insignificant amount of energy gained from such a system cannot simply be increased by ignoring the real world limitation of (at best equal) energy out for energy put in. . wow, nerf, you I hope you can see that there is more to the problem than the physics, yes it might be a better use of power if you ignore the whole economics factors your argument is correct if you ignore outside factors such as energy required to obtain the kero, or the energry require to get the funds to pay for the kero this is where the saving is if the world was all about doing what physics said was the best method, then the world would be a different place, for better or worse, but that isn't how it works, we are like geese, not turkeys, (if youre unsure what i mean by that, look at the farming of these animals, it will explain itself) hoggy>>>> I see your point, however on the day you have to get kero, that is a whole day (in some cases) lost just to get kero, plus the extra work in that sun to earn the money to pay for that kero, |
12:20pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Clearly someone doesn't even want to lift.
|
12:24pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Copious, where will the energy magically come from if we simply choose to ignore the limitations defined by the laws of physics?
|
12:26pm 02/01/13 Permalink
THE SPICE MUST FLOW
Its amazing how cheap energy still is. I thought I was on a winner with the gravity storage workout thing. After all, a good solid workout involves a couple of million joules (2,000 kilojoules), right? If 200 joules is REMOTELY useful to a third world bumpkin, we should be able to do some super s*** with TWO MILLION while getting a workout! Some back of envelope s*** says that you might pull 250 watt hours out of a workout if you could reclaim the energy with very good efficiency. That's about 6 cents per workout, save you 10 bucks a year if you smash those weights three times a week and use all the energy ... copuis: Have you looked into the cost of the kero in the third world and its accessibility? Its one thing to declare that the economic argument is valid, but if you don't have numbers then how can you assert it? Does it cost a day to get a litre of kerosene? How long does it last? Is it used for things other than lighting, like cooking, so there are other benefits - if you need the kero anyway, why not use it to light the place? How much effort is needed to obtain it? I suspect that a couple of litres of kerosene will go a long way, be more convenient and do the job better than this endless lifting of weights. The energy density of kero is very high and the cost still quite low in developing nations. |
12:26pm 02/01/13 Permalink
I wouldn't mind having a cheap peddle to slightly charge an UPs or something, if the balancing from two different sources is possible.
|
12:32pm 02/01/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Not Relevant |
01:05pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Copious, where will the energy magically come from if we simply choose to ignore the limitations defined by the laws of physics? nerf, please read, dont skim, how is all the kero magically there in thier home with no effort hoggy>>>, yes I did, it is 4 - 5 time more costly than rice, and hasn't got the delivery method that food does, |
01:54pm 02/01/13 Permalink
yes I did, it is 4 - 5 time more costly than rice, and hasn't got the delivery method that food does, OK back up here. Yes, kero is more expensive. Its also more energy dense. What do you get for a litre (lets just call it a kilo) of kero? 46 mega joules. That's 46,000 kilojoules of energy. A kilo of cooked rice has 5,500 kilojoules. You also need input energy to cook it, and the body isn't tremendously efficient at converting that to mechanical work to lift the weight. So going by those numbers you are much, much better off chasing more efficient kerosene lighting (and better distribution) than human-powering lighting. The device in the video is a toy that solves no real problems... |
02:38pm 02/01/13 Permalink
nerf, please read, dont skim Fffff. Deep breaths. You.can't.get.more.potential.energy.out.of.10kilos.than.the.maximum.possible, regardless of anything to do with kero. |
02:40pm 02/01/13 Permalink
nerf, get a grip sun, (get it, sun, being a solar energy thing)
I'm not saying that engery in kero is less than in lifting wieghts, remove that thought what you are saying is that kero is a better light source as it using less energy than lifting a wieght, I get that what you dont seem to get is that the energy expended for that person to get the kero is far great than the energy used to lift the wieghts, or the energy used to get the extra food to lift the wieght |
02:51pm 02/01/13 Permalink
six pages, bugger that, but yeah kero isn't exactly renewable
|
02:56pm 02/01/13 Permalink
hoggy>>>> yes, but again, a kilo of dry rice makes more than a kilo of cooked rice
also many of these villages grow (or try to grow) crops, so the distance to take the food is vastly less, than the distance to obtain the kero, also, as pointed out by other, as a light souce is it the greatest at turning that energy into light, factor in lost time away from tending crops, or learning better growing methods or doing other jobs just to make enough to buy the kero, then time lost to get said kero (something they might do only once or twice a month if they are lucky) |
02:57pm 02/01/13 Permalink
hoggy>>>> yes, but again, a kilo of dry rice makes more than a kilo of cooked riceAny added weight after cooking rice is just water. |
02:59pm 02/01/13 Permalink
I do not envy the jobs of highschool physics teachers now knowing that there's people like copuis out there. >_
|
03:02pm 02/01/13 Permalink
if kerosene is even remotely available in this imaginary location, chances are they're getting it anyway- probably on their 90mile round trip over hot coals for clean water
|
03:04pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Why are people talking about the energy in kerosine? You know that,
a) has little to do with the amount light created from a kerosine lamp as much of it is lost in heat and gases. b) isn't relevant anyway since it's not about producing something of equal value but something of useable value and removing an expensive and carcinogenic light source. The only energy of worth in this conversation is the input/output of the device. Assuming the input is purely from the weight of the bag and no thermal, chemical or other energy source is incorporated we can completely ignore the cost of human energy used in lifting the bag as at this point you've already shown the unlikelihood of the device working as stated. If you wanted to compare the energy of kerosine to that created by this device then you should be talking about a kerosine generator which would probably be more efficient that simply burning kerosine for light. |
03:05pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Heh I'm out. You guys should totally donate!
If you wanted to compare the energy of kerosine to that created by this device then you should be talking about a kerosine generator which would probably be more efficient that simply burning kerosine for light. That's this bit: So going by those numbers you are much, much better off chasing more efficient kerosene lighting (and better distribution) than human-powering lighting. BTW its kerosene. |
03:11pm 02/01/13 Permalink
I do not envy the jobs of highschool physics teachers now knowing that there's people like copuis out there. >_ what, people that take in more than one factor when looking at a problem? in the real world there are many OTHER things to look at when trying to tackle an issue or problem like this transport storage access all things that give a greater understanding of the problem (and thus any savings) all factor you seem to want to ignore to make your point (my point is mearly that there are other factors, so it isn't a problem that can be solved purely by maths, something you are failing at) |
03:13pm 02/01/13 Permalink
this seems to be a big thing that you are overlooking in an effort to sound knowladgable loool |
03:15pm 02/01/13 Permalink
what, people that take in more than one factor when looking at a problem? Because there are no logistics problems with inventing, manufacturing, maintaining and distributing a shiny new widget to billions of humans... |
03:16pm 02/01/13 Permalink
BTW its kerosene.Tell that to my spellchecker buddy! It is sometimes spelled kerosine in scientific and industrial usage. according to the wiki. |
03:22pm 02/01/13 Permalink
wouldn't mind one for the next power blackout
eating is something i generally do anyway so not really fussed about the food efficiency thing |
03:23pm 02/01/13 Permalink
ahh, but nerf is comparing the use of both devices,
and ignoring the need to collect the kero from a point, and ignoring the extra effort required to earn money for said kero says that the kero lamp is better because it uses less energy to run now, i am not arguing which is a better use of energy at the point of use, i'm arguing that the system required to maintain a kero lamp (earning extra money to buy kero, time/energy used to collect kero) negates the seeming negitive of lifting a bag of earth every now and then |
03:25pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Stop being rubbish, that's wrong.
What I said is that a human being cannot realistically power this to within even a magnitude of the same brightness as a kero powered lamp, we simply don't eat that amount of energy. If you want that much energy, you're going to have to get it from somewhere, and eating the s***loads of food that would be required to generate the equivalent from yourself is an incredibly bad way of going about it. |
03:28pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Stop being rubbish, no, that's wrong.What I said is that a human being cannot realistically power this to even within a magnitude of the same brightness as a kero powered lamp, we simply don't eat that amount of energy. If you want that much energy, you're going to have to get it from somewhere. which I pointed out to you ignores the extra energy required to obtain kero, and you ignored this, and pushed your point you said that their claims are false, because it will use more energy, and if you look at only one point of whole picture, you are correct, but ignoring the rest of the picture makes you wrong |
03:32pm 02/01/13 Permalink
which I pointed out to you ignores the extra energy required to obtain kero, and you ignored this, and pushed your pointIf transporting fuel was inefficient then we wouldn't do it now would we. |
03:37pm 02/01/13 Permalink
The general guideline is that extraordinary claims/promises require extraordinary evidence.
The GravityLight makes extraordinary promises, but I am yet to see any mathematical/scientific material from them demonstrating that their fundamental assumptions and goals are realistically sound. You can't just start building something and hope to overcome basic physics/chemistry. |
03:40pm 02/01/13 Permalink
If transporting fuel was inefficient then we wouldn't do it now would we. well, we done transport it the same way, and this is a poor troll atempt or your being a little ignorant if we need some kero, we jump in the car, at go to the shop, it comes in a nice safe container and out we go if they need kero, they have to walk, sometimes for quite a distance (much further than we drive), carrying the container they are going to use to hold the kero, they buy it, they walk back. which would you rather do |
03:40pm 02/01/13 Permalink
You can't just start building something and hope to overcome basic physics/chemistry. nah uh, copuis said so and he is an extremely knowladgable person |
03:41pm 02/01/13 Permalink
which I pointed out to you ignores the extra energy required to obtain kero, and you ignored this, and pushed your pointyou said that their claims are false, because it will use more energy, and if you look at only one point of whole picture, you are correct, but ignoring the rest of the picture makes you wrong Why is distributing kerosene a problem that can't be solved, but distributing a few billion $5 gravity lights isn't an issue? Why is human mechanical power a good fit for a portion of the world that has endemic food supply issues, who will still need to obtain and use fuel to cook their meagre meals anwyay? |
03:42pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Clearly all the Africans should carry pots of kero on their heads than water since it nets more energy.
|
03:43pm 02/01/13 Permalink
anyway, how are they ever going to make it in the nba unless they're getting regular exercise?
|
03:44pm 02/01/13 Permalink
reload>>> i've not argued physics, i've argued that there is more to consider when looking at problems like these
Hoggy>>>, I see your point, I guess should these devices (provided they work as claimed, which seems a little scetchy) only need to travel once, where as kero is a trip that needs to be repeated |
03:46pm 02/01/13 Permalink
If only we could find a way to harness the energy released by africans dying from aids
|
03:48pm 02/01/13 Permalink
where as kero is a trip that needs to be repeated as opposed to repeatedly lifting a heavy sack for little result, right? |
03:48pm 02/01/13 Permalink
They live in small villages, they likely have a truck that drives around to all the villages delivering s***. There is no need to make any assumptions anyway since you are comparing something that exists to something that doesn't.
It's like saying you could ride a magical unicorn to town that never needs food or just a regular horse that eats, drinks and doesn't poop rainbows. Of course the magical unicorn sounds more efficient but you'd still be sitting on the side of the road waiting for it to materialize while the guy on the horse has long arrived at his destination. |
03:49pm 02/01/13 Permalink
^ Not to mention that, if you were ever going to put out comparable energy with a food-powered generator, you'd need to collect far far far more food anyway.
That's before the fact that copious is just repeatedly ignoring that this thing cannot put out similar light to kerosene lamps for more than a brief flicker of time. |
03:50pm 02/01/13 Permalink
are you questioning copuis's anthropological knowladge?
|
03:52pm 02/01/13 Permalink
I see your point, I guess should these devices (provided they work as claimed, which seems a little scetchy) only need to travel once, where as kero is a trip that needs to be repeated But they still need the fuel, so the (apparent) fuel runs still need to happen. |
03:56pm 02/01/13 Permalink
nerf, i'll put it like this so you might understand where i'm comming from
farmer grows apples, every day he works, he gets 6 apples, (now for the purpose of this, apples are magic, and no other food is need to live) currently the farmer needs 2 apples a day to live, and 1 for is wife, the extra applea are sold the run a kero lamp, which requires a refill every 2 weeks it is a days travel to obtain kero, no apples are grown that day (as the farmer is not there) this means the farmer makes 78 apples a fortnight 42 apples are eaten by the family each fortnight now refill of kero costs the farmer 12 apples yet to power the grav lamp the famer would need to eat an extra apple a day, the grav lamp will be the better option, as this would mean that the farmer would have more time to farm, growing somewhat more, and thus having more to sell for other things, |
04:00pm 02/01/13 Permalink
But they still need the fuel, so the (apparent) fuel runs still need to happen. if they no longer have the kero lamps, what do they need the fuel for? (unless they are using it for cooking, and then surely then decrease in demand would lower the price a fraction) |
04:02pm 02/01/13 Permalink
the grav lamp will be the better option, as this would mean that the farmer would have more time to farm, growing somewhat more, and thus having more to sell for other things, Stop it. The farmer still needs to get fuel. if they no longer have the kero lamps, what do they need the fuel for? (unless they are using it for cooking, and then surely then decrease in demand would lower the price a fraction) LOL, they use the kero because they don't have electricity... and without electricity all sorts of stuff requires fuel. Lower the price? Now you're just making s*** up. |
04:04pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Stop it. The farmer still needs to get fuel. for what?, his petrol powered garden hoe? they farm by hand, they dont have cars, or tractors, at best a petrol powered water pump, and that is rare |
04:05pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Here you go champs, read the FAQ
How much light does GravityLight put out?Lets assume they mean lumens here and not just general medical and economic well being, which this design is also made to address. last edited by scuzzy at 16:07:54 02/Jan/13 |
04:06pm 02/01/13 Permalink
wow, if only you powered your computer with one of these copuis
|
04:07pm 02/01/13 Permalink
To cook. To boil water so its safe to drink. For heating. All sorts of basic s*** you take for granted with electricity. you mean the clay stoves that use wood and dung, not much kero used there, because many place it is all fire, not little pump stoves |
04:10pm 02/01/13 Permalink
wow, if only you powered your computer with one of these copuis for one I would be a lot fitter, or not have a computer (you get i'm trying point out that there are more factors at play right?) |
04:11pm 02/01/13 Permalink
you mean the clay stoves that use wood and dungWood is fuel you f*****g gronk. |
04:21pm 02/01/13 Permalink
you mean the clay stoves that use wood and dung, not much kero used there, because many place it is all fire, not little pump stoves I was pretty careful to use 'fuel' a lot as I'm trying to look at the big picture (you know all those factors in play here). Apparently it takes a whole day time to get a few litres of kero but the time to gather wood and dung isn't important. In any case burning dung rather than re-purposing it as fertilizer is appalling. Some interesting numbers here: http://saurorja.org/2011/07/18/kerosene-vs-klean-lighting-up-rural-india-cost-and-emission-analysis/ Getting the world onto the grid (be it centralised or local) is the best solution. Rather than spend billions on toy lights, why not get some actual f*****g electricity? |
04:23pm 02/01/13 Permalink
presumably the fuel sources of wood and poo are close by
|
04:24pm 02/01/13 Permalink
presumably the fuel sources of wood and poo are close by You're wrong. Harvesting of firewood is physically demanding and time-consuming work especially for women and girls, who are also responsible for other household duties. Wood is harvested from the surrounding woodland and then stored at home until is ready for use. As the pressure on wood availability develops, the distance travelled and time taken to collect wood also increases. Woman and girls in the studied villages walked more than one kilometre and spent about 2-5 hours per day to harvest firewood. Another study also found that women in Mametja, Limpopo Province spent an average of 4 hours per day harvesting firewood http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2006/april/wood.htm |
04:26pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Getting the world onto the grid (be it centralised or local) is the best solution. Rather than spend billions on toy lights, why not get some actual f*****g electricity?But then you have to pay a carbon tax, did you consider that in your calculations? |
04:29pm 02/01/13 Permalink
If anyone has any more questions about copius' limited mental faculties, read this
hoggy>>>> yes, but again, a kilo of dry rice makes more than a kilo of cooked riceThat is pretty f*****g amazing. |
04:30pm 02/01/13 Permalink
hoggy>>> guess it is the same reason that it took so long here, distance, but I agree with you
personally if there was a good safe way to store the energy solar would be good, but i think the the upfront cost of batteries etc is the main thing stopping it also that was a very enlighting read |
04:32pm 02/01/13 Permalink
cooked rice has a higher volume per kilo than dry rice,
high volume = more nice troll try |
04:39pm 02/01/13 Permalink
It's still the exact same amount of rice. Maybe slightly less due to some starch seeping out. The added weight is water. You are simply amazing.
|
04:40pm 02/01/13 Permalink
but it isn't
if you start with 1 kg of rice, when you cook it, you end of with a much greater volume, and much greater weight if you compare a kg of dry rice to a kg of cooked there is a great volume in the cooked rice, but there are less grains, (also less energy) |
04:45pm 02/01/13 Permalink
So are you really this dumb or are you one of those trolls whose game is to act as dumb as possible in an attempt to get people flustered at how dumb you are?
Because if it's the latter I have got to admit, you are pretty good at it. |
04:48pm 02/01/13 Permalink
other than weight, 1kg of cook rice has no messurable likeness to 1kg of dry rice fpot
it is like saying that a ton of lead and a ton of feathers are the same amount. amount of what? we have been talking energy, and the ise of that energy, as well as with methods are going to be of more beneifit, so it would be fair to say that comparing a weight to another weight and seeing which is heavier is not the aim yes i do enjoy stiring from time to time, this is not that time |
04:56pm 02/01/13 Permalink
just when i thought i was out..
THEY PULL ME BACK IN rice is the ultimate perpetual energy medication |
05:03pm 02/01/13 Permalink
So really that dumb then. clearly im that dumb, I tried to explain stuff to you |
05:05pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Hey guys comparing rice to rice is like comparing lead to feathers.
|
05:05pm 02/01/13 Permalink
and there is (according to you) the same amount of rice in a kg of cook vs dry
|
05:11pm 02/01/13 Permalink
if only those retards at CERN had realised they could just boil a pot of rice
|
05:16pm 02/01/13 Permalink
i like the idea of expanding the electricity grid to these barren dirt-villages
|
05:23pm 02/01/13 Permalink
and there is (according to you) the same amount of rice in a kg of cook vs dryThere is the exact same amount of rice though, if you had 1 million grains of rice in a 1kg bag and then cooked it you would still have 1 million grains of rice. |
05:58pm 02/01/13 Permalink
nah cos some sticks to the pot
factors |
06:07pm 02/01/13 Permalink
There is the exact same amount of rice though, if you had 1 million grains of rice in a 1kg bag and then cooked it you would still have 1 million grains of rice. but what is was talking about was a kg of cooked rice, vs a kg of uncooked, they wieght the same, but they have vastly different volumes, energy content, only the wieght is the same |
06:12pm 02/01/13 Permalink
are you cooking this rice with some sort of fusion reactor?
|
06:16pm 02/01/13 Permalink
but what is was talking about was a kg of cooked rice, vs a kg of uncooked, they wieght the samehahahaha |
06:41pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Looks like I missed an epic thread while camping :o
Light would be pretty useful for camping providing 2 things; 1. It actually works as advertised (I.e. actual useful lighting, not some piss weak LED Glow) 2. I was able o use any weight. (Such as my 20lt Water Container) F*** carting around an extra 9kg just for lighting. Weight of some torches is measured in grams... Sif care about some 3rd world country, hook those b****** up with Solar and be done with it. |
06:43pm 02/01/13 Permalink
172 posts in 24 hours, it's like the qgl of old!
also reload!, scooby and scuzzy have had me chuckling to the point of coughing |
07:23pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Interesting thread, reminds me of something i read where a person hypothesized it was cheaper to drive to the shops than walk/cycle in terms of fuel costs re car vs human.
|
07:42pm 02/01/13 Permalink
what if i eat the food, then burn my s*** and bask in the light and odours given off?+1 Rocks are free. Kerosene ain't. |
09:20pm 02/01/13 Permalink
09:42pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Can we stop talking about retarded s*** like how cooked rice is magical and get back to the interesting science please?
Assuming 100% efficiency we've established that the best you can get is 0.1W over half an hour (you could always make it a shorter time to account for inefficiency), so what kind of LED efficiency would you need to produce useful light from that? LEDs are already hitting 250 lm/W (obviously the cutting edge of technology isn't feasible for a low cost 3rd world device, but just speaking theoretically/looking to the future), seems like a directed beam of 25lm would be a useful amount of light inside at night, would it not? |
09:57pm 02/01/13 Permalink
From the LED facts/myths page that I linked earlier, apparently numbers like that are only for 'burst' tests, not sustained. Apparently the very best LEDs only sustain about 40 lm/W, and from what I read elsewhere they're already near their theoretical maximum.
|
10:20pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Ah, fair enough, sorry couldn't be bothered reading every post in this clusterf*** of a thread. Did it say how the theoretical limit of LEDs is determined?
Man, for a technologically advanced race we're pretty s*** at efficiency. Wake me up when we're harnessing nearly 100% of the energy from fission/fusion reactions and are able to convert nearly 100% of that into light. |
10:29pm 02/01/13 Permalink
i'm not sure what copius is going on about but if you boil 1 cup of uncooked rice, it becomes 2 cups or so of cooked rice. but that's because the rice get's all puffy from soaking up all the water, not because more rice magically appears.
|
10:55pm 02/01/13 Permalink
not because more rice magically appears.you lie, tricky Chinese man is sneaking more rice into your bowl!! |
11:40pm 02/01/13 Permalink
it is a days travel to obtain kero, no apples are grown that day (as the farmer is not there) What sort of s***** magic apples don't grown when their master isn't around? Rice debate is f*****g gold. |
11:52pm 02/01/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Not Relevant |
03:37am 03/01/13 Permalink
)2. I was able to use any weight. (Such as my 20lt Water Container) F*** carting around an extra 9kg just for lighting. No, you need special weights which can only be used with the Gravity Light |
01:16pm 03/01/13 Permalink
You see when you put rocks in a bag and they warm up they become cooked rocks which makes the rocks multiply magically. Only then can the increased rock energy be used to power the gravity lights. For more cooked rock power, remember to use magnets.
|
01:18pm 03/01/13 Permalink
No, you need special weights which can only be used with the Gravity Light Well... if Apple gets involved in the design... Seriously though, some people would think a fully internal, hard to get to, specially designed 'weight pack' would be a good idea in things like this. Like Batteries that you cant replace without breaking the device to get to them. |
02:20pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Please tell me how many kilojoules you would need to power the light for 4 hours.
I think it was 1.8Kj. is that right? or was that per half hour? |
04:59pm 03/01/13 Permalink
I got the 1.8 kilojoules number, presuming a 1 watt LED for 30 minutes.
I was going on the claim here that "Some highly efficient white-light LED lighting fixtures can achieve efficacy of over 40 lumens per watt (lm / W)" and a quote from the wiki kero lamp page from a standford article about kero lamps in India (one of the two third-world extensive kero lamp users) that indicated that the most commonly used type of kero lamp would produce 37 lumens. |
06:04pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Go read this comment http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/15q9b1/lighting_for_a_billion_people_the_gravity_light/c7ovrv6
tl;dr there are viable LED's that require tiny amounts of power (140 mW is the example from the thread), so on raw numbers yes its possible. |
06:21pm 03/01/13 Permalink
I got the 1.8 kilojoules number, presuming a 1 watt LED for 30 minutes.I was going on the claim here that "Some highly efficient white-light LED lighting fixtures can achieve efficacy of over 40 lumens per watt (lm / W)" and a quote from the wiki kero lamp page from a standford article about kero lamps in India (one of the two third-world extensive kero lamp users) that indicated that the most commonly used type of kero lamp would produce 37 lumens. So we are talking about a tenth of a gram of oats to fuel the work. or half a gram of cooked rice. Did I do the maths wrong? |
06:56pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Go read this comment http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/15q9b1/lighting_for_a_billion_people_the_gravity_light/c7ovrv6 tl;dr there are viable LED's that require tiny amounts of power (140 mW is the example from the thread), so on raw numbers yes its possible. The first comment that you linked agreed with my numbers (at an essentially impossible 100% efficiency, you're not even within a magnitude of where you'd need to be), and the one after said you'd maybe manage one magnitude less of light than a weak kero lamp at best with a cutting edge LED. So we are talking about a tenth of a gram of oats to fuel the work. or half a gram of cooked rice. I'm not following, you can't calculate those things since there's no way to measure the efficiency of the human body, other than "almost certainly not a good idea for power conversion". Taking into account that we know that oil is cheaper than synthetic oil at this time, getting useful light from food demands more cost on food, meaning that this is not going to doable by a human taking in a cheap amount of food, pre-emptively revealing that there is something very curious about their claims that they can get human generated light of the same brightness as oil generated light (as confirmed by the actual maths on the amount of energy that you could actually get out of such activity). |
07:14pm 03/01/13 Permalink
I'm not following, you can't calculate those things since there's no way to measure the efficiency of the human body, other than "almost certainly not a good idea for power conversion". Taking into account that we know that oil is cheaper than synthetic oil at this time, getting useful light from food demands more cost on food, meaning that this is not going to doable by a human taking in a cheap amount of food, pre-emptively revealing that there is something very curious about their claims that they can get human generated light of the same brightness as oil generated light (as confirmed by the actual maths on the amount of energy that you could actually get out of such activity). you are correct, apart from comparing the cost of oil compared to food to achieve the same output because you dont, you only comapre it against the energy factor, if the food was free, and the oil cost money, would you still say that oil is the best way (in terms of cost) |
07:24pm 03/01/13 Permalink
you are correct, apart from comparing the cost of oil compared to food to achieve the same outputbecause you dont, you only comapre it against the energy factor, if the food was free, and the oil cost money, would you still say that oil is the best way (in terms of cost) I've told you a dozen times that it doesn't matter how much food costs, my only point is that since we know that food is such a worse energy source, and that the human body is such a poor method for power conversion, we should be pre-emptively suspicious about any claims that they've got a usable human-powered light, because it would suggest that somebody is taking in incredible amounts of energy. The suspicions were then revealed to be valid by actual maths showing that you won't really get any light out of this, the food question doesn't matter any more. |
07:32pm 03/01/13 Permalink
next you'll be telling me human poweredf flight is impossible because the maths doesn't work out
(I still think it is a novel idea, much like the clockwork radio that came out years ago for use in these areas, while a little time consuming to wind up, it still proved them contact and entertainment, and dynmo lights have been around for donkeys years, (using far worse lighting methods at that) sure it might not be great, but you can't ignore that IF it say gave the same light as 1 candle over a 20min timeframe it wouldn't have some use) |
07:43pm 03/01/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Not Relevant |
07:47pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Maybe Nathan was referring to the next comment down in that reddit link?
Richard Berry · University of Virginia Thoughts? |
07:56pm 03/01/13 Permalink
next you'll be telling me human poweredf flight is impossible because the maths doesn't work out Sigh, I didn't say that human powered light was impossible, I said that what they represented in their video doesn't seem to be possible by the constraints of physics. Maybe Nathan was referring to the next comment down in that reddit link? Thoughts? I responded to that. It said that with a LED which puts out a magnitude less of light than a bad kero lamp, you could maybe power it if you somehow made an impossible 100% efficient mechanical generator. This could be useful for a very dim or very concise torch light, for brief moments (a few minutes), then their claim that they can replace or exceed kero with this just doesn't seem scientifically possible. |
08:02pm 03/01/13 Permalink
next you'll be telling me human poweredf flight is impossible because the maths doesn't work out There were earlier aviators but the history books credit the Wright brothers with the innovation of cooking the grains before using them in the rice powered treadmill. |
08:10pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Richard Berry, whom ever he his seems to think it is doable, based on more than the maths on one of the factors, (he goes to to state luxs that are usable to read by, and move around a room, both the uses this would see)
seem you didn't answer it at all nerf this I think sums it up really well, "However, the GravityLight does appear to be feasible technically, when considered in a realistic context." i wonder is this richard is the poster http://www.wvi.com/~rberry/index.html, he seems to understand light a little better if that is the case |
08:17pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Richard Berry, whom ever he his seems to think it is doable, based on more than the maths on one of the factors Bulls***, you should learn to read. He said that with 100% efficient power generation, you could power a small directional LED which is a magnitude less bright than a weak kerosene lamp. |
08:57pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Bulls***, you should learn to read. He said that with 100% efficient power generation, you could power a small directional LED which is a magnitude less bright than a weak kerosene lamp. ahem, practice as one preaches what he wrote was "Energetically, the device is possible. The design obviously calls for an efficient mechanical and electrical design." and this part here is worth READING "On vacations as a kid, I tried reading by kerosene lamp and it gave me a headache. As a 65-year-old, I was able to read a book page set in 9-point Times Roman for 20 minutes by Photon Micro-Light without discomfort." what he said was the LED used 140mW and using this math E = mgh --> 9kg x 9.8m/s2 x 2m = 176 J available potential energy. we could if it was 100% efficient power generation have 162mw over 1080 sec, so, by my math, IF you could get the losses down to 22mw over that time frame, you'd still be fine so nerf, how are my reading skills? |
08:59pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Sigh, let me spell it out for you:
His tested LED output = 4 lumens (and only doable with this power source by assuming near 100% efficiency) Kerosene output = 37~100 lumens Their claim was that this won't just compete with kerosene lamps, it will replace them. Their claim was scientifically rubbish. Even going by his figures. Yes, it's possible to power a light with this system, we've all said this. It's not possible to power a light comparable to a kerosene lamp. |
09:05pm 03/01/13 Permalink
i'll post this part again, maybe take a breath, and read slowly and in an understanding fashion his coments again
"the GravityLight does appear to be feasible technically, when considered in a realistic context." he also went on to state that the light was usable to move around a room with bumping into things, he also stated that reading by this light caused no discomfort when compared to reading by a kero lamp (might have more to do with the wavelengh of the light, not just the pure lux) also, he never once assumed a 100% effcient power source, he (and i reposted) the figures, there is a margin for loss, it doen't need to be 100%, (but it does need a high effciency) nerf, I might not be the most learned in this argument, but about now your not coming off as the smartest (which is not good when it is me) ps, in your world 100% is ~87% in the real world, |
09:12pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Oh jesus.. I think we have a big contender for the Most Retarded Argument of the Year, 2013 award already.
|
09:23pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Nope, I give up, this guy is continuously arguing an unrelated point to my criticism of the original pitch.
The original claims in the video are very suspicious, seemingly impossible, would not recommend donating. |
09:40pm 03/01/13 Permalink
so long as you use this for the weight
http://i.imgur.com/EpGgn.jpg |
09:47pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Nerf, if water is medicine and you cook rice with water does that mean that it becomes medical grade rice?
|
10:04pm 03/01/13 Permalink
if water is medicine Pragmatically indistinguishable from. Unless diabetics aren't taking medicine when injecting themselves with daily insulin requirements. |
11:33pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Nope, I give up, this guy is continuously arguing an unrelated point to my criticism of the original pitch.The original claims in the video are very suspicious, seemingly impossible, would not recommend donating. what, you copied and pasted one view, and refused to look at other aspects even when it was shown that it is possible you refuse to look at other aspects you found a negitive view that spouted that it wouldn't be feasible and ran with it, the way I see it is this the copy job you did looked at the energy side, and said nar, it can be done Mr richard berry looked at it and said, wait up, the maths says it can be done, I tested it myself, did a little trial and it could work if the machine is ~87% efficient I dont see where you are tripping up here, you take the view from a guy you dont know, run with it because it sounds about right, then when faced with another view that counters that you dont wish to consider it? you keep going like that in life, hear the first view that sounds right, and never waver from that |
03:37am 04/01/13 Permalink
The f*** is wrong with you man? I've told you how many times that you're addressing a completely irrelevant point?
Here, I'll just repeat my previous answer: let me spell it out for you: For comparison, a candle provides about 13 lumens. You'd need to lift 4x10 kilos to 2 metres - at near maximum conversion efficiency - to get the same brightness as a candle... |
03:44am 04/01/13 Permalink
What if you had multiple gravity lights, all hooked up to the same weight, so you lift it once and power like 4 or 5 lights.
|
04:34am 04/01/13 Permalink
I dunno Khel, that's a lot of rice, you'd need a big pot.
|
04:49am 04/01/13 Permalink
a candle provides about 13 lumens. A flickering candle light is a much different light than a constant LED output. It's even a different colour spectrum. I have 2 Dive torches, the difference between a Halogen and an LED light (Same Lumens, Same Beam Angle) in the water is staggering. You can't compare to very different light sources based solely on Lumens. |
09:18am 04/01/13 Permalink
"What if you had multiple gravity lights, all hooked up to the same weight, so you lift it once and power like 4 or 5 lights."
I had that thought too -- but wasn't really sure how the lifting business worked with this. Seems like science though. |
10:07am 04/01/13 Permalink
"What if you had multiple gravity lights, all hooked up to the same weight, so you lift it once and power like 4 or 5 lights." On the off chance that this is serious, the work would be divided between the lights so each would be proportionally dimmer. There may be some benefit to spreading the light around the room. I reckon a better idea would be a 500kg weight that was lifted 2-3 metres in the air at sunset with a hoist, or with the aid of a mule or something if a beast of burden was typically handy? At least it would get it done for the night in one go, and you'd have the ability to control the fall speed as a kind of crude dimmer. |
10:12am 04/01/13 Permalink
It's not possible to power a light comparable to a kerosene lamp.Sure, but you seem to have an unstated assumption that a) the lumens that a kerosene lamp puts out are the minimum requirement of the intended users and b) that its other qualities of the lighting are equivalent and/or required. The comment I linked provides (anecdotal) evidence that a lesser amount of lumens as produced by an LED, is suitable for the intended tasks. You can read with it and avoid bumping into stuff. As I think has already been mentioned, an LED is far more directional. If I have a shack or a tent or whatever and I hang a lamp in the top corner of a room; a kerosene lamp may produce 40 lumens but much of its output presumedly goes in the wrong direction? Certainly its a fair observation that this thing is not going to be technically equivalent; but for its intended purpose and based on the data available it sounds like it could potentially still be a suitable replacement. |
10:18am 04/01/13 Permalink
I reckon a better idea would be a 500kg weight that was lifted 2-3 metres in the air at sunset with a hoist, or with the aid of a mule or something if a beast of burden was typically handy? At least it would get it done for the night in one go, and you'd have the ability to control the fall speed as a kind of crude dimmer.At that point surely you should just look at thermo/solar/wind/magical options? |
10:19am 04/01/13 Permalink
Amusing thread totally disconected with reality. Nice work guys. Everyone ran their strawman argument which works fine in a textbook situation where the exam is going to give you an A+ if you manage to correctly answer a multi choice simplified question but not a single person has effectively added all the parts together to a community long term cost benefit analysis.
Well done. |
10:28am 04/01/13 Permalink
ive been particularly enjoying nerfy getting angrier and angrier. i hope this isnt a hoax just so he can be completely destroyed. (because it could never ever work, due to science)
|
10:39am 04/01/13 Permalink
My Conclusion
If we look at how much lux we need in the room lets say about the same as my office or 500Lux. Now select an led that will do the job say a typical Cree 5mm round led with a 55deg viewing angle so in a room with a ceiling of 2.4m it will give a spread of roughly 5 square meters or a typical humpy. The C513A-MSS-CV0Y0131 Cree 5mm Warm white (closest color to kero lamp) will give out a min of 2130 Lum (min used because it degrades over time and Tolerance of measurement of luminous intensity is ±15%.) Which will give us 520.9 LuX on the floor in a 2.4m diameter circle. The power used is p = VI , 0.065 = 3.2 X 0.02 So we need to amuse we want the thing to run for 6hr a night so that 0.065 X 6 = 0.39 WH Assume the can get 50% energy efficiency max or we need 0.78 WH 1 watt hour = 3600 joules so that's 2808 joules So take Nerf's formula Ep = MgH Mash it up a bit to find out the mass needed assume height is 2m M = EP/gH M = 2808 / 9.879 X 2 M = 142.1 kg If it was 100% efficient M = 71 kg The average weight of a person in Ethiopia is 44kg If we only want to run it off a 10kg bag the sums start again 197.58 Joules halved for efficiency is 98.79 joules 98.79 joules = 0.027441667 WH Power is still= 0.065w W = Wh/h W X Wh = h = 0.0844 Hrs Or 5min If 100% Efficiency was achieved you could run it for 10 min Summing it up currently their is $318,778 worth of suckers on indiegogo. So how many people could we feed for a day on that? Rice is currently $378 a tonne Rice needed to sustain life for a day In 2007 people in Thailand ate an average of 103kg of rice So if we buy 843328 kg of rice we could feed 2.98 Million people rice for a day. |
10:50am 04/01/13 Permalink
Well you have to take into account transportation and labour of distributing that rice, plus the cost of consumables/cookware cooking/preparing it.
|
10:55am 04/01/13 Permalink
Rice is only for pickup and uncooked |
11:13am 04/01/13 Permalink
so from what I can gather from your post denominator, you're saying that the bags need to be filled with rice-eating ethiopians for this to work?
|
11:23am 04/01/13 Permalink
ive been particularly enjoying nerfy getting angrier and angrier. i hope this isnt a hoax just so he can be completely destroyed. (because it could never ever work, due to science) I'm not angry, I just have ridiculous optimism about being able to help the uneducated. Think that whoever was going to get it would have got it by page 1 though. |
11:27am 04/01/13 Permalink
I'm not angry, I just have ridiculous optimism about being able to help the uneducated.Think that whoever was going to get it would have got it by page 1 though. sorry for knowing alittle about alot, and not alot about a little, nerf man, no matter how many other people put forward that there are other factors that might be worth looking at, you stuck with you feeling, and math working from someone else. good on you, gold star for tunnel vision |
02:36pm 04/01/13 Permalink
copius has pretty much elevated himself to QGL's dumbest with the rice thing in this thread. Congrats dude.
|
02:45pm 04/01/13 Permalink
He had already set a pretty impressive standard but the bar has definitely been irreversibly raised.
|
02:49pm 04/01/13 Permalink
i'll rice, sorry rise to the trolling from you two
where was I wrong about the rice. I might not have articulated it in the best was, but there are big difference potental energy difference between dry rice, and cooked rice of the same weight and where did sorcery come into to it? I was trying to get nerf to look at different points (which he wont because he cant get away from the posted math from a different person) hell others have even expressed that there is more to consider that the pure lux side but hey, troll away you two, |
03:04pm 04/01/13 Permalink
You were wrong about literally everything you little dolt lol
|
03:08pm 04/01/13 Permalink
M = 142.1 kg so it can work provided that every ethiopian in the room sits on a platform suspended from the thing instead of on the floor nice |
03:18pm 04/01/13 Permalink
He had already set a pretty impressive standard but the bar has definitely been irreversibly raised Yes, but how? Science powered single use rock bags hoisted by rice eating Ethiopian weight lifters or economy sized kerosene fueled lumen mules? |
07:02pm 04/01/13 Permalink
07:07pm 04/01/13 Permalink
