I love the concept, almost more than I love the comments.
Yes, the negative comments, bringing up such inconsequential points as the fact that it doesn't work are puzzling...
there are alternatives apparently!!!!
Despite the 'green hype' of the media - the negative comments here just reek of negativity, small-mindedness and even jealousy. Despite the short-comings in theory (the designer is an architect btw... and has welcomed the criticism) the design is beautiful - and the idea is lovely.
What is most interesting about this page is how the media falls for a "green" concept, and how a few simple calculations demonstrate that the celebrated green concept does not work.
WAKE UP PEOPLE! One does not get green for free. It takes an engineering degree to realize that. That's part of the reason why we are stuck with the moronic Kyoto protocol.
A gravity-powered LED floor lamp.
If and when they develop a patent for this, I'll totally buy one.
From the page: "Lamp Lit by Gravity Wins Greener Gadget Award"
what i think is the worst part of this all is the reactions. i mean, i just stumbled upon this and i like the concept.
There is the whole having a device where you flip the heavy side to the top (like a hourglass) and you convert the kinetic energy into something like a lamp. - which sounds like a interesting idea. and may be feasible. we all love gadgets and this -to a laymen- sounds like a concept that -providing its made into a nifty product (like a lamp, or something that helps power your mobile electronic device or w/e- can become something so simple, elegant, useful and in the long run irreplaceable in the same category as a staple or a t-ford -hey, who knows, right? ;)
but unfortunately it appears that in the concept as the guy worked it out its not possible at the moment, which is fine. i mean concepts are meant as concept, then comes a design, then comes a prototype and maybe it turns into a product.
i mean, ok with this setup if you do the calculation you need 4 ton or at least 1+ ton to last it 4 hours. so i am only asking, what if he based the concept and some does the math on a 5 or 10 minute cycle with efficient leds etcetc..
from the top of my head i still can imagine the answer; you need quite a good amount of kinetic energy but it becomes a lot more feasible- or am i missing something here ?
so the guy did some miscalculations, no need for a billion negative responses on something
at least not in the way i experienced reading about it
thinker "i made up this really cool thing, why dont we use gravity to run a light for four hours"
people"wooooo, wow thats cool"
people"hey wait a minute. it will never run four hours with todays tech, this is bullshit"
thinker"yeh but, its not made yet, i just made it up. its a concept, it might be done once"
people"what. its not done yet? boooooo"
other people"boooo, you suck, this cant run 4 hours. i hate you. boooooooooo. come on lets all booooooo this guy"
edit: i missed the part where he won a award and price money. and explanation on this page http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/03/03/stop-press-pixie-dust-unsuitable-for-household-lighting/ .. carry on boooooo-ing i guess
A light powered by gravity? You have to get the damn weight up there in the first place. Dams have always been powered by gravity. Since when is this an actual invention?
Yeah, free energy. It is is an curiously popular fiction these days.
"This lamp would have to weigh 1.4 tons" Haha this lamp isn't physically possible
This is a great concept that I hope will come to fruition soon!
Fantastic. Greener technology is the way to go.
It does not work! do the math. even with the best LED's currently available, it doesnt even come close!