I'm sure there are a lot of loudmouths out there who can easily talk over 100 dB!
MR.change, 10 May 2011No one is undermining the work of these researchers ,and I'm no energy expert myself as I'm no... moreThere's a solar panel phone already lol
It's a Samsung phone too!*gasp* Samsung e1107. It has the panel in the back though, unlike what you described. (I'm not sure if it's the first one with solar cell)
saw089, 10 May 2011The title clearly states that only chuck norris can do this, dont get why everyone getting soo... morePhysics also say that if you spend energy then you can do stuff.
for your airplane example ,the plane isn't flying because it's lighter than air!!
it's flying because it's burning massive amounts of fuel converting it to thermal energy and then pushing through the air to gain speed (every action generates an opposite reaction),then wings aerodynamics and their pressure variances generates the lifting force.
but based on your arguing I really don't think you know much about aerodynamics ,do you?
it's a whole branch in physics you know.
so No,you see airplanes flying doesn't contradict with the basic laws of physics.
@Jelly: I thought airplanes fly not because someone found a 'loophole in the laws of physics' but, on the contrary, because someone found a way to put certain physics laws in practice. But this is just me.
I want all of you who believe in loopholes in the laws of physics, to invest in my new closed cycle kinetic motion engine. It burns hydrogen and oxygen in a fairly normal turbine engine but then separates the resulting water vapor into hydrogen and oxygen via high energy neutrally charged solar radiation. This is a closed cycle producing energy without producing any smog. It only uses 1 litre of water that last for 20 years. I just need 50 million dollars to produce a pilot plant, then we can sell it to the auto companies and triple our money. xman
No one is undermining the work of these researchers ,and I'm no energy expert myself as I'm nothing but a humble environmental engineer ,but still we all study the same engineering principles ,we all study the rules of physics ,and I can tell you that this just won't work in real life.
and just to add on my previous post: it's not about their inability to convert the energy ,it's about how practical this conversion will be?
if they can generate Milli volts with a 100db of noise ,then it's not looking good already ,and hey even if they manage to improve this
even if they manage to reach the theoretical conversion limit of 100% (which is impossible in real life due to friction losses and other losses),it's still not enough to charge your phone ,it would still be measured in milli volts which can't really charge up the phone in real life.
it's quite a feat really ,but unfortunately it's never gonna work.
do you want my most optimistic estimation?
assuming they can achieve high conversion rates (70%-90%) then maybe it will add about 5% to your phone's battery life ,if you live in a noisy environment that is.
and this actually brings to my mind another similar project ,charging the phone using WIFI signals ,while sounding a little bit more promising than this ,it still failed to deliver because of the same limitation (i.e not enough energy to begin with)
honestly why don't they just find a way to make a solar panel integrated into the device's screen? think about it ,a 4" solar panel would be much more profitable and practical than this project
don't you think?
hey folks you heard it here first ,if samsung or someone else makes this , then I'll sue them for infringing my patents .lol
cheers to all of ya
The title clearly states that only chuck norris can do this, dont get why everyone getting soo worked up about it! :P
My answer to your Microphone story... stuff heavier than air is fly... I call it 'Airplane'... physics says lighter thing goes up... How come planes fly then? Innovation... So learn not to discourage engineers... No hard feelings...
this article is just wrong. The author should know that we live in a world were impossible is being replaced by 'how to put in a slim and light phone' every year. I could give you a list of things which were thought to be impossible, bending rules of physics as you say but all are reality now. for ex im using my mobile phone to write this comment while also surfing web and listening to music at the same time, and im using a OUTDATED nokia n73 for that. If i had said something like this 10 years back, some1 just like you would have said that its impossible. For god sakes man we have been to the moon and back, converting energy is nothing compared to that. And besides one should never undermine some1 else's work, think about it.
I agree that physics will not allow this to take place, however, there are many things that the laws physics has not allowed in the past and mankind has found loopholes to defy those laws and we continue to do so each and every day. It was said that man could not fly because physics would not allow it, so we built machines called airplanes and got our behinds up in the air! Nothing prevents the people with this idea from finding these loopholes in physics as well. When did the people in your office stop dreaming GSMArena ? Impossible is nothing.
well, since chuck norris moves the earth around when doing push-ups, he can surely charge mobile phones :P
I'll have to agree with gsmarena and the negative views on this article
This just won't happen, the laws of physics forbid it.
First the energy generated by your sound waves is minimal at best
Second , any conversion scenario would involve energy losses
and Like gsmarena said ,the device to convert sound waves into electricity already exists in every phone, it's called the mic
But not only does it generate minimal current,no actually it uses electricity from the phone's battery because it needs to amplify the input signal for it to give measurable output, then it needs more amplification on the receiving end (i.e the speaker)
So no this thing just won't happen because it would mean creating energy from nothing, and even if they've managed to lower the resistance and minimise energy losses, it still won't be enough to charge a phone because the sound wave has no enough energy to begin with
I love innovations but this is impossible
AnonD-2565, 10 May 2011well, I don;t believe in such a thing as IMPOSSIBLE when it comes to science. It will happen, ... more"There’s just no way to produce more energy from the sound waves than has been used to create them". If the energy used to make the sound wave was SFA, then there is no way you will get more energy than SFA, in fact you will get less than SFA. Google "laws of thermodynamics".
Well, if "wait and see" then it's not _so_ bad (certainly not anywhere near the worst approaches I've seen)... but it's still a bit like choosing to wander in the dark.
The foundations are crucial. People creating all the tech you cherish and love, are able to do it by building _on_ those foundations, by deep appreciation and understanding of them (not by wishful thinking of trying to ignore them)
You must realize what it means - if you think that modern physics is _SO_ wrong about basics (when it points out how such "sound charging" is not practical)...
...then you also claim that the computer or mobile phone you use right now cannot possibly work! (they build upon the wave theory and its refinements, big time)
AnonD-2565, 10 May 2011well, I don;t believe in such a thing as IMPOSSIBLE when it comes to science. It will happen, ... moreyour cliché remark about laws meant to be broken is quite idiotic. Physics laws are called laws not because man kind decided they are rules that should be followed, but rather, they are the observations of how the universe works.
Ashura, 10 May 2011Last time i cheaked dragons,horses with wings,flying carpets and that stuff were not science f... morehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction and http://www.kyon.pl/img/19156,chart,science_fiction,.html (plus in most of old films you mention there was actually very little science, if you really look with any rigour - they completely ignored what we knew even back when they were made; heck, they were often mostly determined by the drive to show off the new art (_artistic_ expression) of cinematography - and likewise often limited by available special effects)
Sure, we managed some of the imagined things, _vaguely_ - but 1) only some, very few 2) typically by very, VERY different means than imagined in works of fiction(!) - where "technical" (or "technobabble") explanations and "new science" are often just a _tool_ to make storytelling easier; even outright (as sometimes admitted by authours) to make it easier and more palatable for the audiences, which would be too uncomfortable when faced with what our universe really is.
The subject in question most likely won't become a reality because some very elementary physics stands in its way... (have you read the Asimov essay? Do you know what type of books he also wrote? After reading the essay I linked to, you might understand why his scifi is generally among the best) ...one where _some_ improvements are possible in, say, how we are able to analyse the signal - not in ignoring the foundations.
AnonD-903, 10 May 2011Science FICTION from yesterday is not technology from today. It remains fiction. Where are the... moreLast time i cheaked dragons,horses with wings,flying carpets and that stuff were not science fiction they were just fiction.And what was said before is actualy real.Remember those old science fiction movies were we saw men flying,landing on the moon,exploring space and all that fun stuff(You know the actual SCIENCE fiction?)Those are all real now so who´s to say that this won be a reality too?