Slashdot Mirror


New Twist on Power Walking

An anonymous reader writes "Carrying a newly designed backpack loaded with between 44 and 84 pounds of gear, users generate enough electricity to simultaneously power an MP3 player, a PDA, night vision goggles, a handheld GPS, a CMOS image decoder, a GSM terminal in talk mode, and Bluetooth."

253 comments

  1. Ob Snow Crash reference by richie2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    - You're a gargoyle.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
    1. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

      what a pointless thing to create, i certainly dont think im alone only when i say that i dont want to be the first walking power station. This is just another on of those WTF?

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    2. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who read the title as "Wanking"?

    3. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by superiority · · Score: 1

      Yeah, who likes not paying for batteries anyway? I know that I love spending monvey on small items that I need all the time, rather than walking.

    4. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Ulven · · Score: 1

      ..."the Suspended-load Backpack, a piece of gear that will one day enable field scientists, hikers, explorers, soldiers, and disaster workers to convert mechanical energy generated by walking with a heavy load on their backs into electricity." Doesn't seem pointless to me.

    5. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Sinus0idal · · Score: 1

      yes

    6. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you missed the point. After RTFA the gear between 40lbs-80lbs is your normal gear that you will take in a backpack. Clothing, Tent, Sleeping Bag, Towel, Toiletries, Oder Free Soap, Pocket Knife, First Aid Kit, Cooking pans, Fire starter kit, Water, food. All this combined could make the pack easily 50-80 lbs. the article never gave the weight to the pack when it was empty but they did state it did help you carry yourself better thus making the load more efficient.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by greenhide · · Score: 1

      I'd gladly pay for batteries every month or so, so long as it means not having to lug around a 40lb backpack.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    8. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      That's because you're not carrying one.

      bkr

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    9. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way this thing generates electricity (by bouncing around your back and braking the kinetic energy into electricity) i would suspect that it is rather annoying to carry. But who knows.

    10. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't join the Army then...

    11. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any dirty bastards who read it as 'Power Wanking', please direct yourselves here.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    12. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by compro01 · · Score: 1

      this is basicaly first-generation stuff. just wait. the weight will go down as they improve the tech.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    13. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by tcr · · Score: 1

      I think that's where the night vision goggles come in...

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
    14. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      If you're carrying a 50lb pack and you're not in the military, you're badly overloaded. My standard pack load is 30 pounds, not counting food and water. Add two pounds for each day's food, and two pounds for each quart of water.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    15. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      pack= 5 lbs
      tent = 5 lbs
      clothes = 5 lbs
      tools and first aid = 5 lbs
      sleeping gear = 5 lbs
      cooking/eating gear = 5 lbs
      GPS, camera, unnecessary but sometimes wanted tools, favorite camping cup (though heavy), bug dope, sunscreen, and other things that people take that they need = 10 lbs
      food and water, 10 lbs for 4 days, presuming easy refill

      50 lbs, and not really overpacked. You either spend $10,000 on your gear, or you don't take enough with you to be safe. Extra fuel for the stove. Here, pills can't sanitize the water (the parasite that is common and deadly has to be filered or boiled for 10+ mins), so you have to have the heavier filters. A first aid kit with all the things you need for anything that might happen. A cell phone to save 30 minutes in response time if you have to run for help. And all the other things that you could do without, but it wouldn't necessarily be safe if you left behind. Oh, and it's common for people to camp where it is 70+ in the day and below freezing in the mornings. If you spend the extra money for the lighter pack, lighter sleeping bag, lighter pads, lighter clothes, lighter stove, lighter water filter, lighter tools, and all that, you've spent a whole lot more than necessary.

      I'm usually at about 40 lbs with food and water, and I have, on more than one occasion, wished that I'd brought something I didn't have. A shovel or particular tool, heavier gloves/mittens, more empty plastic bags, and such. I can see carying 5-10 more lbs and still missing something, though I will go without rather than cary it myself.

      Well, I guess the point is that you are a pompous ass if you think yourself better or others lesser because of what weight someone has. It's a personal and financial choice, and it just as based in logic as insulting someone else's car because you wouldn't have bought it.

    16. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by khallow · · Score: 1
      Hrmmm, I agree there's too much weight here. I have a setup that would probably take around $300-500 to replace (mostly pack and tent) and it would weigh around 30 pounds excluding food and water. But this is in line with both your actual pack weight and of the previous poster.

      Well, I guess the point is that you are a pompous ass if you think yourself better or others lesser because of what weight someone has. It's a personal and financial choice, and it just as based in logic as insulting someone else's car because you wouldn't have bought it.

      Good thing nobody made such an argument then.

    17. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      no shit, add an AR-33 and, Blazango..you're Special Forces. ~flipper

    18. Re:Ob Snow Crash reference by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      pack = 4 lbs
      tent = 8 lbs (Far too heavy, but it was free, and it's proof against anything short of a Category 2 hurricane)
      clothes = 5 lbs (includes rain gear, sandals for river crossings)
      cook gear = 4 lbs (including stove fuel)
      sleeping gear = 3 lbs
      tools = 3 lbs (includes filter pump, first-aid kit, and bear-bagging line)
      emergency gear = 2 lbs (everything I need to spend a day and a night outdoors)

      Total before food and water: 29 lbs

      The only thing here that's more expensive than normal is the sleeping bag. I spent $200 for a two-pound down-filled sleeping bag that's good down to below 20F. The tent's a 30-year-old two-person mountaineering tent; a modern replacement would weigh about 6 pounds and cost around $750, while a modern one-person replacement would weigh about 3 pounds and cost $150-$200.

      The key to reducing weight is not to carry lighter stuff, but to carry *less* stuff. Almost everything in my pack can serve at least two purposes: the clothes, for example, double as a pillow at night. Warm gloves can also insulate against hot pans. The sandals are useful for river crossings and camp footgear, while the boots are also used for pounding in tent stakes. Instead of a cup, I carry an extra wide-mouth water bottle. Meals are planned to minimize the amount of cooking gear needed, and I usually eat straight out of the pan.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  2. 84 pounds to power devices? by cwtrex · · Score: 2, Funny

    might be worth it for over weight kids that want to power their game boy while walking for a change ...

    I suppose it'll help build muscle too lol

    1. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by OllieG · · Score: 3, Funny

      According to TFA, the backpack changes a walker's gait so that they actually walk more efficiently, so maybe not! Shame for all the fat kids, though.

    2. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Unfortunately, dismounted infantry have to carry around heavy backpacks most of the time, see for instance:
      A typical operation lasts for five or six days in the field, requiring each man to bring 22 litres of water, ammunition and packs that can weigh up to 90 kilograms, along with an M-4 carbine and a 9mm sidearm. Other missions can go on for 10 days.
      More and more, batteries only add to the problem... recycling some of the walking energy to reduce the need for batteries is a fantastic idea, getting it to actually work is even better.

      Maybe next they can reduce the need to carry water by recycling urine!

    3. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by hattig · · Score: 1

      Sounds like this backpack is trying to devolve us back into knuckle-dragging apes, albeit apes with GPS navigation, night vision and personal data management capabilities.

    4. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by FirienFirien · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're just looking for enough power for a game boy, you might well be able to do it with a standard bag. 84lbs is the top end of the power range.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7970 has another viewpoint, and even a clear picture.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    5. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by databyss · · Score: 1

      Actually studies have shown that fat people use less energy already when walking due to more efficient walking styles. So this will just add weight to the fat kids and still burn them pounds away.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    6. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by Divide+By+Zero · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, my mod points expired, so I'll have to just agree with you.

      US Army's been developing computers for infantry for the last few years (I forget the code name, but it was typical Pentagon two parts macho two parts silly one part corny) and the stuff I read/saw said that the limiting factor was battery life. Rechargables are HEAVY. Tack that onto a 90kg pack that he's carrying anyway, and range gets shorter as your soldiers carry more If a grunt can power his laptop, field radio, GPS, and other electronics on the battlefield by walking and carrying the stuff he has to take anyway, and have that power generation help HIM to walk more efficiently, he can effectively power his gadgets for free AND get extended range by using less energy to walk/run. I can't see any way Defense ISN'T gonna be all over this like white on rice.

      I've been somewhat involved in Geocaching, and one of the biggest complaints of cachers is running out of batteries for their GPS. One of the most popular trade items is spare AA batteries. If they can make this affordable to the consumer, and you can carry your water, trades, poncho, and whatever else you need for a day in the woods and power your Garmin or Magellan on the strength of that, that's huge.

      Then there's the college kids with their newfangled eye-pods, high schoolers with cells, grade schoolers with game boys. They all carry a bunch of books everywhere they go. My high school backpack was 30-40lbs. That's a cell or PDA no prob. Retrofit a briefcase for Joe Yuppie to carry his paperwork and recharge his blackberry or laptop at the same time. Less time tied to an outlet, more time being on the road and productive (or so he'd have you believe). Get a small rig, put your mp3 player in it, strap it to your waist and go jogging. Kiss your low-battery warning goodbye. Make a tiny version and build it into a digital wristwatch, never change your battery again.

      How are these people NOT going to be writing their own check?

      --
      Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
    7. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by famebait · · Score: 1

      each man to bring 22 litres of water, ammunition and packs that can weigh up to 90 kilograms, along with an M-4 carbine and a 9mm sidearm.

      Are you trying to tell me these guys carry about 260 pounds of gear each around the place?

      Recycling some of the walking energy

      You don't recycle walking energy, you _drain_ extra walking energy, so it will be heavier to wealg, given the same total load. Have you ever ridden a bicycle with a dynamo-driven headlight? That's more or less the idea. Even with just a few watts, you can definitely feel the extra effort you have to exert. But yeah, if it eliminates enough battery mass, it might more than cancel out the cost, and you get a net benefit.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    8. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You don't recycle walking energy, you _drain_ extra walking energy, so it will be heavier to wealg, given the same total load. Have you ever ridden a bicycle with a dynamo-driven headlight? That's more or less the idea.
      Or it might be more like regenerative braking - not energy for free, but putting energy to use that would otherwise be wasted.

      The guy carrying the pack is already raising it by a small amount with every step (because it bobs as he walks). Thus he is doing work. If the weight is suspended, it won't bounce as much with each step, and some of the energy previously used to lift the pack will go into the batteries. At least hopefully that's how it works out.

    9. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by temojen · · Score: 1
      ...HEAVY... 90kg pack... range gets shorter...walk more efficiently...

      Dare I suggest... bicycles?

    10. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      someone already did in 1997. http://www.montagueco.com/techmilheritage.html

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    11. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by protolith · · Score: 1

      Make a tiny version and build it into a digital wristwatch, never change your battery again.

      They already do that, its generally called a kinetic watch, not to be confused with the automatics that have been around for a while (automatics use kinetic motion to wind a spring)Kinetics use motion th run a small generator.

      http://seikousa.com/Technology/TechDetails.aspx?te chnologyId=2

    12. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so - if you insist on giving us a URL to an organization that requires a signup, the least you could do it give us the user and password so all of us can read it.

    13. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they already had done it before 1899. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry

    14. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I've long wondered why they don't add such touches to things like cell phones. If it slowly charged as carried around and had a photo-conductive skin that'd let it also slowly charge when left in the light then no more than I use my phone it'd probably always be charged. I carry it everywhere but only use it a few minutes a day.

      Not that I need to charge my phone often. About once a week. Still it'd be nice to never have to charge it or for it to slowly recover if used til drained.

      Probably be good for camera, MP3 player, GPS, etc but those things are gradually being merged into my phone anyway. (I think my phone is more powerful than my PC was 5 years ago.)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    15. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I read the word "rig" it made me wonder: could the similar bouncing action of a vehicle on its springs as it goes over bumps be harnessed in a similar way to make a hybrid car more efficient? It seems like there is a lot of energy lost into the shock absorbers. Maybe somebody is already all over this.

    16. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by indianajones428 · · Score: 1

      US Army's been developing computers for infantry for the last few years (I forget the code name, but it was typical Pentagon two parts macho two parts silly one part corny)


      I'm only basing this on what I've seen on the War --*ahem*-- History Channel, but I think the system you're describing is the Land Warrior.

      --
      When a thing has been said, and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it. --Anatole France
    17. Re:84 pounds to power devices? by famebait · · Score: 1

      With the right gait and typical walking surface, the body is already pretty good at regenerating a energy through "spring-action"-like effects in the legs and elsewhere, unlike the normal car brake where it is all instantly converted to heat (one of the reasons the gait of CG-animated characters and robots often looks "unnatural" is if they haven't taken energy efficiency and regeneration into accont, like evolution of real creatures usually has).

      Siphoning off kinetic energy from the system will be noticeable, probably a bit similar to walking in sand (though less drastic), which foils the normal regeneration strategies not just through slippage, but also by simply absorbing your impact and reflecting virtually none of it for you to "recycle".

      But as I said, it may still be a good tradeoff if you can reduce the weight carried, and TFA said that impact on energy expenditure was less than expected, so it's still a very good and interesting result.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
  3. That would make you by silasthehobbit · · Score: 5, Funny

    A walking target for muggers. Or if you went on the London Underground with it, increase your likelihood of being shot by the Met Police exponentially

    1. Re:That would make you by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      You can do that just by being from Brazil.

    2. Re:That would make you by Karem+Lore · · Score: 1
      Oh mark the parent post up, that is SOOOO funny...

      On another note for another post, would fat kids be able to walk fast enough to generate such power? If not then there is the incentive...Here is a gameboy, keep walking...At the point where their speed is good they can play...

      --
      When all is said and done, nothing changes...
    3. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean you can do that by being any colour darker than bright white.

    4. Re:That would make you by gowen · · Score: 1

      Hey, the Met have never shot anyone acting suspiciously, wearing inappropriate clothes or carrying a bulky item that might be a bomb...

      They just claim those things afterwards.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    5. Re:That would make you by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Funny

      With a few modifications you could be a walking talking beat-em up character ."Lighting bolt thrust" ..."Spinning Electro kick".. no mugger could touch ***"Nine Volt Man***
      That joke was shocking

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    6. Re:That would make you by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      A walking target for muggers.

      I can't really see a mugger running off with a 30kg pack. In fact I can't really see a mugger wanting it in the first place. In fact, I can't really see why anyone would be carrying it to begin with. Am I missing something or is this a *really* niche market?

    7. Re:That would make you by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Or they will just start jumping up and down (thereby creating a power surge) until their parents buy them a PSP...

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    8. Re:That would make you by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something or is this a *really* niche market?

      Sorry, ignore me. Being dim. I missed the bit of the article that explained that the load in the backpack can be your own stuff.

      This might be handy for treks in remote areas, although you'd need to be able to charge a battery since you'd probably use more power when you weren't walking.

    9. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...well running from armed police when they asked you to stop. He was asking for it. Running from the police is one thing, running from armed police is another!

    10. Re:That would make you by bladernr · · Score: 1
      I think you mean you can do that by being any colour darker than bright white.

      Do you think its contradiction to you or merely irony that the newly crowned Miss England is dark-skinned, Muslim, and Asian.

      Other than the US and UK, can you imagine any other country being so open and tolerant that someone the locals wouldn't call "native" would get to be Miss <Fill in the Country>. (yes, I know the white people in the US aren't the natives.. I said "someone the locals...").

      Seriously. Would India ever have a white, English Miss India? Can you imagine Brazil having a black African as Miss Brazil? Would the French seriously have anyone, well, not "of French stock" (to use their phrase).

      I've been living in the UK (London) for almost a year, and I'm the first to talk about the shocking crime rate, but, come on, it's a long stretch to say the shooting proves an intolerent country, or even an intolerant police force.

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    11. Re:That would make you by thc69 · · Score: 1

      This isn't for people who aren't already walking around with a backpack full of stuff. In the city, it would only be useful for children at school, who carry that much weight in books. Mostly, it's for the sort of folk who have to carry a bunch of survival gear anyway -- hikers, soldiers, etc.

      The ballast is whatever load you're already carrying anyway, not 85 pounds of power generating machinery.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    12. Re:That would make you by isorox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except they were wearing plain clothes, did not shout "police, stop!", he didn't run until after he'd picked up a newspaper, walked through the ticket bararier, and saw a train about to leave, same as any other london commuter

    13. Re:That would make you by ramblin+billy · · Score: 1


      Give me a line of guys with SlBs (Suspended-load Backpacks) connected to the pleasure centers of their brains and I'll give you an Earth sized yoyo.

      After a long day of marching to power the Sultans air conditioning, the slaves dreaded when it was time for Must See TV.

      Well, what we think happened is that somehow the wires got crossed...he musta been going about 60 miles an hour when his tennis shoe blew.

      billy - from the land of unintended consequences

    14. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, the head of the Opposition Party, in INDIA, is a "white", Italian woman, by the name of Sonia Gandhi. Go look it up on Wikipedia. And get over yourself. The US and UK don't have a monopoly on freedom, democracy or openness. But they're the ones who kick and scream the most when human rights are violated in other countries. Then they go and commit those same violations. Abu Ghraib, Brazillians being killed in cold blood with 5 bullets. Nobody questions the openness of either America or Britain. But we do take issue when you start pointing fingers at the rest of the world, when you still need to get your own house in order, in some cases. Frankly, the "Dark" Miss England could be viewed as appeasement, or affirmative action - which is not my point, but it well could be somebody else's.

    15. Re:That would make you by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Except they were wearing plain clothes, did not shout "police, stop!", he didn't run until after he'd picked up a newspaper, walked through the ticket bararier, and saw a train about to leave, same as any other london commuter

      And the cop who had him pinned was as surprised as anybody else when the shots started.

      And the shooter fired (apparently) an entire load. That's panic, not the work of a professional.

    16. Re:That would make you by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except they were wearing plain clothes, did not shout "police, stop!", he didn't run until after he'd picked up a newspaper, walked through the ticket bararier, and saw a train about to leave, same as any other london commuter

      That's not what eyewitnesses said the day of the shooting immediately after it happened. But you're absolutely right -- I have no doubt that what the British press has reported on the matter is completely unbiased, especially after the Daily Mirror last year made up the story about British soldiers pissing on Iraqi prisoners and either fabricated (probably) or used obviously fake photographic evidence.

    17. Re:That would make you by nfk · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're a bit behind on the news.

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165960,00.html

      I don't know if the final report came out yet, so I'm not sure this is the official version. Google around and you will find more.

    18. Re:That would make you by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, buy you can power up a huge pack of batteries for discharging through a stun gun! Or in this case, an Electrocution Gun.

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    19. Re:That would make you by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      And the shooter fired (apparently) an entire load. That's panic, not the work of a professional.

      Sounds like he'll never get close to a firearm again.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    20. Re:That would make you by espressojim · · Score: 1

      You missed this part as well:

      The electricity can be used while it is being generated, or it can be stored in a lightweight rechargeable battery for later use, greatly reducing the need to haul and use heavy replacement batteries.

    21. Re:That would make you by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with me being "a bit behind the news" and everything to do with what eyewitnesses -- people who actually saw the incident -- said they saw *immediately* after it occured. I'm aware that several of these folks have revised their statements but the power of suggestion can be incredible, especially after weeks of massive 24/7 media coverage of the event and a rabid anti-Blair faction clammoring to blame him for just about everything. Do you really think that some of them weren't eventually pressured into saying whatever the press wanted them to say?

      I'm not suggesting that the Brazilian dude was a terrorist, but I am saying that I don't think things as cut-and-dried as we are being led to believe. Like it or not, there was some logical series of events which caused British anti-terror forces to really believe this guy was about to blow up a train, and they acted accordingly.

    22. Re:That would make you by Ibix · · Score: 1
      It has nothing to do with me being "a bit behind the news" and everything to do with what eyewitnesses -- people who actually saw the incident -- said they saw *immediately* after it occured. I'm aware that several of these folks have revised their statements but the power of suggestion can be incredible, especially after weeks of massive 24/7 media coverage of the event and a rabid anti-Blair faction clammoring to blame him for just about everything. Do you really think that some of them weren't eventually pressured into saying whatever the press wanted them to say?

      I'd just note that eye witnesses are known to be unreliable. Nothing to do with lying or pressure, merely that our memories aren't half as good as we think they are. FindLaw reference.

      Anecdotal evidence: I was eating in a glass-walled restaurant a couple of weeks ago. There was a fight in the street outside. All of the restaurant staff and about half the patrons had a pretty much unobstructed view. Afterwards, we couldn't agree whether or not the two guys who piled out of the pub opposite were trying to break up the fight or just joining in. Nor did anybody remember which direction two of the four had left in by the time the cops showed up.

      Ibix

    23. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>And the shooter fired (apparently) an entire load. That's panic, not the work of a professional.

      No, that's the work of someone who wants to be sure they kill their intended target.

    24. Re:That would make you by Secrity · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fox News is a sterling example of fair and unbiased news coverage.

    25. Re:That would make you by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      This is extremely debatable. You're citing a single decision by one state court, and the article doesn't list any of the "numerous psychological studies" to which it refers. Furthermore, the article even states that the court's decision purposely left the door open for future judges to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to question the credibility of eyewitnesses by allowing testimony by "experts" on the limits of eyewitness testimony. Personally, I certainly put more stock in their immediate "gut" reactions rather than what people think they saw weeks ago, after hours and hours of second-guessing and constant media coverage. Why are juries in high-profile cases sequestered and forbidden to read newspapers or watch the news? To prevent the media from influencing their deliberations, of course.

    26. Re:That would make you by orasio · · Score: 1

      If you want to be sure, you keep a couple shots, in case the "target" gets up again.

    27. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those same eyewitnesses said he was wearing a big puffer jacket. CCTV pictures of him lying on the floor in the carriage in a pool of blood show him wearing a very thin, light, summer jacket.

      I suspect the eyewitnesses saw one of the plain clothes policemen running to catch up and shoot him. Remember the eyewitness only saw a man running, not *the* man running.

    28. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or if you went on the London Underground with it, increase your likelihood of being shot by the Met Police exponentially



      So being shot exponentially would be, say, ten bullets, then one hundred then one thousand...

    29. Re:That would make you by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      look, eyewitnesses make mistakes and can be led by the interviewer quite a bit as proven by this case.

      however - cameras don't lie like that.

      making mistakes is not logic, the polices acted unlogically which could only be because they screwed something up, communications or whatever(the brazilian guy was let to get on a bus for example).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    30. Re:That would make you by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Police are generally trained to empty their pistols entire clip. (At least with pistols, I dont know if the shooting in question was something larger). As the theory goes the police have multiple levels of response and multiple ways of subduing people; if the situation warrents deadly force then you use deadly force and make damm sure your target is down.

    31. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [I am not the GP]
      It's not, but at least it's something that the right-wing nut who believed everything a chief of police said after his men had murdered an innocent man.

      BTW, I have never believed a single one of these "eyewitnesses" who've been interview. Usually these are people who just want to talk to the media, walk up to some reporter and say "Yeah .. I saw it all happen".

      For example I remember some years ago, opening up the TV to see the columbia disaster and this guy starts talking, he said something alone the lines of "I saw an engine hit a car. It looked like a jet engine from a 747."

      There are many other "eyewitneses" I've seen (witnessed?) who I could easily tell were lying through their teeth.

      I've pretty much seen only one reliable eyewitness and that was after the airfrance crash in Toronto some days ago. The guy was a passenger so you could tell he wasn't lying. Notably he didn't try to dramatize it in any way. He said something along the lines of "I was scared, I thought I was going to die" which seemed very very honest .

    32. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, thanks for your insight. Next, could you tell us about the new fashion diet being tried out by the guests at Guantanamo?

    33. Re:That would make you by Intron · · Score: 1

      When the machines have captured all the humans, put backpacks on them, and given them virtual reality systems even more powerful then Game Boy, then you will understand.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    34. Re:That would make you by nfk · · Score: 1

      I think it would be great if you were right, but I seriously doubt it. Eyewitnesses are not the most reliable source and there were confusing and contradictory statements from the beginning (for instance about what he was wearing and whether he ran away). There was also controversy on the issue of CCTV footage availability, which will be much more reliable than eyewitnesses, if it exists.

      No one ever suggested that the Brazilian dude was a terrorist (I believe the police said he was innocent the next day) and the issue is not whether the series of events that led to the police mistake was logical (obviously it had some kind of logic for those involved) but whether their behavior was correct and professional, which seems highly doubtful.

    35. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fallibility of eyewitnesses is so well established by science (even if the courts still haven't caught up), it's hardly even worth discussing. Google is your friend.

    36. Re:That would make you by uncle_ben · · Score: 1

      How about http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Odusoga

      Lola Odusoga was Miss Finland 1996, Miss Scandinavia 1997.

      http://www.yle.fi/linna98/photos/photo2_i.jpg

      --
      # everything zen? don't think so.
    37. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the point of firing so many bullets was to ensure there was no chance that the guy could detonate the bomb that was supposedly strapped to him.

    38. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was running to catch the train, the plain-clothes agents weren't yelling stop.
      They didn't start yelling until they entered the train, the victim stood up confused walking towards them to make room for them, an other officer grabbed him from behind, and then they shot him.

      He was pushed to the ground and shot at almost point blank range 7 times in the back of his head and one time in the shoulder.

      It was a murder, plain and simple.

    39. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst part is that the total 11 shots were fired at three second intervals for 30 seconds.
      They stood there and shot him in the head for 30 seconds!
      It's horrible!

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,1 6132,1556856,00.html

      Summary with links:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_De_Menez es

    40. Re:That would make you by nfk · · Score: 1

      I used Fox News on purpose, because he quoted a CNN article favorably and seemed doubtful regarding the UK media, but all the news I read at the time said the same, which can be easily confirmed with a quick search.

    41. Re:That would make you by FidelCatsro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Police marksmen in the UK are trained to make single precise shots , they should be trained to incapacitate the target .
      This situation was a tragedy , caused by fear and incompetence : the man was unarmed ,was not a wanted criminal , posed no threat ,was already cornered and was not warned properly .
      This is not really a case of negligence it is a case of culpable homicide(manslaughter)

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    42. Re:That would make you by edbarrett · · Score: 1
      Or if you went on the London Underground

      Where the fuck's my fucking train?

    43. Re:That would make you by silasthehobbit · · Score: 1

      Have you seen how many bullets the Met Police shot into that Brazilian chap? As I say, exponentially.

    44. Re:That would make you by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      off topic, but training to incapacitate with a firearm is a great way to get yourself or others hurt.

      For one thing if the situation doesn't warrant deadly force then you shouldn't have a gun out.

      Second, trying to be a "cowboy" and kneecap or shoulder-shot---a non-mortal gunshot wound doesn't necessarily have the power to knock someone down, especially if they're in the process of attacking you (or others) or out of their mind on something (PCP among other things)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    45. Re:That would make you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming, of course, that he's actually a copper. The Sunday Times has been convinced that a lot of the "firearm officers" in London immediately after 7th September were military.

    46. Re:That would make you by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

      Some of the eyewitnesses appear to have mistaken the plain clothes arresting officer for the victim, explaining why he ran onto the train, appeared panicky, had wires protruding from his jacket, grabbed a passerby (the actual victim) and was pushed to the ground by cops before the shots were fired.

      The arresting officer, of course, was as surprised as anyone when the murdering officer started shooting the victim.

      The later reports of what happened were based on CCTV footage which was leaked by people involved with the investigation - the leaker has been punished, presumably for not letting the Met control ALL of the tiny scraps of information we've been fed on this incident.

      "Like it or not, there was some logical series of events which caused British anti-terror forces to really believe this guy was about to blow up a train"
      Not necessarily. The British police may have intended just to summarily execute a terror suspect out of hand. It's not unheard of, as in 1983, the RUC apparently conducted three such killings (google for the Stalker inquiry), and later on was involved (though the British Army had a bigger part to play) in actual support of loyalist death-squads. And things have been a tad hysterical here in London recently.

    47. Re:That would make you by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "but the power of suggestion can be incredible,"

      Double-edged sword. You can use it to claim it was the cause for changing their story afterward ("Blair is a bad, bad man!"), but I can use it to claim the story was flawed at the beginning ("Brown skinned people are trying to blow you up!")

      I heard the same eye-witnesses, many of whom said he looked "Pakistani." He was Brazillian. Once they think they see someone who might try to blow them up, they can see a lot of things.

    48. Re:That would make you by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "they should be trained to incapacitate the target ."

      "Incapacitate" means "can't get away," and not necessarily "can't set off the bomb." If he had really been a suicide bomber, aiming for the brain would have been the proper course of action (he'd already be set to die, the only variable is how many others he'd take with him).

    49. Re:That would make you by cortana · · Score: 1

      Surely any half-intelligent suicide bomber would use a dead man's switch?

    50. Re:That would make you by kinnell · · Score: 1
      he didn't run until after he'd picked up a newspaper, walked through the ticket bararier, and saw a train about to leave, same as any other london commuter

      Actually, he didn't run at all, but was followed onto the train by undercover officers, and sat down calmly on a seat just like anyone else. Until the armed police officers turned up afterwards and shot him, he wasn't behaving suspiciously at all.

      Source

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    51. Re:That would make you by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Actually, he didn't run at all

      Let me be the first to say RTFM :O)

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    52. Re:That would make you by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      off topic, but training to incapacitate with a firearm is a great way to get yourself or others hurt.

      That's true if and only if police shoot only at people who are presenting a threat of some kind. Sadly, the incidences of police shooting a fleeing suspect through the back are quite numerous.

    53. Re:That would make you by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      And the cop who had him pinned was as surprised

      That makes it seem as if there was only one cop holding him, when really there was one on each arm and one more on his legs + belly.

    54. Re:That would make you by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Surely any half-intelligent suicide bomber would use a dead man's switch?

      That'd be an unnecessary complexity. Seriously, the number of times that a suicide bomber has been shot dead by a guard while already in range of someone he'd like to blast? That hardly ever happens.

      Carrying deadman switches would be counter-productive to the terrorists in 2 ways:
      (a) more likely to accidently explode yourself at home or en route.
      (b) police guards will become less likely to accidently kill innocent people, which indirectly helps you create more terror.

    55. Re:That would make you by Ibix · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that "revised" eyewitness testimony is accurate. Media portrayals of events will almost certainly affect their recollections. What I am saying is that their initial statements are not reliable either. The BBC has a bit more on the subject, including some reference to relevant British cases dating back to 1969. Wikipedia's page on eyewitnesses has some more references. Their page on de Menezes himself also mentions contradictions between eyewitness testimony (jumping the barrier) and the police description of the event to his family. Eyewitness descriptions of thick coats are also contradicted by the photo of his body.

      Again, I'm not saying that the IPCC report that was leaked is correct, merely that eyewitness testimony is not reliable.

      I

    56. Re:That would make you by isorox · · Score: 1

      Actually, he didn't run at all, but was followed onto the train by undercover officers, and sat down calmly on a seat just like anyone else. Until the armed police officers turned up afterwards and shot him, he wasn't behaving suspiciously at all.

      From the linked page:

      CCTV footage is said to show the man walking at normal pace into the station, picking up a copy of a free newspaper and apparently passing through the barriers before descending the escalator to the platform and running to a train.

  4. Walking Chick Magnet! by blankoboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not only generating power but instantly increasing your popularity with the fairer sex.

    1. Re:Walking Chick Magnet! by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to the article:

      Suspended-load Backpack testers were able to generate up to 7.4 Watts...

      Everyone knows that walking chick magnets require several kilowatts to operate, so you'll have to jog rather quickly :-)

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    2. Re:Walking Chick Magnet! by flyonthewall · · Score: 1
      Mmmm...

      Not only generating power but instantly increasing your popularity with the fairer sex.


      For most of the /. crowd, I would not say instantly but rather gradually.
      --
      "The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
    3. Re:Walking Chick Magnet! by e4g4 · · Score: 0

      Is 7 watts enough to power a chick magnet?

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    4. Re:Walking Chick Magnet! by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      So if I wear this thing, women will stop being interested in me? I could use some peace and quiet! I'll take ten!

    5. Re:Walking Chick Magnet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that if she has braces and is about to perform oral sex on you that something horrible could happen?

  5. That would have come in handy ... by Fulton+Green · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    for the annual Linux Beer Hike!

    1. Re:That would have come in handy ... by shiller · · Score: 0

      Why is that post off topic? Are you kidding? That thing would definitely be useful for the Linuxbierhike.

  6. Gee by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 0

    As if my backpack isn't heavy enough from, you know, books for school. My back hurts from the thing as it is, I'm not carrying another 50 pounds around, thank you.

    1. Re:Gee by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I'd get a better designed backpack then. I've hiked up mountainsides with backpacks carrying 50lbs without hurting my back.

    2. Re:Gee by moonbender · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's not like the power generator weighed 50 pounds, the backpack just needs some weight to work - more weight means more power generated. If your backpack already weighs a lot, you're good to go. In other words, RTFA. ;)

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  7. "... and Bluetooth"? by pieterh · · Score: 4, Funny

    The incredible accuracy of this list of items that the backpack can power quite astounds me.

    "Sorry sir, if you want to play WMAs you'll need the extended BackpackWindows version."

    "Sorry sir, USB2.0 is not supported. Have you considered using BlueTooth?"

    "Sorry sir, federal law requires you to wear night vision goggles while carrying this backpack. Yes, sir, I'm aware it's high noon. Regulations."

    "Sorry sir, but is that GSM terminal in talk mode? It is? OK, just checking... some tourists think they can use stand-by mode."

    1. Re:"... and Bluetooth"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's the new user-friendly standard notation for electric power. All that stuff about Watts and Joules was bound to confuse people!

    2. Re:"... and Bluetooth"? by l_bratch · · Score: 1

      Endlessly more useful would have been to tell me if it could power a laptop.

  8. Kangaroo by awol · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds a lot like the energy differential shown by hopping kangaroos. Their energy consumption is remarkably low given the velocities they generate and it seems to be the result of energy stored in their lower leg tendons. In other words they are using the same benefits to get a large increase in overall energy output with a marginal increase in metabolic consumption.

    --
    "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    1. Re:Kangaroo by Berner · · Score: 1

      Didn't it say in the article that the pack forced the wearer to walk more efficiently and thus getting a normal metabolic draw. Also, someone mentioned how hard it would be to lugg around an extra 50 pounds just to get power. Think instead of people who, right now, already cary 50+ pounds in a packpack (say a soldier on march), this would give them an extra benefit without having to cary much extra weight.

    2. Re:Kangaroo by mikael_j · · Score: 0, Redundant
      I think the problem with military applications is that this equipment (at least right now) is quite heavy, and I don't see soldiers giving up ammunition, body armor, food and other stuff like that just so that they can stay in touch with their CO using MSN Messenger...

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    3. Re:Kangaroo by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      No, the pack itself is quite light. The weight comes from ballast, ie the stuff you'd put in a pack anyway.

      So your soldier, for instance, would load his 'pack' as normal, plug it into his headset and he's good to go. Perhaps properly integrating this into smart-wear, such as intelligent ballistic armor which can report when it's hit, is the beginnings of a single wearable piece of kit which provides all the data that soldiers need. Plus a pack for food, ammunition and the rest.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  9. Musical Ninja by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...enough electricity to simultaneously power an MP3 player ... night vision goggles ...

    Great! Now I can assasinate people while listening to the Kill Bill soundtrack!

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Musical Ninja by Rirath.com · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great! Now I can assasinate people while listening to the Kill Bill soundtrack!

      I've always wanted my own theme music...

    2. Re:Musical Ninja by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 1

      "Ridin' on the bus, ridin' on the bus..."

      --
      "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
  10. Sadly... by MaestroSartori · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...carrying all that gear means that the calls you do make on the GSM device in talk mode sound like heavy breathing pervert-o-calls, and you'll get busted for harrassment :)

  11. Uses by FirienFirien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While at the moment this is spawning a handful of standard amusing slashdot responses, you miss a more useful application - that of field operatives. And you can take 'field operatives' to mean soldiers and the like - being able to use all kinds of equipment that would normally require more power than is available should improve things, although bear in mind they already carry heavy packs so it wouldn't be one per person. The other kind is the more normal field operative - anyone who goes exploring/researching/hiking/prospecting... if you don't have to carry samples back to base camp for analysis, or can power *anything* enabling, then you're ddoing well with one of these. Remember that most people don't need the long list of things mentioned in the post; but for enabling people who are away from home, this looks like it could be really handy.

    --
    Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    1. Re:Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that the heavy load can be anything you like, the power is generated by your legs moving the heavy load up and down and weights very little itself. If you're a backpacker, you wouldn't have to carry any more weight.

    2. Re:Uses by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it's pretty obvious they're a target user group, though maybe with different configuration.

      the night vision goggles kind of give it away.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Uses by AnswerIs42 · · Score: 0
      44 to 88 pounds to just power a bunch of stuff... that is about the max a person can carry... what about .. or say.. FOOD, Shelter, medical supplies, ect?

      Remember, you have to carry EVERYTHING you need when in the wild. What are you going to do? Hire a shirpa that will live on nuts and berries to carry the stuff you need to LIVE?

      Sorry, I am NOT impressed by this. Let me know when it is down to 3-4lbs and no chance of it being broken if you fall or drop your pack. Then I will be impressed. You can get a hand generator to power/recharge that same stuff and it is 2lbs or less.

      A lot of wasted weight and the people that this "would" be targeted for know it and will just move on to better options. You go LIGHT, not HEAVY you go RUGGED not "If this tiny part breaks, I am screwed!".

      As this is now.. it is doomed for the land of the lost and forgotten.

    4. Re:Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take a look at the LightningPacks website, you'll see that they very much have this kind of application in mind.

      From that site:

      "Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan really changed the face of modern warfare," said Dr. Rome from his office in Strafford, Pa. "Soldiers now carry GPS receivers, night vision goggles, headlamps, communication devices, and more. And with this technology, means of powering them becomes critical. Soldiers carry eighty pound backpacks, up to twenty pounds of which are spare batteries. Now, with the Suspended Load Backpack, electricity can be generated to power the equipment directly or to charge a lightweight rechargeable battery," Dr. Rome said.

    5. Re:Uses by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, RTFA. As has been pointed out elsewhere in these comments, the 44-88 pounds is just some arbitrary load whose motion generates the electricity. It can be food, water, contraceptives, whatever you like.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    6. Re:Uses by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      And best of all, the field operatives won't have to carry the load themselves. They can strap these backpacks to be backs of dolphins, or camels, or something.

    7. Re:Uses by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

      Like SimilarityEngine's response said, it weighs nearly diddly. Here's a picture.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7970

      The 44 to 88 pounds of stuff is the stuff you need to carry around anyway. It's a well-thought out solution; using waste energy for something useful.

      As this is now.. it is doomed for the land of the lost and forgotten.
      We'll see. Depending on the price tag on it, I'd be happy to get one of these in the form it is (As this is now) already.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    8. Re:Uses by Ced_Ex · · Score: 2, Funny

      With all due respect, RTFA. As has been pointed out elsewhere in these comments, the 44-88 pounds is just some arbitrary load whose motion generates the electricity. It can be food, water, contraceptives, whatever you like.

      Whoa.. 88lbs. of contraceptives? Whew, I'll get tired just from carrying them before I actually get a chance to use them.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    9. Re:Uses by Kompressor · · Score: 1

      Not just for people out of the city. The backpack for my XPS Gen 2 lapt^H^H^H^Hdesktop replacement weighs 15-20 pounds fully loaded. The laptop is 8.6 lbs to start. Add backup battery, external harddrive, power bricks for harddrive and laptop, and you're looking at some serious weight. If I could set this up to charge the spare batt while I'm walking to work or around campus, it might save me from having to hunt down an outlet and futz around with the power bricks if I don't need the external drive.
      I, for one, welcome the power generating monkeys on our back overlords!

      --
      kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
    10. Re:Uses by khallow · · Score: 1

      As well as the eighty pound packs. Nobody else does that.

    11. Re:Uses by -ryan · · Score: 1

      I'm in the (airborne) infantry and I love anything that makes my pack lighter or easier to carry. For this though, the only thing interesting is that they said it made them walk more efficiently. I'm not sure if this would be true over broken terrain, which is where it must be proven. The individual soldier really doesn't need to generate much power, most items carried by the individual soldier have very light power requirements (i imagine that is more by design than anything else). There are a few exceptions though. Radio batteries are heavy, but that is more a fault of purchsing from the lowest bidder than necessity. Commercial laptop batteries are much more efficient. Outside of radios the individual soldier can go weeks on a pack of AA's and watch batteries (infra-red lasers, nightvision, powered optics). I changed the batteries in my night vision goggles a handful of times in Iraq over a year. Some of the more advanced man portable weapons might be able to benefit, might. There's a system called the Javelin (light [army for "heavy as fuck"] anti armor system), it can be carried by one man (realistically two, missle and launch unit) and the thermal sight sucks batteries big time. The problem is, if you are walking around you are not sitting there in an OP (observation point) watching. If you expecting company from tanks anyway chances are you have a vehicle not to far away so you can GTFO (you can guess what that means). A vehicle means supplies, so new batteries. Really if the vehicle had an AC converter as many are popping up in HMMWV's and other places, you could just use rechargables. I always took shit loads of batteries with me on patrols when I had the Javelin, but it was in the trunk of the HMMWV so I could care less what they weighed.

      The folks who might really enjoy this would be LRRS (recon), RRD, and SF in some capacities. They go long distances for long amounts of time and don't expect much resupply. Like I said though, if you have to get up and move to recharge your batteries it's going to suck. It's only while you are sitting still in a hide site, snapping pictures, uploading from your laptop via your sat coms, and talking on the radio or sat, that you are going to run out of power, and you might not have the luxury of moving for a damn long while. Maybe you could just send the lowest ranking joe to run laps around the objective to recharge your batteries. Then if he makes it back alive you can use the recharged batteries to call for fire on your now thuroughly pissed off enemy.

      At the end of the day though the Army uses the WORST ruck frame design I have ever used and that's because of one thing, cost. When I joined I could carry alot more weight being in worse shape than I am now, but using my civilian pack. Moving 25M with an Army ruck makes you feel like someone beat you with a baseball bat. It's probably because I'm tall too. The rucks are made for short people. I guess they get their heads blown off less, hadji can't shoot straight anyway so who cares.

  12. "Fatal" design flaw. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...simultaneously power an MP3 player, a PDA, night vision goggles..."

    Night vision goggles eh? Aren't night vision goggles typically something one uses for espionage and reconnaissance? You know...THINGS YOU NEED TO BE VERY QUIET AND STILL TO DO?

    I certainly hope that the soldiers from Splinter Cell don't start carrying these lest they be proper fucked.

    1. Re:"Fatal" design flaw. by tazanator · · Score: 1

      no they can be used just to walk in the dark. I have done 12 mile night marches in Night vision goggles, we had to be quit but still march. Most good infantry units do not walk down the middle of a road... you get hit with artillery or landmines doing that.

      --
      I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
  13. There's another one on the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In Europe you can now get the O'Neill H2 series backpack, which has a solarcell to power your phone, iPod, etc. It also features bluetooth and integrated phone and iPod controls.
    See this link for more info.

    1. Re:There's another one on the market by gg3po · · Score: 1

      Think of the level of power generation you could get by combining these two technologies. A "Suspended-load Backpack" *with* a solarpanel on top. This could really get interesting.

      --
      ---
  14. Whew! Scared me there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whew! Scared me there for a moment -- I could have sworn the headline said "New Twist on Power Wanking"

    1. Re:Whew! Scared me there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that would be the previous Slashdot article: Clever Artificial Hand Developed...

  15. plug it in... by utnow · · Score: 1, Funny

    Seems like it would just be way easier to just plug it in at home and live with the fact that I'm only going to get ~16hours out of my iPod, 24hrs of standby on my cellphone... 5hrs out of my laptop. etc.

    Alternative energy like this won't really get anybody's interest until it's passive (except all of us. lol). As long as it's more work than plugging it into the wall at home, we'll keep doing just that.

    In the meantime, just how many active vibrator's does that translate into? :D

    1. Re:plug it in... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      That makes sense, if you're only going to be away from home for 24 hours or less. The practical applications of this, if it really works, are far more interesting than the geek factor generally allows.

      Think of providing power to people in "remote" places, like Mt. Everest or folks who are travelling in the antarctic. Soldiers can use this to power targetting systems or tracking systems as well as communications equipment and the article specifically mentioned night vision goggles. Not to mention, they already carry a lot of weight so it's not something unusual for them. This could go a long way toward making a truly computerized, mechanized military, in the field.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    2. Re:plug it in... by Guinness2702 · · Score: 1

      Just how easy is it to walk with a vibrator in?

      --
      This space is intentionally left blank
  16. That's LOTS of batteries by dvandok · · Score: 4, Funny
    By carrying a load weighing from 44 to 84 pounds (20 to 38 kg) [...] The electricity [...] can be stored in a lightweight rechargeable battery for later use, greatly reducing the need to haul and use heavy replacement batteries.

    I think that bringing 30 kg in replacement batteries should last me the entire vacation!

    1. Re:That's LOTS of batteries by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Wow, you actually quote the article, but miss the crucial fact that the load can be anything - like clothes, a tent or food. Backpackers already carry that much weight, bringing 30 kg in replacement batteries is not an option.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  17. why bother by k31dar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Carrying between 44 and 84 pounds of backpack will negate the need to carry heavy batteries. So how heavy are batteries for MP3 players and PDA's these days?

    1. Re:why bother by gracenix · · Score: 0

      I don' believe they meant the backpack weighed that 44-84 lbs. Instead, the backpack would be filled with typical backpack content weighing 44-84lbs, this weight causing energy generation using the built-in technology.

    2. Re:why bother by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      A AAA (or LR03) cel weights about 11gr. http://audiovisual.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/sbs/126301/122 87356.html

    3. Re:why bother by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that all rather depends on how long you intend to listen, doesn't it?

      IIRC Li ion batteries store 150 Wh/kg. 44 lb (the lower weight I guess of this unit) is about 20kg; if you were to use Li-ion batteries then this weight would buy you 3000 Wh of energy. Your break even depends on your load:

      7w: 430 hours
      1w: 3000 hours
      100mw: 30,000 hours = 1250 days = 3.5 years.

      Of course, if you are using individual cells, your weight efficiency isn't ideal, but you can discard them as you go along, reducing your load. But it's safe to say that if your planning on getting one of these as a post-apocalpytic magnet for music starved women, by the time you catch up to the guy with a backpack full of batteries the nubile ones will never have heard of an iPod. And you'll probably never catch up to the guy with a couple of strips of copper and zinc and ready access to a citrus grove.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:why bother by evilviper · · Score: 1
      44 lb (the lower weight I guess of this unit)

      No, your premise is completely wrong. This unit does NOT weigh 44 lbs, or anywhere near that.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  18. and how about kinetic energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I remember that it exists hand watches that are powered by kinetic energy... searching in google I found two devices:

    http://www.designawards.com.au/ADA/04-05/student/1 32/132.htm

    and another one made by seike for its clocks:

    http://www.ofrei.com/page867.html

    Anybody know something likeness?

    1. Re:and how about kinetic energy by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Watches are a whole different thing, because they use a really, REALLY small amount of power. But yeah, it's essentially the same thing, the first link especially is very similar in its goals. OTOH it doesn't say how much energy is created - I'd wager that there is a pretty huge difference.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    2. Re:and how about kinetic energy by grimJester · · Score: 0

      Most high-class watches are automatic, i.e. self-winding.

      Here's a mechanical watch FAQ.

      "2.2 How does an automatic mechanism work? All self-winding watches work on the principle of converting arm motion (kinetic energy) into the winding of the mainspring (potential energy). Usually, this is performed by a half-disc of metal weighted at the edge called a rotor, which spins when the wearer's arm is accelerated unpredictably (that is, when moved normally in the course of everyday life). This rotary motion is then geared down to wind the central arbor of the mainspring."

      and

      "2.2.1 Are the Seiko Kinetic / Autoquartz therefore Automatics? Not quite, but close. The Seiko Kinetic and ETA Autoquartz movements are quartz movements. However, they use a rotor system similar to those used by automatics. The difference is that the rotor's motion is converted to electricity, which is then used to charge a capacitor. The quartz movement then draws current from the capacitor as if it were a battery."

      Your second link is to a device that slowly rotates the watch to keep it from stopping when you're not wearing it.

    3. Re:and how about kinetic energy by Inoen · · Score: 1
      I'd like to see versions of this built into other electronic devices.

      It all of my portable gadgets, the battery itself is one of the heavier components. It'd be great if it was suspended in a contraption similar to this. You know.. phone recharging while it's in my pocket, laptop in my bag etc. I'm not saying that this should be the only - or even a major - power source, but it would be nice to be recharging the phone whenever i'm walking around - even if i still need to plug it in from time to time.

  19. Coincidence... by Nevtje(hr · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...that this was posted on the same day as the article about the robotic hand?

    1 + 1 = 2 (say hello to a new era of beach voyeurism)

    --
    Three rings for the Elven-kings in the sky
  20. 84lbs of what? by tritium6 · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't seem to say whether the 84 pounds is built into the backpack, or if you could attach your own substitute 84lb load. If you can use your own load, the deal gets even sweeter for military types.
    Someone with a better brain for physics tell me, is it more likely that the electricity is the result of lifting (or lowering, more likely) a generic 84lb load, or do you think you'd be required to lower some specific load of some type of electronics?
    My initial guess is the first scenario.

    1. Re:84lbs of what? by Eivind · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It can be any load, it's just used for inertia. The device simply suspends the load on springs so it can slide an inch or so up and down the frame. Then energy is extracted from this movement. Very modest amounts of energy, I should add, around 7 watts.

      For most applications this is a nonstarter: if it's daytime, solar would work better (since it'd work at rests too) and for many operations at nigth, simply carrying a battery is easier, because you want say your nigth-vision goggles to keep working even if you leave the backpack behind for some job.

    2. Re:84lbs of what? by enoraM · · Score: 1

      Guess you're wrong :-) There's a picture and a german article that describes that you can use your own substitute load. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/63699

    3. Re:84lbs of what? by chialea · · Score: 1

      Another reason this would be a nonstarter is if the suspension of the load means it moves more. If you're already in a precarious situation, having your pack move is a good way to fall. At the very least you end up exerting a lot more energy compensating for it. Mind you, I'm talking about rather difficult hiking here; if you're walking down a road it's not a problem. I could, however, see this being a problem when one runs.

      Lea

    4. Re:84lbs of what? by CagedBear · · Score: 1

      I can see solar working better than this device in the desert. But I would think during jungle or arctic operations the sun would be less reliable. Perhaps a lightweight solar panel attached to the outside of this device would be the best of both worlds.

  21. Free Power! by www.bnp.org.uk · · Score: 0, Troll

    Free power! Governments would make these backpacks illegal.

  22. The current contents will do by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    44 to 84 pounds is not the weight of the generator, it's the weight of the pendulum. The pendulum is whatever is in the backpack. If you already have 44+ pounds of books in the backpack, you're all set for the pendulum part.

    I'd guess the generator itself is less than ten pounds, but the article didn't say.

  23. Picture and Details by enoraM · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a picture http://www.heise.de/bilder/63699/0/1 . The aparatus just takes a small part of the weight. However, you have to put something in your backpack, whatever it is, to generate power.

  24. I've seen this somewhere before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it sounds an awful lot like like Master Shake's eHelmet:
      http://www.mcpeepants.com/frames/405edork/frame5.j pg

  25. The rocks would be the pendulum? by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    I could be wrong, but that's the way I read it.

  26. How heavy did they say the generator was? by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    They mentioned that you'd need to carry 44 to 84 pounds, and the discussion sounds like that's the weight of the pendulum. Or maybe the pendulum plus the generator plus the frame. If the generator is, say, only ten pounds, then the 44 to 84 could include your tent, the device(s) being powered, lunch, collected rocks, etc.

    Am I reading this wrong?

  27. For use as a subsystem on walking mechs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any ideas?

  28. Odd language ... by hattig · · Score: 1

    an MP3 player, a PDA, night vision goggles, a handheld GPS, a CMOS image decoder, a GSM terminal in talk mode, and Bluetooth.

    So ... a Motorola A1000 then, apart from the night vision goggles?

    and what is a CMOS image decoder? Do they mean a digital camera or camcorder?! Given that they say 'GSM Terminal In Talk Mode' rather than 'Cell Phone' I guess it is...

  29. Dune, because it always comes back to Frank Herber by yarbelk · · Score: 1

    Kinda makes me think of the Stillsuit. So all that needs to be built is a small electric desalinator and pumps. And then we all need to get some blue in blue eyes, because blue in blue eyes are cool.

    --
    Once more into the breach dear friends, once more.
  30. Miss Brasil by hummassa · · Score: 1

    A black African-typed woman was miss Brasil once in the mid-80s and once again in the mid-90s. Miss Brasil are normally the not-really-common-down-here blond-and-or-fair-skinned types. Nothing to see here. You are wrong.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Miss Brasil by bladernr · · Score: 1
      Nothing to see here. You are wrong.

      Perhaps about Brazil - I've never been, so I knew I was out on a limb. You've corrected me. But it've spents lots of time (months) in both India and France, and I stick by my claims very firmly on those.

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    2. Re:Miss Brasil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could check your facts before claiming such idiocy.

      Are those two of "French stock" ?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mareva_Galanter
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Rolland

      Not that I'm really convinced that this is very representative of the tolerance of a country...

      I, being french, would be the first to admit that there is a lot of intolerance in France, but I'm really, really, not sure that US or UK are any better on this subject.

    3. Re:Miss Brasil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there aren't any white competitors or as many whites Indian Citizens to compete.
      So you are wrong again.

    4. Re:Miss Brasil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How appropriate someone French is posting as Anonymous COWARD.

  31. why is this new? why a backpack? by speculatrix · · Score: 5, Interesting
    why new?
    self-winding watches have been around for many years to store energy in springs to power a watch, and Seiko and other companies have watches which store electricy in ultra-capacitors.

    why a backpack?
    why not use wrist- or ankle-mounted generators, which get a lot more movement, so presumably the generator could be a lot smaller and lighter?

    1. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by promatrax161 · · Score: 1

      why a backpack?
      Well, I guess since your average generator-user willbe doing some field work, she would need to carry her basic equipment somewhere. Since she would need to carry it anyway...
      I agree, wrist- or ankle-mounted generators are more elegant, but would there be such a demand as for backpacks? hmm...

    2. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by onpaws · · Score: 3, Informative

      A backpack makes better sense because it is jostling a large amount of weight predictably in the vertical direction. F = m * a. On the other hand/knee, your wrist or ankle-mounted generator is only moving that body part, a much smaller mass.

    3. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by promatrax161 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, on the other hand, if you would be running with a knee-mounted generator, perhaps it could make difference. Of course, you would not be running with a heavy backpack, but you might want to charge your batteries while jogging (which you might be doing anyway)?

    4. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      wrist- or ankle-mounted generators are more elegant

      You may appreciate the sleek appearance of big lumps cluttering up key joints and generating minimal amounts of power.

      I'd opt for the out-of-the-way backpack with enough mass-against-inertia to power stuff. Betetr exercise too.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    5. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by promatrax161 · · Score: 1

      You may appreciate the sleek appearance of big lumps cluttering up key joints and generating minimal amounts of power.

      Well, to be honest, I did not think about how big actually these things on joints would have to be, but perhaps not much bigger than the protection people on rollerblades use, especially if you are running (higher frequency)?

    6. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by speculatrix · · Score: 1
      since your average generator-user willbe doing some field work, she would need to carry her basic equipment somewhere

      the first thing I do when working on-site is to put down all the luggage. and since the backpack's generator is motion-driven, once you've arrived, you'll stop generating anyway. I guess you'd have to get up and go jogging every ten minutes to recharge the batteries!

      warning! humour alert: with generators on the wrist, a few minutes surfing for porn will probably store a few megajoules ready to power everything!!!

    7. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by promatrax161 · · Score: 1

      I guess you'd have to get up and go jogging every ten minutes to recharge the batteries!

      That, or make your lightweight backpack-charged battery last long enough for the work you do at that particular site.

      warning! humour alert: with generators on the wrist, a few minutes surfing for porn will probably store a few megajoules ready to power everything!!!

      Yeah! You could power whole parts of the city that way, right?

    8. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by Federico2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      why not use wrist- or ankle-mounted generators...?


      Now, shake that ass!
    9. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      At least in military applications, you could make it part of body armor. Combat boots, for example, could incorporate small versions of this. Why make it one or the other? Why not complete the system and have small generators everywhere. "Future military" concepts show a soldier in lightweight body armor with a wrist computer and monocle computer screen mounted on a helmet that has a battery pack. Why not make the backpack and similar generators just charge the batteries the devices already use?

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    10. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of applications where "on site" means moving the whole time. Researchers often move from location to location collecting data.

      Military applications are quite obvious, and they are completely practical.

      And why do you automatically assume the batteries are any less efficient than the ones currently being used? This could be a "recharging station" for movement between "on site" situations so that your equipment gets continually charged when not being used, instead of slowly draining all the power throughout the day and only charging at some "base station".

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    11. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by promatrax161 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly! Moreover, by spreading generators through the armor you can make the power supply more redundant, which is always good in combat.

      Would this work for spacesuits during Mars exploration mission? I mean, OK, the joints are stiffer, but one would move also by jumping over large distances, due to less-then-normal gravity...

    12. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      why not use wrist- or ankle-mounted generators, which get a lot more movement, so presumably the generator could be a lot smaller and lighter?

      Let me put it this way. Which is going to hurt more: A wristwatch dropped onto your foot from a height of three feet, or a 27-inch TV dropped onto your foot from a height of two inches?

      The amount of pain is a crude indicator of how much energy can be obtained.

    13. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      why a backpack?
      why not use wrist- or ankle-mounted generators, which get a lot more movement, so presumably the generator could be a lot smaller and lighter?


      One word: Wires.

      O.K. I could see having rechargable batteries in each shoe would be handy, but boots are most likely to get muddy or under 1-2 ft of water while the rest of the body is in a fairly normal condition. (I wouldn't want batteries by my feet while wading across a shallow stream.)

    14. Re:why is this new? why a backpack? by Federico2 · · Score: 1
      Now, shake that ass!


      I'm not a lap-top dancer, you insensitive clod!

  32. OR, I could... by wiresquire · · Score: 0

    ...just hump around a 12 volt car battery which weighs a fair bit less...

    --

    So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

    1. Re:OR, I could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you hump around a 12 volt car battery something is certainly going to weigh a fair bit less. Ouch!

    2. Re:OR, I could... by CagedBear · · Score: 1

      ...just hump around a 12 volt car battery which weighs a fair bit less...

      Yes, but then all you have to sleep in, eat, or shoot at bad guys with is a... 12 volt battery. This device generates power using loads that result from carrying other useful items.

  33. not for use in the park by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Funny

    be careful while jogging past another person wearing one with more negative electrons than yours. *ffffZZZZZZZOTTTT* *POOOOM* *smoke smoke*

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:not for use in the park by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 2, Funny

      be careful while jogging past another person wearing one with more negative electrons than yours

      I'd be even more worried about people with positive ones. BOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  34. I'm wondering by Ixne · · Score: 4, Funny

    What are the chances your average /. user can even heft said backpack? (images of futuristic schoolyard-bully style backpack swiping ensue)

    1. Re:I'm wondering by chialea · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the /average/ slashdotter, but I can carry a backpack that heavy (at least towards the low end... the 84 pound pack is quite far over 1/2 of my body weight). I've gone hiking with that much stuff. Remember -- more weight means more exercise! I assume, since I'm female and reasonably light for my height, there are quite a few people around here who can carry more, with the help of a good pack. Carrying weight in a well-constructed, well-adjusted, well-fitting backpack isn't the same sort of thing as carrying it in your arms. The weight rests on your hips, so strong legs and reasonable balance are the primary requirements.

      Lea

    2. Re:I'm wondering by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      since I'm female

      I can't speak for the /average/ slashdotter

      Obviously....
  35. kinda cool... lots of uses... by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
    a piece of gear that will one day enable field scientists, hikers, explorers, soldiers, and disaster workers to convert mechanical energy generated by walking

    This reminds me of a watch a friend had. It did not use batteries. It worked off the movement of his wrist/hand. He said the watch somehow converted kinetic energy into power for the watch. The watch was always fast, we suspected he masturbated too much.

    But a backpack that will produce enough juice to run electronics. WOW!!

    A while back, a friend went to Isle Royale, a primitive island off northern Michigan. He said a boat went there once a day, in the morning, and once it left, you were stuck on the island. No toilets, no running water, no nothing but wild wolves and a thick forrest. There was no doctor, no police, no anything. But people went there to hike and camp. He said in 6 days of deep hiking, he only ran into 2 other hikers.

    Now imagine how portable batteries that charge off movement would change things...

    He could take his cell phone with him, and know it would not die. So if work needed to call, they could. He could take his laptop, so for those insomniac nights he could catch up on work.

    I dunno, when I go hiking, I take food and water. I don't think I would want 80 pounds of batteries on my back.

    The usefullness of batteries would be on a truck. Toss a ton of batteries and generators on a truck, because the extra weight won't mean anything. But for a human, 80 pounds is a lot of extra weight if you also want to carry water.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:kinda cool... lots of uses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of a watch a friend had. It did not use batteries. It worked off the movement of his wrist/hand. He said the watch somehow converted kinetic energy into power for the watch.

      The watch was always fast, we suspected he masturbated too much.


      Eughhhh! A left handed person ;-P

    2. Re:kinda cool... lots of uses... by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      Slightly off topic, but Isle Royale is one of the most beautiful places I've ever been to. People go there so they can get away from electronics and other modern things.

      I hope that if a device like this ever becomes popular, you don't have people bringing them on backpacking trips into the middle of the woods to power their boom boxes, game boys, etc.

      "He could take his cell phone with him, and know it would not die. So if work needed to call, they could. He could take his laptop, so for those insomniac nights he could catch up on work."

      Why would anyone want to bring their cell phone or laptop on vacation for the purpose of catching up on work anyway???

      --
      I got nothin'
    3. Re:kinda cool... lots of uses... by TheJorge · · Score: 1
      I read the post as sarcasm. I believe he made himself clear with the line that directly followed your quote,

      I dunno, when I go hiking, I take food and water. I don't think I would want 80 pounds of batteries on my back.

  36. The weight doesn't have to be dead ... by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 1
    The wags are already coming out about you can carry a lot of batteries and still have it weigh less than 20kg.

    I'd just like to point out that if you were working deep back country you are often carrying much more than 20kg in rock samples or camping gear or other equipment.

    If that's the case you get the recharging essentially for free.

    Although you could probably hook someting into a good laptop bag ...

  37. Head, Meet Ceiling by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    When walking, the body is like an inverted pendulum...The springs allow the load to slide up and down on bushings constrained to vertical rods..
     
    Don't walk too fast indoors. The accelerating momentum might bounce you into the roof.

  38. If you are walking by loadquo · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is recommended that you don't carry more 40 to 55 pounds. In a combat situation anyway. And I don't see why this doesn't apply to backpackers. External frame backpacks can also be quite heavy, so it would be interesting to see how much the backpack+motor would cut into your weight allowance.

    1. Re:If you are walking by chialea · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you're getting your estimates of external frame pack weight. If you look at REI, the (men's) external-frame packs they sell (online, at least) run about 6 pounds. It's a good chunk of weight, but nothing too terrible. Internal frame packs can run a bit more, of course, but you gain some mobility.

      Lea

    2. Re:If you are walking by tazanator · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a former infantry man, I carried 35 lbs of; water (common load in the US is 1/2 gallon, in Iraq they carry 2 gallons), ammo(230 rounds 5.56 for M-16/ 600-1000 rounds for machineguns), compass, clothing (12 lbs), knives (bayonet pocket and leatherman) and other gear (the M-16 is 12.5 lbs) my combat stripped ruck (wet weather gear, cold weather gear, 3 days food / 1 change clothes and 3 pairs socks & underware) is 35 lbs, many troops are carring even higher weights (the radio operator carries a 35lb radio in his ruck the machine gunners carry extra ammo...) The weight the troops carrry is already very high and once bullets start fling the first thing dropped is the backpack.

      --
      I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
    3. Re:If you are walking by loadquo · · Score: 1

      I've been investigating ultralight backpacking. So I am a very conscious of weight at the moment. The kelty flights that every one raves about in the ultralight group are 4.5 pounds an extra 1.5 pounds is a fair bit if you are going ultra light.

  39. Alternative by scottennis · · Score: 1

    What I'd be interested to know is how long of an extension cord you could get with 80 lbs.

  40. 44 to 84 pounds?! by Roho2000 · · Score: 1

    I know I sure as hell will be sticking to batteries. Why on earth would you want to carry such a weight on your back when you could just as easily power all that gear with lithium ion batteries?

  41. Meh by Cthefuture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You may generate 7 watts but if you are storing that in a battery you won't get that much back out.

    It's a good idea though since a suspended load is going to be absorbing energy anyway (ie. the springy-ness), might as well use that to generate power.

    However, a lot more energy could be generated by absorbing the person's weight (plus anything they carry). For example, if you could store the energy absorbed by the padding of your shoes as you walked. Now that would be some power.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
  42. Day late, dollar short... by guided_by_coffee · · Score: 0

    Bobdammit, I was daydreaming about such a device two weeks ago whilst under the influence of coffee and the Summer sun. Pity..., maybe if I spend more time building than daydreaming, I just might actually get something accomplished. - "World's Laziest Inventor"

  43. I already do this... by zeketp · · Score: 1

    ...without all the (useless) high tech gear. I like to call it "running to class". All you need is a backpack, a laptop, an iPod, and tons of books and supplies.

    --
    Last Post!
  44. Here's a question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much power is going to be left over to resuccitate the poor soldier that collapses from exhaustion from toting around a rucksack that now weighs about as much as they do? It's only soldiers that are in need of a power source that can go like that without needing a tether for days on end.

    Geeks can always find time to charge their stuff in. 44 pounds of LiON cells will run that equipment for _days on end_. What the hell geek is going to be willing to tote that around? People pay mint just to shave a pound or _two_ off the weight of their notebooks.

  45. Power *Walking*? by dwater · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds more like "Power *Stalking*" to me...

    --
    Max.
  46. New matrix spawn by hcob$ · · Score: 1

    Hook all the backpacks together to form a sentient computer network that develop a way to lock thier user into the system and force them to walk to the ends of the earth.

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    1. Re:New matrix spawn by tazanator · · Score: 1

      Sentient computer network .. these are bluetoothed so the first idiot that loads a linux OS will begin the skynet revolution.

      --
      I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
  47. Lifetime supply of batteries by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    Considering that my Sony MP3 player goes for a whole month on one AAA cell, your 30 pounds of spare batteries will corrode, self discharge and MP3 will be obsolete as a music format, before you get to the end of that many batteries...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  48. Watch out!! by chrisnewbie · · Score: 1

    what the article doesnt tell is that all subject died of dehydration because they had to walk 3 hours with the 38 kg backpack in order to listen to their 300 mp3 songs.

    Imagine powering a blackerry now! imagine the death toll of vp's around the world :(

  49. Amount of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they lost some of the other kit maybe they could power a TTL image decoder!

  50. Why use a mechanical rack-and-pinion? by Jivecat · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking of those emergency flashlights that are powered by shaking them up and down for a minute. An internal magnet bounces up and down, passing through a coil to generate current that charges a capacitor. Seems less Rube-Goldbergian than a rack-and-pinion attached to a DC motor, and could probably be adapted to this system.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."--Feynman
    1. Re:Why use a mechanical rack-and-pinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not really. you'd be hard pressed to find a magnet powerful enough to work efficiently with loads this heavy, whereas you could always tune the ratio of your rack and pinion for your target load mass.

  51. No, it isn't like "fireman suits" by MikeyTheK · · Score: 1

    OK, first of all, what the hell is the point of carrying around a bunch of weight to recycle something? News flash - you put more energy in than the work you get out. Plus you have filters, sterilizers, etc. So no, you can't use this (insanely massy) pack to recycle urine more efficiently than just carrying (and consuming, and expelling) water.
    Second, this is not like a "fireman suit". By the way, we call those thingies "bunker gear" or "turnout gear" or "firefighting ensemble". They consist of PBI, Nomex, and Kevlar, along with some other goodies to keep other crap off of us. Oh, and here's a newsflash - it's almost unbearably hot in a "fireman suit", especially in Summer. That's why firefighters generally much prefer late Fall or early Spring. It's much more comfortable.
    I've been on FAST (or RIT) team calls (that's where we show up to rescue any firefighters that might become trapped trying to save your house), where we were standing outside in -10F for three hours, and I was a happy, happy, warm, comfortable camper.

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
    1. Re:No, it isn't like "fireman suits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are completely missing the point. The pack itself is only about 10 lbs. (cf. 4-5 lbs. for a regular external frame backpack), and this is just a prototype. The "mass" they're talking about is all of the stuff that you're carrying IN the backpack -- your tent, tools, clothes, food, water, etc. IOW, stuff you have to carry ANYWAY.

      And yes, thanks to filters and chemicals, it is easy enough to make water potable that it would be pointless to recycle your urine anywhere but in a desert -- but people DO hike in the desert. If such a system could reclaim even 3-4 liters of water, it would break even in terms of weight.

  52. Ugh. I need glasses by MikeyTheK · · Score: 1

    Damn. I need to go to get my prescription changed. Once I got closer to the screen I could see that you were saying "freeman". My bad on the second part of the post, however, the first part I stand by completely...wait - I can't it now - were you saying this was a silly idea? Dammit, Darcy, where the F*** are my spectacles?

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
  53. About as practical as a backpack full of bricks by raddan · · Score: 1
    As an avid long-distance backpacker (AT '03), I can tell you that 44-84 lbs ain't light. Without a hipbelt, your spine can only carry an additional amount of weight that is roughly equal to 25% of your total body weight. So for me, that's around 40 lbs. That's maximum, and I'm telling you, even with a hipbelt to help distribute the load to my hips, that weight can grow to be quite uncomfortable over the course of a day. Without a hipbelt, we're talking about a painful weight, and 84 pounds is simply crushing. And I am in very good shape.

    Plus the article doesn't mention-- what is 44-84 lbs in reference to? Is 44 lbs an empty backpack? If I have to add a week's worth of supplies on top of that, this design isn't practical at all. While some people may need power in remote places/the backcountry, I can't see myself needing power enough to justify carrying around something weighing that much. Batteries, while not replenishable, are much lighter.

    The current trend in backpacking is that lighter is better. It really surprises me how long it took for this to catch on. While many people made the switch to internal frame packs 10-15 years ago, we're now seeing a trend toward frameless packs. Fabrics that are stonger, lighter, and sometimes waterproof, allow you to make a much lighter pack. My frameless pack weighs around 11 oz empty-- I can fill it to about 25 pounds before the weight begins to hurt my shoulders over the course of a day (this is a pack without a hipbelt). Yeah, there's a bit of an art being able to get a week's worth of supplies, plus water, under 25 lbs. But when I do, I can easily cover more miles (20-25 as opposed to 10-15 with a 40 lb pack on moderate terrain) or simply enjoy myself more.

    Occasionally you'll see some gearhead out on the trail with a pack stuffed full of electrical gadgets. They don't usually stay on the trail very long.

    1. Re:About as practical as a backpack full of bricks by hqm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nobody seems to get it, the load is not some extra stuff you need to put in your pack - the machine just needs some weight to swing around. So the weight can be your dirty laundry, tent, laptop, whatever is in the pack already.

    2. Re:About as practical as a backpack full of bricks by rmm4pi8 · · Score: 1

      First of all, the device only adds a moderate amount to the weight of the pack--the 40lb doing the work is the weight of things you are already carrying, and you get a modest benefit in the form of decreased bounciness of the load as well.

      As far as total weights are concerned, I think it just depends who you are. A pack with no/very flexible frame of more than 10-15lb will get very old for me, but I'm comfortable carrying my hib-belted external frame pack all day over moderate to steep terrain with up to 70lb of gear. I don't think it's just a matter of fitness (I'm not in the world's best shape, I'd probably pant heavily to run an 8 minute mile) but also bone structure and sheer size--I weigh about 200lb.

      By the way, congrats on the through-hike...I've done most of the VA, MD, and PA trail and would like to through-hike someday, though I'm not sure how I'll ever find the time. Spent two weeks in the Sangre de Christo Rockies a couple of years ago, that was awesome too; very different from the AT.

      --
      U.S. War Crimes blog. Email for free Mandriva support.
  54. Flea Pod by Gax · · Score: 1

    ... But will it power the flea pod?

  55. Resistance is futile... by ddkilzer · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...you will be assimilated! Wait, don't run! We cannot keep up with you!

  56. More like Walking Electro-Magnet! by jabber01 · · Score: 1

    Come on... You were ALL thinking it.

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

  57. Why Just Walking? by ShelbyCobra · · Score: 1

    This leads me to a thought that I have had many times at the gym. (I know, geek... gym... blah blah blah).

    I see all of those people on bikes, stairclimbers, elipticals and such, and think, "Wow, what a huge waste of energy!" It would be fairly easy to turn much of the physical energy used on those machines into electrical energy, and the gym could at least power its own lights with it, if not sell power back to the electric company.

    I suppose though it would make the patrons feel even more like a hampster on a wheel.

    --

    -ShelbyCobra

    Living life in the right side of the s-plane

    1. Re:Why Just Walking? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      The Lifecycles at least DO generate their own electricity, which powers the LED display. That's why you can't get the controls to turn on until after you start pedaling. Yeah, most of the other equipment just wastes the energy input.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  58. What's this walking of which you speak? by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    I can power all of that with either batteries of AC, no need to walk.

    --
    This sig is false.
  59. Recycling urine by Usaflt2003 · · Score: 1

    They already have those, there called still suits. Just remember to only buy them from the deep desert fremen.

    --
    Honor is like virtue, if you must tell people that you have it then chances are you don't.
  60. Wile E. Coyote would be proud. by jlseagull · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does the description given by the inventors of the device's operation sound hilarious?

    When walking, the body is like an inverted pendulum. After the foot is put down to take a step, the body vaults over it, causing the hip to move up and down about 1.6 to 2.7 inches (4 to 7 cm). The Suspended-load Backpack frame sits still on the wearer's back, and the load is mounted on a load plate that is suspended from the frame by springs. The springs allow the load to slide up and down on bushings constrained to vertical rods, thus allowing the load to move with the same vertical motion as the hip, but lagging it by a fraction of a second, producing differential movement between the frame and load. The pogo-stick-like movement of the load generates mechanical energy that drives a rack-and-pinion device that powers a geared DC motor that acts as a generator mounted on the frame.

    Vault! Sproing! Slide! Pogo! Gears! Motors!

    No thank you. I'd rather not walk around with a flapping, bouncing, sliding, grinding, humming backpack. This thing sounds like an invention of Wile E. Coyote.

    --
    'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
  61. A picture of it by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 3, Funny


    It took a while but I finally found a picture of it. It doesn't look too bad, and actually does look eco-friendly.

  62. Spring powered motion by GodSpiral · · Score: 1

    running would generate even more energy.

    Some spring assisted footwear could generate both impressive running speeds and considerable energy with this device.

    If the footwear had heel activated absorbtion and toe activated release, the power could be used to assist toe push effort, and increase speed/effort ratio.

  63. Same as the "shake to charge" flashlight. by lcsjk · · Score: 1
    This works the same as the shake to charge flashlights advertised on TV, and shaking the magnet in the inductor does take energy.

    A few months ago, I read about a piezo device in a walker's shoe that generated electricity, and probably was more efficient, although it probably did not change the gait to use less energy as the article claims is done by the backpack device.

  64. Military Alternative by RAKKIR · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere that the military is working pretty hard on power-boots. Boots that use the wearer's own weight to generate power as they move and walk. It has something to do with two membranes coming together as the wearer steps down and applies pressure. Apparently these membranes generate electrical current when they come into proximity. I think it is part of that "Landwarrior 2025" program (or whatever it is.) This seems to be a FAR superior idea to the backpack to me, as you don't have to carry a the extra weight of a loaded backpack to have the system work. After all, why not use your own weight to provide the power? Currently the system does indeed work, and they are working on improving iffeciency and reliability. Last I heard the really "hacked and cobbled together" testbed can easily power a cell-phone. They expected to increase that power output many times over. Supposedly at least. Whether they ever the same levels of power this backpack does I don't know. It is my understanding there are no moving parts in the boot system besides the membranes. Maybe someone with more info on these boots could add to this? As an aside, I seem to remember hearing something about some military idea to generate electrical current using the wearer's own body heat? Any able to add to this?

  65. Old Fashioned Walking, NOW more efficient! by RapmasterT · · Score: 1
    The scientists discovered that the Suspended-load Backpack altered the gait of the test wearers, causing them to walk more efficiently.
    I can just imagine the look on the test subjects faces when they're told that the bouncing spring/weight contraption on their back was making them "walk more efficiently" than that plain old fashioned method that was developed through millions of years of evolution.
    1. Re:Old Fashioned Walking, NOW more efficient! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I think they meant "walk more efficiently while carrying an 80 pound load on your back", which WASN'T developed through millions of years of evolution. While it is difficult to improve on the unladen gait evolution gives us, I beleive spring-loaded legs are currently more efficient than our natural walking.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  66. Green Energy? by Morgalyn · · Score: 1

    Haven't sorted through all the /. comments yet, so I apologize if this is redundant..

    I for one applaud this research. The implications for greener energy are pretty clear - not only are human beings providing the generative power - but it also cuts down on the number of batteries needed either in the form of disposables (with the waste implications) or rechargables (with the power station pollution/impact implications)

    I have no idea just how many AA's I've gone through in my life powering small portable electronics. I try to only use rechargables (although they're just poorly transmitting wall socket power into battery power), but when you are travelling, that's hard to do sometimes. A rig like this would reduce or eliminate the waste disposal of countless little batteries.

    Not to mention that it makes that sort of energy more accessible in remote locations, where buying batteries or plugging in a recharger isn't an available option. It could definitely astronomically increase the feasibility of technology in remote locations.

    --
    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We'd all love to see the plan
    (The Beatles)
  67. wind-up GPS devices by ksheff · · Score: 1

    They already have radios and flashlights with little generators that are driven by a wind-up spring mechanism. Why not GPS devices? I've even mentioned this to an engineer at a company that makes these GPS gadgets. The response: "people just bring extra batteries, so why bother?".

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  68. Ob. eDork Aqua Teen reference. by bobobobo · · Score: 1

    Meh, it's been done.

    1. Re:Ob. eDork Aqua Teen reference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But will it power the MP3 player-piano? Does it come with the I.V.? hahahaha

  69. Yes, I don't completey disagree by MikeyTheK · · Score: 1

    The issue I have is that the purification system, even in miniature, is going to add another 10-15 lbs. in order to be efficient enough to be useful. Charcoal, UV or chlorine, RO/DI (if you're nuts), etc. and spare parts together will easily add that much weight, and in order to go in the desert (as opposed to just in the field, where you pack your gear, and half-a-goat) is going to require even more effort and efficincy since the loss is higher. In addition, you still have to exert EXTRA effort to make the generator work (duh, perpetual motion), but you lose the diminishing mass advantage (no, I know - not all of it, just "much" of it).

    --
    Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
    Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
  70. Treadmill vs. Real World?? by AngryNick · · Score: 1
    I agree that this is a great invention, but...

    Issue 1: The device appears to be dependent on relatively small hip movements of "1.6 to 2.7 inches (4 to 7 cm)" and the testing was done on a treadmill. I wonder if the hip movement is significantly different if walking up or down an incline. How about when jogging? Do tall people generate more electricty than short people?

    Issue 1: All the energy is still coming from your legs, so the increased efficiency is really important if you don't want to work harder. It seems to me that moving 80 pounds at 2 mi/hr is going to consume a lot of energy before we can even start to make any electricity. The efficiency increase better be huge or I'm going to drop dead after the first 10 minutes!

    (I'm not angry today)

  71. So it looks by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    So it looks like we won't be in vats when the computers take over, but walking around in circles with backpacks on.

  72. Never incapacitate the target by bluGill · · Score: 1

    There is only one reason to shoot: to stop someone from doing something worse than that person's death. There is only one way stop that person with a gun: kill them. Someone who knows the right fighting might be able to stop them without killing, but once a gun is used as the tool there is only one solution: death.

    In the movies the sharpshooter can shoot off a wrist without missing, and the bullet never goes through the target to hit something else. In the real world bullets can go through the target, and still kill someone behind as well. Therefor you aim for the chest which is big enough that it is hard to miss, and dense enough that the bullet has little energy after it comes out. Even these are not guarantees that no damage with be done to others, which is why good gun safety is to know your target and everything beyond it.

    Guns are a limited use tool. Sometimes they are the best tool for the job, but only when you understand the limits.

  73. Re:Dune, because it always comes back to Frank Her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget the tubes to crap into. Can your desalinator handle human feces?

  74. When he's hit by jeephistorian · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wouldn't the pain or blood be a good enough indicator that he has been hit?

    --
    Huh?
  75. Too many variables by complexmath · · Score: 1

    For short trips in temperate weather, a backpack isn't likely to weigh 40 pounds. The equipment has gotten exceedingly light in the past decade. But the technology is darn interesting nevertheless.

  76. Actually by superspaz · · Score: 1

    They already have watches powered by body movement. I think I first saw the ads about 5 years back.

  77. This could replace nuclear power by mousse-man · · Score: 1

    given we have enough of these to to generate the power. Maybe they could power their own mp3 players that way....

  78. eat my blog slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eat it!!

  79. Saw it Firsthand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey hey guys,

    So the inventor is my college professor. I saw the thing Thursday and yea it's ugly and yea you're not gonna carry 80 pounds to generate 7 watts, but you COULD.

    The intended purpose is for rescue workers, who are gonna carry a moderate backpack anyway to be able to easily generate 1/2 - 3 watts of energy to power a headlight or heater for a long time without adding to the weight with batteries.

    -L