Using Gym Rats' Body Power to Generate Electricity

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "A Hong Kong health club is hoping that a car battery, some StairMasters and dozens of gym rats can help ease the world's energy problems. It is just one of a wave of projects that are trying to tap the power of the human body, the Wall Street Journal reports. The article explains the impetus behind the project: 'The human power project at California Fitness was set in motion by Doug Woodring, a 41-year-old extreme-sports fanatic and renewable-energy entrepreneur, who pitched the experiment to the gym's management last May. "I've trained my whole life, and many megawatts have been wasted," says Mr. Woodring, who has worked out at the Hong Kong gym for years. "I wanted to do something with all that sweat."'"

Comments

can they also make a contraption...

[tuxette]

...that will collect the energy generated by all the jiggling rings of fat you see on most people these days?

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat is stored energy. What you need to do is pay them for liposuction, like buying oil drilling rights.
it would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "fat farm".

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[daveinthesky]

been there, done that:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/27/biodiesel_fro m_lipos.html

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[tuxette]

No, no, no, you don't get it. From TFA:

Larry Rome, a biology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, recently launched a company called Lightning Packs that aims to sell backpacks that generate electricity from the jiggling motion of walking. In a recent test, his prototype was able to produce about 15 watts of power from the up-and-down motion of the pack.

I was thinking something along the same lines, though harnessing energy from the up-and-down motion of fat bellies, fat asses, thunder thighs, etc...

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[mappemonde]

mmm...does this sound kind of like a Matrix (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/) type beginning to power generation? First we go with treadmills and cycle bikes and then move on to people who are undesirable (prisons, homeless, etc) and then further the trend... Don't like it.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Anonymous Coward]

These people should be able to fuel their own car with their immense amounts of body fat. Ok, they'd have to drive a few extra hundred miles every day, so the car wouldn't overflow, but it'd be great and also solve the USA's dependence on foreign oil.

Why grow alternative fuels on farms, when McDonald's and friends are already providing as much fat as we'll ever want?

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[jambox]

Just wait for them to have a heart attack, then attach a turbine to the crematorium... Come on, it's better than coal!

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Ngarrang]

Just wait for them to have a heart attack, then attach a turbine to the crematorium... Come on, it's better than coal! The ultimate in recycling.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[ozeki]

According to the chart http://charrison.net/projects/searchclock/w2000/vo yeur.jpg from this article http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/031720 4. We can produce more than enough power from everyone jiggling themselves while surfing porn. Just capture the amount of energy wasted by ...... well you get the picture.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Anonymous Coward]

pay for MY lipo and I'll be more than happy to give you drilling rights! :-)
Drilling/mining rights go to the highest bidder! I'll post an eBay link shortly ;-)

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[multipartmixed]

They already have that, it's called a fuel-combusting power plant.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[ShieldW0lf]

This reminds me of a recent blog post I made...

A lot of people are driven by an inner need to do physical exertion on a regular basis. Gym memberships are full of such people. It's a rewarding pursuit to get up and do something physically active.

So there are all these people, engaging in utterly useless labour. They're picking up heavy things and putting them down over and over, running on treadmills, that sort of thing.

And I get to thinking... that we have all this stuff that could be done around here. Roads, housing, bridges, new infrastructure that could be built, that sort of thing. Stuff that benefits the community.

There are all these workplace safety people out there, specialized in making work safe, ergonomics, best practices, that sort of thing.

And there are all these physical therapists out there, designing exercise programs for people that are focused on being rewarding for the individual to participate in, where they're happily doing this labour out of a sense of enlightened self-interest.

It gets me to thinking...

If you organized community projects in a way where as many aspects of the tasks involved as possible were designed by a physical trainer to be purely beneficial to the individuals involved...

If one of the organizational mandates was that these tasks would not require specialized knowledge of workers who just showed up to get a workout...

If you made it so it would be brain dead easy for them to use the knowledge they have of their workout needs to find which tasks to do...

Could you create community projects that would be just as good for you as going to the gym?

Maybe managed by a core group of paid workers with expert knowledge?

If you had flexible time frames, if you had a complete lack of privately vested interest in the project and drove it purely at a community level so no one felt suckered when they participated but rather like they were getting an enjoyable workout first and making their neighborhood better as a nice side benefit...

Would people participate?

It would be interesting to see some people with more expert knowledge in those areas than I have give it a try...

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Red Flayer]

Soylent fuel is People !?

Unfortunately, crematoriums burn at an extremely high temperature requiring lots of extraneous fuel. Not sure this is cost-effective.

I suggest grinding the cadavers into cow feed, then capturing the methane released during digestion, which we should be doing anyway.

Either that or cannibalism, which would reduce the fuel needed for food production, and have the nice side effect of reducing the human population both through 'harvesting' and through the spread of prionic diseases.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Afrosheen]

Actually the power generation from thunder thighs could be alot greater. I've seen alot of fatties that have holes in their sweatpants where their inner thighs rub together under extreme pressure during limited distance walking. If you could harness that friction and use it to power something, that'd be a bonus. Even a static electricity generator like a thigh-mounted Van de Graff generator would do the trick.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Frozen Void]

Oh thats inefficient ,just process the remains into the feeding tubes of living.
And employ agents to check that electricity generation quotas are followed.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[wiremind]

i have thought about this too. nothing really to add. it just seems like a good idea.

i think the major obstacle to overcome would be skills required.

most physical labor requires a little bit of skill, and is quite repetitive.

alot of people who go to the gym wanna ride a bike for 15 minutes, run laps on a padded track with their expensive ergonomic running shoes for 15 minutes, safely in a controlled enviroment lift exactly 15 lbs, 20 times, then use the ellipitical machine for 12 minutes while they watch some show on their private lcd display.

the other group of people wanna gain muscle mass, so they want benchpress 200 lbs , 5 times with a spotter. once again a safe controlled enviroment.

translating those into real world activities, the person going for muscle mass wont get what he wants out of it. and the aerobic person ... the aerobic person might go for it. cuz they really are going for overall health.

now you have to consider the actual activities, most gym members want to go in, work for 40 minutes, have a shower, and get out.
if it was a community activity, getting to the location, and doing 40 minutes of work? you would barely get started.

from your list:
Roads, housing, bridges, new infrastructure.
in most cities, 'housing' is the only thing a community group could help with, and even then, working on a house, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, roofing, drywalling, painting. ALL specialized skills, most requiring the person is licensed to do it at all. you cant just build a new wall in a house and throw some copper wire in, there are electical codes to follow. Building permits are needed if its anything remotely big. and most of those jobs require a group of people working together for more than 35-45 minutes. and for all those activities that require specialized skills, well specialists arent gonna do it just its just their normal day job.

So i too like the idea of harnessing all the wasted effort, but translating it into community service is hard.

and last of all, if somethings worth doing, its worth paying for. so if your doing this service for free, it means it wasnt important enough to be funded in the first place.

lunch time, maybe finish this post later.

Kyle

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[FrostedChaos]

And I get to thinking... that we have all this stuff that could be done around here. Roads, housing, bridges, new infrastructure that could be built, that sort of thing. Stuff that benefits the community.

Most people like to do only 30 minutes or an hour of exercising, then go back to whatever they had been doing. Building roads, housing, and bridges is not something that can really be done in that time frame. I agree with the other poster-- with people arriving on the construction site for 30 minutes, and then leaving, no work would get done. It would be much too hard to coordinate.

Also, you are talking about skilled labor, which means that there is a learning curve. Believe it or not, it's hard to manage skilled laborers, to ensure that everyone knows what they're supposed to know, and doesn't mess up. Some of the work could be dangerous for a newbie to do. We are talking about power tools and construction sites here.

Also, on a more practical level, construction workers and machinists have powerful unions that would oppose any kind of community involvement in the industry. They are well aware that it would cost them a lot of jobs, and they would play up the safety angle as much as they could, to ensure that the idea never got off the ground.

Probably the most practical idea for using people's exercise energy would be to attach electrical generators to certain pieces of equipment. Of course, then you get into the same problems that wind and solar energy has always had-- how do you store this energy without causing more pollution than you save? Batteries are highly toxic and relatively expensive.

There aren't a whole lot of businesses or governments eager to buy "surplus energy." Think about it. Would you sign a contract offering to power your house "only when it was convenient"? No. So perhaps you should think about this problem instead.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, please, when making long posts repeat the following phrases: "Sentences are not paragraphs. Do not abuse the three periods." Sorry to be a dick, but I couldn't even read your post. Also, it stops your post from taking up an entire page. I edited it a bit for you.

This reminds me of a recent blog post I made. A lot of people are driven by an inner need to do physical exertion on a regular basis. Gym memberships are full of such people. It's a rewarding pursuit to get up and do something physically active.

So there are all these people, engaging in utterly useless labour. They're picking up heavy things and putting them down over and over, running on treadmills, that sort of thing. And I get to thinking that we have all this stuff that could be done around here. Roads, housing, bridges, new infrastructure that could be built, that sort of thing. Stuff that benefits the community. There are all these workplace safety people out there, specialized in making work safe, ergonomics, best practices, that sort of thing and there are all these physical therapists out there, designing exercise programs for people that are focused on being rewarding for the individual to participate in, where they're happily doing this labour out of a sense of enlightened self-interest.

It gets me to thinking. If you organized community projects in a way where as many aspects of the tasks involved as possible were designed by a physical trainer to be purely beneficial to the individuals involved. If one of the organizational mandates was that these tasks would not require specialized knowledge of workers who just showed up to get a workout. If you made it so it would be brain dead easy for them to use the knowledge they have of their workout needs to find which tasks to do, could you create community projects that would be just as good for you as going to the gym? Maybe managed by a core group of paid workers with expert knowledge?

If you had flexible time frames, if you had a complete lack of privately vested interest in the project and drove it purely at a community level so no one felt suckered when they participated but rather like they were getting an enjoyable workout first and making their neighborhood better as a nice side benefit, would people participate?

It would be interesting to see some people with more expert knowledge in those areas than I have give it a try.

Re:can they also make a contraption...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't make me eat you!

I can't wait...

[FredDC]

... to see the guy on the threadmill yelling at the guy on the stairmaster to "go faster!"

Schwarzenegger beat them to it

[giminy]

Ahnald was already doing this in the 1970s. In his excellent movie _Hercules in New York_, he threw a lightning bolt in one scene. I believe he wasn't wearing a shirt. I also believe the lightning bolt was actually a grounding rod, bent into a jagged, vaguely lightning bolt shape. See, you have shirtless bodybuilder, lightning bolts, and grounding rods. Truly Ahnald was a man ahead of his time.

Ahnald, you've come a long way...baby.

Inefficient use of human body

[Reverse Gear]

The article doesn't hide this either, but there is really very little real energy to be won in this way, I don't really get what Mr. Woodring says about megawatts being wasted though, no human is able to generate that much electrical power, maybe he refers to megawatthours which he might be right about, but it would have been generated over the span of many years.

I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.

I guess the best thing about this is that it might raise some people's awareness of how much energy different electrical devices use during the day and might help them remember to shut them off and think of energy efficiency when they buy new equipment.

The good thing about the way the human body works is not how much energy we use or generate, our biggest strength in this is the precise and versatile we can use our bodies and the energy we generate from the our food intake.
For example I bet you can save a lot more energy and pollution from exercising by getting wood for heating than you would ever be able to make by exercising a stair machine or spinning device.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Ihlosi]

I guess the best thing about this is that it might raise some people's awareness of how much energy different electrical devices use during the day and might help them remember to shut them off and think of energy efficiency when they buy new equipment.

Yes. Try generating 200W of electrical power with your body, and see how long you can keep it up.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Baron Eekman]

Indeed. If you want power, just burn the food you eat, that can be done far more efficiently.

And guess what your body produces by generating power from sugar: yes, carbon dioxide. There is no environmental gain here at all.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[eugene ts wong]

I see what you and the other fellow are saying. I remember that in Expo 86, there was a claptraption, where people would sit on stationary bikes, and pedal away, to light up some light bulbs. It took much effort. I'm sure that the system could have been made more efficient with flourescent lamps, and better gearing.

I do have to wonder, though, wouldn't the electrical savings eventually pay for the generators? Or maybe they could come up with some kind of system to turn a fan, so that there won't be a need for air conditioners.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[johnw]

There is no environmental gain here at all. Not quite correct. Yes, if you were going to make people take exercise as a means of generating power then you're right - there's no environmental gain. This isn't what's being proposed though. People already take the exercise and currently all the energy which they expend is wasted as heat. The idea is to tap energy which would otherwise go to waste, so there is a potential environmental gain.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[I am Jack's username]

If all the exercise machines were in use 10 hours a day for a year, the gym could generate roughly $183 worth of electricity. At that rate, it would take about 82 years to pay off the initial $15,000 investment.

Enviu, a Dutch environmental group, is building a nightclub in Rotterdam that will have a dance floor that converts vibrations from all those feet into electricity. One potential design for the floor involves piezoelectric crystals, which generate a small electric current when compressed. But Enviu's 20-by-20-foot floor cost $260,000 and will generate only enough power to run some lights embedded in it.

While there's potential in the human-powered area, these examples are clearly making things worse:

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve." - Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are americans so ignorant and uneducated when it comes to CO2. It is as if you dont learn this stuff in compulsory highschool. What is it americans actually DO in high school? Bible studies or some shit like that? :)

When our bodies burn sugar we exhaust CO2, yes. But since this CO2 was originally taken from the air during the growth of the plant, there is no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. The food we eat is grown in our atmosphere; thus we have a CO2-circle. If this natural CO2-circle somehow was unstable and more CO2 was released than what was consumed we would not be living today. Think before you write.

This would be an environmetal benefit if we compare to generating the same energy by burning fossil fuel. Say coal. Burning coal is not part of the CO2 cycle - thus it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The danger is NOT CO2; but from where the C in CO2 come frome. Why do you always get this wrong, its quite irritating.

Also I guessed the first reply to this post would correct you, but noo.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[DrSkwid]

Only 20% of the body's energy is derived from food.
We don't respirate all that oxygen for nothing !

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Eivind]

Possibly, but doubtful. As stated, if the exersize-bikes where in use for 10 hours/day, they'd pay back the investment in 82 years, but since they probably get replaced within 5 years anyway, that's never going to happen.

It's much easier to *save* energy than to *create* it.

Replacing 10 of the ligth-bulbs in the gym with modern low-energy ones would've had a larger effect on energy-savings, and would've costed less than the $15.000 this cost.

It's a gimmick, nothing more.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[MightyYar]

A lot of petroleum is used in the food production chain, so you aren't quite carbon-neutral unless a bio-fuel is being used with all of the farm equipment, food processing equipment, and transportation infrastructure which brings the food by train or truck to your store.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[drsquare]

I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.

What about the energy generated by the ambulance after you're mugged, beaten or run over?

Outdoor running isn't a very effective exercise, you can't go very fast in case you run into someone, and you're still going to have to go to the gym anyway for the weights.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[cheater512]

As another poster pointed out: Try powering a lightbulb on a bike.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[MichaelSmith]

The article doesn't hide this either, but there is really very little real energy to be won in this way

You can get about 500 watts from a human body. If you actually get 200W per person and you have 20 people then thats 4000W which you can use to run lights, TV's, etc. Doesn't sound trivial to me.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[locofungus]

The article doesn't hide this either, but there is really very little real energy to be won in this way, I don't really get what Mr. Woodring says about megawatts being wasted though, no human is able to generate that much electrical power, maybe he refers to megawatthours which he might be right about, but it would have been generated over the span of many years.

Agreed. Top cyclists eat about 10000 calories/day while in competition. This works out to something like 30MJ over and above the 2500 calories for normal people.

Assume their muscles are at most 25% efficient and it's less than 8MJ useful energy output.

And that's for the top athletes while in competition.

Tim.

I found in the days when I used to travel around London from one meeting to another that cycling was by far the most reliable means of arriving on time--much better than taking the bus, a taxi or the Underground. And it was good exercise into the bargain. Cycling or walking to work on a regular basis is one of the best contributors to good health, far more worthwhile than the practice of a hospital executive I heard about the other day. He took his health seriously. He believed in getting into his company car twice a week and driving to a gym in order to sit astride a stationary bicycle. - Lord Thomson of Monifieth (from hansard)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ ldhansrd/vo990127/text/90127-03.htm

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[LarsWestergren]

maybe he refers to megawatthours which he might be right about, but it would have been generated over the span of many years.

For one person yes, but if you have hundred or thousands of customers per day pedalling/rowing/stairstepping, it adds upp quickly

I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.

a) People in big cities rarely have good places outdoors to run. b) If it is winter and snowy, it can be difficult to excercise outside too. c) Some people prefer to build muscles over doing cardiovascular excercise. d) Heating and lighting a gym isn't more wasteful than heating and lightning any other room.

I guess the best thing about this is that it might raise some people's awareness of how much energy different electrical devices use during the day and might help them remember to shut them off and think of energy efficiency when they buy new equipment. The good thing about the way the human body works is not how much energy we use or generate, our biggest strength in this is the precise and versatile we can use our bodies and the energy we generate from the our food intake. For example I bet you can save a lot more energy and pollution from exercising by getting wood for heating than you would ever be able to make by exercising a stair machine or spinning device.

Now these points I agree with 100%. :)

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

maybe they should light & power the room from the power generated from the exercise machines. it'd be a new incentive to work harder in the gym, if you dont, it goes dark & gets cold.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[PDAllen]

I'm fairly physically fit - so I can generate 320W of mechanical energy for an hour on a bike. Which is about 1p worth of electricity; less than is used to provide light, music and a hot shower afterwards. And a typical (fat, unfit) person would not be able to generate half that. There are some practical ways to generate electricity that don't involve fossil fuels (nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind in some places, solar in some places), but this is not one of them.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[wall0159]

Even more so, it amazes me how many people go to a gym and then get back in their car. If they walked/cycled, they could burn those calories in a much more useful way!

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[lobiusmoop]

I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.

You've obviously never been to Hong Kong. Until quite recently it was the most densely populated place on the planet. A sprawling city like this is not really a place for running. A better source of excercise might be to take the staris instead of the elevator occasionally in your 40 story apartment block.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[mrvan]

And worse: the 15.000 initial costs undubitably includes a lot of used energy: to drive the people installing the system, to create the batteries, wires, and generators etc; moreover, batteries include nasty chemicals and all electrical equipment consists of metals of which the reserves are finite.

If it costs 15000$ to generate around 1000$ worth of energy (5 years at around 200$ a year) I would think that the environmental impact and possibly the energy alone of installing the 15000$ system is going to exceed the savings over the expected lifteime

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[CagedBear]

I bet you can save a lot more energy and pollution from exercising by getting wood

I grew up in a house that had no heat except for wood. We cut up tree tops left behind by loggers and dropped any trees that didn't look healthy or were in a cluster.

It was good excercise, but also incredibly dangerous and we created pollution in the process. Chainsaws, tractor, log splitter, etc. I can't imagine cutting wood without these machines. At least not for the big farm house we lived in. I guess that's why the little house on the prarie was so damn small.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Tim C]

I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.

While that's true, running isn't ever going to replace gyms. Two immediate reasons are that running does little or nothing for building up muscle bulk, and it's a high impact exercise (as opposed to something like swimming or cycling, where you're not pounding the pavement the whole time).

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[phlipped]

Only 20%? respirate oxygen?

Where do you get this stuff from? It's not like what you're saying is some common misconception, or even some corruption of the truth, so I'm quite flummoxed as to how you came up with the figure of 20%? Why not 30%, or 40%.
Hey, while you're at it, why not just make it 100% - and then you'd actually be correct.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[antoinjapan]

The initial cost is always high for a new product and one off prototypes. Also they actually the stuff as an afterthought to already built gym equipment. If the gym's parent company wanted to roll it out then it wouldn't cost the same each time, it would be more efficient as they'd buy purpose built machines that maximise the energy generated and with economies of scale the price would continue to drop while the grid energy prices and oil prices will continue to rise.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Ed Avis]

Five or six people on exercise bicycles could generate a megawatt and if they're fit could keep going for an hour.

One beneficial effect might be, as you say, to raise awareness of energy. It's confusing and annoying that there are many different units for the same thing: power measured in watts or in horsepower, energy measured in joules, calories (and remember the confusion between calories and kilocalories), kilowatt hours, British thermal units and other nonsense.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Aladrin]

Maybe it's about efficiency. If they spare time, they might choose to do just that. For the rest of us (who have NO spare time) it's about getting the most efficient exercise in the time we have.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[MrNaz]

4kW is trivial when you consider that the gym probably draws 100kW at peak times, perhaps more. Lighting alone (most gyms use those huge halogen lamps) can be 300W per lamp. Aircon, prolly say 5kW conservatively. TVs, equipment, cleaning gear, pool pumps and other things will take another big bite. No, 4kW is trivial. Those small foot heaters you can buy for $20 in at the hardware store draw up to 2kW alone. So, by your math, 10 people are needed to keep my feet warm? Waste, waste waste.

And then there's the energy required to manufacture all that custom low volume shit they needed to make the whole human powered electricity stuff work. I'm guessing the whole thing is a stunt that is net negative environmentally.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[ShakaUVM]

Right. At the local science center, I found you have to pedal pretty damn hard just to power one light bulb.

There's no way that he's getting megawatts out of a gym, in any reasonable scope of time.

Most stationary bikes use human power to turn themselves on, which is nice, I guess, but the physics of the situation make his pipe dream unrealistic.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Eivind]

True. Nevertheless, for this application, even an order of magnitude reduction in price wouldn't be enough. Currently it takes 82 years for payback -- assuming 10 hour/day usage (which is excessive, very few machines are in practice used even half of this)

So, with an order of magnitude improvement, (i.e. $1500 not $15.000) in price, you'd still be looking at 8.2 years of 10 hour days for payback. (or on the order of 20 years or more for more typical gym-use) this for equipment that is typically replaced after aproximately 3-5 years.

Harvesting "human power" will never be able to do much for your energy-bills. It can make sense for other reasons though. For example, a handy that is powered by movement, and thus stays charged forever aslong as you're walking/moving would be a very practical thing to have for many people. I'd love this in my GPS too: I only bring it along when I go hiking in the mountains anyway, if my movements could somehow supply the (small; sub 1w) power-requirements it'd mean I could have it on all the time and never worry about running out of batteries again, rather than turning it on to log a certain point-of-interest only occasionally during the hike as I do today.

With low-enough energy-demands I could see this for for example remote-controls or wireless game-controllers too. Never having to replace batteries is a nice thing, more for practical reasons than for cost-reasons. (rechargable batteries aren't that expensive anyway)

Infantry also has need for gadgets. Many of them would benefit from being able to work indefinitely without access to recharging and/or new batteries. (nigth-vision, GPS, radio, led-torches, ...)

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[brother bloat]

The Oxygen (O) part of the CO2 we output comes from the O we breath. The Carbon (C) comes from SUGAR. Here's a diagram of the Kreb's cycle: http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~bi107vc/images/mol/krebs_ cycle.gif. For a full overview of metabolism, go here: http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~bi107vc/fa02/terry/metabo lism.html. I think you've mistaken the law of conservation of matter with the "law of conservation of molecules" (which doesn't exist).

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[dave_mcmillen]

The article doesn't hide this either, but there is really very little real energy to be won in this way ...

Yeah, you're right, but at the same time, I don't really see the harm in trying to do something with the energy that people dump into, say, a flywheel when riding a stationary bike. Currently it just spins around to produce resistance, so why not have it turn a little generator? Bring your rechargable batteries with you to the gym, plug them in, and walk out with them recharged! I agree that it certainly shouldn't give people the impression that they are Doing Something to Save the Environment.

Of course, the 100% efficient mode of energy recovery is using the heat dissipated by all that exercise, but that happens automatically (if it happens at all): with a room full of sweating exercisers, you should have to heat the place less in the winter and thus use less energy. Unfortunately, the gym highlighted in the article is in Hong Kong, so it's almost certainly air conditioned year-round rather than heated, so all that heat dissipation is the last thing you want. Still, no harm charging some batteries (or something), since that's still recovering a bit more of the energy that would otherwise go into fighting the air conditioning system, and thus it's an improvement over the existing situation -- just a very, very slight one.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[prefect42]

There is an environmental gain, since this activity is happening anyway. People are right when they suggest that people could exercise differently and thus save more energy than this would generate, but if this could pay for the generation equipment (financially and environmentally) then this is no bad thing if you assume that people will go to a gym and exercise.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Try generating 200W of electrical power with your body, and see how long you can keep it up.

Hey whippersnapper, I can keep it up just fine.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[purduephotog]

So what you're saying is that this article is basically: The wheel is spinning but the hamster is dead- right?

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[bloobloo]

Not to mention the fertilisers used. They're fossil fuel generated too.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Smidge204]

Let's check the math on that...

10 minute drive to the gym (at an average fo 30MPH, 5 miles)

1 or 2 hours in the gym.

10 minute drive back.

So 80 - 140 minutes total. At a brisk 5MPH jog, you can get to the gym and back on foot in 120 minutes and on bike (~8MPH) in 75 minutes. You get a better quality workout, pay no gym fees, and it doesn't cost you anything in gas for your car.

And this doesn't count the 10 minutes or so most people spend driving aroung the lot, looking for a parking space that's closest to the door so that don't have to walk before they get to the gym.

Now if you're into serious strength training or something, a trip to the gym might be justified. If all you want is basic energy-burning exercise it's actually more of a waste.
=Smidge=

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[ldexterldesign]

'chop your own wood, it will warm you twice.' - mack king

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[johnw]

Try powering a lightbulb on a bike. Again, you've missed the point. It doesn't matter that powering an old-fashioned incandescent light bulb from a bike would be awfully difficult to sustain. What matters is that a lot of people put a lot of effort into driving all these exercise machines. Why not harness the energy? A room full of sweating executives could easily power quite a few light bulbs.

HTH

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[ArsenneLupin]

I think you've mistaken the law of conservation of matter with the "law of conservation of molecules" (which doesn't exist). And I think you confused the law of conservation of molecules (CO2) with the law of conservation of atoms (C) (which isn't universal either, but which does apply if you only consider chemical processes such as happen in plants and in the human body).

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[maxume]

Wrong prefix. megawatt=1,000,000 Watts. 5 fit people can do a kilowatt.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[maxume]

I takes energy to make the generator. If it doesn't get used enough to pay back that energy before it is replaced, it's a net loss.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[daeg]

But to generate electricity, you have to rebuild the machines to store, move, and pass the energy back to the grid (or, at the very least, back into the building). That has a solid cost associated with it: wiring, engineering work, parts, etc. It is doubtful that a machine will generate enough energy to offset the energy expended creating the system. If bikes could last decades, sure, but do you run on a canvas-backed wood-and-cast-iron treadmill? No.

You could argue that the energy cost would be offset by the many gyms that make use of the same equipment brands, but they will still have to be equipped with wiring, etc.

Besides, do you really trust people that run your gym to harness all that energy safely? I mean, I love the trainers and managers at my gym, but they aren't exactly, uh, the brightest bulbs out there.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Dr_Barnowl]

Five or six people on exercise bicycles could generate a megawatt

To put this in perspective, this is like saying each person is outputting sufficient energy to boil 166 jug kettles simultaneously.

Please, think about your numbers before you post them. I think you mean a kilowatt. These people would be hotter than the Human Torch, people would be running, screaming, their lycra pants melting from their roasting flesh.

While I agree that the wasted energy which is ordinarily all just converted into heat in the gym atmosphere would do something useful before it ends up in it's ground state, if you could generate a megawatt from six people on bicycles, every major city in China would be a roiling cloud of vapour. Either that, or they'd have built a huge deathray and vapourised the West by now.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Dr_Barnowl]

Of course, if you use the output of the exercise to RUN the air conditioning system.....

Heat pumps are far over-unity for the heat they move vs the energy they are fed. This neatly counteracts the low efficiency of generating heat through human effort.

Storing the energy in batteries would be a very minor way of moving heat out of the gym compared to powering the aircon.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Ogive17]

I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise. Ever live in a colder climate and suffer from asthma? Going running just isn't going to work here for at least 3 months of the year. Plus my knees/ankles took such a beating from playing soccer for 15 years that I need low impact workouts. I'll ride my bike 10-15 miles/night during the summer, but I can't do that when it's cold. Plus the gym has a nice varity of equipment to give me a full body workout.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet FLandis could do it, particularly now that he has a cyborg hip.

And while we are on the subject of FLandis, why have there been no FLandis stories on Slashdot? Possibly the fault is mine, since I am probably one of the few cycling fans here and I have not submitted any, but several recent developments related to him have been very geeky indeed:
A) His current problem is related to molecules and science and such. Slashdotters love that stuff.
B) Someone cracked the email server at the lab that conducted the infamous doping test and sent messages criticizing the test methods.
C) The arguments his defense team will make have been posted on the web prior to the hearing, and the press is calling is a 'wiki-defense'. Everything else with the prefix 'wiki' gets front paged here.
D) Flandis himself is a cyborg.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much easier to *save* energy than to *create* it.

I'm sure you know this: energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no? How much human energy do you suppose it took to raise the Great Pyramids or similar wonders of the ancient world? Modern man appears pathetic to me in his underestimation of the value and potential of raw human exertion and creativity.

The point here is that millions of people do expend huge amounts of energy at stationary exercise machines effectively wasting the energy expended (aside from achieving physical fitness). Think how the ancient world would have perceived this.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle+generator

Take Gold's Gym, with nearly 3 million members worldwide, and a very conservative estimate of 10 watt hours per member per week, (assuming one workout per week) there you have 30 megawatt hours per week, that is 1.5 gigawatt hours per year (and that is a conservative estimate, also there are many other fitness franchises besides Gold's).

Yes, humans can use their knowledge and skill to create things like nuclear power plants, but does that mean we should just cast aside the power expended by our muscle? I agree that natural excersise like hiking or cycling outdoors is the most healthy for people (mentally more than physically) but the fact is that millions of people spend millions of hours annually working at stationary machines that achieve nothing, why not use the energy?

I think this fellow's idea is a good one, it is noble and creative. I would rather see us equal the creative achievements of our past, but this will suffice for now.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[drinkypoo]

So 80 - 140 minutes total. At a brisk 5MPH jog, you can get to the gym and back on foot in 120 minutes and on bike (~8MPH) in 75 minutes. You get a better quality workout, pay no gym fees, and it doesn't cost you anything in gas for your car.

No, you get a lower-quality workout. Jogging does little to build muscle, it's mostly about fitness and endurance, two things which can be developed in a gym without blowing out your knees.

Running/Jogging is actually horribly hard on the human body, and if you love your knees, you should switch to swimming. Which, by the way, is a superior workout anyway.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[dave_mcmillen]

Of course, if you use the output of the exercise to RUN the air conditioning system..... Heat pumps are far over-unity for the heat they move vs the energy they are fed.

Excellent point! I don't have anything to add, I just wanted to say that.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Smidge204]

Seems you didn't manage to get to the end of my post before replying. Do you make a habit out of finishing too early?

=Smidge=

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[cayenne8]

"10 minute drive to the gym (at an average fo 30MPH, 5 miles)"

I don't know of many people that live within 5 miles of ANYWHERE they usually need to go...much less the gym.

Not to mention, when I leave the gym...I'm exhausted...I do good to get in the car, drive home and collapse for awhile before having to get up and cook dinner...

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Ed Avis]

Yes, I realized my mistake after posting, when I was at the gym putting 200 watts or so through the exercise bike - not 200 kilowatts...

On the other hand, a 'calorie' reported by exercise equipment is really a kilocalorie, and I think that might have helped me get confused.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[scotch]

Psst - Einstein wants to have a word with you.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[syphax]

Lance Armstrong can crank out around 300W for 100 miles or so, and 600+ when he puts the hurt on.

When I'm in decent shape, I can hold onto 200W for awhile (either on bike or rowing ergometer), but not long enough to generate 1 kWh in a sitting.

At minimum wage, 1 kWh generated by a human (@ 200W/hour) would cost $25+. Even in low-wage companies this is not cost-competitive. At all.

Human-generated power is a great educational tool, but absolutely trivial as an energy source.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[squoozer]

While I agree with what you are saying I wish people wouldn't prefix "chemicals" with "nasty". It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of chemistry and is anthropomorphizing a non-living thing.

The plastic that the battery is surround in is a chemical, the clothes you where are made of chemicals, the food you eat is chemicals. There are no "nasty" chemicals. There are certainly chemicals that are dangerous to us and there are chemicals that are difficult to dispose of and plenty of other classifications. If this is a lead acid battery (which I'm guessing it is) then the acid, the thing most people would point at and say that's a chemical, is probably one of the least harmful components. The feed stocks for the plastic that made the battery casing are often horribly toxic as are some of the plasticizers that are used. Metal production produces huge quantities of waste material and consumes vast amounts of power.

I suppose the other components don't count as chemicals though as they aren't liquids and under standard conditions they don't really do much.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[kabocox]

This would be an environmetal benefit if we compare to generating the same energy by burning fossil fuel. Say coal. Burning coal is not part of the CO2 cycle - thus it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The danger is NOT CO2; but from where the C in CO2 come frome. Why do you always get this wrong, its quite irritating.

But they got those fossil fuels on Earth so there should be no net change on Earth from having an intake of additional fuels/energy. It's not like they were going to the moon, mars, or venus and bringing back fossil fuels for us to burn here on Earth. We are taught that "fossil fuels" were created by planets and animals long ago. Um, if that's true, then oil, coal, and gas are part of the carbon cycle and should be thrown back up into the air to complete the long cycle.

Now, if oil, coal, and gas weren't created from plants or animals long ago and from some geologic process then we are changing the atmospheric carbon balance. Um, you do reliaze that creationists would love it for their to be no fossils or "fossil fuels" being created from plant/animals "long ago." They'd love God sticking oil, coal, and gas in the ground 6K years ago for our own use.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[des09]

Another point to be made for that example is that a bike light has three or four power options - non-rechargable batteries, rechargable batteries, generator only, generator + rechargable battery. When the lifetime carbon costs and environmental impact of producing batteries or generators is factored in, I think generator + rechargable battery would win.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[scotch]

Done right, running is excellent for your body. The problem is that people go out and start running with poor style or too much on hard concrete after 20 years of not running at all. The human body is designed to run. Running is very good at maintaining and building bone strength in adults. Running is a great way to lose weight and maintain a trim physique. You don't see serious runners with love handles or beer bellies. You can run anywhere, you need very little equipment, no expensive facilities required.

This message brought to you by an avid runner and the national running awareness league.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[drinkypoo]

The human body is designed to run.

Sure, just like a cat's body is designed to fall 100 feet and still survive. It doesn't mean it's a good idea for cats to be jumping off of buildings.

The human body is designed first and foremost to walk. We're far better at that than anything else. We're bad at sitting, at standing still, and even pretty bad at lying down. But we're excellent at walking.

Running is pushing that ability. It's necessary and we are designed to do it for short stints, but we're not really meant to do it for hours (although the body can be made to do it.

We're walkers. We walk. It's what we're for. Maybe that's why when something goes wrong we march :)

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[kd5ujz]

Not just CO2, but also H2S, CH4, and a few other gases.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[jmiles]

Also: For any day in which the outside air temperature is less than the confortable ideal for a gym, the most efficient use of that human energy is simply to let the generated heat dissipate into the air. While this scheme could have some tiny benefit in warm months (when dumping heat into the gym is undesirable), for much of the year the imperfect efficiency of transmission to the batteries would just detract from the created energy.

I know that the weather is pleasant for a lot of the year in So.Cal, but I believe that it's still less than "room temperature" for a significant number of months. Here in Boston, the best use of gym energy is to just keep things as they are...

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I know, just didnt have the time / energy to explain it fully accurate

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[LandruBek]

Agreed, but your numbers are a little pessimistic. If you attach a power meter to a bicycle you can measure 200-500 watts during a race, and a strong cyclist can keep this up for hours. For example, this guy reports over 12 MJ output in a 4+ hour race. I think a top athlete in competition could produce well over 12 MJ.

Just harness the power of 300 of those races and you've finally achieved 1 MWh! Ha.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it would probably be OK if all carbon was released as CO2. But two things would be bad:

1) Humans would loose lots of cities + buildings, etc, near oceans => we would loose lots of money and millions would probably die from the resulting loss in homes and infrastructure on some places.
2) The sun is shining a lot stronger now than 4.5 billion years ago. Thus a CO2 concentration similar to that of the earth 4 billion years ago would probably result in a warmer planet than 4 billion years ago. The scary example would be a run-away greenhouse effect due to evaporating oceans => some kind of Venus world after time :)

But there are also benefits from global warming. Afaik would there be more rain => less deserts => more rainforrests and crap, even though we loose some coastal areas we may gain in the end. The worst problem with global warming is probably economical.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[jonnythan]

Yes.

The C in our sugars ultimately comes from the CO2 taken in by plants and metabolized with the aid of solar power.

CO2 -> plants -> sugars [-> optional intermediary step such as a cow] -> humans -> CO2

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be a walker, but I'm a runner. That's why you're a fat ass and I'm sleek and honed.

We're excellent at walking and running. Back in the day, hunting and running from wooly mammoths required lots of running.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[recursiv]

Damn. That's crazy power. I can hold 320W for 5 minutes, or maybe 10 if I'm in shape. How much do you weigh?

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Doctor Memory]

If you want power, just burn the food you eat, that can be done far more efficiently. More efficiently than what? Animals are notoriously inefficient energy converters. I remember an ad for the newly-introduced diesel VW Rabbit titled "It can run a mile cheaper than you can". It explained that when a human body ran a mile, it burned some 200 (?) calories. The Rabbit burned some fraction of a gallon of diesel. They showed that the diesel the car used (at late 70's prices) was cheaper than the 1/4 cheeseburger they used to represent 200 calories.

I'd be interested in seeing the amount of electricity generated plotted against the amount of waste heat given off by the exerciser. You might capture more energy by strapping a Stirling-cycle engine to the back of the seat (and keep the user cooler, too!).

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[PDAllen]

78kg. Crazy power is someone like Armstrong, who weighs a bit less than me and was able to put out about 450W up l'Alpe d'Huez at the end of a hard day in the middle of the Tour de France (although it's debatable whether that was a clean performance).

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[oringo]

Exactly. My eliptical machine tells me that I burn about 400calories every 10 minutes in a moderate exercise. That translates to an average power output of 2.8W. In order to produce 200W of electrical power, assuming that the generator is able to achieve 100% efficiency, I would need to either run 8 faster or weigh 6.3tons.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[geoffspear]

Or maybe you're just showing a fundamental lack of understanding of what the word "nasty" means. A chemical that's dangerous to us can be called "nasty" without implying any sort of moral judgment.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[MillionthMonkey]

When the oil finally runs out we're going to have a lot of those "jobs that Americans don't want".

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Mex]

I have always wondered if it would be possible to somehow harness the energy from lifting a stack of heavy weights in machines. Perhaps use the friction, or whatever.

But if you have spent any time in a gym, you at one point get to think about all the energy that is being wasted, or that could be used for better purposes. Imagine if all the gyms in the world found a way to recycle the energy wasted doing lifts. It's hundreds of people a day, multiplied by thousands of gyms. At least it would help a little.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the fact the to work that hard, people need to eat more. You can burn the extra food and get more power out of it than you can by processing it via a human. This is just plain silly.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[heinousjay]

Enlighten a layman who has no idea where you're going with this: what would he say?

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Patik]

running does little or nothing for building up muscle bulk, and it's a high impact exercise (as opposed to something like swimming or cycling, where you're not pounding the pavement the whole time).
Sounds like you're not swimming the right way.
Now, does anyone have any Lava soap? This hot asphalt is a bitch to clean off.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Start submitting these articles, man! Bring up the level of discourse.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

A log splitter? We used to split wood by hand (maul and sledge). It was the only chore I did for fun. When you get good at it, it's really fast, but you have to plan carefully and learn to put power into a controlled swing.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[bmwm3nut]

Those calories are kilocalories. So your average power is actually 2,800W. But we know that can't be right. First those calorie calculators are very innacurate, they just get you in the ball park. Second, that's the amount of energy you're burning to produce the motion, but your body is very inefficient. So you may be burning 2,800J/s of energy, but the usable output of work could easily be 1% of that. And then as you said, you have to worry about the efficiency of the generator.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

But they got those fossil fuels on Earth so there should be no net change on Earth

They got the fossil fuels under Earth, so there is a net change on the Earth, which is what we don't want. Unless we really do want to "complete the cycle" and return the planet to a tropical paradise complete with giant meat-eating lizards, but my air conditioning bill is already high enough, thank you very much.

They'd love God sticking oil, coal, and gas in the ground 6K years ago for our own use.

Google abiogenic oil.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[oringo]

Oh bummer. But I thought the way the exercise machines calculate energy is through mechanical resistance. i.w.o, it already excludes heat loss. By the way, our body is quite efficient in converting chemical energy to mechanical energy. Think about this: if 99% of the energy is lost to heat, then your body would've burnt to charcoal.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[nharmon]

Yeah. What WOULD Einstein say?

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

That is unless you are from Kenya. They are designed to run for 1.2 eternities.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Equally, a person can be rotten but I'm not anthropomorphizing a fuzzy apple when I apply the same word.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Beardo the Bearded]

Probably, "Why didn't I nail that librarian?"

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Lol!

Are you supposed to "pound the pavement" while swimming?

Maybe that's my problem, I am not diving deep enough!

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[twitchingbug]

Actaully the top peak wattage of sprinters is somewhere in the 1200-1600 range. But that's peak. Lance on a 1 hr TT, sustains about 400-450 watts.

And from my experience, 200W is pretty high for the average person that I know. I'm thinking 150W sustatined is probably more realistic for average weekend riders.

I think 1 hr is a better measure than 100 miles, since I don't think people will sit on an exercise bike for 5 hours.

Also I think the bike is probably going to be the most efficient transfer mechanism to generate power. Somehow I don't think you'll get the same efficiency on an elliptical or a treadmill...

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[inviolet]

This would be an environmetal benefit if we compare to generating the same energy by burning fossil fuel. Say coal. Burning coal is not part of the CO2 cycle - thus it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The danger is NOT CO2; but from where the C in CO2 come frome. Why do you always get this wrong, its quite irritating.

Indeed.

Over millions of years, plant life (plus geology) gradually sequesters all of the carbon underground. And so Mother Nature has to periodically develop a technological species that can pull all the carbon back up and diffuse it.

Once it's all been removed from the Earth, the technological species will self-destruct, probably through fighting over limited energy resources. And so the plants will GOTO 10 and repeat the cycle. Our role in the carbon cycle is short and glorious. :)

Of course nuclear power will change all that...

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[bmwm3nut]

Yes, those machines do measure the mechanical resistance and see what your power output is - and that's the information I'd really want anyway. However, most people want to know how many snickers bars they burnt off, so they calibrate the power output that they measure to the actual amount of energy you're burning, and that's why it's so inaccurate because people cover a wide range of efficiencies.

You're right that we'd be burnt to charcoal if we weren't good at converting chemical energy (fat) into mechanical energy. I meant to say, that the conversion from chemical energy into useful mechanical energy was inefficient. There's lots of mechanical energy that's orthogonal to the useful energy for any given exercise.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[yarbo]

I usually walk to the gym from work, but I do work out one day on the weekend. I drive to the gym. I'd estimate it's a 30 minute walk, 10 minute drive.
I don't care about the calories I could have burned, they're insignificant compared to the calories I burn from deadlifting and squatting. All it's going to do is keep me away from my post workout protein shake and boost my cortisol levels. Deadlifting is far better for burning energy than jogging. If I wanted to run, I'd do some 40 meter sprints in my neighborhood, I don't need the gym for that unless it's raining. While I am into serious weight training, most people would be better off deadlifting, squatting, or sprinting rather than jogging.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[raw-sewage]

On this and so many other threads, there are numerous posts where people argue that we should all walk or ride our bikes to work. Electric car discussion: just walk or ride your bike, it's way more efficient/enviro-friendly than any car. Talk about gyms? Running to the gym and back is as good a workout as driving their and then working out. Urban sprawl: just walk everywhere!

I agree with this principle 100%. But...

Regarding commuting: I live in the Chicago area. What am I to do in the freezing cold rain and snow? Do the folks screaming "just ride your bike" have snow in their areas? How about ice on sidewalks and roads? What about safety? It just looks risky to ride your bike somewhere like Chicago where there's too much traffic, low visibility and a million crazy cab drivers. I work downtown; unless I live downtown, there's few areas that I can afford to live in that are within walking distance (and the weather and safety discourages me from riding a bike).

Regarding exercise: trying to run or jog in the city? That's not really a good workout, considering you have to stop every minute or two to wait on a traffic light. Why run/swim/whatever instead of walking? It's about time. The amount of calories I can expend, and the workout I can give my heart and lungs has much better time efficiency with running than walking. I'd love to walk two hours a day, but I just don't have the time. So 30--40 minutes of running makes up for that.

I really want to live this kind of "ideal" life, where my commute results in the least pollution (i.e. walking), my daily life includes an implicit workout (i.e. more walking), etc, etc. I just can't figure out how to do it without giving up lots of time, money and or safety (and at the risk of sounding whiny, add "comfort" to that list, although spending more than a couple minutes in the coldest days of a Chicago winter are just torture).

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[blubadger]

The cyclist Miguel Indurain sustained a power output of 477W for one hour when setting the world hour record in 1994 (riding 53.040km). His peak output during the Tour de France (which he won five times in the 1990s) was 550W. http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=11139&sid ebar=569&category=century_challenge http://www.bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_record sHour.html

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[brer_rabbit]

As a mid-level racer and uber-geek, I've got a power meter hooked up on both my race bike & tt bike. With training, it's not difficult to hold a bit over 200 watts for many hours -- outside. Doing this level of work inside is rather monotonous and mentally draining. Efforts above 300 watts really limit the amount of time doing "work" (work in the mechanical sense). Breaking a kilowatt is challenge, and can only be sustained for a couple seconds. And that's in a reasonably trained individual.

But really: how about instead of powering the gym lights these people biked to the gym instead? Using less fossil fuels is where you'd really see the savings in energy.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[hador_nyc]

I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.

That's making the assumption that most people use the gym for those machines. In my gym, that is to say the one I use here in Manhattan, only about 1/3 of the gym is set aside for that. The other 2/3 is used for weight training and aerobics classes. Also, in many urban places, it's a safety issue. It's not safe to run at night in the parks or along the streets, when most people have time, in most of this city; particularly for women. Running on the streets is not that much fun; I do it when it's warm enough, but not when their's ice or rain. It's too slippery, and you're too likely to get hit by a cab. Beyond that, many people can't run, and must use some of the lower impact alternatives for their cardiovascular workouts. I figure your argument works fine in the suburbs, though. Where I grew up, north of NYC, it would be fine; even in the bad weather. I certainly enjoyed running in all kinds of weather/times of the year back then.
Aside from that, I agree 100% on your energy efficiency comments. I switched to CFLs, and am happy with it.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[twitchingbug]

As a mid-level racer and uber-geek, I've got a power meter hooked up on both my race bike & tt bike.
----
okay dude. being a mid level _racer_ AND having a TT bike, already makes you not the norm. right there you put yourself in the top 10% of _all_ riders out there. If you're CAT3/4 sure you can put out 200 watts sustained. I'm talking about the average recreational cyclist or even the average gym rat that doesn't care if they run 10 minute miles or average more than 10mph on a bike. They are there for fun and for more of a workout than sitting at a desk in front of a computer posting on slashdot all day. :P And even then those people are probably fitter than 80% of the general population in America today.

I agree with you on the biking to the gym thing tho. Tho really suburbia is a catch-22 since everything is optimized around the car. I'm waiting for the day some city bans cars and optimizes transportation around the bicycle.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

While that's true, running isn't ever going to replace gyms. Two immediate reasons are that running does little or nothing for building up muscle bulk, and it's a high impact exercise (as opposed to something like swimming or cycling, where you're not pounding the pavement the whole time).

For those who have forgotten, one of the classic reasons (back when "Jogging" was written) for running is *because* it's "high impact". That strengthens your bones.

And you can run without "pounding the pavement the whole time". Go watch the movie "Chariots of Fire" (possibly the most famous running movie ever): they train by running on the beach, not on pavement. Everybody I know prefers to run on trails, or even rubber tracks.

Even if running was always high-impact, and that was bad, so what? It's great for your heart. I'd rather lose my knees at 50 than my heart.

So while it's true that running will never replace lifting (they're complementary), it's not "oh no teh pavement!" bad.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[blahtree]

I'm afraid you've been mislead. Take a look at www.caloriesperhour.com and do some calculations based on your weight. Jogging will come out on top.

Yes, you can make the argument that powerlifting builds muscle mass and thus burns more calories at rest. Jogging raises your metabolism and essentially does the same thing.

The number of calories burned is somewhat irrelevant though. For optimum health, you need both aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Balance is good.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[eugene ts wong]

With low-enough energy-demands I could see this for for example remote-controls or wireless game-controllers too. Never having to replace batteries is a nice thing, more for practical reasons than for cost-reasons. (rechargable batteries aren't that expensive anyway)

I can see where you are going with this. My brother has Game Cube controllers that need batteries. There are plenty of batteries around. It's just a hassle and waste of time to fiddle with them.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[bogjobber]

Well, technically he is right, as those activities do burn more calories than jogging. It's just that it's extremely difficult to sustain deadlifting or sprinting for very long. If you have a brisk circuit workout (which is much, much faster than most people lift weights) you will burn a lot more calories than jogging over the same time interval. Jogging is better over a longer period of time, however, because lifting heavy weights and sprinting tends to wear you out quickly.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[zoltamatron]

Hmmmmm.....I totally agree with everything up until the 'getting wood for heating' part. Burning wood is an extremely polluting way to generate heat.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[sco08y]

I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.

Go to any military installation, you'll see people running around and doing PT outside. Most units even set up little outdoors gyms, with pullup bars, dip bars, climbing ropes and such. You can do a huge number of exercises outdoors using your body as resistance.

But an indoors gym is still necessary because it has high quality equipment that is vulnerable to weather and needs to be maintained by a staff. Also, sometimes the weather sucks and you're better off working out inside.

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Eivind]

That actually fails to be the case if the generator and associated machinery is placed inside the same building as the workout takes place.

You see, if the energy goes pedalling - generator - battery - ligthbulb - heat (with losses at every step, so the total heat ends up identical to the total pedalling-power, or just pedalling - friction - heat (as in a typical exersize bike) the total generated heat is identical, you don't get *less* heat by using the power for some othe purpose first, it turns into heat in the end anyway.

Now, if the building is *electrically* heated, then you're rigth. There's no point in saving 1Kwh, if that only means you'll spend 1Kwh more for your heaters anyway. But many buildings are heated by cheaper alternatives to pure electricity (such as gas, heat-pump or remotely distributed heat)

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[scotch]

"Eeeh equals em see squared"

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, best [ab?]use of Gaea theory I've read in a long time!

Of course nuclear power will change all that...

Nonono, we store all the low-level transuranics and actinides geologically in layered tuff (like at Yucca Mountain) only to discover that a handful of facultative or obligate anaerobic extremophiles that are exceptionally hardy in the face of high radiation fluxes have an electron transport chain that is happy to rearrange the molecular chemistry of the containers and the lighter waste elements (heavy metals) into a variety of corrosives which further attack the containers and the waste.

(Along the theme of Gaea theory abuse -- we might even find some H. sapiens who conspire with Mother Nature in producing a transgenic Deinococcus-Thermus group organism more quickly than other evolutionary processes would -- even if those humans are duped into thinking their bioremediative transuranic digesters are never going to become difficult-to-eliminate pests.)

In particular, a mechanism which migrates the nanoscopic heavy metal impurities from used pellets (or vice-versa) chemically over time and collapses the surviving pellet structure into a pile can be combined with other chemical mechanisms that can drive the pile into criticality. Consider a colony forming microbe that extracts energy from a redox reaction involving the migration of Plutonium atoms (chemically; isotope doesn't matter) towards the centre of an outward-creeping colony front. Or alternatively a microbe that dissolves out Mo-Tc-Ru-Pd alloys or Zn or fission poisons from 238UO2-dominated used pellets leaving behind a hydrocarbon sludge in the resulting pores to moderate fast neutrons.

Voila, subterranean nuclear fission pile.

This would most likely just be very warm. However, surprising efficiencies can happen accidentally in biochemical reactions, so there are fun possibilities due to this "mere" warmness especially including Wigner energy explosion chains starting with the dried out hydrocarbon sludge and ending with sufficient energy to turn the underground cave into an accidental multi-stage chemical-fission-fusion-fission bomb.

And they said Yucca Mountain would remain forever extinct!

The explosion in turn sets the vast arboreal forest in temperate Nevada-Utah-Arizona-New Mexico ablaze in a cataclysmic fire that releases a huge amount of that carbon stored up by the plants left unmolested by the departure or demise of H. sapiens.

(Don't tell Greenpeace. They have already thought about Oklo-like scenarios where the ground water would boil, but not boil away (and out of the containment cave), thus producing a simple meltdown. Yawn. Not dramatic enough.)

Re:Inefficient use of human body

[yarbo]

I don't care what happens during the course of an hour, I care about the total calories burned from the exercise. Look up EPOC or oxygen debt. They're both terms for the increase in energy expenditure from recovering from the exercise. When resistance training your metabolism can be increased for as long as 38 hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_post-exercise_ oxygen_consumption

More like

[Zouden]

It is just one of a wave of projects that are trying to tap the power of the human body

I'd say it's just one of a wave of projects that are trying to tap the venture capital being thrown at "environmental-yet-supposedly-profitable" schemes.

"I wanted to do something with all that sweat."

[lysergic.acid]

make a gym sweat cologne. now you can tell people you just got back from the gym even if you haven't!

Re:"I wanted to do something with all that sweat."

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweat has a very individual smell. Someone else's sweat smell will not only annoy the person wearing it (unlike the own smell), it will also not fool people who are familiar with the authentic smell.

Re:"I wanted to do something with all that sweat."

[drinkypoo]

you could always make a sports drink...

inefficiency

[losec]

The muscle has a efficiency far below 30%.

Though if they could somehow manipulate the dna to create brainless bodies, those could be used as warming bags. You would put a few of them here and there in your home to heat it up. They would be connected to a food and waste facility. And with an intact immune-system and other body functions they would be maintainance free.

Re:inefficiency

[Frogular]

If you can't design brainless bodies, you can simply hook the bodies up to huge heat farms. You have to design a virtual world for their minds to live in, though.

Re:inefficiency

[mastershake_phd]

Though if they could somehow manipulate the dna to create brainless bodies, those could be used as warming bags. You would put a few of them here and there in your home to heat it up. They would be connected to a food and waste facility. And with an intact immune-system and other body functions they would be maintainance free.

You couldnt give that away in Siberia.

Re:inefficiency

[jambox]

We'll let Marketing worry about that!

Re:inefficiency

[ins0m]

Isn't creation of brainless bodies the sole task of the bar exam?

Re:inefficiency

[cbacba]

Having mistakenly been forced to witness The Juiceman's live presentation once, I became aware of the completely brainless (yet very pretty and handsome) bodies floating around the presentation, tasting the fresh potato juice. It appeared the bodies were housed at the gym and sent out during the day to perform a variety of actions that resulted in an income stream to the gym.

It would seem that such useful power mechanisms from exercise have been around quite some time. I remember a stationary bicycle that powered a little TV set in the movie Soylent Green. It seemed like a useful idea, but evidently never one that resulted in practical sales.

Considering a horse being worked to death can produce 1 horse power which amounts to 640 Watts of power. I'd think a human might do about 1/4 of that while exercising vigorously, although that would seem perhaps a bit much. Hmm, that sounds familar - 160 Watts - that sounds like about the amount of power used in a 4 tube florescent fixture. I suppose that means if the gym fills up, they might be able to provide enough power to light up most of the lights in the place. That still leaves the power needed to heat the water for the showers and cool and ventilate the place.

It sort of sounds like it's the typical touchy feely feel good barf so common in society now, probably from the same bunch that thinks drinking fruit and veggie juice after removing all the fiber and bulk leads to a long and healthy life. All we need is more 'green' energy that isn't even close to the break-even mark so that more scarce resources (like money and power generation) in society is wasted.

Ob. Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

"A 'guyme'? What's a 'guyme'?

[Homer walks into the Gym.]

"Oooh! A 'Guyme!'"

I suspect most slashdotters have never seen the inside of a gym, let alone know what it is.

Re:Ob. Simpsons

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I suspect most slashdotters have never seen the inside of a gym, let alone know what it is.

I've seen it. It's full of sweaty, unhappy looking people in awkward clothing. You're better off going for a walk instead.

Swallow The Blue Pill and Wake Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feed the machines, they'll take note and start farming us in a Matrix.

The Stupid! It Burns!

[SQL Error]

"I've trained my whole life, and many megawatts have been wasted," says Mr. Woodring, who has worked out at the Hong Kong gym for years.

Spending one of those years in science class might not have been a bad idea.

Re:The Stupid! It Burns!

[ezzzD55J]

Both for the great title and the contents of your post.. welcome to my friends list.

solve america's weight problem

[scenestar]

What if they started "paying" (like 1 buck per somethingsomething) people for producing energy. they could store and resell it and some people would have a psychological incentive to excersise.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[MichaelSmith]

What if they started "paying" (like 1 buck per somethingsomething) people for producing energy. they could store and resell it and some people would have a psychological incentive to excersise.

I read once that prisons a couple of centuries ago would sell the energy generated by people doing "hard labour". The idea was that you would have to walk on something like a stairmaster for much of the day, which turns a shaft, which goes through the wall of the prison into the mill next door and does real work.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[animaal]

Yep, except it takes a *lot* of exercise to produce a dollar worth of energy.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[markrages]

But then the mobs would own the bikes and take a cut off the top.

Look, Cheeseburger Brown has already prophesied all of this.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[Overzeetop]

They do, it's called feeding back into the grid, and you get paid per kilowatt-hour. It's also not very practical unless you happen to have surplus power being generated that would othewise go to waste. Otherwise, it's a losing proposition.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[evilviper]

What if they started "paying" (like 1 buck per somethingsomething) people for producing energy.

Humans can sustain about 1/10th horsepower. At that, you'd have to work out for 12+ hours, non-stop, to make maybe 2 cents worth of electricity.

That's with no mention of efficiency, maintenance, infrastructure, etc.

I don't think 1/20th of a cent per hour you exercise on a stationary bicycle is going to be much motivation to people... especially when a gym membership is $20+ per month to start with.

It's probably just barely worth harnessing it when they're not paying people anything for their effort.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[Anonymous Coward]

it takes a *lot* of exercise to produce a dollar worth of energy.

This isn't nukilar energy, it's green. I think you could sell a kWh for way more than a typical power plant can.

And since people lose their weight, it might even be profitable (reduce health costs to insurance companies; hey, maybe these should modify their contract to require you to produce some energy for them every week).

Re:solve america's weight problem

[atamido]

Where I live (Austin, TX) the rate for residential is 3.55 per kWh, first 500 kWh and 6.02 per kWh, for all kWh over 500 kWh. According to this page we can use a rate of 1 calorie per 1 watt hour. According to the elliptical machine at the gym, I burn through about 1000 calories in the first hour of cardio. It's probably pretty safe to assume that we're going to use at least 500kWh, so we can figure at the premium scale.

That means that in an hour I could produce about 1kWh or energy for a grand total of $0.0602 worth of electricity. That's not very encouraging. That wouldn't even pay for the air conditioning to cool me down (I am like a furnace of passion and desire).

I suspect that if I really wanted to (and was less concerned about my health), I could probably burn through 2000 calories in 2.5-3 hours. If I did that every day for a month, that would still only be about $3.61 worth of electricity. I have a feeling that this will never be profitable from an electricity generation point of view.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[macdaddy]

What about as a energy consumption offsetting move? Ie, if it cost a gym $15 per month per average member and the member generates $3 worth of electricity over the course of the month, wouldn't the 20% reduction in costs be worth while? If nothing else pass it back to your members. Let your members work out to get a reduction on their next monthly bill. All their energy generates otherwise is excess heat that requires more energy to combat.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[atamido]

I pay $33/month for my membership, and there is no way I come anywhere close to $3 in generation, it's probably less than $1. I'd rather have the cost of the electricity generation equipment be recycled into replacing/fixing older equipment faster. The cost of the generation equipment would never pay for itself, would introduce more points of failure, and would increase the amount of time equipment had to be in service for.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[evilviper]

According to the elliptical machine at the gym, I burn through about 1000 calories in the first hour of cardio.

That's probably some sort of estimate based on how much heat your body is generating, and such things. Definately NOT actual energy being dissipated by the machine.

The How Stuff Works page you linked is quite accurate, you should have read it before posting:

"A "normal person" might be able to sustain a third of a horsepower for half an hour before falling off the bike from exhaustion."

and

"1 horsepower is equal to 746 watts."

Even the strongest athletes in the world couldn't possibly generate half a kW an hour, while you believe you are doing more than double that...

Even someone in incredibly physical shape, able to sustain 1/5th horsepower (1/10th is more accurate), and using the most inflated number for electricity you've given, you're still talking less than 1 cent per hour. And that's as hopelessly optimistic it gets, on all counts. No mention of cost, losses, rates, etc.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[atamido]

Yeah, it's estimated calories consumed by my body. I was assuming 100% efficient energy conversion by my body, the exercise equipment, and generating equipment, which is of course not really possible. Thankfully, with your corrections I can change my conclusion from "never be profitable from an electricity generation point of view" all the way to "never be profitable from an electricity generation point of view". Without your clarification, this simply wouldn't have been possible and the error would have been cemented in cyberspace history forever.

Re:solve america's weight problem

[evilviper]

You can be a snide as you want, but the fact is your numbers were an order of magnitude off. Strange that you act like it doesn't matter now, despite the fact that you felt the overwhelming desire to post your figures, in reply to my own, which showed (guess what!) that it would "never be profitable from an electricity generation point of view".

Re:solve america's weight problem

[atamido]

I response was snide for your snide response, a response that did nothing to change the premise or conclusion of my post. My numbers were correct, for an absolute best possible case scenario, which may not be feasible, but were 'good enough' for the discussion. And I posted the numbers so that people would understand where I got them and correct them if necessary. Correcting them is fine, it's being snide when you do it that earns a snide response.

How about

[antifoidulus]

putting a generator on a bicycle that is capable of say charging a cell phone or a laptop battery. Perfect for people such as myself who commute by bicycle anyway. Would that be feasible? How much do you think it would cost to retrofit a bike to do that?

Re:How about

[DrSkwid]

It's called a dynamo, they've been around for maybe 50 years or more.

Re:How about

[TooMuchToDo]

How much does one of those generators cost that bolts to the bike to generate power a light? The problem would be generating enough current consistently to make it worth while (which isn't going to happen). You're better off paying a couple bucks and charging a cellphone or laptop via a solar panel.

Re:How about

[MichaelSmith]

putting a generator on a bicycle that is capable of say charging a cell phone or a laptop battery. Perfect for people such as myself who commute by bicycle anyway. Would that be feasible? How much do you think it would cost to retrofit a bike to do that?

You can still get generators for running lights at night, probably not much different from the one I had when I was very young, back in the 1970's.

I have hydraulic disks on my commuting bike. Sometimes I want to just drag the brake slightly if I am waiting for a light to go green, etc. Something which inductively couples to the disc would be ideal for that.

Re:How about

[Urza9814]

I don't see why that would be difficult or expensive at all. Buy a small DC motor and strap it on. Maybe have to extend the chain a bit to wrap around it or something...maybe just put a wheel on it and run it right up next to the tire. Either way, I doubt it'd cost more than $20 if you did it yourself.

Re:How about

[MightyYar]

Have you ever used those lights on the bike which use a little generator that goes down on the wheel?

In my experience, quite a bit of resistance is added to my peddling, and that's just to light up a puny bike headlight!

Re:How about

[HistoricPrizm]

Probably about $25, considering you can already purchase bicycle lights that operate off the energy from a bike tire's movement. Just swap the connection from the light to the cell phone charger. Laptop probably wouldn't charge, though, unless you had a really, really long commute.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I'd agree, I cycle a bike everyday and wouldn't put a dynamo on it. See, the difference with a dynamo on your bike is that you're not tapping energy that would otherwise be wasted, you're sapping the energy that should be going towards moving you between A & B. Sticking a dynamo on an excercise bike may not be such a bad idea, but slowing yourself down to squeeze a few joules into your phone is just silly.

Re:How about

[locofungus]

What you really want is one of these:
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt.asp

Although they nominally have a 3W output@6V they behave more like a constant current source and you can fairly easily get 6W@12V although you have to be going slightly faster.

I have one on my Brompton (http://www.bromptonbicycle.co.uk/) - the light is on at walking pace.

There are cheaper options - the Shimano hub dynamos are about half the price (in the UK anyway) and almost as efficient.

Tim.

Re:How about

[locofungus]

In my experience, quite a bit of resistance is added to my peddling, and that's just to light up a puny bike headlight!

That's why you want a hub dynamo rather than a sidewall dynamo. Also don't get slip in the wet.

Tim.

Re:How about

[MrNaz]

Err... you'd want to watch the gearing ratio. Using a friction pin against the wheel, say the friction pin was large at 5cm in diameter, that's still an insanely high gearing ratio. The motor would put out hundreds of volts and probably fry your phone. Perhaps using an intermediate battery as a voltage regulator would be a good idea.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

Could there be any more British a word than "Brompton"?

Hmmm. Maybe Bromptington. Bromtingly. Brompton-On-Something. ARGH!

Re:How about

[drinkypoo]

See, the difference with a dynamo on your bike is that you're not tapping energy that would otherwise be wasted, you're sapping the energy that should be going towards moving you between A & B.

So toggle charging by the dynamo based on a tilt switch and a delay. Bike goes downhill for more than a couple seconds, start charging. Bike goes uphill for more than a second, stop charging.

Re:How about

[jlf278]

that reminds me of the simpsons episode where bart puts a kinetically charged light on his bike since it's night time. Then they show him straining with each push of the pedals to move the bike a couple feet, which briefly lights up the headlamp incidentally.

Re:How about

[rizole]

How about building in a dynamo as part of the wheel and pedal hubs? That should cut out lots of inefficiency caused by friction. The generation would be much smaller but you could use all three hubs. Or how about using wheel rims and forks as your induction coil? How about hubs and rims; five points of induction. Why wouldn't that work?
And there must be some way to capture the centrifugal forces produced by the wheels. IANACGE (Centrifugal Generator Engineer) so someone correct me if I am wrong.
Of course you could always attach a mini wind turbine to your bike helmet. Er....Handle bars might be better so that when you stop you can blow to keep the thing going.

Re:How about

[Urza9814]

well yea, I was figuring just throw a voltage regulator in there. You can get one of them for $5 at radioshack though. Hell, get an adjustable one and throw a pot in there.

Re:How about

[pclminion]

That assumes there's a battery in the system somewhere. I have a dynamo which connects directly to a lamp. If I flipped it off, the lamp would go out.

Re:How about

[Trogre]

You wouldn't tie the dynamo to a wheel; you'd apply it to the brakes.

See regenerative braking.

pedal bikes can be used to generate power

[Anonymous Coward]

and I think that a row of them in a gym could produce a reasonable amount of energy.
Now, also put these cycles in prisons where prisoners could get paid / have privileges relational to the electricity they generate.
Also for the people on state benefits/welfare. You want free money? Start pedalling!

Re:pedal bikes can be used to generate power

[Overzeetop]

A typical non-competition cyclist will produce between 125 and 250 watts of power during long term sustained cycling (1/6 to 1/3 HP). Around here, cost of generation is between 2.5 and 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. Even at 8 hours per day, you're looking a getting back about a nickel's worth of energy. If you discount the wear and tear on the machine, who's going to pay for the extra food these inmates are going to need?

Re:pedal bikes can be used to generate power

[Rob the Bold]

A typical non-competition cyclist will produce between 125 and 250 watts of power during long term sustained cycling (1/6 to 1/3 HP). Around here, cost of generation is between 2.5 and 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. Even at 8 hours per day, you're looking a getting back about a nickel's worth of energy. If you discount the wear and tear on the machine, who's going to pay for the extra food these inmates are going to need?

I actually ran the numbers once. I was sitting there on an exercise bike in the basement in winter, and I was really bored. I thought, "I could be generating electricity now". I couldn't find a food source that would provide you the energy to convert into . . . energy . . . economically even if you were paying 25 cents/kWh for your electrical power. And I made some pretty generous estimates of human efficiency, too. At least that effort made my ride to nowhere go by a little faster that morning.

Re:pedal bikes can be used to generate power

[hankwang]

I couldn't find a food source that would provide you the energy to convert into . . . energy . . . economically even if you were paying 25 cents/kWh for your electrical power.

Indeed... food oil: 2 euros per liter, provides about 35 MJ of energy. That's about 10 kWh. Unfortunately the conversion efficiency of a human is about 25%, which means 2.5 kWh (65 ct) worth of electricity.

Re:pedal bikes can be used to generate power

[Suidae]

I ran the numbers recently as well, here is what I came up with. Note that I didn't do any actual measurements and relied only on what I could find in google with a few minutes searching. I've made some pretty generous (read, unrealistically optimistic) assumptions about what the human body is capable of and what people will put up with to have power.

Here is a ballpark estimation of the practicality of human power generation.

Let's assume that a person who's profession was power generation would be highly fit and well suited to long hours turning a generator at high output. If such a person could maintain an electrical output of 400W for 10 hours a day he would produce 4 kilowatt hours of electrical energy (ignoring conversion loss for the sake of simplicity). This is beyond mere 'Olympic' performance and well into the realm of the 'heroic', similar to a good bicycle sprint for 10 hours.

Given a heroic muscular efficiency of 30% (beyond the human normal range of 14-27%) this 4 kilowatt hours represents about 13kWh of input power, or food. This is about 11,000 dietary calories. I'll presume that the waste heat is too low-grade for power generation, but could be used to offset living space heating requirements during cold weather.

If we feed our hero nothing but soybeans (inexpensive and fairly energy dense at 1.75cal/gram and 0.00025 cents per gram in bulk ($6.80 for 60lb) he will need about 6.25 kilos of beans a day, at a price of about $1.60.

So your human power will cost in the range of 40 cents per kilowatt hour, or about 4 times the price of grid electrical power, presuming you can find teams of heroes willing to donate their time for free.

The US consumes around 4,000,000,000,000 kilowatt hours per year. At a rate of 1460 kWh per hero per year, you will need to employ 2,700,000,000 people (almost half the world population) each year to produce the required electrical power. Feeding them will require about 6,100,000,000,000 kilos of beans a year, or about 90 times the annual US soybean crop. You may be able to reduce the number of people required slightly with a methane capture system :) You can probably increase efficiency by feeding the heros that die in the line of duty to the living heros, thereby recyling a hundred or 2 pounds of material.

A typical household in the US consumes about 30 kWh per day. Consider that this is about 8 heroes pedaling generators in your basement, consuming a 40 pound bag of soybeans each day.

Powering a typical smallish refrigerator requires about one kilowatt-hour per day, so it would only take one hero two and a half hours to keep your food cold (or, if he is charging a battery, 5 hours after losses).

A typical real person could reasonably be expected to produce 200W for an hour a day (maybe 2 for extremely dedicated individuals), certainly enough to charge small devices like laptops, but just a drop in the bucket next to the power used by a typical person.

Kinda puts the power of fossil fuels into perspective.

refs:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.ht ml
http://www.los-gatos.ca.us/davidbu/pedgen.html
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?I ndicatorID=46&Country=US
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice &dbid=79
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/06032 2113511.htm
http://coachesinfo.com/category/rowing/77/
http://homepage.mac.com/moises.santillan/paper

Re:pedal bikes can be used to generate power

[Rob the Bold]

So your human power will cost in the range of 40 cents per kilowatt hour, or about 4 times the price of grid electrical power, presuming you can find teams of heroes willing to donate their time for free.

Presumably, if you've found a way to feed them the remains of their expired colleagues (see below), you've already solved your labor issues.

You may be able to reduce the number of people required slightly with a methane capture system :) You can probably increase efficiency by feeding the heros that die in the line of duty to the living heros, thereby recyling a hundred or 2 pounds of material.

I hadn't thought of that. That's why it pays to get these ideas out in the open. We might not be able to use the all recaptured methane outright, since it might be needed for cooking.

Modern life is such a bunch of morosities

[Anonymous Coward]

If those idiots cancelled their gym subscription and instead used their bicycle for all distances below 10 miles, they'd _save_ a lot of time (after all, they don't have to work for gas and the gym subscription, let alone waste time visiting a gym) and lots of energy, to boot.

I mean, get real: 90% of those gym idiots that will proudly "save energy" by running on such devices will drive to the gym by car, wasting at least four orders of magnitudes more of energy than they are "saving".

You're missing the point...

[Shoeler]

The point isn't in the energy *WON* - it's in the energy *NOT USED*. I don't know if you've ever hooked a kill-a-watt (current measuring device) to a treadmill, but those suckers suck powah! Mine rated between 12 and 15a, and has actually tripped its shared 15a outlet when I get going really fast on it(well, at least fast for me - about 8-9 mph).

If you do distance as I do, that's a decent amount of power not used on the grid if my energy is going 100% into making the thing work, instead of the grid feeding a motor, etc.

Re:You're missing the point...

[MrNaz]

Remind me again why you treadmill people don't just go outside?

Re:You're missing the point...

[todslash]

The point isn't in the energy *WON* - it's in the energy *NOT USED*. I don't know if you've ever hooked a kill-a-watt (current measuring device) to a treadmill, but those suckers suck powah!

It is energy "won" because they're not using treadmills. The article says that he uses stair-masters and elliptical trainers, neither of which use any mains electricity. They do contain a small motion-based generator to power the display which was modified to output the extra electricity generated.

Treadmills are inherently inefficient because they keep going round even if you're not on it. The green solution would be to throw out the powered treadmill and get an unpowered one.

Re:You're missing the point...

[moeinvt]

"Remind me again why you treadmill people don't just go outside?"

Well, lets' see . . .

below zero(F) temps with high winds
Sunset prior to the end of the work day
Precipitation
Treacherous footing
narrow roads with high snow banks

I love to run outside, but it's not worth frostbite, a twisted knee or ankle, or being hit by a car.

Re:You're missing the point...

[karnal]

I use a Precor at the local Y - it seems as if their line of exercise devices (at least the non-impact ones) have been cord-free for quite some time. It's not a treadmill (which will always take power unless you really want odd resistance) but it's self contained and might be easier on your joints over time...

Re:You're missing the point...

[vwjeff]

Remind me again why you treadmill people don't just go outside?

Wisconsin in March. Need I say more.

Re:You're missing the point...

[timeOday]

I do think powered treadmills are a little odd. I use a cheap nordic-track knockoff which has friction instead of a motor. It seems to do a fine job. The only downside I see is that it can't make you run at a pre-set speed. Is that why treadmills have motors?

Re:You're missing the point...

[eh2o]

Yeah, that and the ones in my gym also have variable inclination from 0 to 12 degrees and programs to cycle through the different angles and speeds.

That said, I much prefer running trails in the local park. Not only in the terrain more varied, but its damn beautiful, even when the weather sucks.

Re:You're missing the point...

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

I live in Western Washington.

'Nuff said, but I'll explain further.

Yesterday (yes March 1st) It was freakin SNOWING.

Re:You're missing the point...

[atamido]

"Remind me again why you treadmill people don't just go outside?"

Well, lets' see . . .

Let me add a few more

• 100 degree heat to overheat you
• 90% humidity to overheat you by not letting your sweat evaporate
• Drivers that are aiming for you
• Muggers/rapists. (I don't understand why muggers would try to rob a runner, but they do.)
• You want to leave your car/house locked and not carry a key
• You don't like people checking you out constantly
• You want to read/watch TV while working out.
• You know that somewhere out there, you're pissing off a tree hugging hippy by using your treadmill, and that makes you happy.
• Allergies
• You want to be around others in case of a medical emergency (such as cardiac arrest, heat stroke, etc).
• You like to run with a friend, but you want to set your own pace.
• You want to be able to just stop when you feel done.
• You are expecting a call/event and need to be available when it comes.
• You want water readily available.

That's all that comes off the top of my head, but I'm sure that someone who actually took time to think about it could come up with more.

Re:You're missing the point...

[timeOday]

I run outside, too, in the summer. Used to in the winter as well, until one day I thought, "why am I out here in the blowing wind, in the dark, sweating in multiple layers of clothes, when I could be home in my underwear watching a movie on a treadmill"? So that's what I do now, in the winter. As a bonus my machine has arm bars whereas running seems to do nothing for the upper body.

Re:You're missing the point...

[macdaddy]

I'll repeat myself again.. Eye candy. Everything else is moot.

Only one Matrix reference in 25 comments?

[Alex Belits]

What the world is coming to?

Re:Only one Matrix reference in 25 comments?

[Darth_brooks]

What the world is coming to?

The sad realization that the second and third movies sucked?

Progress!

[thetroll123]

Run 5 miles on a treadmill to charge up your electric car enough to drive you 2 miles?

Why not just run to where you want to go...

Re:Progress!

[Anonymous Coward]

so that you can have a metal barrier between you and the homeless

Re:Progress!

[bluemonq]

I don't know about you, but I don't like running while it's raining and/or snowing.

Re:Progress!

[Anonymous Coward]

More like 20 meters rather than 2 miles.

Never used, but...

[DrYak]

Sure they've never ever touched a weight... ...but they've installed hidden webcam to spy on ... ahem ! ... to do a detailled physics study of the motion of females' mamamry glands.

Are you working on the assumption

[benhocking]

Are you working on the assumption that treadmills require electricity? Because I can tell you from experience that they do not. My grandparents had an antique treadmill that still worked 10 years ago (I have no idea what happened to it after they died), and there was no electricity involved.

If your merely stating that treadmills are not as efficient at generating electricity (or if there is some joke I'm just not getting, which is quite possible), then I won't disagree with you on that one.

Re:Are you working on the assumption

[ettlz]

GP said "threadmill". I interpret this to mean one of those new-fangled multi-threaded SPARC processors from Sun; then again, I hear they're supposed to be very energy-efficient, so I guess the guy yelling faster must be either just greedy or running Vista under emulation.

Re:Are you working on the assumption

[Cornflake917]

Ummm, I'm guessing you haven't been to a gym in a while. The treadmills at all the gyms I've been to run on electricity. The belts will move regardless if you're running on them or not, meaning that there is some sort "other" energy source powering it.

Maybe you're getting treadmills confused with stationary bikes. Those generally don't require electricity and the display only works if you're pedaling fast enough.

Re:Are you working on the assumption

[Arcane_Rhino]

You may have missed something, which the other responses have pointed out, but I just could not help but mention that, having used them from time to time, those kinetic treadmills use gravity VERY well to keep you up to speed. In fact, from a purely subjective frame of reference, I cannot think of anything that feels closer to a perpetual motion machine than running on one of those puppies.

Generating electric from the body...

[Anonymous Coward]

I already hold the patent for this.

signed.
Uncle Fester.

easier said than done

[tuxette]

I agree with you to some extent, as I live in a place where riding your bike as a form of transportation is possible. But for a lot of other people, it simply can't be done due to lack of proper bicycle lanes or otherwise roads that are safe enough for bicyclists. (Or pedestrians for that matter.)

can you do the maths for me?

[fantomas]

me a totally non maths person - what kind of charge would you get? I cycle 8 miles into work (same again back, obviously! maybe a diversion to the shops to add on another mile or so)- takes me about 50 minutes to an hour depending on how I am feeling (hills, across footpaths etc, not just a straight run on a big road). Feasible for getting a significant amount of charge this way from a bike dynamo? or would I just end up charging an AAA battery once a week if I was lucky?

Re:can you do the maths for me?

[hankwang]

what kind of charge would you get?

A normal bicycle dynamo will deliver nominally 0.5 amps at 6 V. You could rectify it and connect it directly to a pair of 1.2 V NiMH cells of say 2500 mAh. You won't get more than about 700 mA of current regardless of how fast you cycle, so to recharge those NiMHs would take you about 4 hours. I have actually done this during cycling holidays. With NiMHs you can just count the hours; the current from the dynamo is fairly independent of your speed. I wouldn't try charging Li-ion batteries; the charging circuit might not like a rectified AC voltage that fluctuates between 0 and 9 volts.

Of course you could try to send the dynamo output through a transformer (lower voltage, higher current) before rectifying.

Re:can you do the maths for me?

[Anonymous Coward]

You use the word "rectify" 3 times, but dynamos by definition produce DC current (generators produce AC). Why do you think that accomodating for backwards pedaling is so important?

Re:can you do the maths for me?

[hankwang]

dynamos by definition produce DC current (generators produce AC).

Dynamo definition: "The dynamo uses electromagnetic principles to convert mechanical rotation into an alternating electric current.". Whatever you call it, a conventional bicycle generator generates AC current.

You're obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

missing something...
The man said threadmill, which is, I presume, a machine at which one mills thread.
Which probably puts a decent hit on the ol' 110. :)

Walt Disney never pictured this

[Spacezilla]

Morpheus: What is the Matrix? Control. The Matrix is a computer-generated dream world built to keep you under control in order to change a mouse into this.
[holds up a Duracell battery]
Mickey Mouse:: No, I don't believe it. It's not possible!
Morpheus:: I didn't say it would be easy, Mickey. I just said it would be the truth.

Wow!

[DoofusOfDeath]

"I've trained my whole life, and many megawatts have been wasted," says Mr. Woodring

Cranking out "many megawatts" (which is energy per unit time) is beyond extreme sports - he's better than a frickin' Diesel generator! I want to be on his team!

Re:Wow!

[jambox]

I hear Vin Diesel actually does produce about 5MW when sitting perfectly still.

Re:Wow!

[DoofusOfDeath]

I hear Vin Diesel actually does produce about 5MW when sitting perfectly still.

No, you're thinking of Chuck Norris.

Re:Wow!

[jambox]

Chuck Norris? Pah. Bruce Lee beat him up real good.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Chuck Norris? Pah. Bruce Lee beat him up real good.

Firstly, Bruce was an actor and a showman. Aside from taking on a couple of amateur boxers he didn't exactly have a stellar fighting record. He did, however, do quite a bit for MMA back in the day.

Secondly, forget Chuck and Bruce.. Jack Bauer is the man.

Re:Wow!

[jambox]

Actually I reckon this chap would have the lot of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bronson_(pris oner) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/646857.stm
"In 1998, seven years were added to his jail sentence after he took two Iraqi hijackers and another inmate hostage at Belmarsh prison in London.
He insisted his hostages call him "General" and told negotiators he would eat one of his victims unless his demands were met."

Better heat than motion?

[symes]

I don't know about anyone else but I certainly get a little hot under the collar when I work out. So surely efficiency could be boosted a fair amount through taking advantage of this lost heat using a Thermoelectric Converter?

Re:Better heat than motion?

[Ichelo]

from the wiki "his device accepts a heat input at 900K-1300K" converting kelvin to F... 1160.33F-1880.33F ummm, yeah......

Re:Better heat than motion?

[symes]

It would be some work out that generates that kind of heat! They do mention the possibility of devices that can use lower levels of heat towards the end of the piece... and wasn't human heat the premise of using humans as a source of energy in the matrix films?

Re:Better heat than motion?

[Ichelo]

yeah, it was "The human generates more bio-electricity than 120-volt battery and over 25,000 BTVs of body heat. Combined with a form of fusion, the machines have found all the energy they would ever need." source:http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/WarnerTeach/ E192/matrix/Matrix.script.html personally i think the fusion alone would have worked... but i guess it would be hard making a movie about saving all the poor protons from being smashed together.

Energy Stored

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious that people are storing energy because they eat to much the body can't get rid of it. So mass-production (wasting energy by producing it) of food is not efficient in the first place. One factor.

Second factor, people eat more than the body can burn. People pay more for that food and want to eat more and more. So that is not cost-efficient either.

People try to get rid of their energy (fat) by doing some sports. They use energy to waste energy (lights, airconditioning, shower) etc. Not efficient.

All in all, people should stop producing to much of everything. See the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Wii effect. Huge demand, less provision. Huge demand stays, economy is rising. OK, still the irony of these consoles is that people won't move a bit more except for the Wii. But....

Stop thinking everything is in demand always for 100%. It is not. People start to think efficient. Overproducing will kill the market more and more. It kills the planet already. Resources are drying up. Don't store that energy in your body. Stupid.

Personal: stop eating to much and save the planet. It's not your body that needs it, it's in your mind. Try to turn that around.

- Unomi -

Producing your own power

[KinkifyTheNation]

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/ 23/0149215

Just plug one of these exercise machines into an outlet and take care of your electric bill at the same time!

I've got a better idea

[capn_buzzcut]

Let's harness the energy generated by having sex. Or even better, the energy wasted by my pathetic attempts to get laid in the first place, which there is sadly a lot more of.

Re:I've got a better idea

[techpawn]

Or even better, the energy wasted by my pathetic attempts to get laid in the first place

How did you think they get enough power for the slashdot servers?

Fallout

[Ostsol]

Wasn't this an easter egg in Fallout? There was a bonus area that randomly appeared. It was a building where several people inside were running on treadmills, generating power. . .

Help Cut and Move Some Stone

[rohar]

If you feeling a bit out of shape and bored of sitting behind a desk, you can come and help me build some massive towers out of stone blocks. If the convection towers were built from stone, it will take some up-front human labor, but in the end you can say you put together part of a megawatt renewable power station that in the worst case will leave people wondering what we were up to a few centuries from now like we do about Stonehenge.

Re:Help Cut and Move Some Stone

[An Onerous Coward]

That would be really cool in an "ancient artifact" sort of way. But I don't think stone would be the best building material, and the human labor costs wouldn't ever be paid back. The efficiency of these things is directly related to the temperature differential, which is usually determined by the height. In short, these things have to be very, very tall (as in, "measured in fractions of a mile" tall).

Just build them the old fashioned way: with big honkin' robots!

May I be the first to say...

[cottandr]

I, for one, welcome our new spandex wearing, energy producing overlords.

Gym Rats?

[rhkaloge]

Is the poster being derogatory towards people who use a gym, or is this a term of endearment? For all the pasty and pale stereotypes, I find quite a number of people in the computer and engineering filed at least claim to visit a gym regularly (and usually complain about the people the poster is probably referring to). Be honest - how many of you have at least sat on a piece of exercise equipment in the last year? Probably more than you think.

Re:Gym Rats?

[Anonymous Coward]

I rock back and forth at times when I'm trying to find a bug in a string of code. Does that count?

Re:Gym Rats?

[drinkypoo]

Is the poster being derogatory towards people who use a gym, or is this a term of endearment?

Are your panties in a bunch, or do you always react this way when someone uses a common colloquialism?

Beach rats. Mall rats. Surf rats. They're self-adopted labels and not derogatory. Same goes for gym rats.

Re:Gym Rats?

[LordEd]

I've heard rink rats for those who are always at the arena. Usually I'll hear 'gym rats' called juice monkeys (for the usual use of protein/juice drinks).

Re:Gym Rats?

[locokamil]

I sat on my girlfriend yesterday. She's definitely an "exercise machine" (prepend letter 's'), right?

Re:Gym Rats?

[pnut408]

I was in a gym about 12 hours ago.

and that is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If those idiots cancelled their gym subscription and instead used their bicycle for all distances below 10 miles, they'd _save_ a lot of time"

Riiight. Great idea, commuting in the pouring rain in my suit and canceling my gym membership.

I'll bet you think people who work out at the gym are just "stupid" and "wasting time" as you sit back and play games on your PC with an unhealthy pasty color to your skin and an inability to run more than a mile.

It reminds me of a co-worker who was bragging he can gotten to "level 60" or something on World of Warcraft. He got all pissy when I pointed out that while he was pretending to play with swords in a game over the past few years, I had taken a kenjutsu class and actually learned how to use a sword.

Nothing more pathetic than people thinking playing a game is like real life, particularly when they sit in front of a tube all day instead of participating in life.

Gilligan's Island?

[proxy318]

The professor was able to generate electricity with a couple of coconuts and a stationary bike, how hard could this be?

How about generating power for video games?

[geoffrobinson]

A gym I went to once incorporated video games with the exercise bike. Exercise while having fun. Generate power for the game. Kill two birds with one stone.

usefully applying human power

[plzdontspamme]

I've been riding a bike for a living for the past 16 years, frequently hauling loads of 600 lbs or more. IMHO, human power has not been given the serious consideration it deserves. There are plenty of applications where human power could be usefully applied. For instance, there are lots of little devices, like LED task lights, digital cameras, etc., powered by 2-4 AAA batteries. A person riding on a stationary bike could easily charge four 1000 mAh batteries like these in a half-hour workout. As electronic appliances get smaller and more efficient, the number of devices that can be practically powered by human power is only going to increase. Inkjet printers, scanners, and laptops are already within the capability of being powered by a fit person. While the human body can't practically generate enough energy to do tasks that require significant amounts of heat (e.g., cooking), it is very effective at producing enough heat to keep itself warm. People often wonder how I can stand doing my job outside when the temperature is well below zero and I'm only wearing a few light layers of clothing. They forget that the human body is only about 25% efficient at converting energy to work, so hauling a heavy load produces sufficient heat to keep me comfortable.

Re:usefully applying human power

[ScrewMaster]

And if you're too much of a couch potato to power up your cell phone, you can always spot the neighbor kid five bucks to charge it for you.

renewable-energy entrepreneur? meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd better keep his day job at the gym or crack a few books on electical engineering and thermo before he shoots his mouth off again to potential investors. What a dope.

This reminds me of all the waiters in LA who claim to be actors. But this would be more like waiters claiming to be Physicists, waiting to be discovered....

millions/billions of people

[Archades54]

millions if not billions that do excercise produce megawatts worth of energy im guessing over various timeframes.
1000 people on excercise bikes could prolly make a hundred kw?

Piezoelectric to the rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need is to embed a Piezoelectric crystal in your cheeks and voila, each time you get slapped your self-build ogm player will get charged!

I know that gym...

[aaarrrgggh]

It is below Lan Kwai Fong. Maybe the first thing they should do is turn off the freaking escalators and have people walk up the stairs! As for the benefits of converting pedal power to useful power, it's a nice idea, especially as it would convert part of what is now heat to useful energy, reducing AC costs.

Parents uses wrong units!

[Anonymous Coward]

The human body CANNOT generate megawatts of power even if you were to burn it in pure oxygen.
Mega watt hours if you are an immortal.

W (Watt) is a unit of power which is energy over unit time.
J (Joules) is a unit of energy

MMOWLG

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone should hook up a small generator to World of Warcraft, forcing you to work out to build strength/gold/levels. We'd have some very buff gamers in a matter of months.

For those who don't know what a "handy" is

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

For example, a handy that is powered by movement, and thus stays charged forever aslong as you're walking/moving would be a very practical thing to have for many people.

The reference to "handy" is probably meaningless to most Slashdotters, but it's what Germans call a mobile telephone. I have no idea if the term is in use in Austria or Switzerland, but I've seen it used in Germany.

Re:For those who don't know what a "handy" is

[enos]

Also a "torch" is a flashlight, a term used at least in England and Australia.

Re:For those who don't know what a "handy" is

[eugene ts wong]

Thank you for clarifying. I thought that he left out a word or phrase.

Second Life!

[ZOMFF]

Someone get Linden Labs involved on this endeavor!

Missing the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure if I am missing the point or are a bunch of other people.

The thing is sure it's not efficient but who cares. Think of it this way, people are already going to the gym and spending that engery, why not convert a portion of it into usable energy. Now I realize its not going to solve the need for power but every little bit helps.

simple math 1+1+1+1+1.....(million times) = 1,000,000
or you could use artifical means and get 1,000,000 right off the get go. But hey that million by 1's is still valid.

Re:Missing the point!

[NutMan]

The thing is sure it's not efficient but who cares. Think of it this way, people are already going to the gym and spending that engery, why not convert a portion of it into usable energy. Now I realize its not going to solve the need for power but every little bit helps.

Efficiency is THE. MOST. IMPORTANT. THING!

Consider this... how much energy does it take to mine the raw materials, transport, and manufacture all the components that go into the generator and its control system? If the efficiency is too low, the generating system will not even be able to gain this back. It can be less than a zero-sum game.

Alternative energy systems are sorely needed, but they MUST be efficient enough to create a significant net gain in energy, or we are wasting our time.

Re:Missing the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry should have clarified my last post (and sign up for an account) I should have stated. The efficiency does matter but only to the point that there should be a gain no matter how marginal. I also I was not referring to the efficiency of the converter versus the production of it, more along the lines of human energy spent vs human energy captured.

Sorry for leaving the thought so what vague or miss thought out.

I've heard that each human being....

[arpad1]

...produces 125 watts of bio-electric power.

Re:I've heard that each human being....

[Asklepius M.D.]

According to http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/energ y.html it takes 859.85 nutritional calories to produce 1 kWh of energy. Then subtract the amount of energy it takes to heat and light the gym, and you'll quickly see how impractical this idea is.

Re:I've heard that each human being....

[toddhisattva]

125 watts or thereabouts at rest, several times that when exerting.

The resting brain eats 30W. And thence you can see the idea that we only use 10% of our brain is bunk, as then the brain would be glowing at 300W an yer haid wood splode.

Re:I've heard that each human being....

[arpad1]

Uh, guys? It was a riff on Matrix where the dumbass computers get the power they need by hooking up zillions of people so as to get each of their "125 watts of bio-electric power" whatever the hell that is.

THEY STOLE MY IDEA!

[carn1fex]

I want royalties dammit! In the 7th grade we had to 'make an invention.' Lotsa kid made things like more grippy pot holders and other crap. My plan was a bit more devious heheh. To solve the worlds energy needs I proposed the energy cycle. A generator hooked to a exercise bike basically. The catch is that all the prisoners in the US (1% of the population) would pedal 5 or 6 hours a day to make megawatts for the rest of us. I couldnt figure out the math back then to see how much power this would actually make. Either way, that was the first time i was called a fascist by my science teacher.

Re:THEY STOLE MY IDEA!

[WeblionX]

All right, but when was the last time you were called a facist by your science teacher?

Re:THEY STOLE MY IDEA!

[Anonymous Coward]

The first time?

Re:THEY STOLE MY IDEA!

[An Onerous Coward]

Either way, that was the first time i was called a fascist by my science teacher.

Are you saying that it wasn't the last?

Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:THEY STOLE MY IDEA!

[ml10422]

Your idea, huh? You must be too young to remember "Gilligan's Island".

The point missed...

[Radon360]

The problem is that you could make it 100% efficient and it still wouldn't matter.

Let's say that you have 100 people at a gym all producing 0.2kW each as they are working out. That's 20kW. Now, if you were to consider that a gym of that size will be pulling somewhere around 30 - 50kW off the grid for lighting, HVAC, sauna, pool, etc. then the best that you could hope for is that as the owner of the gym, your clients might be able to make a noticeable dent in your electric bill. If we examine this system as a whole, we have a net 10 - 30kW loss.

Now, tell these same folks to go out and run, bike, cross country ski, chop/haul wood, stone, etc. They can get some elevation in physical activity without having to consume any power from the grid.

So, the point missed is that finding alternatives to the gym would save more energy than trying to collect energy from gym clients.

Re:The point missed...

[jorgeuva]

Isn't a 10-30 kW loss better than a 30-50 kW loss? People aren't going to quit going to the gym. My gym always, regardless of time of year, has between 75-100% of the cardio machines in use. Why isn't putting a dent in the electric bill a good thing?

WEHT to the jumping Chinese earthquake weapon?

[Creosote]

Sometime back during Cold War days, mid 1970s or so, I remember a brief flurry of interest in speculation that China could destroy the US West Coast by sending a huge seismic wave triggered by having the entire population of China jump from several feet off the ground in response to precisely timed radio signals.

It got some major media attention, but was debunked pretty quickly. I remember a quotation from someone who pointed out that the physics of the thing would require, at a minimum, dead weight hitting the ground, which would require the landings to be done stiff-kneed to avoid shock absorption; he observed that the most likely product of such an experiment would be the sound of 1 billion people screaming as they all hit the ground with locked knees.

I totally disagree

[Sodade]

If I were homeless and someone offered me a choice of working at walmart or riding a bike all day, I'd be on that bike 8hrs a day no problem. As far as prisoners go, I hardly see this a cruel and unsusual punishment (as long as you let them off the bike when they get saddle sores!). Also giving homeless and prisoners a solid fitness base would help to develop the confidence that many of them lack.

Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense...

[Afecks]

Fat people get it the worst. No other group of people are so easily attacked and mocked. Most people wouldn't dare say "look how black that guy is!" for fear of being labeled a racist. However, very few of the same people would have any problem saying "look how fat that guy is!". Calling someone a nigger, faggot or fatass are all in the same group of insults. They are insults designed to hurt someone by mocking their differences. Yet somehow we all let that last one just slide by.

We accept each others differences when it comes to race, religion, sexuality but since being fat is "unhealthy" then it's unacceptable. I call bullshit on that. There are no special exceptions when it comes to bigotry.

But I'm not telling anyone what to do, just making an observation.

Better use of energy

[noidentity]

A bicycle makes much better use of human energy than a stationary cycle. It makes direct use of the force applied, and in many cases eliminates the need for a huge metal box and gasoline engine.

Juice doesn't refer to juice

[Anonymous Coward]

"juice" is common slang used in the bodybuilding community for anabolic steroids. It has nothing to do with fruit juice.

Poor Implementation

[necro81]

The article describes the system as siphoning off excess power from the generators already built into the equipment to run the exercise computers. It is like the dynamo on a bicycle - a parasitic power sink. They are only capturing a small fraction of the available power. The majority of the power the human inputs into the gym equipment still goes into waste heat production, same as the unmodified equipment.

A much better way to capture human power would be to scrap the power sink (the friction mechanism, for instance) and replace it with a real electrical generator, not just some dynamo rated for a couple of watts. With the proper power electronics, you can adjust the mechanical resistance that the human feels by adjusting the electrical power drawn from the generator. This would be similar to how regenerative braking works in hybrid cars. The braking action can be soft or hard, depending on the pedal input, and works by modulating the power drawn out of the generator and into the battery bank. Like a hybrid car, the mechanical resistance (i.e., traditional brakes) becomes almost superfluous.

This system would allow you to capture far more of the human power and convert it to electricity. With a well-chosen generator and well-designed power electronics, the conversion efficiency can be over 75%. For a human producting 100 W on a stationary bike (a decent workout), that would be 75 W of electricity.

This idea does, however, require a more substantial redesign or retrofit of the existing equipment, designed into the equipment and the gym from the beginning. As a result, I think it is unlikely to come about anytime soon. It would be a fun home project, however. Anyone know if Make Magazine has done something with this?

Re:Poor Implementation

[Belgarath52]

Correct me if my math is wrong, but:

75 watts * 1 hour = 0.075 kWh

Where I live, one kWh costs about $0.08. So you get $0.006 per hour of exercise.

Assuming that you have 50 people at a gym doing this, that's $0.30/hr. Assuming that you have those 50 people going 10 hours a day all year long (probably way too high), you're looking at a total of about $1,100/yr power generation.

There's no way you're going to outfit 50 machines for $1100, and probably not for $11,000.

$111,000 on a 100 year loan might do it, but the $1,100/yr generated *might* pay interest on the money borrowed, but could hardly touch the principal, and it's virtually impossible that the machines would last for the centuries needed to pay it off at a few hundred a year. And good luck finding a hundred year loan.

Conclusion: you're better off spending the money on virtually anything else. Put solar panels on the gym and you'll break even in 20 years. Better yet, bike to the gym and back instead of driving and wasting a gallon of gas each direction.

For extra benefits, just bike to the gym and back without going inside. You get your hour of exercise, avoid using energy, and don't have to pay gym fees.

Err - flames for the sloppy math now please.

Re:Poor Implementation

[necro81]

Nah, I wasn't advocating that gyms actually go out and do this. My point was more that there are much more focused ways to go about capturing human energy. Probably a much larger savings would be realized, not from the electricity capture, but from reduced cooling needs. If 50 * 75 W can be turned into useful electricity rather than just waste heat,(*) that's a reduction in the necessary air conditioning. X watts of cooling power typically requires several times X in electrical power. It's still not enough to justify the costs of implementing this technology, but it is probably worth more than the raw electricity.

* Yes, I know, it all ends up as heat eventually, but at least it would do some useful work beforehand.

Re:Poor Implementation

[Belgarath52]

I like that approach; something as simple as driving a fan to move the air around might be a simple way of avoiding more air conditioning.

Old chargable bike lights

[phorm]

Long long ago I had a bike light that was chargable in this manner, but as mentioned by others it's actually requiring more effort to turn the charger than you would put out just peddling. Of course what others don't consider is that if you're in it for the workout anyways, a little extra sweat is not necessarily a bad thing.

I believe this particular little device charged off a spinning wheel (attached to your bike wheel), but there was a quick-snap mechanism that could be used to release it from the wheel. It might be more efficent to do something similar off the bike-chain or perhaps right at the pedals. Adding a kickable or clickable switch to enable it (much like the gear-shifts) could help to save a little pain on the uphill stretches.

I would envision something like what my PDA uses. In addition to the internal battery, you can plug the whole thing into an external battery pack, charging the internal battery off the pack (or using power from the pack). So rather than plugging your phone or whatever into the bike, just plug the proper form-factor power-pack in, and then recharge your device off the power-pack.

Rodent problem?

[dangitman]

Saving energy is great, but why do they have such an infestation of rats at these gyms? I would think the public hygeine issues of vermin would be the more pressing problem. Why not simply hire a pest exterminator?

FAT PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE

[Anonymous Coward]

You can choose not to put that twinkie in your mouth.
The others can't

typical ignorant comment

[Afecks]

A homosexual can choose not to put a penis in his mouth.

Seriously, if you think having gay sex is somehow more compulsory than overeating, you're an idiot.

Both are choices.

Re:typical ignorant comment

[Beardo the Bearded]

Yeah, a heterosexual can choose not to have sex at all, either.

It's a choice, but unless you're a monk, it's a lame one.

Re:typical ignorant comment

[Anonymous Coward]

You can choose not to have sex, or even to have a kind of sex you dislike, but that doesn't change your sexual orientation. You can choose not to eat, and that *does* change how fat you are.

Re:typical ignorant comment

[JebusIsLord]

Being gay isn't a choice that costs the public billions of dollars a year. Also, gay people aren't nearly as hard on the eyes.

Glutons SHOULD be marginalized. Its a social construct designed to keep people thin and healthy.

Re:typical ignorant comment

[brer_rabbit]

Yeah, a heterosexual can choose not to have sex at all, either.

With a name like "Beardo the Bearded", it may not be a choice.

Re:typical ignorant comment

[OrangeTide]

Generally the construct backfires and it just makes people fat and unhappy, which drives them further into a viscous cycle. And what is "fat" is subjective, and often unrealistic ideals are pushed by some people. Unhappy fat people often don't know that you can just ignore the idiots with unrealistic demands.

Turns out obesity is not as simple as stop eating, there are a wide variety of reasons people become obese.

Almost all fat people know they are fat, they don't need people telling them this. So your social construct is pointless, you're not informing anyone with it. You're just choosing to exclude a group because of your own prejudice.

Generally it's pretty safe to ignore the opinions of idiots who insult you. And to avoid being overweight for your own benefit, AND judge what is overweight yourself rather than accepting the flawed opinions of others.

common problem - "what if it is a parent or relative judging you, I can't ignore them." -- yes you can, tell them to get bent if they cause you such stress. Nobody says you have to be nice to your family when they make you uncomfortable or are just being plain rude.

There is a social construct we have that we treat rude people with disrespect to encourage them to quit being assholes.

As for costing billions of dollars. Sounds like your problem is with the government and health care system in that they are willing to hand out free money for healthcare to fatties. And it's not anything you have against obesity itself. If people could be fat and not effect you then I would except that you would then not really care.

Re:typical ignorant comment

[JebusIsLord]

But it is important that people know that being fat = bad. And if we really started treating obesity like skin colour, then we'd be saying there is nothing wrong with being fat. And there is.

I'm a little chubby myself, but I work hard at keeping it down because I know it is important for me both socially and physically. If I choose to "let myself go", I'm not going to get all oversensitive and ask for special treatment.

Unfortunate, True, and Difficult.

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

You are so right, that it's a shame you posted anonymous. I can see why you did though. The fat people will be irate.

It's mentally difficult to regulate your food intake. Humans were designed to constantly seek out nurishment. We can consume resources like locusts. Poeple need to eat to live, but the actual calorie requirement for most people is way 2000 cal/day. IIRC for a programer not taking caffeine pills, who goes home to watch T.V. and work in the yard for an hour it's something like ~ 1400.

The hard part is converting from highschool where you worked out in PE, go to class, go to practice (football 2 a days anyone?) go home, and do it all again. For instance when I was in Highschool, I could eat 2 Whoppers (the burger not the computer...) a day for lunch, have bacon and eggs for breakfast, slurp down a LG milkshake, and have a 12" steak sandwich w/ fries for dinner, and actually loose weight on that diet.

But I was also running no 3 mi' day (like when I was sick...) and cycling / running to most places I went. (work, school, practice, GF's).

Damn submit button...

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Converting from highschool to today where my job requires me to be in one place all day, and I have little time outside of working on my house for strenuous exercise. I don't need half the callories I did before, but the habbit of eating till I am >Full is well established.

That's not the real reason

[macdaddy]

The real reason is the "Eye Candy" at the gym. I may not have much will power or desire to go to the gym but once I'm there it's hard to make me leave. :-)

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[bckrispi]

Ok, I'll listen to your point-of-view...
But first, you've gotta do the Truffle Shuffle!!

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Anonymous Coward]

Obesity is no more a social "difference" than being a pot/cigarette smoker or a high-school dropout. It's irresponsible behavior, not a social difference. Should we ban all of the anti-drug commercials because they may hurt some pot head's feelings?

Calling fat jokes "bigotry", and comparatively trivializing *real* bigotry, is an insult to the plight of those who actually face it.

Minority groups were marginalized, tortured and lynched at various points in history. You get asked where the nearest Burger King is. Go eat a twinky, tub-o.

Re: Does it affect me?

[Migraineman]

My brother-in-law is tipping the scales at 450+ lbs. He goes out of his way to make eating easier. He stores food on the couch ... days-worth of food, not just a bag of chips. He goes out of his way to eat poorly - fast-food and junk-food are at the top of his list. He was recently hospitalized due to a combination of sleep apnea, narcolepsy, and pneumonia - all related to his obesity.

He's not a bad guy, but he does have psychological issues. His obesity is completely elective - when he was dating several years ago, he got down to about 250 lbs. If he wishes to flush his life down the toilet, that's his preroggative. However, the moment it affects me, it becomes my problem. When he visits, we have to make all sorts of special accommodations for him. I don't recall ever making special accommodations for someone based on their religion, their skin color, their hair color, their sexual preference, etc. My next door neighbor has been in a wheelchair as long as I've known him, and he requires less "special attention" than my brother-in-law.

And the part that makes me furious, is that he's unwilling to accept responsibility for his situation. The denial and littany of excuses are monumental - it's glandular, it's an endocrine imbalance, it's a disease. Disease? How the hell do you "catch" obesity from someone else?

Here, I'll solve the problem with physics: (1) Eat less, you'll lose weight. Your body can't manufacture fat out of the aether. (2) Sell the TV. Now that you've freed up some time, go for a walk.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[zen-theorist]

umm.. it is unethical to be bigoted on race because people cant change the color of their skin. similarly, but debatably, they cant change their sexual preference. they might not be able to change a fatness gene, but i think it is certain widespread obesity is not due to genes. not accepting each others difference also happens to be the basis of most humour. and only when its a i-cant-help-it defect does the humor seem to be in poor taste.

more interestingly..

[zen-theorist]

the 100m sprint record time might go back up!

Humans are woth about 1/10 hp

[Migraineman]

I'm in the process of building a human-powered vehicle for the Baltimore Kinetic Art event. We've done some testing with semi-pro cyclists, and the conclusion we've come to is that the typical in-shape hyu-mohn can sustain a 1/10 hp output for a pretty long duration - that's about 75 watts. Peak output may reach 1/4 hp for short bursts - just short of 200W. If you've got access to a stationary bike at the gym, there's usually a display mode that'll show power in watts. 200W is a huge load.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[I'll Provide The War]

Fat people get it the worst. No other group of people are so easily attacked and mocked.

Atheists would disagree.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci= 26611&pg=1

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[ZDRuX]

No, that is not true.. You *CAN* deal with obesity and overweight problems and "beauty" problems, but you CANNOT deal with or *cure* your skin colour, or if you're missing a leg, or you have problems breathing, this is the main difference why I find it "easier" to laugh at people who are dirty, smelly, fat, lazy, or stupid - because all those can be taken care of, whereas anything you're born with, or physically stuck with is not. This is why it's NOT OK to laugh at handicapped people or people with mental retardation or anything of that kind.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[toddestan]

why I find it "easier" to laugh at people who are dirty, smelly, fat, lazy, or stupid - because all those can be taken care of, whereas anything you're born with, or physically stuck with is not.

You're just showing your prejudices. It's a perception thing. Some cultures consider being a bit obese to be a good thing. To make fun of people simply because they are fat (in your eyes) is a lot like making fun of someone simply because of their religion, or similar. Not everyone thinks like you.

I know modern treadmills use electricity

[benhocking]

That's why I specifically referred to the non-electric variety as an antique. The point was that they don't need electricity in order to run, and that one could theoretically use them to generate electricity just like one could generate electricity from a stairmaster (although at a much reduced efficiency). I've just heard a lot of nonsense from pseudo-scientists (usually citing "friction") who think that treadmills require electricity in order to run.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Afecks]

I was just going to ignore you as an obvious troll but since someone felt like wasting mod points on you I'll bite.

Should we ban all of the anti-drug commercials because they may hurt some pot head's feelings?

I didn't say we should ban anything. Stop talking out of your ass.

You get asked where the nearest Burger King is. Go eat a twinky, tub-o.

The only person trivializing anything is you. Your ignorant and insulting closing statements prove my point exactly. Obviously your weak mind couldn't come up with anything better so you resort to typical bigotry. Your view that being fat is a negative shows that you are incapable of understanding any viewpoint other than your own. Some people don't care that they are fat but they do care that cowards like you attack their obvious flaws just to make themselves feel better.

The intent behind calling someone a nigger or a fatass is just the same. It's ignorant hatred based on some physical characteristic. It doesn't matter what kind of rationalizing you did to get there. It does not change the fact that it is bigotry. Please don't reproduce.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[ProfessionalCookie]

Here. I'll pony up for you- You shouldn't hate people because they're fat.
 
//Don't be afraid of the word 'should'- even if the PC people tell you that you should be.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up fat ass.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[sfjoe]

Fat people get it the worst.

I'm not too sure I believe this. I'm fairly lanky so I would assume that people would not censor their anti-fat remarks around me. I can't recall ever hearing remarks like you describe. I'm certain I'd privy to statements like, "look at that fat bastard", if they actually were being made frequently. I'm inclined ot believe this is more of an urban myth or wishful thiking along the lines of Vietnam veterans getting spit on: sounds plausible but never actually happened.

Makes sense...

[Talgrath]

I generate some 200 Watts while I'm on the exercise bike at the gym, using that excess energy to power the lights of the gym (and/or more) is a great idea.

Do I understand this correctly?

[walterbyrd]

I walk 5 miles on a treadmill, and that carges the battery in my electric car enough that I can drive the car one mile?

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling a black person a nigger is bigotry, calling a gay or lesbian a faggot is as well. No doubt about it. But, calling a fat person fat is bigotry in your mind? You're argument is weak at best.
Also, your weak mind mixes up "Your" and "You're." Glass houses....

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Afecks]

You're argument is weak at best.

Also, your weak mind mixes up "Your" and "You're." Glass houses....

Haha, you just owned yourself! Right before your idiotic statement of "your" vs. "you're", you make the very same mistake you falsely claim that I made. I never made that mistake but you just did. Work on your reading comprehension then go back and read what I wrote again. You'll see that I'm correct.

You tried to turn the "weak mind" comment around but you failed and only showed yourself to be an even bigger moron than you originally appeared. It just doesn't get any better than this. I can understand why you're an anonymous coward now. You'd have to create a new login out of embarrassment at least once a week.

Better luck next time.

Re: Does it affect me?

[Afecks]

However, the moment it affects me, it becomes my problem. When he visits, we have to make all sorts of special accommodations for him.

Your problem is that you are afraid to tell your brother-in-law he can't come over for a visit.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[jlehtira]

Some people don't care that they are fat but they do care that cowards like you attack their obvious flaws just to make themselves feel better.

"Let's go wall climbing today! Ahh crap. Okay, forget that." -- I know I'd hate to be physically unable to climb. Dunno how it feels. Probably people simply convince themselves that things they can't do aren't fun.

Certainly not caring about being fat can be a great way to stay sane and enjoy one's life. But caring about something is the best way to change it. There's a balance for everyone.

And I actually think at least some of the "bigotry" towards fat people is meant to motivate, not just to be mean.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[tuxette]

but you CANNOT deal with or *cure* your skin colour

Sure you can. If your name is Michael Jackson...

Re: Does it affect me?

[Migraineman]

My problem isn't fear, it's that I know what "family" means.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[sco08y]

Fat people get it the worst. No other group of people are so easily attacked and mocked. Most people wouldn't dare say "look how black that guy is!" for fear of being labeled a racist.

They do say those kinds of things, and I seem to recall from American history this thing called "chattel slavery." Do you really think fat people get it the worst?

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[titan2020]

People have no say in there race, or sexual orientation. But you can choice to put down that twinkie. So you're talking apples and oranges here.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Slashdot Parent]

Since I'm sure you paid for the two seats you're taking up on the airplane.

I mean, I can sit next to a black person on the metro and not even look up from my newspaper long enough to be aware of it. But a morbidly obese person?

I've always been puzzled by the term "tolerance" as the opposite of "racism". I mean, what is so offensive about a nonwhite person that would require me to "tolerate" that person? But I can definitely point out several attributes of fat people that require Gandhian levels of tolerance.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Afecks]

How come every argument people have made is regarding the "morbidly obese"? There are other kinds of fat people you know. Those that have love handles and man boobs. Their only crime is not looking good in a bathing suit and sweating in air conditioning. This was never about me but just to avoid the ad hominem attacks let me state for the record that I'm not fat. I fly first class as well so there is plenty of room in the seat.

When you lump all fat people together or lump all black people together you're doing so based on some arbitrary physical characteristic. Please don't tell me that black people can't bleach their skin and fat people can't choose to get liposuction and tummy tucks. Both are just as much choice as they are fate, regardless of the practicalities.

A black guy mugging you or a fat guy crowding you on a train are both negative occurrences. Would you think bad of all black people for the actions of one mugger? Then why should you treat any other group differently? If someone is invading your personal space then move away, do something about it.

A lot of the commentators like yourself are going off the deep end, especially regarding the phrase "get it the worse". No I'm not saying fat people are more persecuted than group X. I have no desire to compare immeasurable concepts. I'm saying that as a demographic, fat people have the least amount of credibility. It's so easy for everyone to dismiss them. Just like you're doing.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Slashdot Parent]

It's so easy for everyone to dismiss them.

http://www.jennycraig.com/.

Ignorant drivel.

[jotaeleemeese]

Homosexuals, has been demonstrated amply by now from a scientific point of view (if you are religious, get lost regarding this topic frankly) have no choice about their homosexuality.

The immense majority of fat people, in the other hand, do have a choice to change their life bad habits. The choice may not be easey, but they do have it and it is really a case of will oneself to do something about it.

There are objective measures of fatness.

[jotaeleemeese]

Fat people give plenty of excuses like the one cited ("fat" is subjective, fat is beautiful, and much other drivel) in order to justify their lack of discipline and self respect.

I would agree that some minority of fat people have mental issues that push them on the direction of stuffing their mouths aimlessly, but most fat people are just lazy and can't be bothered to better themselves.

And those cultures are wrong.

[jotaeleemeese]

There, I said it.

We have science for one reason. Science tells us that to be fat (and there are scientific definitions of this) is not good for you (and for many people around you, but fat people are egoistic and don't care much about the needs of others around them).

Nonsense.

[jotaeleemeese]

Most people think that is the case, but half the people there are fat people that are trying to do the responsible thing and lose the flab.

That is not candy for any eye IMHO.

Re:Nonsense.

[macdaddy]

Apparently you've never been to a gym. I've been to 2 over these past few months. One was an exclusive gym and the other was one of the area YMCAs. While there were a few ugly ducklings at each place both sites by and large were easily 90% filled with very attractive people.

Not in other English speaking countries.

[jotaeleemeese]

Where calling somebody a rat, no matter the context, is seriously derogatory.

Re:How much does AIDs cost per year again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, fatso.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Anonymous Coward]

Some cultures consider being a bit obese to be a good thing.

American nerds?

Some cultures consider being a bit obese by eating one's defeated enemies in an act of ritual cannibalism to be a good thing.

If such cultures make enemies of fat American nerds who actually manage to get off their asses long enough to get to e.g. the Solomon Islands (shhh! cannibalism died out there sixty years ago!) or Papua (shh! that is a cultural libel!), they will be more than a bit obese!

However, the odds of a fat American nerd doing the physical and mental labor necessary even to acquire a passport are pretty damn long.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[Trogre]

Speak for yourself. In nearly all cases race is the only quality of those three that a person can't do anything about. You're attacking a person for who they are, not the choices they make.

Oh that's beautiful

[Anonymous Coward]

Using electricity to reduct the amount of energy we all have to spend to live. Then getting fat from not expending energy, so we go the gym to expend it. Then we harness that energy back into the first point. Human nature is funny. It's like putting a stationary bike on a segway. There's an element of control and timing, yes, but still.

Jennifer

Nice!

[smaaz]

LOL thats a nice idea, thank god, worlds top problem is solved!

Re:Nice!

[Kahuki]

Yea the power from the threadmills should create enough power to keep the tv's on.

Re:Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense..

[DrRotwang]

Fat people can choose not to be fat. Period.