Slashdot Mirror


Cell Phones Powered By Conversations

disco_tracy sent in a story about some fancy new power technology designed to tap energy from sound waves. Although the cell phone concept grabs the headline, they also talk about harvesting noise from traffic.

119 comments

  1. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would have posted earlier, but slashdot was down.

    1. Re:first post by ohiovr · · Score: 2, Funny

      If only data centers could be powered by forum posts like this. Theres an unlimited supply to draw from.

    2. Re:first post by nacturation · · Score: 1

      would have posted earlier, but slashdot was down.

      Slashdot was just faking its own death for a while.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  2. Infinite power by grapeape · · Score: 4, Funny

    Geez if I could hook up a storage battery and wire it to my wife I could go off grid.

    1. Re:Infinite power by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Informative

      Congress could power the whole country.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Infinite power by Lotana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With our state of infrastructure, that much supply would overload the whole thing.

    3. Re:Infinite power by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      If we could get cellphones to work in airplanes, then some teenage girls I know could power the aircraft.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    4. Re:Infinite power by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      Geez if I could hook up a storage battery and wire it to my wife I could go off grid.

      From what I understand about your wife, she'd use it up again before sunrise.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Infinite power by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

      Hers would run forever, but I don't think your phone could run forever on:

      "Uh huh."
      "Whatever you say, dear."

    6. Re:Infinite power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It runs on noise, not hot air.

    7. Re:Infinite power by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      A power tool afficionado, is she ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    8. Re:Infinite power by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      His wife is Richard Simmons.

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    9. Re:Infinite power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then a steam turbine will get the job done. Either way, the end result is the same.

    10. Re:Infinite power by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Maybe we'll get lucky and the breakers will trip during the next filibuster and the whole thing will burn down.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    11. Re:Infinite power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if congress actually read and debated the bills before passing them........ which they don't. Ever.

    12. Re:Infinite power by IsaacKarjala · · Score: 1

      what the f was the point of logging in if it was just going to post as anonymous coward anyway?

  3. Traffic solution? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    People who live near highways and main roads know how hard it is to get rid of traffic noise... if such a system catches 100% sound wave, that's a wave that dies at that point and is no longer heard. And, if that gets converted back to power, that's worth something in money.

    Just remember Newton's Law of Energy Conservation... and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.

    1. Re:Traffic solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noether's Theorem is energy conservation. Newton didn't have a clue.

    2. Re:Traffic solution? by Lotana · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.

      Stealing? Are you trying to troll by attempting to get people outraged that the device powers from the sound generated due to inefficiency of your vehicle?

      It is technically true, the energy of the sound does comes from your fuel tank. But remember that your car would still be expanding just as much energy on generating the noise whether or not there is any sound-gathering device around. Driving on the country road in the middle of nowhere will not increase your fuel efficiency.

      Really the term "stealing" is completely invalid in this case. Now if the headline was about some fancy road surface that converted traction into energy then you would be absolutely correct, because it would adversely affect the performance of your vehicle, thus increasing its energy expenditure, thus stealing from your fuel tank.

    3. Re:Traffic solution? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Just remember Newton's Law of Energy Conservation... and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.

      It's not, it's recapturing wasted energy. The gas is expended producing those sound waves regardless of whether energy is harvested from them or not.

      This is very different from, say, harvesting electricity from a power line.

    4. Re:Traffic solution? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      if such a system catches 100% sound wave, that's a wave that dies at that point and is no longer heard. And, if that gets converted back to power, that's worth something in money.

      Who cares about 100%? If you can harvest a tiny fraction of energy that someone else is paying for, then you get that energy for free where it would otherwise go to waste.

      Just remember Newton's Law of Energy Conservation... and remember that things powered by the car driving over a power capturing device is stealing gas from your tank indirectly.

      Not stealing any more than you would otherwise expend. It's just harvesting what you waste in the form of sound.

      This is sound waves that are coming out from you already ... it's not like a mechanical system which in a small way transfers some of your energy; so it's not embedded in the road. It's next to it (probably in lots of places I should think.)

      I'm pretty sure this in no way can be considered to be stealing from someone's gas tank, however indirectly since it doesn't actually increase the energy usage.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Traffic solution? by definate · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the people who demand to be compensated for their positive externalities such as people who own patents, and people who pay (via tax/etc) for public services. None of these people like your argument because they bare all the cost, while others benefit from it.

      Also, people who demand to be compensated for others negative externalities such as people who live near a polluting factory, and people who want to protect the environment. None of these people like your argument because if the costs and benefits aren't shared "equitably" between the 2 parties, then they suddenly lose a lot of their ability to impose the costs they calculate, on others.

      This is the problem with externalities and the law. I'm sure that I could find many instances which would show you're not logically consistent, and are only separating this from other instances because you personally feel/perceive that this is different.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:Traffic solution? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, driving over a power capturing road surface may cause your car to expend more energy than it would otherwise IF the road has more "give" than a non-capturing road.

      The sound re-capture doesn't seem to have that drawback. It's not as if the car will make extra noise to fill the vacuum.

    7. Re:Traffic solution? by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many would consider it to be recovering some bit of the peace and quiet the passing cars despoil.

    8. Re:Traffic solution? by Atryn · · Score: 1

      Who cares about 100%? If you can harvest a tiny fraction of energy that someone else is paying for, then you get that energy for free where it would otherwise go to waste.

      Not to get too picky about it, but remember that the "tiny fraction" you harvest isn't "free". It needs to be worth at least enough to pay for the harvesting equipment, technology, deployment, maintenance, energy storage and transmission costs.

      If we're talking about tearing up existing roads to install something and then also stopping traffic any time it breaks or needs service then most DOT's can tell you it had better have a LONG life with LITTLE chance of failure... The costs for road crews and the economic costs of traffic disruption are not negligible.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    9. Re:Traffic solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he's saying people would complain that you are generating power from their car's noise. He's just pointing out that if your phone is voice powered (rather than noise powered only while off a call) then your call quality will be terrible.

    10. Re:Traffic solution? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Since it would be using WASTE SOUND ENERGY, then no it's not 'stealing' gas. Let me know when the force a reduction i efficiency to support sound wave energy, then it will be indirectly costing you money,

      In fact, and device that capturer waste energy in any form doesn't cost you a damn thing in the way of gas consumption.

      In some case it can SAVE you money. Like using it on a ramp for care going down. It means less wear on brakes.

      And just so you know, 20% reduction in sound from traffic is worth something... A lot, actually.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Traffic solution? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      He's saying that the sound capturing devices are cool beans, but that other automotive energy capture devices aren't.

    12. Re:Traffic solution? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Really the term "stealing" is completely invalid in this case.

      I agree. It's really more of an infringement. Or "pirating", if you will.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    13. Re:Traffic solution? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      He's not complaining about waste sound energy.

      He's complaining about the speed-bump-mounted pistons that some areas are using, which make your car do more work to generate power.

      Of course, speed bumps in and of themselves end up causing more than an order of magnitude more deaths than they prevent thanks to their effect upon ambulances, so the power leeching is really only a drop in the bucket.

  4. How about by ohiovr · · Score: 1

    A cell phone powered by radio waves? Like a crystal radio? The speaker would suck but hey.. at least the electronics mig

    1. Re:How about by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      People who use a bluetooth won't enjoy the benefits of a cell with this technology in it.

    2. Re:How about by treeves · · Score: 1

      A one-way cell phone would be useless. Crystal radios are just receivers. You need to transmit.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    3. Re:How about by mirix · · Score: 1

      ding. and transmission requires power.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound Powered phones have been with us for decades on ships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-powered_telephone

    5. Re:How about by jdoverholt · · Score: 1

      Louder voice = more transmissive power?

      With how some people scream into their phones all day, maybe they think it already works this way.

  5. I could go one better by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just make a phone that, while making a call, recharges its battery from the motion of the car. You've got a lot more energy to work with there than just sound energy, especially if you can derive energy from sudden stops.

    1. Re:I could go one better by LiquidLink57 · · Score: 0

      I think I might have seen this kind of futuristic technology somewhere... http://www.google.com/products?q=cell+phone+car+charger&hl=en&aq=f

    2. Re:I could go one better by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      (I was going for a joke around the idea that the cellphone ecourages you to be on the phone while driving, with the power source being the physical motion, not from the car battery)

    3. Re:I could go one better by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It would overload the battery when the airbag fires...

      --
      No sig today...
  6. Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The teenagers around here seem to think it's their 5K watts sound systems that makes their car moves anyway.

  7. Great by EkriirkE · · Score: 4, Funny

    SORRY I'M YELLING, MY BATTERY IS LOW!!!

    (off-topic lowercase to side-step /. yelling filters here)

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    1. Re:Great by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could you speak up a bit? My battery is low too.

    2. Re:Great by hack++slash · · Score: 2, Funny

      PARDON?

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    3. Re:Great by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what I want, Mr. Clinton; didn't the check clear?

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  8. Windbags better than windmills? by snookerhog · · Score: 1

    details at 11

  9. The practical applications are impressive. by Flamekebab · · Score: 0

    There may not be enough sun here in the UK to make solar panels that effective, but given the high population density and the tight layout of our cities, this kind of technology could be incredibly useful. If it can absorb noise it'd be great, if it can actually put the energy to use that'd be fantastic.

    1. Re:The practical applications are impressive. by jdoverholt · · Score: 1

      I'm envisioning (haven't read the article) plates that you can buy and affix to your house, converting that nasty road noise into beautiful silence and free energy.

  10. Old news by jcwayne · · Score: 0
    --
    Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    1. Re:Old news by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      That was my thought, too. And, unless my memory's wrong, there's not enough power involved for a cell phone. Of course, my familiarity with them is from almost forty years ago, so I wouldn't argue the point if anybody disagrees.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Old news by treeves · · Score: 1

      "Machinery Two Lower Level, Maneuvering, shift Main Feed Pumps to fast."
      Manuevering, Machinery Two Lower Level, shift Main Feed Pumps to fast, aye."

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    3. Re:Old news by Tteddo · · Score: 1

      Oh man, that takes me back.

    4. Re:Old news by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Is that why, on all those Submarine shows/movies, the Captain says something, then the XO repeats it, and finally the helmsman repeats it a third time?

      Sincere question: I've always wondered about it.

    5. Re:Old news by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yeah, any time an order is given over sound powered phones, the order is repeated back verbatim to ensure it was clearly heard, and it usually does go from an officer or chief through an enlisted person to another enlisted person. The CO to the XO thing is not the norm since they the CO and XO are not together in Control during routine operations, but during a drill or emergency or some other special operation the CO might be at the conn, and the XO is the OOD (officer of the deck). You could then have the CO give a bell order (changing the speed of the main engines) to the OOD who tells the chief of the watch (COW) who tells the helmsman who tells the throttleman in maneuvering (back in the engineroom) who tells the EOOW, who in turn tells the throttleman who repeats it back, even though he's the one who told the EOOW in the first place(!). Then, once he's carried out the order, that info is relayed back through the same chain in reverse order, so everyone knows exactly what the status is, and so it doesn't end up like that telephone game where the initial message gets garbled after many relays and comes back to the originator totally different.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  11. Bogus by dtmos · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a bogus story that wanders around every now and then. Cell phones require hundreds of milliwatts of transmit power, an amount of power far beyond what the human voice can achieve -- even at 100% conversion efficiency.

    1. Re:Bogus by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Presumably there would be a battery involved and the ambient noise would constantly charge the battery. I doubt anyone is claiming that you could just use one without a battery to talk for an infinite amount of time.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Bogus by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're completely misunderstanding how it works. A. The human voice produces a hell of a lot more power than a cellphone, you can disagree if you want but it's not even relevant because: B. Ambient noise. It's not just you powering the device, it's everything that makes noise around you. and then, don't forget: C. Energy over time. It's charging it all day long, even when you're not on the phone. They aren't talking about you literally powering the phone as you talk. They are talking about a device on the phone that helps recharge the battery as you talk. Just like breaks on electric cars recovering the breaking energy aren't going to power the car entirely, but they certainly will help make the battery last longer.

    3. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's BRAKE you goddamn fucking moron.

    4. Re:Bogus by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The human voice produces a hell of a lot more power than a cellphone, you can disagree if you want

      Well, a human shouting is about 1 mW. A cell phone's antenna outputs in the ballpark of 250 mW.

      Some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that if the entire area of a cell phone could pick up sound energy, the ambient sound level was at the pain threshold of 120 dB (1 W/m^w), and it achieved 100% energy conversion, this would generate about 15 mW. For just the 250 mW antenna, this means about 90 minutes of talk time per 24 hours exposure.

      120 dB is very loud, and a far cry from how much sound a phone would normally be exposed to. Note that sound is measured on a logarithmic scale. If the phone was constantly exposed to 60 dB of sound, then it'd only generate 15 nanowatts.

    5. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just from his point A you get the feeling he's utterly and blithely pig-ignorant of simple physical reality. Probably a software moron too. Judging by his inability to spell "brakes", I'm *sure* he's a software moron. God save us from software morons!

    6. Re:Bogus by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

      I was looking into this at one point and my numbers came up pretty much in line with Blueg3's. There just isn't enough power in sound to really provide significant mWh. No matter how advanced the collection technology if the power isn't there to start with you aren't going to get far.

    7. Re:Bogus by complete+loony · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But could you use this trickle of energy to reduce or eliminate the battery drain when the phone is idle?

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    8. Re:Bogus by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Reduce, perhaps, but judging from the minimal amount of power available, you'd probably be better off throwing away the complex sound-harvesting technology and replacing it with a simple larger battery.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    9. Re:Bogus by Chucky_M · · Score: 1

      So they would want you to keep the phone on and the microphone working 24x7 because nobody could possibly think of a way to exploit that - right?

      1984 - I think they called it a telescreen.

    10. Re:Bogus by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really. All of my estimates are very high (conversion of 100%, entire phone is covered in the sound-converting material, etc.), but the ambient noise level is the problem. In a crowded place like a restaurant, you're talking about maybe 60 dB of sound. An entire day's exposure to 60 dB of sound would get you less than 1 microwatt-hour. That's a uselessly tiny fraction of a battery's storage.

    11. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, a human shouting is about 1 mW. A cell phone's antenna outputs in the ballpark of 250 mW.

      While this is true, you can convince another human to do far more than 1mW of work by shouting at them. A better line of research might be in learning how to convince everyone to crank a shaft on their cellphone - or harvesting it from the road Flintstones style + Tesla coils.

      Facebook and social engineering to the rescue!

    12. Re:Bogus by geekoid · · Score: 1

      60 db of sound only takes 15 nano watts an hour? that doesn't sound correct at all.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Bogus by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      It would he "God damned", Capital G, two separate words and past tense. But of course, that's not really relevant to the conversation at hand is it?

    14. Re:Bogus by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Power is not measured in watts an hour. It's just watts. (Intensity is measured in W/m^2.)

      0 dB (sound) is 10^-12 W/m^2. 60 dB is 10^-6 W/m^2. A 4 in. x 3 in. cell phone (with two sides) has an area of about 1.5 * 10^-2 m^2. So such an object subjected to 60 dB of background sound could capture up to 1.5 * 10^-8 W, which is 15 nW.

      There is surprisingly little energy in sound. Take, for example, an object loud enough that the sound intensity at a distance of 10 m is 60 dB. The total sound energy output by that object is, then, 4*pi*(10 m)^2 * 10^-6 W/m^2 = about 1 mW.

    15. Re:Bogus by icebraining · · Score: 1

      People already keep their phones working 24x7. They also update their "status" telling the world of their whereabouts. More: many people already keep GPS tracking software like Latitude, constantly sending their coordinates to some third party's server.

      I don't know who are "them", but "they" if they want to track most people, "they" don't need any tricks - people share that information voluntarily all the time.

    16. Re:Bogus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To further explain blueg3's comments: remember that decibels are logarithmic, not linear. If I recall the scale correctly, an increase of 3 db is a doubling of energy. 60 db isn't half the power of 120 db; it's 1 / 2^20 the power. (About one millionth).

  12. Conservation of Energy by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If only we could harvest energy from articles about operating multi-watt devices from nanowatt energy sources, all of the world's energy problems would be solved.

    1. Re:Conservation of Energy by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suppose we could go around wrapping dead scientists in copper wire...?

      Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to patent the magnetic coffin.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  13. sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now I don't have to throw away all my incandescent light bulbs.

  14. People use cell phones for conversations? by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cell phones are for apps, or texting. I didn't realise anyone used them to talk any more, except for members of an evil secret society dedicated to inflicting pain on users of public transport.

  15. No thanks! by syousef · · Score: 1

    "Sorry honey, you're about to cut out, just let me move closer to the traffic....hang on a sec, if I jump out in front of this car right here it'll honk and I'll get a power boost.....okay now that that's under control can you please talk a little louder? The traffic here in the middle of the highway is just shocking" *THUD*.

    No thanks. Sounds like a bad idea. How efficient could the conversion be anyway? I'd rather a phone that was powered by my own farts. (Can you imagine an amorous conversation on that one?) I think i'll stick to my current phone.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:No thanks! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, taking it to an stupid extreme for stupid people makes this seem like a stupid idea.

      The sound waves produced a mild electrical current of about 50 millivolts. The article recognizes the fact that the current state of this technology would not charge cell phones. I suspect it won't work that way;however there are many other used.

      Like putting it along walls near freeways and using it to charge a battery that powers LED overhead traffic lights. Because you would have about 30 meters by 3 meters are to use, as oppose to a small area of a cell phone.
      So quieter traffic, and less energy being produced at a coal plant.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. Hams have done it ... by EABinGA · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A ham operator has built a voice powered radio and has made several long distance contacts with it.

    Details are here

    1. Re:Hams have done it ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's pretty impressive! Of course most cellphone users won't be willing to haul a big antenna around and shout in Morse code...

  17. This is a terrible idea by iONiUM · · Score: 2, Funny

    So those people on their phones 24/7 (I realize that's a bit of a 90s comment right there, but you know who I mean) will only be rewarded with MORE battery power? They already won't shut up. Damn it.

    1. Re:This is a terrible idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree I think we should do whatever we can to try and rid ourselves of our "electronic leashes" not just make the leash longer. Of course if nobody had any technology such as cell phones, laptops, etc. most of us would be out of jobs.

  18. IT'S CALLED YELLING REALLY LOUD by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    AND ABOUT AS EFFECTIVE.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:IT'S CALLED YELLING REALLY LOUD by sjames · · Score: 1

      Given how well cellphones work in some areas, yelling might be far more effective.

      Apparently people on the train already think this is how their phones work.

  19. It already does by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Informative

    The phone already taps the energy of sound, if their was no energy in the sound then the microphone would not be able to pick up the sound waves and send the information on.

    But even assuming that they can get the device to convert the power to small enough it does not matter, you would need a wide receiver, as the energy dissipates in all directions at a squared rate.
    and I would think that even if you converted all the power it would still not even be close to enough.
    think about it, you are basically saying the energy taken from a person speaking normally could be used for the same voice to be heard miles away, does not sound like it follows the laws of conservation of energy unless you think that it will be operating at 100% efficiency.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:It already does by Ozoner · · Score: 1

      But then sound waves attenuate much more rapidly that radio waves.

      See above article on the voice powered Ham radio covering thousands of miles. .......

    2. Re:It already does by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They are saying they have a device that they can get 50mw at 100db, and the expect refinement to make it better.

      That said, people should stop focus on cell phones and look at a bigger picture. Like walls along the sides of freeways.
      Yes, the used cell phones as a way of grabbing attention, but educated people should realize that's all it is and focus on actual practical implication.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:It already does by cybernanga · · Score: 1

      think about it, you are basically saying the energy taken from a person speaking normally could be used for the same voice to be heard miles away, does not sound like it follows the laws of conservation of energy unless you think that it will be operating at 100% efficiency.

      When I was about 11, a friend and I made a "phone network" between our houses. We used two earpieces taken from old rotary phones, and simply connected them to each other using common 2-core speaker wire. This was over a distance of about 300meters, and used NO external power. You simply spoke into one earpiece, and the sound was heard at the other end. so we basically had a permanent open channel between our bedrooms.

      When we wanted to "call" the other person, we simply held an alarm clock next to the earpiece, which would be loud enough on the other end to be heard throughout the whole house. We found that two earpieces worked better than two mouthpieces, or a mouthpiece and an earpiece.

      It took us a whole summer holiday of doing chores and odd jobs to save up enough money to "lay our cable", also as we were kids and didn't know any better, we were buying 10 to 15 meter rolls of wire whenever we could afford a new roll, and the joins were not soldered, we just twisted the ends together and used electrical insulation tape.

      If it rained really heavily, we would get increased static, and I seem to remember a couple of occasions where we got breaks and had to dig up our cable to make repairs, but other than that, it lasted about 3 years until we abandoned it in favour of walkie-talkies.

      --
      www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.
  20. Oh the irony... by geekmux · · Score: 1

    ...thinking that the sound waves from my screaming voice will actually be providing power to the very device I'm yelling at the asshat in front of me to "hang the fuck up and drive!!!"...

  21. finally a device... by Odinlake · · Score: 3, Funny

    finally a device that actually might start working again when you yell at it.

  22. 50millivolts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the article says its not a lot of power, because volts isn't a measure of power, fail :(

    I worked on piezoelectrics a few years back, and its quite easy to produce voltage with them. I guess from the article sound waves produce 50millivolts. We were using blunt impacts, we could get impulses of a few hundred volts actually... but the current was on the order of some nanoamps from the samples we had... useless to power and normal electronic, especially a cell phone which is so inefficient (like how they get warm in an area with poor signal)

  23. Really? by pookemon · · Score: 3, Funny

    From TFA - "Just as speakers transform electric signals into sound, the opposite process -- of turning sound into a source of electrical power -- is possible"

    I never would have guessed that. Maybe now they can make something capable of turning sound into electrical impulses. I will patent that idea I think - and call it an anti-speaker. Or an audioelectictransmogrifier for short.

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    1. Re:Really? by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      While we're quoting the article - this rather tickled me. Particularly strange when it's taken out of context, but nicely indicative of the sort of language you get in tech articles trying to cater to laymen:

      "The researchers blasted that sandwich with sound waves, which at 100 decibels were not quite as loud as a rock concert."

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
  24. From the Article by PiAndWhippedCream · · Score: 3, Informative

    The sound waves produced a mild electrical current of about 50 millivolts. The average cell phone requires a few volts to operate, several times the power this technology can currently produce.

    Wrong, so very wrong. Millivolts is not a unit of current, and volts is no unit of power. Nor is power current. I've seen journalists not understanding electrical units before, but never have I seen something quite so wrong as this.

    1. Re:From the Article by cosm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shhhh. Your going to confuse average joe-sixpack even more. The editors must have assumed that their tripe would pass the standard jargon filter. Does anybody have a regex for finding all the jargon in some text, so you can subsequently replace it with stuff this guys says?

      I am sure six-pack wouldn't notice.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:From the Article by munozdj · · Score: 0

      You didn't see the article published in my university newspaper: "The new faculty elevator can work at 20.000 Hz"

      --
      Democracy: Crowdsourcing a country near you
  25. Sound-Powered Telephone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hmm.. Sounds a lot like the "Sound-powered Telephone" that's been in use with the US Navy (and probably many other navys) for over 6 decades....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-powered_telephone

  26. Combo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Soundwaves-to-electricity converter
    2. Methane powered mini powerplant
    3. Back pockets

  27. Lots of wasted energy by bm_luethke · · Score: 0, Redundant

    There is a great deal of energy lost out there. Lots of heat, sound, inertia, etc that just bleeds away (well, at least with respect to forms we find useful). The question is can we *efficiently* gather it back up - not *can* we gather it back up. The same things goes with any recycling of "waste" products - it isn't always good to recycle them. Sometimes the wast products from capturing that energy is worse than letting that energy go away (I know for a long time the waste products from solar panel production/disposal were *significantly* worse than any carbon emissions you were saving) and sometimes it is cheap (and therefor mroe resources can go towards fixing the long term issue) to *not* recycle.

    That's a good question for most "environmental" questions and it isn't easy. Lets take Corn based ethanol fuels - there are a number of studies out there that show it takes *more* energy to create them than if you just stayed with oil based products. The gains are probably not in that arena, they are either in emissions or dependence on a number of not so great human rights nations. Then we can take into account Wind Power - something that looks great in all these things. Well, that is, until you look at the impact on bird wildlife in those regions - is it worth the cost? Hard to say, if you are primarily worried about carbon emissions then very much so, if you are primarily worried about avian life then most assuredly not, if you want the best over all then all you pretty much get are both sides battling it out for which one is correct (and IMO neither one is).

    So, if we cut carbon emissions by 50% but increase sulfur emissions by 15% to collect all this sound energy it isn't too good for us, though under certain people views that is a "win". I do not know and I'm not trying to say it is a good or bad (in this case there may be no downside whatsoever) idea - just that this article (along with the vast vast vast majority of environmental articles and studies out there) do not really address this well. In the long term we will bump against levels where we have to do this, but for right now we are still in an infantancy stage and we are better off looking for better processes than refining our current ones - unless our current ones are so bad that we need to refine them now (and energy loss to sound is minor compared to the rest of the system).

    --
    ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  28. Don't tell anyone, I obtained a copy of the patent by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    "A patent for a mobile telephony network requiring no power. Telephone A, consisting of a hollow cylindrical object with a hole drilled into the bottom, is connected via a high tech, string-like device, to Telephone B, another cylindrical object with the hole cut in the bottom. Range is excellent provided you buy lots of Monster brand string, it can even reach my super-secret treehouse!"

  29. if you yell loud enough by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    if you yell loud enough, you don't even need a cellphone. that's the case in my village.

  30. How loud is 120 DB? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    As for clarification, 120 DB of sound is about like standing next to a jet engine at full power, or near the speakers at a rock concert. It's not "quite loud", it's painfully so.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:How loud is 120 DB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      my chainsaw has 118dB @ 1m (it's a big one). Great, i don't need to charge my phone, just carry the battery-free sound-harvesting phone and a 7.3kg chainsaw, and gun that while i make a quick call to the ear clinic complaining about deafness.

  31. Great, just what we need by The+Hatchet · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just what we need, more assholes on cellphones in traffic.

    --
    Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
  32. If anyone wants more information... by AdrianMiller · · Score: 1

    I work for the journal that published the orignal research paper behind this story, and we've set it free to access for the next few weeks; you can find it here: http://www.materialsviews.com/details/news/843529/Self-Powered_Cell_Phones_Piezoelectrics_in_Action.html Adrian Miller Advanced Materials

  33. electricity fail by laxergreg · · Score: 1

    "The sound waves produced a mild electrical current of about 50 millivolts. The average cell phone requires a few volts to operate, several times the power this technology can currently produce. ...
    The Korean scientists agree: 50 millivolts is not a lot of power, but they also say their research is proof of concept. As they continue their work, they expect to get a higher power output."

    volts = current = power! a new physics is at hand!

  34. The friggin' microphone??? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    Scientists from Korea have turned the main ingredient of calamine lotion into a tiny material that converts sound waves into electricity.

    "Just as speakers transform electric signals into sound, the opposite process -- of turning sound into a source of electrical power -- is possible,"

    Wow, somebody has to tell these Korean scientists that they are 134 years late in discovering the microphone. Perhaps they should work on the next big problem Korea is facing : Fan deaths...

    PS. I hope talking about measuring power & current with volts is the journalists fault.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:The friggin' microphone??? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought seeing this article - the sound waves are already being converted into electricity in all phones - usually it's converted to a digital signal on cellphones.

  35. Ridiculous times 100,000 by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ridiculous. Phones need about a watt. If you SHOUT into a microphone, you will maybe generate 50 millivolts across 600 ohms, or (E^2/R) about FIVE BLEEPIN MICROWATTS.

    We're a good five powers of ten below what is needed.

    Doesn't anybody do math anymore?

    1. Re:Ridiculous times 100,000 by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Ridiculous. Phones need about a watt. If you SHOUT into a microphone, you will maybe generate 50 millivolts across 600 ohms, or (E^2/R) about FIVE BLEEPIN MICROWATTS.

      We're a good five powers of ten below what is needed.

      Doesn't anybody do math anymore?

      No, because we got peeps like you to do it for us.

      thanks!

      --
      Be seeing you...
  36. Shinjuku/Shibuya Footstep Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was in Japan a few months ago and while in Shinjuku, at the million-person intersection, came across this development they were doing that would use the resounding power from thousands of footsteps 24/7 to power all of the lights in the area. Can't seem to find an article on it now. Anyone more familiar have a link? It sounds like the concept is really similar.

    1. Re:Shinjuku/Shibuya Footstep Power by ledow · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between using people's weight to make electricity (whether by piezoelectrics, or simpler physics of gravity and moving parts) and doing so by the force of exhaled breath touching an area some distance away.

      And what you miss is that these people are *also*, somehow, using their own energy to power the lights. It's no different to having a pedal-powered bike to power the lights - the effort is just spread across a lot of people. Those people still needed to use the energy, so it wasn't "free" or "profit" unless you're taxing the people who have to buy more food to cope with their ever-so-slightly more strenuous walk home.

      Rule #1: If you can't power an old-fashioned walkman using a device smaller than said walkman to power it, it's a waste of money, materials, design, consultancy, engineering and effort to produce that electricity.

  37. Monsters, Inc. by 200_success · · Score: 1

    Imagine how much energy you could collect from the screams of human children!

  38. A Gee , a sound powered telephone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't tell the navy they'll want one.
    Oh: they already have one.
    never mind.

  39. cone of silence by corbettw · · Score: 1

    Since this material absorbs sound waves, could it be used to create a cone of silence like in the Get Smart TV show?

    And forget about lining highways with it, line the inside of your car's engine compartment and use that to provide extra power to recharging the battery or onboard devices.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:cone of silence by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      no u need to hear things going out side ur car such as police and how unhappy the person behind u is with ur speed

      --
      warning pointless sig
  40. You can easily experiment with this yourself by The_Laughing_God · · Score: 1
    I've been experimenting with this for quite some time now, using off-the-shelf parts from Linear Technologies, specialty micro transformers from Coilcraft, and standard junkbox parts. Both companies offer free samples, but the chips and associated coils are each under $5 each anyway.

    I found the LTC3108 (or the LTC3801-1 variant) best suited most of my projects, but the LTC3588/LTC3588-1 is better for capturing energy from ambient sound or vibration via a piezoelectric transducer. (Their evaluation kit, which includes all the parts and a selected PZT, is a bit pricey for a hobbyist, so just get some free sample ICs and roll your own)

    Their online specs, designs and datasheets provide everything you need to build your own test rig. These chips even come with built-in support for auxiliary capacitor/ultracap storage, including bucking/boosting the ultracap voltage to the programmed output voltage, which I'd expected to have to implement externally. It's all there in one cheap package with a minimal of external components.

  41. Hot Air by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Sound waves? How effective is that?

    Considering the amount of Hot Air my boss produces, cell companies should look into capturing that "valuable" resource. Its just like waste heat now.