Reg article

of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

electrics are in the 4,000KW power output range, so the 28,527 x 120 W=3423KW is a ballpark pseudoprecise number. Dunno how they get 120 W-sec for the single step, this would be a function of the mechanics of their dynamo, how much displacement it requires and some assumptions on mass and velocity of the step.

Hey, let the MIT MathMan confirm the Space Shuttle calcs.

example of the energy production should give a clue of end use = perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in = its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective = load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the = lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of = what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24=3D 168 = Watt-Hours. Happy now?

Hell no. The step energy is off by 100 times. Thus 1.68 watthours (joules) for the lighting load. /Big help.

?;=3D)

example of the energy production should give a clue of end use = perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in = its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective = load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the = lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of = what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24=3D 168 = Watt-Hours. Happy now?

Why bother, it starts with an obvious lie. The energy involved in one step is at least 1000 times less. The interesting issue is that you cannot detect that lie. You are supposed to be educated in engineering.

?-(

se_make_it_stop/

need/

le of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How = better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than= encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described = in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasona= ble to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to= know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24=3D 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

They must be figuring on the traffic being 100 steps/hr or a step every 36 = seconds or so then. That seems reasonable in a 'crowd farm' area.

of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

"At least 1000 times less" ? Really? Show your work.

Why do you say that I "cannot detect that lie" ? I challenged Jim to analyze the claims. He's the self-proclaimed MIT math whiz. I just went to Tulane and messed around with motorcycles and sports cars and girls.

Let's provisionally accept the 120 joule number and evaluate the Space Shuttle claim. That can be done in less than a minute, without a calculator, without bothering to look up the mass or velocity or orbital altitude of the shuttle, or the fuel efficiency of getting it to orbit.

That should be trivial for smart people like you or Jim.

Go for it, either of you.

the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

Seems way high. I've seen numbers of 60-100W from a human on a bicycle-driven generator, so something doesn't compute.

I have no clue. My specialty is pointing out the poles of a poorly thought-out LDO ;-) ...Jim Thompson

of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

It's interesting how narrow your skills are. You ignore most technical threads, and have nothing to say outside a very narrow set of linear IC design issues.

I have to define product architectures, invent specs, draw schamatics, oversee or do or tweak PC board layout, do mechanical/packaging/thermal/electromagnetic design, write manuals, do or supervise FPGA and firmware, and sort of run a company. So I don't spend a lot of time on stuff like fine-tuning my LDOs... I just need them to work, which they do.

So, you don't remember basic physics from MIT. I remember physics from Tulane. The prof was excellent and entertaining. Of course, the Space Shuttle Challenge only needs high school math.

The shuttle riddle can be resolved in about a minute without needing a calculator, and without knowing anything more about the shuttle than you can see from a news clip of a launch.

MIT was, of course, ludicrously wrong on that one.

of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

I daresay I remember more physics and mechanical engineering than you do, but I see no need to feed your Tourette's. GFY!

I have no idea. I see no need to waste my time on wild ideas from the MEDIA CENTER. ...Jim Thompson

lease_make_it_stop/

er_need/

ample of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. H= ow better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use t= han encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction describ= ed in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reas= onable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want= to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24=3D 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

The shuttle is no more than a symbol of the collective stupidity of America= . All I want to hear about it is that it made it to the scrap heap.

example of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

All I want to hear about it is that it made it to the scrap heap.

Agree, but not quite as stupid as the Space Station. The Shuttle was, arguably, going to be a cheap way to put payloads into orbit and maybe recover them.

the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

seconds or so then. That seems reasonable in a 'crowd farm' area.

You mean a field full of sheep?

Jamie

of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

You just said that you had "no clue" about how to verify the MIT energy numbers. I believe you. I did it in about a minute, without a calculator. Us Tulane boys used slide rules, but this simple riddle doesn't even need that.

OK, we can agree: you have no clue.

example of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

I didn't say no clue "how"... I don't have the mass of the shuttle in front of me, so why should I waste my time feeding your inadequate ego?

Poor baby, I even once taught the use of slide rules to a class of technicians.

I do. You don't... and your ignorance causes you to continually make a fool of yourself. Do you think there are no (silent majority) people watching? ...Jim Thompson

My favorite, circa 1958...

example of the energy production should give a clue of end use perspective. How better to summarize the efficacy of the technology in its intended use than encapsulate the performance into a net effective load reduction described in terms of reduced wattage requirement of the lighting. This seems reasonable to me and is a pretty direct measure of what the end user would want to know about it. So 7W is 7 x 24= 168 Watt-Hours. Happy now?

You don't need to know the mass to validate the MIT numbers.

The reason to do it is to show if you can, if indeed you "remember more physics and mechanical engineering" than I do.

I don't think you can, or that you remember much physics at all.

I have a little, (~3'), brass and German silver circular slide rule that fits in a watch pocket. I bought it in Milan, Italy in 1944.

Nice! Mine is 4-5/16" and fits (snugly) in a regular shirt pocket. ...Jim Thompson

Ah, yes, the Gilson (OEMed by many companies under many different brand labels). That's the type I first learned, back in junior high school chemistry class, and it's still the one I think of most fondly.