Voice Powered Cell Phones

misakyra

As someone who works with cell phones on a daily basis, this was really interesting to me.

Apparently, a team of scientists at Texas A&M have been doing research into piezoelectrics, which could eventually result in things like voice powered cell phones.

I would think that there would still have to be some kind of battery present, at least in the early stages of the technology, as there has to be some way to power the device when you aren't talking. However, the batteries would be able to be considerably smaller, which would equal smaller phones. It would also eliminate those "oh crap, I forgot my charger!" issues.

So what do you guys think about this?

...

which would equal smaller phones

There exist phones where it's already impossible to not hit multiple buttons. I don't think we need to be making them smaller anymore. Instead, use the space for more memory or something.

It sounds like a good idea though.

Apreche

There are lots of things in this world that move, vibrate, or heat up. Right now, this energy just escapes. It is possible to put tiny devices in many many places that will capture the spare heat and mechanical energy and convert it to electricity. Some places are far more practical than others. The energy of the sound waves in your voice entering your telephone is a good a place as any to make the next step. Also, if we can do it with voice, why not do it with the noise from cars, planes, trains, subways, and other loud things?

...

Self-powered pneumatic drills and chainsaws... Taking one less worry away from the zombie apocalypse, one step at a time.

lackofcheese

Self-powered pneumatic drills and chainsaws...

I'd hope that everyone realises the impossibility of such a thing, however. I'm assuming tfe does and merely meant it as a joke.

...

I'd hope that everyone realises the impossibility of such a thing, however. I'm assuming tfe does and merely meant it as a joke.

Yes, I do. But imagine. Holding a chainsaw in the air, shouting loudly to get the attention of zombies, shouting even louder, they start groaning louder and attacking, and suddenly BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!! Accompanied by manic laughter, the roaring of flesh and bones being sawn through, the agonizing cries of what once were humans, them being slowly devoured by a maniac and his sound-powered chainsaw.

On the more serious side, it would be a great addition to hybrid/electric cars. Just put such a little device near each wheel and the engine and you might be able to increase its mileage even more. Heck, it'd be a great excuse to be loud and obnoxious then, shouting at your car. "YEAH, MY CAR IS RUNNING DRY, SO I NEED TO GET TO THE NEXT GAS STATION.", or "Honk if you wish to get me home."/"Honk if you wish to get rid of me." bumper stickers.

Rym

Waste energy reclamation is something that, when technology becomes advanced enough, solves a surprising number of the world's current engineering concerns.

Luke Burrage

The thing is that a device reclaiming energy from itself doesn't gain you anything. The energy you get from the sound of your car will be less than the energy you save by having the car make less noise in the first place. Most of the noise is from the tire on the road, but just having different tire material or structure or harder tires or different suspension or even a different road surface would reduce the complexity by a long way.

Apreche

The thing is that a device reclaiming energy from itself doesn't gain you anything. The energy you get from the sound of your car will be less than the energy you save by having the car make less noise in the first place. Most of the noise is from the tire on the road, but just having different tire material or structure or harder tires or different suspension or even a different road surface would reduce the complexity by a long way.

This is true. However, the laws of physics prevent you from attaining 100% efficiency. Energy is always lost. If you have a car that is 80% efficient, energy reclamation technology can help you save some of that 20% that would otherwise be lost. Sure, if the car were 99% efficient, energey reclamation on the remaining 1% may or may not be worth it depending on the math. Either way, if we presently only have the technology to make 80% efficient cars, but also have the technology to reclaim a significant amount of the 20% loss, why not do it if the math works out?

Luke Burrage

In that case it would be a one option. My point was also about complexity. Is it easier to invest in, research, design and manufacture an existing non-mechanical, non-electrical, low technological solution (Eg. a harder tire but with better grip) or the opposite (Eg. piezoelectrics)?

A lot of the design choices in personal transport is decided on completely non-technical grounds. For example, cycling. There are so many rules put in place for competitions, and the type of bike used in competition is what people want to buy. Therefore:

The recumbent, from wikipedia:

When the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) met in February, 1934, manufacturers of upright bicycles lobbied to have Faure's one-hour record declared invalid. On 1 April 1934, the UCI published a new definition of a racing bicycle that specified how high the bottom bracket could be above the ground, how far it could be in front of the seat and how close it could be to the front wheel. The new definition effectively banned recumbents from UCI events and guaranteed that upright bicycles would not have to compete against recumbents[13]. For all intents and purposes, the ban is still in effect.

So, the most efficient design of bike for high speeds is marginalized.

Next example, Graeme Obree, who built his own bicycle from scratch with a superior design:

The world governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale grew concerned that changes to bicycles were making a disproportionate improvement to track records. Among other measures, it banned his riding position: he did not find out until one hour before he began the world championship pursuit in Italy [27]. Judges disqualified him when he refused to comply.[28] The magazine Cycling Weekly blamed "petty-minded officialdom." [29]

Obree developed another riding position, the Superman style, his arms fully extended in front, and he won the world pursuit championship with this and Old Faithful in 1995. [30] That position was also banned. The bike is in the Museum of Scotland, in Edinburgh.

Twice more! He stuck by the old rules, but new ones were put in place.

Also, look up the Moulton bike.

1. Why the small wheels?

The small wheels are an essential feature of the Moulton concept. They offer many advantages.

# With only half the rotating mass of the wheels on a 'conventional' bicycle, it is possible to accelerate faster.
# They are extremely stiff and much stronger than larger wheels because of the short spokes.
# The aerodynamic drag is lower; there is less frontal area and less spoke area causing turbulence to slow you down.
# The centre of gravity is lowered, resulting in improved stability.
# The small wheels free up space normally occupied by large wheels, allowing luggage to be carried lower.

2. Aren't smaller wheels harder to pedal?

No, because:-

# The gears are chosen so that they correspond to pedalling a bicycle with large wheels.
# The smaller frontal area results in less aerodynamic drag.
# The lower inertia means that you can accelerate faster.
# If you are still doubtful, consider the HPVs (Human Powered Vehicles) developed for the ultimate performance - many
of these use the unique 17" Moulton wheels and tyres fitted to the AM series bicycles.

And people insist on using huge wheeled bikes because small wheels look stupid. The science says the most efficient wheels are small, hard and with suspension but only people breaking world records or making new human powered vehicles uses them.

So, put in place improvements that have already been invented rather than aiming for new ones.

Neito

Yes, I do. But imagine. Holding a chainsaw in the air, shouting loudly to get the attention of zombies, shouting even louder, they start groaning louder and attacking, and suddenly BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!! Accompanied by manic laughter, the roaring of flesh and bones being sawn through, the agonizing cries of what once were humans, them being slowly devoured by a maniac and his sound-powered chainsaw.

Remember, kids. Screaming makes your attacks 15% stronger. Source: Every super robot anime ever.

Loganator456

Yes, I do. But imagine. Holding a chainsaw in the air, shouting loudly to get the attention of zombies, shouting even louder, they start groaning louder and attacking, and suddenly BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!! Accompanied by manic laughter, the roaring of flesh and bones being sawn through, the agonizing cries of what once were humans, them being slowly devoured by a maniac and his sound-powered chainsaw.

Remember, kids. Screaming makes your attacks 15% stronger. Source: Every super robot anime ever.

Not to mention Dragon Ball Z.