Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
The MOS Technology sound interface device (SID) has been a favorite of electronic musicians for decades. Originally released within the Commodore CBM-II, 64, and 128 series of computers, this little chip could create 4 different waveforms on 3 analog channels. The guys over at HyperSynth have some custom SID synthesizers for sale, along with a software plug-in to talk to your favorite recording software. The HyperSID is MIDI driven device, containing a microprocessor and a real SID chip. No emulation here kids. This is the real deal. All three versions of the chip are supported (8580, 6582, and 6581). MIDI signal goes in, and the audio comes out of a balance 1/4″ output. The brightness on the front panel is also controlled by the incoming MIDI signal. ‘Cause if you can’t see your music, you’re not making music, right? Right. The unit itself comes in the below seen half-rack or rack mountable versions. The VST controller is a very powerful plug-in giving you real-time control over the synthesizer. LFOs, envelope filters, pitch bending, this thing’s got it all. There are other SID units and emulators on the market, but the HyperSID looks like the most plug-and-play, fully contained system available. These units will run you between $300 and $450 fully assembled, or if you want to put it together yourself, as low as $50. via [ Retro Thing ]
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
Short Version: A bit of a twist on traditional induction chargers, Case-mate’s “Hug Wireless Charging Pad and Case” attempts to offset its $100 price tag by adhering to the Wireless Power Consortium’s universal charging standard, which promises interoperability with other charging pads and devices that are developed using the same technology. Full Review: One of the larger barriers to adopting new technology is the relatively high price tag pitted against the uncertainty of whether or not that technology will become widespread enough to spawn future devices. What’s the sense in dropping $100 on an induction charger for your iPhone if there’s a possibility you’ll switch to a different phone in the future? Case-mate makes the plunge a bit less frightening by basing its “Hug” system upon an open wireless charging standard, the Wireless Power Consortium’s eCoupled technology (the same technology used in Palm’s “ Touchstone ” chargers for the Pre and Pixi lines). This theoretically means that you’d be able to charge your phone on any wireless charging surface based on the same standard—Case-mate offers a bedside table, Starbuck’s coffee table, and airplanes as examples. We’ll have to see how this eventually plays out in real life, but you get the idea. It also means that you’ll be able to use the included charging pad to juice up any other devices that use the same standard—a different model phone with an eCoupled-enabled case, for instance. So while $100 may seem a bit steep, you’re investing in what the WPC and Case-mate hopes becomes a widespread standard. You may have to buy different cases and/or battery covers for different devices in the future, but that charging pad should be the last one you ever need to purchase (in theory). As a charging solution, the Hug system is surprisingly nimble. I was able to take my iPhone 3GS from near zero percent battery to 100% in two hours. That’s pretty good considering early induction charging systems have operated at a much slower trickle. The first one I reviewed , almost a year ago now, took overnight. That system was for Wii remotes, too, which aren’t quite as important as having an adequately charged cell phone. The system is comprised of the charging pad and a protective iPhone case, which Case-mate describes as “slim.” We can go back and forth all day about using slim as an adjective but I can tell you that the case added some noticeable bulk to my phone. It doesn’t feel like it’d be super protective, either. It’s made of two plastic pieces that snap together; the backing of the larger main piece feels somewhat solid but the sides of both pieces are pretty bendy. I definitely wouldn’t want to drop my phone, and let’s remember that there’s induction technology built into the case that probably shouldn’t be bumped around too violently. The fattest part of the case measures about 0.8 inches thick, versus an unprotected iPhone at less than half an inch thick. It’s still pocketable, though it definitely feels lumpier. Charging time, as I said earlier, is a respectable two hours for full recuperation of an iPhone 3GS battery. I noticed a very faint, quickly repeating ticking sound as my phone was recharging and every time I’d put the case down on the pad my battery indicator would spike a few percentage points for some reason. Not a big deal either way, but it’s there. Conclusion: So would I carry my phone around in this case all day long? Maybe not presently, but I’d definitely do it if all these magic charging surfaces start popping up everywhere. Absolutely. It beats lugging around cables or spare emergency batteries for sure. If the WPC really wants this standard to take off, it should give the charging pads away for next to nothing for a while. For $5 to $10 apiece, I’d put them all over my house and in my car. For now, it’s still a bit too early to tell. The Hug is a nice example of how well the technology actually works, though, and if it reaches more widespread adoption, you may find yourself pricing out induction cases and covers for all your commonly-used gadgets. If you’re intrigued by induction charging and you’re ready to take the plunge, the Hug ought to be a safe bet provided you don’t mind the $100 price tag and the bit of extra bulk it adds. Hug – Wireless Charging Pad & Case [Case-mate.com]
Posted by 010081
Tech
Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
There’s a myth out there that technology will ruin soccer, what Pelé (and others) once called “the beautiful game.” Let me ask you something: is this Cristiano Ronaldo free kick any less beautiful because he’s wearing the latest Nike boots? Do you have any idea how many hours are spent developing the technology that’s built into things like the Nike Mercurial Vapor Superfly II ? Rest assured that Nike pays top-tier engineers a handsome wage to ensure that its boots are state-of-the-art. Should we take away Gonzalo Higauaín’s goal against Germany because he’s wearing Adidas TechFit ? Or maybe we should cancel the World Cup altogether because players will be kicking around the Jabulani , a ball that Adidas’ engineers had been working on since the day after World Cup 2006? This fear of technology “ruining” soccer is not only unfounded, but it’s simply ignorant of the fact that technology has always been part of the beautiful game, and it always will be. Arguing that the sport needs to be kept “pure” should result in a direct red card. (See what I did there?) As some of you may know, FIFA recently decided, at its regular meeting with soccer bigwigs in Zurich, that it won’t implement any form of goal line technology at this year’s World Cup, to be held in South Africa this June. Goal line technology—and there were two competing systems looking to gain FIFA’s seal of approval—would be used to help referees determine a goal’s validity. Not to get too “sporty,” but a goal in FIFA-sanctioned soccer matches is only valid if the entire ball crosses the goal line. Scenarios can arise when the ball only partially crosses the line—chaos ensues. Famous examples include a goal in the 1966 World Cup final between England and West Germany and a goal (pictured here, too) in the 2004-05 Champions League semi-final between Liverpool FC and Chelsea FC. (I’m sure a search for “disputed goals” will turn up many more examples.) In both cases, any form of goal line technology would be able to determine whether or not the ball had fully crossed the goal line, whether or not the goal should stand. Thanks, Daily Mail ! It’s here that the anti-technology crowd begins to get nervous. “OK, so say Chelsea wanted to challenge that Liverpool goal. What, is the ref going to stop the game, killing its flow and momentum in the process, mosey on over to a video monitor on the sidelines, and spend several minutes reviewing the footage?” Nice Doomsday scenario, but who says it has to be so cumbersome involved? Why can’t there be a fifth official whose sole job is to monitor, say, a Hawk Eye video monitor? Once a goal is challenged, this fifth official can view the play in question, the tell the main referee using the magic of a wireless microphone , “Nope, no goal.” Where in that chain of events does the integrity of the beautiful game break down, exactly? (And is that any more perverse than a family from Florida “buying” a club like Manchester United FC, only to saddle it with mountains of debt? Is it any more perverse than a team like Real Madrid CF taking advantage of favorable socio-economic connections to essentially buy trophies? Discussions for another day.) Technology has always been a part of soccer—you can thank British engineering for creating the ships that carried the people who spread the sport around the world—and pretending otherwise won’t make it so. What were the original balls made of, crude leather? Those may have been fine in Pichichi’ s day, but will we have to put asterisks next to the names of the top scorers of this year’s World Cup because they kicked the Adidas Jabulani into the back of the net and not a 12-inch diameter rock? Let’s cancel the Group Stage because all 32 teams are using kits developed by either Nike, Adidas, Puma, or whomever, kits that engineers spent years designing? In fact, let’s cancel the television coverage of the tournament—soccer can only be enjoyed, and should only be enjoyed, if you’re actually sitting in the stands! Goal annulled, wearing fancy Adidas kit What about that story of Adidas’ founder, at the time the German team’s equipment manager, outfitting Die Mannschaft with cutting-edge boots in the 1954 World Cup final against Hungary ? You ever watch the UEFA Champions League and wonder how they “know” how many kilometers this or that player has run? That’s ProZone , a technology that has been around for a few years. It helps managers analyze their players’ performances. “Look, Rooney, according to the data you’re running around entirely too much out there—you’re a striker not a mid-fielder. Try to hover inside the box more, and spend less time tracking back. Let the mid-field do its job; you do yours.” That conversation, apparently, should never happen, either. People argue, “Well, it’s a sport played by humans, and should thus be officiated by humans, and not the cold, unforgiving hand of technology.” What? I swear, every single Sunday and Monday you can find articles in The Guardian, The Times, and The Daily Mail arguing that referees are incompetent blunderers and should be hounded out of the game for good. Howard Webb this, Mike Riley that. The Spanish sports paper As has created an entire word, villarato , describing the abhorrent (well, whatever Real Madrid consider it abhorrent, or whenever FC Barcelona benefit) referring in La Liga. How about, instead of putting such enormous pressure on referees, then freaking out beyond all reason when they make a “bad” call, we allow technology to come in and help then? Have you ever driven a car without power steering? How many of you even know how to drive a manual transmission car? Oh, I get it: technology is fine so long as it doesn’t interfere when Saturday comes, right? Technology is here to help us, here to make gentle the life of the world. So let it help us!
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Monday, March 8th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
We’ve given you a first look at Iron Man 2 way back in June last year, and two months ago, we reported it will be Marvel’s first IMAX movie when it hits screens on May 7, 2010. It’s 2.32 minutes long and very, very cool. This is the official synopsis of the movie: Paramount Pictures and Marvel Entertainment present the highly anticipated sequel to the blockbuster film based on the legendary Marvel Super Hero Iron Man, reuniting director Jon Favreau and Oscar® nominee Robert Downey Jr. In Iron Man 2, the world is aware that billionaire inventor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is the armored Super Hero Iron Man. Under pressure from the government, the press and the public to share his technology with the military, Tony is unwilling to divulge the secrets behind the Iron Man armor because he fears the information will slip into the wrong hands. With Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and James Rhodey Rhodes (Don Cheadle) at his side, Tony forges new alliances and confronts powerful new forces. Here’s the new trailer (Trailer on Apple.com in HD ) And to make things complete, here is the first official trailer (released in December last year):
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Saturday, March 6th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
Is FIFA the worst organization on the planet? I’d say so. World soccer bigwigs have concluded a meeting in Zurich, and they’ve decided against implementing goal line technology at this year’s World Cup . Yes, why would you want to introduce a legitimately helpful technology into a sport that so desperately needs it? Ridiculous. FIFA’s general secretary, regarding the use of goal line technology at the biggest sporting event in humanity, said, “The door is closed. The decision was not to use technology at all.” It’s not even about whether or not the technology works—two competing systems were vying for FIFA’s attention—but whether or not “the future of [soccer] involves technology or not.” Of course it does! What kind of organization says, “Technology? Who needs that? Now let’s all hop on our private jets, listen to our iPods , read our nooks , go home, then pretend that everything’s OK.”? FIFA does! As I understand it, the technology would have been minimally intrusive. One involves a sensor being placed on the ball, which, granted, may not have been practical given how exact the Jabulani was engineered. The other would have used Hawk Eye , which is used in tennis all the time. And if there’s a “stuffier” sport out there than soccer, it has to be tennis. The point is, you want to believe that the game you’re watching is accurately managed. Referees have a hard enough time keeping up with the likes of Messi and Ronaldo , so why not use a technology that can tell you, instantly and definitively, that a goal is a goal? Don’t give me that nonsense that, “Oh, soccer is a fluid game, you don’t want it interrupted to double-check whether a goal was a goal or not.” Tell that to the people of Ireland . It’s like, what if the IRS wrote you a letter that said, “Yeah, we’re not 100 percent sure you owe us $10,000 in back taxes, but we’re just going to assume you do. Please send a check within the next 30 days to…” !@$@#~! It’s at this point that I should explain why I’m freaking out. Goal line technology would tell match officials, instantly and definitively, whether or not the ball has fully crossed the goal line—whether or not the goal is valid or invalid. It’s not like in baseball where one umpire’s strike zone differs from the next ump’s. No, a goal is: did the ball fully cross the line or not? It’s a binary operation. Did it cross? Yes? Then it’s a goal. No it didn’t? Then it’s not a goal. Simple as. I can think of several scenarios where goal line technology would have been helpful. How about the 1966 World Cup final between England and West Germany—you mean to tell me that the ball fully crossed the line right here? You’re lying through your teeth if you say the ball, indeed, fully crossed the line. More recently, what about that Champions League game between Liverpool and Chelsea a few years ago? Does the ball cross the line here? We’ll never know because FIFA refuses to embrace the one bit of technology that would, overnight, bring more justice to the sport than any other singular change! I cannot wait until a “big” country gets screwed over by a goal/non-goal call during the World Cup. I can guarantee than if England gets knocked out of the tournament based on a dodgy goal, one that could have been correctly called using goal line technology, we will not hear an end to the complaining on Sky Sports, in The Daily Mail, in The Guardian, in The Times, in The Sun (oh, God, The Sun will probably explode if that happens) and in every single pub in the country. Only then will FIFA do something about this garbage.
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Saturday, March 6th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a loquacious orator. I’ve never written an impassioned speech. I’m just a part-time tech blogger. But today I must do my best to motivate — nay, to inspire — you, the tech-savvy population of the Internet, to bring all of your design and engineering and user experience skills to bear on the problem of the modern era. Set aside your silly USB gadgets, and forget the Linux-vs-Windows debate. We need to concentrate on an issue that affects us all. Yes, I’m talking about the public restroom. The Situation I wrote in the summer of 1999 about my dislike for public toilets . It’s been a decade since I wrote that. In that time, my Palm III has been replaced by a Treo 650, then a Treo 700, then a Palm Centro, and finally an iPhone. In that time, hybrid cars have become commonplace on the streets of America. Wikipedia launched and collected more than 14 million articles. People of all technical ability now regularly pay their bills online. You can do video conferencing for free from your desktop computer! Advances have been made in every conceivable industry, and yet the public toilet is largely unchanged from what it was before the turn of the millennium. This cannot stand. Please bear in mind that I don’t spend much time in women’s restrooms, so my rage may be myopic. Ladies, if your toilet experience is superior to men’s, I beg your patience. I suspect, however, that everyone could benefit from a few simple modifications to the status quo of public toilets. As I observed in my 1999 complaint, public toilets are one of the most dehumanizing experiences of modern life, and yet we continue to make and use public toilets in the same way. Little privacy, poor sanitation, and a complete stripping away of personal dignity. In no other aspect of our lives do we put up with such a deprivation of basic civility. The building in which I spend most of my working day is only four years old, but already the bathrooms are filthy, and they only get worse as time progresses. I was depressed to see, during my trip to the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia, that the gorgeous new multi-million dollar buildings were equipped with entirely ordinary public toilets. The school wasn’t even fully opened yet and already the restrooms were unpleasant to look at, let alone use. I have identified a few common problems with public toilets, and I beg your indulgence as I list what are probably your own top complaints. Faucets There are two kinds of sink faucets in use in public restrooms: manual and automatic. The manual faucets are no fun to use, because the handles get covered in soapy water from the previous user, who may or may not have been thorough in washing their hands. Even if there are no germs, it’s just not comfortable to grip a soapy faucet handle. Automatic faucets are a great idea, but almost always fail in execution. The sensors are usually not sensitive enough, so users end up waving their hands around for some time under the faucet waiting for water to start flowing. Sometimes the neck of the faucet is too close to the basin, causing the user to touch the grimy basin itself. Or the neck is too high, causing water to splash unnecessarily out of the basin and onto the user’s pants. Surely there’s some elegant solution to the problem of hand washing in a public bathroom? There has to be some cost effective way to make an automatic faucet that allows one to clean their hands without making more of a mess. Soap The dispensation of soap in public bathrooms is another area just waiting for a great solution. Current dispensing technology, like faucets, is either manual or automatic. Manual dispensers suffer from many of the problems of manual faucets: they get covered in sticky, soapy water that no one wants to touch, and therefore fewer people wash their hands. Clearly this is not an acceptable solution. Automatic soap dispensers aren’t much better, though. They either don’t work, dispense too little product, or dispense too much product. Another problem with soap dispensers is their placement within the bathroom. Sometimes they’re over the sink, sometimes they’re off to the side. I can’t begin to count the number of automatic soap dispensers placed to the side of a sink that simply dispense their product all over the counter top, creating a huge goopy mess. As a clear cost-savings mechanism, there’s usually one soap dispenser placed between two sinks, causing users to wait their turn when the bathroom is busy. Hand Drying Just like soap dispensers, the mechanism for drying one’s hand is almost always poorly situated. Most often there’s a paper towel dispenser on a wall next to or opposite the sink. This causes the user to turn from the sink, dripping water all over the floor, and then make the dispensing lever all wet and yucky as they press it to get some towels. Assuming, of course, that the dispenser actually has product in it! Automatic hand dryers that blow air are no better in this situation, as the water is simply blown off the user’s hands and onto the floor. While I was in Japan, I marveled at the automatic hand dryers there. Each one had either a small shelf under it to collect waste water, or was a vertical clamshell design in which the user placed their whole hand, making the surrounding area much cleaner and drier. Of course, moving from the sink to the dryer still caused water to drip from one’s hands, so while the Japanese are on the right track, they still have considerable room for improvement. Personally, I prefer using a paper towel to dry my hands. I’m very conscious of the amount of towel I use, and try to maximize my drying with the minimum amount of towel. It pains me to see other people in the bathroom use huge reams of paper towels to dry their hands. They don’t even try to dry first, and then use more if they need it: they simply pull out fifteen paper towels and wad them up into a giant ball. But human behavior is not the point of this call to arms, so let’s side aside sloth and selfishness for a later discussion. Automatic paper towel dispensers hardly ever work. They’re too slow to respond when a user waves their hand past the sensor, assuming of course that the sensor can be found. With no clear standard design, and poor instructional markings, users are left to wave their hands over, under, and in front of dispensers until something happens. Obviously this results in water droplets splashing all around. The worst design I’ve seen — and I’ve seen it entirely too many times — is an automatic paper towel dispenser placed above or immediately adjacent to a sink. This seems at first blush like the right idea: minimize the amount of water that can be splashed around, make it easy for the user to wash and then dry their hands, and minimize the number of surfaces the user needs to touch. Unfortunately, this configuration almost always results in a never-ending stream of paper towels being dispensed directly into the sink, creating an even worse mess. Of course, the issue of paper waste also needs to be dealt with. Most trashcans in public restrooms are either too small for the volume of paper waste generated, or they’re not emptied often enough (or both!), resulting in lots of crumpled paper towels scattered on the floor around the trashcan. Flushing Urinal flushing technology seems mostly adequate, though urinal design itself could use some work. I suspect this largely my own problem, as a taller-than-average guy. For most men, I suspect the urinals work well enough for them. The flushing mechanism in stalls, though, needs a lot of work. Again, we have manual and automatic flushing. Manual flushing relies on the good behavior of the user, which is an unfortunate mistake. Automatic flushing, though, suffers from a number of design problems. The intent is well-meaning: a sensor behind the user detects when they move away and the flushing occurs automatically. In my experience, the sensor triggers as soon as I stand up, resulting in an inefficient and wasteful premature flush: I haven’t even wiped yet! When I’m done, I need to manually flush again by pressing a tiny little button embedded on a plate above the toilet. Why is the button behind me? Why do I need to turn around multiple times in the tiny stall? Wouldn’t it be better to have the flush button in front of me? And for that matter, why doesn’t the automatic flush mechanism trigger when the stall door is opened? This would, in my opinion, minimize a lot of wasteful flushing. Comfort As I complained in my 1999 screed, public toilets provide almost no comfort. They’re almost an afterthought in the building design process. The most architecturally stunning, human-friendly buildings of the common era have drab, semi-functional public toilets. Why is this? Why can’t we spend even a little extra money to provide privacy and comfort? I admit I have a shy bladder. I have a hard time urinating if I’m standing next to someone else. This is my own cross to bear, and I’m not asking for the world to change to accommodate me. But with just a little effort, we could all enjoy more privacy and comfort while attending to nature. Think about it: if you go camping, do you stand right next to your buddies while you all relieve yourselves? No, you spread out a bit to enjoy some privacy. Why then do we bunch men up in a row to take care of nature within the city limits? Utility Let’s face it: we use bathrooms because we have to. Why, then, is every public bathroom built exactly the same way, regardless of the kind of traffic that goes through the building? I’m thinking particularly of airports, train stations, and the like: people have luggage with them, but there’s almost no accommodation for this fact in any airport public bathroom. Heaven forbid you’re traveling alone with a bag of any size and need to use the toilet. At the urinal, your bag will stick out into the narrow aisle behind you, causing navigation problems for everyone. Or, your roller case will stand next to you, likely blocking an adjacent urinal. If you’re in the stall, best of luck! There’s barely any room for a human being, let along a human being with a bag. The Future In today’s world, we all cringe in disgust when we hear about how human waste was dealt with in centuries past. It is my hope — indeed, my vision — that future generations will cringe in disgust when they hear about the public toilets of the twenty first century. With your help, friends, we can make this vision a reality. I need your help, though. I need you to set aside your USB gadgets and your fanciful past times, and to apply your skills to this very real problem. Engineers, industrial designers, architects, user experience experts, efficiency experts, and every day people all need to pitch in to work together to resolve the problem of the public toilet!
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Thursday, March 4th, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
Yup , 90 million Windows 7 licenses sold. I think that means we can call it a success. Microsoft made the announcement this week at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, & Telecom Conference in San Francisco. The company’s CFO, Peter Klein, said the operating system has “terrific momentum.” What he should have said is that Windows XP came out in 2001, and people were waiting for a functional, new operating system from Microsoft since then. Clearly Vista, released in 2007, was the flop of all flops, even if it wasn’t nearly as bad as you’d be led to believe. Bad, but maybe not that bad , you know? And yes, I was one of those 90 million licenses—Windows 7 Home Premium has served my gaming PC quite well. I’m still a Mac guy at heart (meh, I guess, I’m not a zealot or anything!), but Windows 7 does the job quite nicely.
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
A Japanese company called Minebea has announced [press release in English] a series of input devices, namely a keyboard, remote control and calculator, that have three things in common: They are stylish (with a mirror look), offer no physical buttons and are really flat. Based on a “next generation” input system Minebea has dubbed COOL LEAF, the designers did away with all key tops. Instead, users will type or press “non-physical” buttons or characters on a shiny, flat mirror panel that has a light guide plate-type backlight. Minebea uses a special film made by Japanese chemical giant Toray in the flat top, and electrostatic capacity type touch panel with force sensors beneath and said backlight as the bottom layer. Another selling point (apart from the beauty-factor): Mineba says the devices (named Φ-QWERTY, Φ-Calcs, and Φ-Remote) are much easier to keep clean than their conventional counterparts. In the press release , Minebea is already speaking about commercializing the technology but doesn’t go into details. Via Tech-On
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Monday, March 1st, 2010
&h=&q=90&w=90&h=65&zc=1" class="alignleft" alt="">
A Tokyo-based venture called ideal Star [JP] has developed a new method that makes it possible to produce solar cells in the form of flexible and thin threads. The company is supported by a total of six Japanese universities and the government. The current prototype cell is 5cm long and just 0.8mm in diameter. ideal Star says the core consists of polymer material and is surrounded by an electrode layer, and layers for hole transport, power-generating (this layer is made from fullerene), electron transport and another (transparent) electrode layer. Once the company finds a way to make the threads longer, they could be woven into power-generating solar sheets or solar power fabrics for clothing or curtains. As a first practical application, sheets consisting of these threads will be used on rice paddies (while they are being rested) to generate solar power. The solar threads feature an energy conversion efficiency of just around 3%, but ideal Star claims 10% are possible. The picture above shows amperage being measured from one of the threads that’s exposed to light. ideal Star estimates mass-production of their products would be cheaper than that of standard silicon solar cells. For example, all layers in the threads are coated down, meaning production requires no expensive semiconductor manufacturing equipment. The company hopes to commercialize the technology within the next five years. Via The Nikkei [registration required, paid subscription]
Posted by Kevin Huffman
Tech
Friday, February 26th, 2010
So many cool things you can do with Arduino. The possibilities are endless now that we have the technology! Jazari has constructed this very elaborate solenoid/Arduino rig to play a myriad of instruments, all with two Wiimotes. Sure beats playing percussion in band back in high school. [ BoingBoing ]