Power Generating Spacesuits 145
Maggie McKee writes "Piezoelectric sensors could help power future space missions. Astronauts' spacesuits may one day be covered in motion-sensitive proteins that could generate power from the astronauts' movement, according to futuristic research being conducted by a new lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US. Such 'power skins' could also be used to coat future human bases on Mars, where they could produce energy from the Martian wind. Eventually, the biologically derived suits might even be able to heal themselves."
Power generating? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, I just love the capitalisation of "Could" in mid-sentence.
Great, but ask the astronauts first... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't this make it harder to move? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interstellar vapor (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, got carried away a little. So, this guy, who actually patented the naturally occurring protein which generates electricity in response to vibration, and so presumably knows what he's talking about, has no earthly clue how this power could be utilized. What is the article about then, exactly? Is it to draw attention to an interesting peculiarity of some organic compound? That's nice. But why is it covered in bad CG depicting people and machinery in vaguely otherplanetary landscapes?
Re:Why piezo-electric? (Score:2, Insightful)
>pressurized ball point pen that would work in zero gravity and USSR
>deciding to use a pencil comes to my mind.
Every try sharpening a pencil in space? The bits of graphite and wood shavings floating around are quite annoying.
Re:The energy doesn't come from nowhere (Score:3, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. The amount of power possible is just minute - enough to run a few LED lights and maybe a micro-radio. (and then only as long as you don't broadcast)
Whoopie!
It's like the guy who wanted to generate power from the falling water in his rain gutters....
Not Credible (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not Credible (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's an example: Suppose Motor A is 20% efficient. For concreteness, let's say that it takes 100 J in every second. Then 80 J are wasted every second. How would one go about constructing a motor that's twice as efficient? One would have to design Motor B in such a way that it wastes half as much energy. So, it would waste "only" 40 J every second, meaning that it converts 60% of the energy given to it into work. That is, it is 60% efficient. Twice as efficient as a 20% efficient motor.
Indeed, say you're deciding between Motor A and Motor B for an application that requires exactly 20 J/s output. Motor A would require 100 J/s input energy. Motor B would require 33.3 J/s input energy. Twice as efficient.
Looking at the 10,000 times more efficient figure, we see that the new material produces 1/10,000th the waste of the previous best material. Assuming the previous best was 80%, the new best wastes