Using Gym Rats' Body Power to Generate Electricity 338
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "A Hong Kong health club is hoping that a car battery, some StairMasters and dozens of gym rats can help ease the world's energy problems. It is just one of a wave of projects that are trying to tap the power of the human body, the Wall Street Journal reports. The article explains the impetus behind the project: 'The human power project at California Fitness was set in motion by Doug Woodring, a 41-year-old extreme-sports fanatic and renewable-energy entrepreneur, who pitched the experiment to the gym's management last May. "I've trained my whole life, and many megawatts have been wasted," says Mr. Woodring, who has worked out at the Hong Kong gym for years. "I wanted to do something with all that sweat."'"
can they also make a contraption... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:can they also make a contraption... (Score:5, Funny)
it would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "fat farm".
Re:can they also make a contraption... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of people are driven by an inner need to do physical exertion on a regular basis. Gym memberships are full of such people. It's a rewarding pursuit to get up and do something physically active.
So there are all these people, engaging in utterly useless labour. They're picking up heavy things and putting them down over and over, running on treadmills, that sort of thing.
And I get to thinking... that we have all this stuff that could be done around here.
Re:can they also make a contraption... (Score:5, Interesting)
been there, done that:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/27/biodiesel_fr
Re: (Score:2)
Larry Rome, a biology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, recently launched a company called Lightning Packs that aims to sell backpacks that generate electricity from the jiggling motion of walking. In a recent test, his prototype was able to produce about 15 watts of power from the up-and-down motion of the pack.
I was thinking something along the same lines, though harnessing energy from the up-and-down motion of fat bellies, fat asses, thunder thighs, etc..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh sure, make a joke at someone elses expense... (Score:4, Insightful)
We accept each others differences when it comes to race, religion, sexuality but since being fat is "unhealthy" then it's unacceptable. I call bullshit on that. There are no special exceptions when it comes to bigotry.
But I'm not telling anyone what to do, just making an observation.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
With a name like "Beardo the Bearded", it may not be a choice.
Re: Does it affect me? (Score:3, Insightful)
My brother-in-law is tipping the scales at 450+ lbs. He goes out of his way to make eating easier. He stores food on the couch
He's not a bad guy, but he does have psychological issues. His obesity is completely elective - when he was dating
I can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Are you working on the assumption (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you working on the assumption that treadmills require electricity? Because I can tell you from experience that they do not. My grandparents had an antique treadmill that still worked 10 years ago (I have no idea what happened to it after they died), and there was no electricity involved.
If your merely stating that treadmills are not as efficient at generating electricity (or if there is some joke I'm just not getting, which is quite possible), then I won't disagree with you on that one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Schwarzenegger beat them to it (Score:2, Funny)
Ahnald, you've come a long way...baby.
Inefficient use of human body (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.
I guess the best thing about this is that it might raise some people's awareness of how much energy different electrical devices use during the day and might help them remember to shut them off and think of energy efficiency when they buy new equipment.
The good thing about the way the human body works is not how much energy we use or generate, our biggest strength in this is the precise and versatile we can use our bodies and the energy we generate from the our food intake.
For example I bet you can save a lot more energy and pollution from exercising by getting wood for heating than you would ever be able to make by exercising a stair machine or spinning device.
Re:Inefficient use of human body (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Try generating 200W of electrical power with your body, and see how long you can keep it up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I do have to wonder, though, wouldn't the electrical savings eventually pay for the generators? Or maybe they could come up with some kind of system to turn a fan, so that there won't be a need f
Re:Inefficient use of human body (Score:5, Insightful)
It's much easier to *save* energy than to *create* it.
Replacing 10 of the ligth-bulbs in the gym with modern low-energy ones would've had a larger effect on energy-savings, and would've costed less than the $15.000 this cost.
It's a gimmick, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree with what you are saying I wish people wouldn't prefix "chemicals" with "nasty". It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of chemistry and is anthropomorphizing a non-living thing.
The plastic that the battery is surround in is a chemical, the clothes you where are made of chemicals, the food you eat is chemicals. There are no "nasty" chemicals. There are certainly chemicals that are dangerous to us and there are chemicals that are difficult to dispose of and plenty of other classificatio
Re:Inefficient use of human body (Score:5, Insightful)
So, with an order of magnitude improvement, (i.e. $1500 not $15.000) in price, you'd still be looking at 8.2 years of 10 hour days for payback. (or on the order of 20 years or more for more typical gym-use) this for equipment that is typically replaced after aproximately 3-5 years.
Harvesting "human power" will never be able to do much for your energy-bills. It can make sense for other reasons though. For example, a handy that is powered by movement, and thus stays charged forever aslong as you're walking/moving would be a very practical thing to have for many people. I'd love this in my GPS too: I only bring it along when I go hiking in the mountains anyway, if my movements could somehow supply the (small; sub 1w) power-requirements it'd mean I could have it on all the time and never worry about running out of batteries again, rather than turning it on to log a certain point-of-interest only occasionally during the hike as I do today.
With low-enough energy-demands I could see this for for example remote-controls or wireless game-controllers too. Never having to replace batteries is a nice thing, more for practical reasons than for cost-reasons. (rechargable batteries aren't that expensive anyway)
Infantry also has need for gadgets. Many of them would benefit from being able to work indefinitely without access to recharging and/or new batteries. (nigth-vision, GPS, radio, led-torches, ...)
For those who don't know what a "handy" is (Score:4, Informative)
The reference to "handy" is probably meaningless to most Slashdotters, but it's what Germans call a mobile telephone. I have no idea if the term is in use in Austria or Switzerland, but I've seen it used in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lance Armstrong can crank out around 300W for 100 miles or so, and 600+ when he puts the hurt on.
When I'm in decent shape, I can hold onto 200W for awhile (either on bike or rowing ergometer), but not long enough to generate 1 kWh in a sitting.
At minimum wage, 1 kWh generated by a human (@ 200W/hour) would cost $25+. Even in low-wage companies this is not cost-competitive. At all.
Human-generated power is a great educational tool, but absolutely trivial as an energy source.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't respirate all that oxygen for nothing !
You're missing the point... (Score:2)
If you do distance as I do, that's a decent amount of power not used on the grid if my energy is going 100% into making the thing work, instead of the grid fee
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, lets' see . . .
below zero(F) temps with high winds
Sunset prior to the end of the work day
Precipitation
Treacherous footing
narrow roads with high snow banks
I love to run outside, but it's not worth frostbite, a twisted knee or ankle, or being hit by a car.
Re:Inefficient use of human body (Score:4, Insightful)
For one person yes, but if you have hundred or thousands of customers per day pedalling/rowing/stairstepping, it adds upp quickly
I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.
a) People in big cities rarely have good places outdoors to run. b) If it is winter and snowy, it can be difficult to excercise outside too. c) Some people prefer to build muscles over doing cardiovascular excercise. d) Heating and lighting a gym isn't more wasteful than heating and lightning any other room.
I guess the best thing about this is that it might raise some people's awareness of how much energy different electrical devices use during the day and might help them remember to shut them off and think of energy efficiency when they buy new equipment. The good thing about the way the human body works is not how much energy we use or generate, our biggest strength in this is the precise and versatile we can use our bodies and the energy we generate from the our food intake. For example I bet you can save a lot more energy and pollution from exercising by getting wood for heating than you would ever be able to make by exercising a stair machine or spinning device.
Now these points I agree with 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inefficient use of human body (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
10 minute drive to the gym (at an average fo 30MPH, 5 miles)
1 or 2 hours in the gym.
10 minute drive back.
So 80 - 140 minutes total. At a brisk 5MPH jog, you can get to the gym and back on foot in 120 minutes and on bike (~8MPH) in 75 minutes. You get a better quality workout, pay no gym fees, and it doesn't cost you anything in gas for your car.
And this doesn't count the 10 minutes or so most people spend driving aroung the lot, looking for a parking space that's closest to th
Re: (Score:2)
No, you get a lower-quality workout. Jogging does little to build muscle, it's mostly about fitness and endurance, two things which can be developed in a gym without blowing out your knees.
Running/Jogging is actually horribly hard on the human body, and if you love yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, just like a cat's body is designed to fall 100 feet and still survive. It doesn't mean it's a good idea for cats to be jumping off of buildings.
The human body is designed first and foremost to walk. We're far better at that than anything else. We're bad at sitting, at standing still, and even pretty bad at lying down. But we're excellent at walking.
Running is pushing that ability. It's necessary and we are designed to do it for short stints, but we're not really me
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of many people that live within 5 miles of ANYWHERE they usually need to go...much less the gym.
Not to mention, when I leave the gym...I'm exhausted...I do good to get in the car, drive home and collapse for awhile before having to get up and cook dinner...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't care about the calories I could have burned, they're insignificant compared to the calories I burn from deadlifting and squatting. All it's going to do is keep me away from my post workout protein shake and boost my cortisol levels. Deadlifting is far better for burning energy than jogging. If I wanted to run, I'd do some 40 meter sprints in m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you can make the argument that powerlifting builds muscle mass and thus burns more calories at rest. Jogging raises your metabolism and essentially does the same thing.
The number of calories burned is somewhat irrelevant though. For optimum health, you need both aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Balance is good.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I grew up in a house that had no heat except for wood. We cut up tree tops left behind by loggers and dropped any trees that didn't look healthy or were in a cluster.
It was good excercise, but also incredibly dangerous and we created pollution in the process. Chainsaws, tractor, log splitter, etc. I can't imagine cutting wood without these machines. At least not for the big farm house we lived in. I guess that's why th
Re:Inefficient use of human body (Score:5, Insightful)
While that's true, running isn't ever going to replace gyms. Two immediate reasons are that running does little or nothing for building up muscle bulk, and it's a high impact exercise (as opposed to something like swimming or cycling, where you're not pounding the pavement the whole time).
Re: (Score:2)
One beneficial effect might be, as you say, to raise awareness of energy. It's confusing and annoying that there are many different units for the same thing: power measured in watts or in horsepower, energy measured in joules, calories (and remember the confusion between calories and kilocalories), kilowatt hours, British thermal units and other nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To put this in perspective, this is like saying each person is outputting sufficient energy to boil 166 jug kettles simultaneously.
Please, think about your numbers before you post them. I think you mean a kilowatt. These people would be hotter than the Human Torch, people would be running, screaming, their lycra pants melting from their roasting flesh.
While I agree that the wasted energy which is ordinarily all just converted into heat in the
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way that he's getting megawatts out of a gym, in any reasonable scope of time.
Most stationary bikes use human power to turn themselves on, which is nice, I guess, but the physics of the situation make his pipe dream unrealistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right, but at the same time, I don't really see the harm in trying to do something with the energy that people dump into, say, a flywheel when riding a stationary bike. Currently it just spins around to produce resistance, so why not have it turn a little generator? Bring your rechargable batteries with you to the gym, plug them in, and walk out with them recharged! I agree that it ce
Re: (Score:2)
Heat pumps are far over-unity for the heat they move vs the energy they are fed. This neatly counteracts the low efficiency of generating heat through human effort.
Storing the energy in batteries would be a very minor way of moving heat out of the gym compared to powering the aircon.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point! I don't have anything to add, I just wanted to say that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.
Ever live in a colder climate and suffer from asthma? Going running just isn't going to work here for at least 3 months of the year. Plus my knees/ankles took such a beating from playing soccer for 15 years that I need low impact workouts. I'll ride my bike 10-15 miles/night during the summer, but I can't do that when it's cold. Plus the gym has a nice varity of equipment to give me a full body workout.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HTH
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue that the energy cost would be offset by t
Re:Inefficient use of human body (Score:4, Insightful)
When our bodies burn sugar we exhaust CO2, yes. But since this CO2 was originally taken from the air during the growth of the plant, there is no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. The food we eat is grown in our atmosphere; thus we have a CO2-circle. If this natural CO2-circle somehow was unstable and more CO2 was released than what was consumed we would not be living today. Think before you write.
This would be an environmetal benefit if we compare to generating the same energy by burning fossil fuel. Say coal. Burning coal is not part of the CO2 cycle - thus it adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The danger is NOT CO2; but from where the C in CO2 come frome. Why do you always get this wrong, its quite irritating.
Also I guessed the first reply to this post would correct you, but noo.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But they got those fossil fuels on Earth so there should be no net change on Earth from having an intake of additional fuels/energy. It's not like they were going to the moon, mars, or venus and bri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say it's just one of a wave of projects that are trying to tap the venture capital being thrown at "environmental-yet-supposedly-profitable" schemes.
"I wanted to do something with all that sweat." (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Stupid! It Burns! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
solve america's weight problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I read once that prisons a couple of centuries ago would sell the energy generated by people doing "hard labour". The idea was that you would have to walk on something like a stairmaster for much of the day, which turns a shaft, which goes through the wall of the prison into the mill next door and does real work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans can sustain about 1/10th horsepower. At that, you'd have to work out for 12+ hours, non-stop, to make maybe 2 cents worth of electricity.
That's with no mention of efficiency, maintenance, infrastructure, etc.
I don't think 1/20th of a cent per hour you exercise on a stationary bicycle is going to be much motivation to people... especially when a gym membership is $20+ per month to start with.
It's probably
How about (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So toggle charging by the dynamo based on a tilt switch and a delay. Bike goes downhill for more than a couple seconds, start charging. Bike goes uphill for more than a second, stop charging.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can still get generators for running lights at night, probably not much different from the one I had when I was very young, back in the 1970's.
I have hydraulic disks on my commuting bike. Sometimes I want to just drag the brake slightly if I am waiting
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience, quite a bit of resistance is added to my peddling, and that's just to light up a puny bike headlight!
can you do the maths for me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only one Matrix reference in 25 comments? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The sad realization that the second and third movies sucked?
Walt Disney never pictured this (Score:5, Funny)
[holds up a Duracell battery]
Mickey Mouse:: No, I don't believe it. It's not possible!
Morpheus:: I didn't say it would be easy, Mickey. I just said it would be the truth.
Wow! (Score:2)
Cranking out "many megawatts" (which is energy per unit time) is beyond extreme sports - he's better than a frickin' Diesel generator! I want to be on his team!
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're thinking of Chuck Norris [chucknorrisfacts.com].
I've got a better idea (Score:2, Funny)
Fallout (Score:2, Informative)
Help Cut and Move Some Stone (Score:3, Interesting)
Gilligan's Island? (Score:2, Funny)
usefully applying human power (Score:5, Interesting)
Poor Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
A much better way to capture human power would be to scrap the power sink (the friction mechanism, for instance) and replace it with a real electrical generator, not just some dynamo rated for a couple of watts. With the proper power electronics, you can adjust the mechanical resistance that the human feels by adjusting the electrical power drawn from the generator. This would be similar to how regenerative braking works in hybrid cars. The braking action can be soft or hard, depending on the pedal input, and works by modulating the power drawn out of the generator and into the battery bank. Like a hybrid car, the mechanical resistance (i.e., traditional brakes) becomes almost superfluous.
This system would allow you to capture far more of the human power and convert it to electricity. With a well-chosen generator and well-designed power electronics, the conversion efficiency can be over 75%. For a human producting 100 W on a stationary bike (a decent workout), that would be 75 W of electricity.
This idea does, however, require a more substantial redesign or retrofit of the existing equipment, designed into the equipment and the gym from the beginning. As a result, I think it is unlikely to come about anytime soon. It would be a fun home project, however. Anyone know if Make Magazine has done something with this?
Never used, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've seen it. It's full of sweaty, unhappy looking people in awkward clothing. You're better off going for a walk instead.
easier said than done (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You couldnt give that away in Siberia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I actually ran the numbers once. I was sitting there on an exercise bike in the basement
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a ballpark estimation of the practicality of human power generation.
Let's assume that a person who's profession was power generation would be highly fi
Re: (Score:2)
Are your panties in a bunch, or do you always react this way when someone uses a common colloquialism?
Beach rats. Mall rats. Surf rats. They're self-adopted labels and not derogatory. Same goes for gym rats.
Re: (Score:2)