Ride a Bike for 60mins - Power a Home for 24 Hours

[Peeps]

If the title doesn't make your bullshit-o meter fly off the charts then the video should.

[lm3baker]

If the title doesn't make your bullshit-o meter fly off the charts then the video should.

My  went through the roof at the words "cold fusion" .

Regarding the title, it depends what kind of home. Maybe you live-aboard a yacht and only use 10Ah per day from your 12V bank (gas fridge?) then the title should be quite achievable. The device in the video might give 100 to 150 wh per hour from a fit person after accounting for losses. For people on $2 a day, not so practical.

[SL4P]

"Con-fusion TV" ??
And I really don't like the oblique references to Nelson Mandela et al in the shaded titles...
A small, village each household pedalling for an hour each day... a max of 24 hours (realistically more like 6-18 - assuming they are dedicated).
All smells and sounds nice, but seems like a tricky way to get funding, and deliver very little in practical terms - except some fingers chopped off by the flywheel.

[FreddyVictor]

some years ago the BBC's Bang Goes the Theory did this but using 100 cyclists

[Ian.M]

The question is: how to get enough electricity to be useful using appropriate technology.   Bicycles are reasonably common in many 3rd word countries.  The question then becomes how to connect one or more  bicycles to a readily available, cheap but efficient generator.  The bicycles need to be unmodified to avoid cannibalisation as their value as transport exceeds their value for electricity generation.     For a generator, the cheapest and most readily available would be an alternator off a wrecked car.  Lets assume its a 70A Alternator and we want to get about half that.  35A @ 14V is 490W so lets shoot for a round 500W

Although a reasonably fit cyclist can sustain 100W, between malnourishment, children, age and poorly treated injuries, a 3rd world cyclist is unlikely to be able to sustain more than 50W so you would need 10 bicycles.    Coupling 10 bicycles to one alternator is not so simple, but its possible at a village bicycle mechanic/smith level.  Take two straight tree trunks, telegraph poles or similar.  Mount them closely spaced between pairs of truck hubs and bearings.  Couple the two trunks with two identical motorcycle sprockets and a chain.  Build up a pulley on one trunk for a belt drive to the alternator.   Plank over the tree trunks except where the bicycle rear wheels will go and build clamps to hold the bicycles vertical.   Skim the logs with a chisel where the wheels will run to get them running concentrically, and the same diameter, and paint with a mixture of paint and sand for a non-skid friction surface.  The setup would charge a salvaged car or truck battery and provide 12V power for uses such as lighting, phone charging,  powering radios etc.   

However if the terrain is sufficiently hilly and there is an available watercourse, a pitchback waterwheel  would be a much better use of resources.

[DmitryL]

Sounds good!
But you forgot a couple of minor things: some steel chains, collars, cuffs and a guy with a whip

[tszaboo]

I'm not a good cyclist. In fact I havent used a bicycle for a long time* but some time ago, a doctor put me on a bicycle to make a stress ECG. It is a stress ECG the load was increased until I pretty much blacked out. The peak power was some 300W ballpark figure.
I dont think you can operate anything from that amount of power.
Make a horse ride the bicycle. Or start living in the 21 century.


*I'm not really Belgian.

[Seekonk]

From a different point of view.  A solar panel and controller would be cheaper to build, easier to ship and easier to maintain.

[AndyC_772]

some years ago the BBC's Bang Goes the Theory did this but using 100 cyclists

They did indeed, and as far as it went, it was a good piece of educational TV. Helping people visualise, quantitatively, how much energy their normal day-to-day activities require was really worthwhile IMHO.

Unfortunately the show ended rather abruptly, and missed out the simple most obvious extension to the experiment. Deliberately so, IMHO.

For those who didn't see the show: the basic premise was that a family was invited to live in the home for a week, and although the audience knew where the home's electricity was coming from, the occupants didn't. Seeing, in terms of human effors, just how much energy is required for appliances like the kettle and (especially) the electric shower was quite the eye-opener.

At the end of the show, of course, there was the big reveal, laughs and smiles all round, with the entirely predictable subtext that the test subjects (and everyone watching, of course) should go off and consider ways to use less energy.

What they failed to do, though, was extend the experiment to see just what the test subjects could actually do during a second week in the house to substantially reduce their energy needs. Just how much difference does turning off a phone charger make? Is it really worth turning off a light in the bedroom while you go for a shower? What do you really have to do in order to save the poor guys on their bikes?

I strongly suspect that not doing this obvious part of the experiment was deliberate. "Go and think how you might save energy" is a nice, vague, politically fashionable take-home sound bite. "You need to face up to the reality that you'll be cold in winter and must stop taking showers" is not.

[DmitryL]

IMHO the best thing Brits can do to save energy is to demolish their draughty houses built in 60s-90s from dung mostly and build new ones with proper insulation/glasing etc..

[tszaboo]

From a different point of view.  A solar panel and controller would be cheaper to build, easier to ship and easier to maintain.

And million times more effective.
I always tell: Muscle power comes from food, creating food uses huge amount of fossil fuels and energy, while efficiency is very poor. Using muscles for transportation, energy generation and so on, and claiming to be "green" is one of the biggest fallacy ever.

[RobertBG]

From a different point of view.  A solar panel and controller would be cheaper to build, easier to ship and easier to maintain.

This has been tried but the panels have always been stolen although there is a project that uses micro finance to loan people the money for them.They have prevented the theft issue by incorporating a security feature that allows them to disable the panels.The same feature also allows them to disable the panel for nonpayment on the micro loan.

What a lot you fail to realize is there are people in this world that just a simple light bulb powered by a free renewable source can make a immense difference to them.Imagine having to tell your child that you cant afford to use the lamp to do their schoolwork because you need the fuel to feed them instead?When you know that education is the key to them escaping poverty.These people tend to use kerosene to fuel their lamps and the cost to them is a major portion of their income.They simply cant go and buy a solar panel and even if they could more then likely it'd be stolen instantly.

All in all this project has some merit to it although I think it's a little too high tech and costly for individual use.Maybe as a shared power station with shared generating duties etc etc.Hopefully it's not another "project" to help pad someones pockets more than actually helping the people that need it.

[helius]

I always tell: Muscle power comes from food, creating food uses huge amount of fossil fuels and energy, while efficiency is very poor. Using muscles for transportation, energy generation and so on, and claiming to be "green" is one of the biggest fallacy ever.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. During the video when the CEO is pedaling the bike, there is a .4s shot of a gauge panel. It reads 10A at 11V, or 110W. Now the question is, what can you do with daily .1 kWh of energy, or .4 MJ? Make a liter of coffee, or charge 22 cell phones, or light two "40W equivalent" leds for 7 hours. OK, not useless, but not bringing very much energy to people. The energy consumed by the pedaler is also going to increase their breathing and heart rate and raise their body temperature, so he will be using up much more than 95 kcal of food energy. In the prosperous West we think of food energy as free, since the cheapest foods are loaded with calories, but this isn't the case in poor countries.
The pitch for this scheme seems very cynical. "What separates poor countries is a lack of power, and we don't want them to build polluting power plants. Let's make them work for every erg!" A hand-held solar panel can produce about 7Wp, with no human effort. A 1 m² panel can capture 1.2 kWh/d in much of Africa. I suppose one advantage of the human dynamo is that it works at night.

[briselec]

And million times more effective.
I always tell: Muscle power comes from food, creating food uses huge amount of fossil fuels and energy, while efficiency is very poor. Using muscles for transportation, energy generation and so on, and claiming to be "green" is one of the biggest fallacy ever.

So that would mean fat couch potatoes hardly eat at all while fit gym junkies are always stuffing their face with food???
My observations don't seem to match your theory.

[EEVblog]

This guy could make toast, and then was buggered:


Average fit cyclist is about 500W at peak or so, do the math.

[helius]

So that would mean fat couch potatoes hardly eat at all while fit gym junkies are always stuffing their face with food???
My observations don't seem to match your theory.

Your observations are too vague to be of any use when it comes to theories. I assume you measured the BMI of all the fat couch potatoes you know?
When BMI is high, more power is needed to simply move from one place to another. Keep an eye on your office the next time the elevator is out of order and observe people coming out of the stairway. Eliminating the relatively rare cases of anemia or pulmonary insufficiency, fat people will look like they've been running for an hour and thin people won't.
People who spend a lot of time in the gym do not necessarily burn massive calories doing it, because strength training is not energy-intensive. For those who do aerobic exercise, their efficiency improves with experience and growth of the heart so their level of energy use is lower than a newcomer to the same activity.
As for face-stuffing, endurance athletes (not gym rats) indeed do it. I'm surprised you never heard of carbo loading.

[briselec]

yes I know of carbo loading but that's for competing in endurance events.  I used to cycle a minimum of 2 hours a day usually averaging over 30 kph without any noticeable increase in food intake which makes me  question your idea that using muscles for transportation is bad for the planet.

[miguelvp]

I'm agreeing with RobertBG on this one (go figure)

The 5hr energy CEO is not asking for any money, he is actually giving from his worth back to his needy country of origin.

The claims by reporters and articles and what I've heard on the videos are a mismatch. They claim that one hour of pedaling will maintain just the lightbulbs a little fan and charge a phone/tablet during the night only when needed, not a full 24 hours as the articles claim.

But since it's his own money he is throwing at the solution and not asking for anything other than just a look at what I'm doing maybe to change the views of others not as in a look at me how generous I am ego booster (although maybe there is a little of that but I doubt it).

Anyways, I didn't analyze all the videos from him to get the actual figures, but it's a good enough concept and he is right that energy is the great equalizer, we are too used to get power, not everyone is as privileged.

The target group are used to walk everywhere or light run so they actually do have the muscle to do the task. Not so long ago (well several hundreds of years for most civilizations) we all had to go get water from a common source, well or pump and labor to get the water.

So having light at night is a big deal. Kids can study and do homework get educated, etc.. during the daylight they are probably helping their family survive.

I mean even if I think I can put myself in their shoes (that is if they even have that) I really can't foresee all they have to deal with. Being able to use 16hr of the day compared to just daylight is a big deal.

Edit: scratch a big deal, it's a huge deal.

[chickenHeadKnob]

This guy could make toast, and then was buggered:


Average fit cyclist is about 500W at peak or so, do the math.

Meh, completely un-impressed  by Foerstener and his thunder thighs. He weighs 95 kilo's and only made 1 slice of toast. Consider greek Olympic cyclist Kanellos Kanellopoulos who must weigh around 60-68 kilos who piloted MIT's Daedalus 88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus on a 115 Km flight from Crete to Santorini. First you have to put in a huge initial burst of effort, - maybe 700 watts for 30 seconds to launch, then maintain 270 watts or so for the distance whilst piloting a flimsy aircraft over water without fainting for nearly four hours! (actual flight time 3:54). The aircraft did fold up right at the end due to turbulence.

[Delta]

yes I know of carbo loading but that's for competing in endurance events.  I used to cycle a minimum of 2 hours a day usually averaging over 30 kph without any noticeable increase in food intake which makes me  question your idea that using muscles for transportation is bad for the planet.

So if not from food, where do you think the energy converted by your muscles came from?

[free_electron]

they are doing it wrong. should have put a batterizer behind it.

[Aodhan145]

Tacx a company that makes turbo trainers have put power back into the grid with their genius. obviously you can only barley light a bulb with the amount of power. But they make turbo trainers not power generators thats is not the point of the product. Looks to be >70% efficient.
http://www.tacx.com/en/experience/about-tacx/background-information/powerback#tab_1

[tooki]

So that would mean fat couch potatoes hardly eat at all while fit gym junkies are always stuffing their face with food???
My observations don't seem to match your theory.

And then there's this:

[langwadt]

This guy could make toast, and then was buggered:


Average fit cyclist is about 500W at peak or so, do the math.

Meh, completely un-impressed  by Foerstener and his thunder thighs. He weighs 95 kilo's and only made 1 slice of toast. Consider greek Olympic cyclist Kanellos Kanellopoulos who must weigh around 60-68 kilos who piloted MIT's Daedalus 88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus on a 115 Km flight from Crete to Santorini. First you have to put in a huge initial burst of effort, - maybe 700 watts for 30 seconds to launch, then maintain 270 watts or so for the distance whilst piloting a flimsy aircraft over water without fainting for nearly four hours! (actual flight time 3:54). The aircraft did fold up right at the end due to turbulence.

power wise that is roughly similar to a single tour de france stage, http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/LKIDHLHMVJPXSKHRPXUDKHFK6E

Though in the tour they have to do it roughly 20 times in 3 weeks

here's a ~1hour time trial: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/athlete/workout/Z3JDD63H2UVGP77YSXNITPULAE

[thm_w]

yes I know of carbo loading but that's for competing in endurance events.  I used to cycle a minimum of 2 hours a day usually averaging over 30 kph without any noticeable increase in food intake which makes me  question your idea that using muscles for transportation is bad for the planet.

So if not from food, where do you think the energy converted by your muscles came from?

NANDBlog is half wrong: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/
Biking is more efficient than driving a gas powered car, and walking is about on par. You can go into details about how much more calories are consumed, how many are spend on maintenance of the vehicle and road, etc. But the general result is that cycling for transportation is greener than driving.

But if you are curious, additional exercise does not always mean an increase in calorie intake:

A study that involved both lean and obese kids and a study that demonstrates that a relatively short (3x10 min) but comparably hard workout (75% VO2max) is not going to make the sugar junkies crave for more - quite the opposite, it will reduce their appetite for carb(age) to a normal level [similar appetite-reducing effect were observed by Sim et al. (2013) in adult men and Rosenkilde

http://suppversity.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-fallacy-of-working-out-to-burn.html

People eat a lot more than they need to to survive, briselecs claim is not unreasonable.
http://authoritynutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/calorie-intake-in-usa.jpg