PDA

View Full Version : Macworld Head Turners: Electric Flying Car, Toilet Paper Roll iPod Speaker


MacRumors
Jan 18, 2008, 02:42 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

There were a lot of great products that we've seen on the Macworld floor, but there are some that especially catch your eye. Sometimes it's the display, sometimes it's the product itself. I'll let you be the judge for these two that caught our eye.

Zap! Copter

A green modified Volkswagen with a propeller on top and a jet-pack on the back? At Macworld no less? Hmm...

Zap! is a company that sells electric cars, and in all reality, the purpose of the display was to demonstrate the company's new initiative to incorporate iPod integration with its cars. But everyone who was stopping by the booth just couldn't get over the fact that this thing looked like it was a hybrid car/jet helicopter.

The Zap! spokeswoman attending the booth stated that while the model on the floor was a "prototype" and not capable of flight, if enough pre-orders were received, they'd make it get off the ground. My thoughts? Using a crane, maybe. Still, if you're in the market for an electric car that works with your iPod, check out Zap's website.

iPod Stereo Dock and Toilet Tissue Dispenser

Some people take the newspaper. Some like magazines. Perhaps a good romance novel is your fancy? Whatever you do to pass the time while using the lavatory, wouldn't it be nice to have some background music?

The "iCarta", made by Atech Flash Technology, combines a toilet tissue holder with an iPod speaker system. It is compatible with all iPods with dock connectors and beyond due to its USB port for 1st generation iPod shuffles and line-in port for other devices. There are 4 speakers: 2 woofers and 2 tweeters, and in my quick listening in the noisy hall, it actually sounded pretty decent for what it was (mind you, this is no Bose system).

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/18/macworld-head-turners-electric-flying-car-toilet-paper-roll-ipod-speaker/)

arn
Jan 18, 2008, 02:45 AM
(mind you, this is no Bose system).

... or other system you might think is good. ;)

arn

ogee
Jan 18, 2008, 06:21 AM
So what Volkswagen is it based on? It looks more like a bastardised Italian delivery trike or a Reliant Robin to me :)

DocStone
Jan 18, 2008, 06:49 AM
iCrap.

Almost as much fun as taking your laptop into the bathroom....then it becomes the craptop.

bmorris
Jan 18, 2008, 08:07 AM
this has been out.
they have it the journeyed catalog for college students.
i dont know they think college kids would need it...

mashinhead
Jan 18, 2008, 08:08 AM
iCrap.

Almost as much fun as taking your laptop into the bathroom....then it becomes the craptop.

what's funny is my dad got my sister a macbook for xmas, and they gave them one of these free, which became her bday present. it's pretty bulky but doesn't take a lot to hang.

mozmac
Jan 18, 2008, 09:06 AM
If your toilet and shower on in the same room, this would be great! I love listening to music while I shower, but hate taking the "craptop" in there.

Clive At Five
Jan 18, 2008, 11:18 AM
100% electric? With a jet engine? Waaaaiiit a second..........

Sure sure, I know the jet-engine isn't active in that
"prototype." Don't get all technical on me.

If they wanted an eco-friendly solution, though, they should contemplate hydrogen propulsion. Burn the stuff and make water, yeah baby, yeah.

-Clive

Gasu E.
Jan 18, 2008, 03:06 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)



iPod Stereo Dock and Toilet Tissue Dispenser

Some people take the newspaper. Some like magazines. Perhaps a good romance novel is your fancy? Whatever you do to pass the time while using the lavatory, wouldn't it be nice to have some background music?

The "iCarta", made by Atech Flash Technology, combines a toilet tissue holder with an iPod speaker system. It is compatible with all iPods with dock connectors and beyond due to its USB port for 1st generation iPod shuffles and line-in port for other devices. There are 4 speakers: 2 woofers and 2 tweeters, and in my quick listening in the noisy hall, it actually sounded pretty decent for what it was (mind you, this is no Bose system).

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/18/macworld-head-turners-electric-flying-car-toilet-paper-roll-ipod-speaker/)

iPot

Orng
Jan 18, 2008, 03:14 PM
iCrap.

Almost as much fun as taking your laptop into the bathroom....then it becomes the craptop.

And if you put it on the kitchen counter it becomes a George Forman Grill! :D

Macbook Pro + bathroom = 3rd degree burns. :) Yowie!

Willis
Jan 18, 2008, 07:32 PM
iCrap.

Almost as much fun as taking your laptop into the bathroom....then it becomes the craptop.

+1

still enjoyable though... ahh the wonders of wireless XD

lind0834
Jan 23, 2008, 11:35 AM
It's not a Modified VW. It's a modified Xebra Sedan, just go look at Zap's site.

Lord Sam
Jan 26, 2008, 08:25 AM
Flying car. Lol. Whoever thought that up!? Just think, in 50 years, we'll all be driving our flying car's like in some sort of twisted Star Wars episode.

MikeTheC
Jan 26, 2008, 10:20 AM
If there's gonna be a main rotor involved, and you're going to have iPod integration in something, then may I suggest the following kind of worthy vehicle:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1830/biglittleairwolf01kr4.png

Lord Sam
Jan 27, 2008, 02:16 PM
I still can't get over that flying car thing...

Tosser
Jan 28, 2008, 07:25 AM
If they wanted an eco-friendly solution, though, they should contemplate hydrogen propulsion. Burn the stuff and make water, yeah baby, yeah.

-Clive

Hydrogen isn't an energy source – it's a carrier of energy. Much like a battery or a jerry can.

DukeofAnkh
Jan 29, 2008, 09:25 AM
Hydrogen isn't an energy source – it's a carrier of energy. Much like a battery or a jerry can.

Um. Because burning hydrogen definitely isn't what gets shuttles into space...

Unless you're talking about hydrogen fusion in which case, well, that's not finding its way into cars any time soon, especially since, y'know the only way to do it at the moment is in a super collider or a bomb.

Sorry for the OT, but the geek in me had to clarify.

Tosser
Jan 29, 2008, 09:30 AM
Um. Because burning hydrogen definitely isn't what gets shuttles into space...

Unless you're talking about hydrogen fusion in which case, well, that's not finding its way into cars any time soon, especially since, y'know the only way to do it at the moment is in a super collider or a bomb.

Sorry for the OT, but the geek in me had to clarify.

Well, then you ought to look up the definition of "energy carrier" as opposed to "energy source".

The reason hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an energy source, is that you have to use energy to produce hydrogen –in other words, you cannot "simply" find it in the ground and burn it.

Anyway, have your pick – it might well satisfy the geek in you :p

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=hydrogen+energy-carrier&btnG=Search

DukeofAnkh
Jan 29, 2008, 10:18 AM
Well, then you ought to look up the definition of "energy carrier" as opposed to "energy source".

The reason hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an energy source, is that you have to use energy to produce hydrogen –in other words, you cannot "simply" find it in the ground and burn it.

Anyway, have your pick – it might well satisfy the geek in you :p

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=hydrogen+energy-carrier&btnG=Search

Well then by that definition petrol - the kind that goes in cars - is an "energy carrier" not and "energy source" since after you find it in the ground there is still a whole lot of refining to do before you can put it in a car. In fact, that's what the wiki for energy carrier says. However, it's most commonly referred to as an energy source, so I don't see why hydrogen should get the carrier distinction.

For that matter, Wiki's definitions for "energy carrier" and "energy source" are almost identical, so perhaps this argument is moot. (Not that Wiki is the be all and end all of human knowledge, but since I'd already clicked on it...)

In light of that, perhaps we might just agree to disagree? :)

Tosser
Jan 29, 2008, 10:47 AM
Well then by that definition petrol - the kind that goes in cars - is an "energy carrier" not and "energy source" since after you find it in the ground there is still a whole lot of refining to do before you can put it in a car. In fact, that's what the wiki for energy carrier says. However, it's most commonly referred to as an energy source, so I don't see why hydrogen should get the carrier distinction.

That is not true. With petrol you refine it, that is not something you do with hydrogen. Hydrogen you _produce_, just like you _produce_ electricity. I can understand why it might be a bit confusing, as the end product, the hydrogen/petrol can both be burned. But it is the preceding step that matters. Hydrogen is the same as electricity, a jerrycan (filled with petrol) or even a battery, and as such it is an energy carrier. And that is how it is defined by everyone working with this stuff.


For that matter, Wiki's definitions for "energy carrier" and "energy source" are almost identical, so perhaps this argument is moot. (Not that Wiki is the be all and end all of human knowledge, but since I'd already clicked on it...)

Wiki is usually good. But there are numerous other sources out there that will agree with me on this point. And the differentation is what makes hydrogen powered vehicles (or vessels or what have you) quite difficult to implement in a proper, useful, non-polluting way – at least for a broad market. You need some sort of production-facility (no, a refinery isn't the same) to make this (it could just as well be a battery – hence the term "fuel cells", because both are carriers of energy, not sources.).

In light of that, perhaps we might just agree to disagree? :)

It's fine by me if we agree to disagree, but by doing so, you're disagreeing with everyone that works with this – isn't that sort of "anti-geeky"? ;)

Lord Sam
Jan 29, 2008, 01:10 PM
Well, then you ought to look up the definition of "energy carrier" as opposed to "energy source".

The reason hydrogen is an energy carrier and not an energy source, is that you have to use energy to produce hydrogen –in other words, you cannot "simply" find it in the ground and burn it.

Anyway, have your pick – it might well satisfy the geek in you :p

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=hydrogen+energy-carrier&btnG=Search Sorry. The geek in me isn't coming out. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nuclear fusion of hydrogen whatsit? I know Terminal, and programming, but not that... better brush up on my science.:D

Tosser
Jan 29, 2008, 01:19 PM
Sorry. The geek in me isn't coming out. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nuclear fusion of hydrogen whatsit? I know Terminal, and programming, but not that... better brush up on my science.:D

With a slight paraprase of Steve Balmer:

"Diversify! Diversify! Diversify!" :D

rstansby
Jan 29, 2008, 04:39 PM
Sorry to get "geeky" on you but I think you were the first one in this thread to refer to the term "energy source".

DukeofAnkh
Jan 29, 2008, 07:15 PM
That is not true. With petrol you refine it, that is not something you do with hydrogen. Hydrogen you _produce_, just like you _produce_ electricity. I can understand why it might be a bit confusing, as the end product, the hydrogen/petrol can both be burned. But it is the preceding step that matters. Hydrogen is the same as electricity, a jerrycan (filled with petrol) or even a battery, and as such it is an energy carrier. And that is how it is defined by everyone working with this stuff.

<snip>

It's fine by me if we agree to disagree, but by doing so, you're disagreeing with everyone that works with this – isn't that sort of "anti-geeky"? ;)

OK, well having clicked around abit more, I'm willing to concede your correctness, though it still seems like a fairly arbitrary difference in definitions. Sorry for starting a pointless debate - I really should try to avoid scientific arguments at 3:30 am ;)

Tosser
Jan 29, 2008, 10:48 PM
Sorry to get "geeky" on you but I think you were the first one in this thread to refer to the term "energy source".

True that – I was making a point: Namely, that hydrogen being an energy carrier is not by itself the end-all environmental saviour suggested. It depends heavily on whether that energy stored like that is produced environmentally correct: Just like electricity.

And by doing so, I addressed the flaw in this thinking:

If they wanted an eco-friendly solution, though, they should contemplate hydrogen propulsion. Burn the stuff and make water, yeah baby, yeah.



Hence the need to differentiate …

And, Duke,

I like these discussions – even more so at 3.30 am (btw, as I'm writing this, the little hand creeps very close to 6 am around here :p