Solar LCD Powered iPods, iPhones and Laptops?

[dicklacara]

Don't stop there...

Methane is a wasted source of huge potential power. How about a "PIMP", Personally Implemented Methane Power, device that would gather methane and convert it into electricity to continuously charge your iPhone...

...where would you plug it in

On further reflection...

I had to take a short library break and it gave me more time to think.

The PIMP acronym does not properly connote the idea of personal methane use. Rather, BUM, Built-in Use of Methane, says it much better!

It could be used in many products and would improve Apple's image with the "Greenies".

There would be the iPhoneBUM, MacBookBUM... and for the anal-retentive, the TouchBUM.

 

[CWallace]

It's a nice idea from a PR standpoint, but how effective will it be?

My iPhone spends most of it's time in a flip-case, so it would only see the sun for a few seconds a day. I suppose if you had an occupation where you spent all-day outside you could leave your iPhone in an open-faced holder, but again, how much light will it receive? And would one be worried about damage to the screen in certain occupations?

As to laptops, sunlight glare on the screen is bad enough, but now you have to adjust your screen to make it worse in order to maximize the amount of radiant sunlight it receives. I would think it would be better to put them on the back of the display so you can aim the back at the sun and help shade the LCD, but then that ruins the aesthetics.

I can only really see it viable on the iPod Nano since joggers put them on their upper arms which would get decent sun. And while the screen/panel area would be small, so is the power drain of those machines so it might prove itself useful.

 

[notjustjay]

I really like the idea a previous poster suggested, capturing energy from motion like some wristwatches do. Surely everyone's iPhone and iPod spends a lot of time bouncing around in a pocket, handbag or backpack. If that movement can be harnessed...

Wristwatches can do this because they require very little power, I don't know how viable this would be with current technology.

 

[jmerk]

uhhh...use the back?

when i last checked an iPhone, the entire back was "unused." why not just cover the back with a solar cell? i know that calculators are small and don't use nearly the power of an iPhone but if those tiny solar collectors can power one of those, why couldn't you cover the entire back of the iPhone with solar cells and get a decent amount of return?

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

It's a nice idea from a PR standpoint, but how effective will it be?

My iPhone spends most of it's time in a flip-case, so it would only see the sun for a few seconds a day. I suppose if you had an occupation where you spent all-day outside you could leave your iPhone in an open-faced holder, but again, how much light will it receive? And would one be worried about damage to the screen in certain occupations?

As to laptops, sunlight glare on the screen is bad enough, but now you have to adjust your screen to make it worse in order to maximize the amount of radiant sunlight it receives. I would think it would be better to put them on the back of the display so you can aim the back at the sun and help shade the LCD, but then that ruins the aesthetics.

I can only really see it viable on the iPod Nano since joggers put them on their upper arms which would get decent sun. And while the screen/panel area would be small, so is the power drain of those machines so it might prove itself useful.

It's about as effective as a charger and an outlet. If you know your iPhone, iPod whatever can get a boost and keep itself charged by lying in the sun, some users would alter their behavior to take advantage of this ability. ie: when driving, leaving the device on the seat or dash to catch the sun, finding a way to get a cubicle near the window, things like that.

 

[Rot'nApple]

Was that a joke? In case it wasn't, the idea is that sunlight would pass through the LCD onto the solar panels.



They wouldn't _only_ be solar powered. You'd still have the normal battery to use in non-lit situations. It would presuambly just extend your battery life with a constant trickle of power.

arn

My current non iPhone, non Solar Powered POS gets very little sunlight on it's screen. It's either against my face when on a call, or in it's protective vinyl case that is either dangling on my side, in my pocket or in my briefcase. I'm not against new thinking and going green when it comes to recharging iPhones and iPods but would this "solar" method require a lot of "face" time in the sun to activate the solar cells so they can do their thing and create energy or recharge the battery? I'd be curious if anyone with more understanding or background in this field could elaborate, because as a lay person, I'm thinking Solar Power houses with big collection screens on the roof or Satellites with big extended solar panels (and both are either "best positioned" re: house or "track the sun" re: satellite to get the most sunlight out of the deal to be worth a damn) to produce the energy they need, grant it, the usage of a house or satellite versus an iPhone have greatly different requirements. If I ever did get an iPhone, I just don't want to walk around with it in the palm of my hand which is raised high toward the sky for extra recharging purposes, is all...

 

[iVoid]

Apple would have to stop using glossy screens then. Having to point your screen towards the sun would end up leaving the screen unreadable with the glare from the sun.

 

[Rot'nApple]

It's about as effective as a charger and an outlet. If you know your iPhone, iPod whatever can get a boost and keep itself charged by lying in the sun, some users would alter their behavior to take advantage of this ability. ie: when driving, leaving the device on the seat or dash to catch the sun, finding a way to get a cubicle near the window, things like that.

Yeah, and people know that driving on the interstate at 55 - 60 mph saves gas... the 60 mph thing, it ain't happening!


"can get a boost and keep itself charged by lying in the sun, some users would alter their behavior to take advantage of this ability" and some users won't alter their behavior to justify the expense, and by expense I mean, I would rather see the price of the iPhone drop then have the price always remain the same or with very little fluctuation down, but be "wooed" by SJ and company about a feature I could do without in it's next product revision.

 

[cheekybobcat]

R.I.P. iPod Classic...

Welcome iPod Hybrid

 

[Doctor Q]

Apple would have to stop using glossy screens then. Having to point your screen towards the sun would end up leaving the screen unreadable with the glare from the sun.

You'd want a portable device pointed at the sun when not in use, which is presumably a majority of the time. You can turn the other way when you're using it.

I wonder if, in theory, a tiny bit of power could be harvested from the force of pushing the face of a touchscreen, or from shaking the device. How 'bout a Hand Power button you could press 100 times to add a little more charge? Good for those people with a nervous habit of clicking and unclicking their pen all the time; they could power their phone instead.

 

[twoodcc]

now this would be great for battery life, which seems to always be a setback for me. i would love to see this happen. and it'd get people outdoors more also

 

[MacTheSpoon]

Since mobile devices are usually in pockets, I wonder if it'd be possible to integrate a thin and light solar cell array into the headphone cord instead.

 

[lazyrighteye]

If they could make this efficient enough, I think it would cause a change in how people use their devices. Place it on the dash of your car, leave it out on the table, put it in a windowed pocket of your purse...

Agreed.
And I'd suggest that the iPhone (and even the iPod touch) has already introduced this change - making such solar powered concepts more plausible than it was prior to the iPhone launch.

In casual observation, I've noticed iPhone users seem much more apt to leave their devices out on restaurant tables, desks at work, coffee tables at home, etc., than with any handheld device to date.

To what can you attribute this out-of-pocket phenomenon?

Good question, me.

Well I don't think users keep their iPhones out as some sort of "status symbol" - tho there are some tool boxes out there that think they'll get more p*ssy because they have an iPhone sitting out on the bar of the hip club Le Douche.

And I don't think it has anything to do with the device's physical dimension. For 2 years prior to my iPhone, I had no problem lugging around a massive Treo 650 in my pants pocket. And an iPhone is much more pocket-friendly than a Treo.

No, I suggest the real reason users are keeping their iPhones out of their pockets is because this is a device that they actually want to, and do, use.

And that represents one of the facets I like most about Apple.

<generalizing>
What separates Apple from other consumer electronics manufacturers (sorry people, facts are facts – please save any debate on that topic for another thread, if at all) is their better understanding of and their genuine concern for how it's users interact with their product(s). When they have an idea, a concept, a new technology – they don't, like most short-sighted companies focused on appeasing their stock holders, light-switch implement said idea/concept/tech just because they can.
No, through a series of tough lessons (Newton, Cube, round mouse, etc.), Apple has learned to both understand the pitfalls and temptations of such thinking/implementation as well as the importance of taking the time, energy and resources to adequately train their end user. After all, a new tech is only as "cool" as it is usable. And 5 years ago, the iPhone would have flopped. But between now and then we've seen slow implementations of more touch technology. From 2-finger scrolling to now multi-finger gestures, Apple has slowly been training it's end user and the results are beginning to reflect in the company's overall market penetration.
</generalizing>

If anyone is poised to successfully introduce and implement something like solar powered devices, it's Apple. At the vert least, it's good to see them exploring such things.

 

[g8bo]

aren't OLEDs lifetime susceptible to sunlight?

 

[wizard]

Under full bright sunlight illumination, with the solar panels pointed directly at the sun, you're only looking at an electricity generation rate of between 15 and 20 watts with the best polycrystalline solar cells available today, assuming the solar cells cover an entire 1 square foot area. If the solar energy strikes the screen at an oblique (indirect) angle, the energy collection rate begins to fall of dramatically. Indoors, you'd be lucky to generate 1-2 watts.

It is good that you highlight the realities of solar cells! However a watt is a watt and it has the potential to offset watts derived else where.

I'm not saying this is a terrible idea. I'm just saying that best care scenario, it extends your battery life by maybe a minute.

Well this can be argued about for ages. Even if the cell is only supplying 250 milliwatts it will offset battery drain. The question in my mind is just how much power does a iPod consume. Frankly it can't be a lot.

The other side of the equation is th very non-linear discharge curves that batteries exhibit. Small reductions in static drain can often dramatically extend battery life.

If the point is to collect the light "backscatter" from the screen backlight, it would be a much better use of resources to simply not generate as much backscatter, as the best solar cell efficiency you could hope for would be about 20%. I think LED backlighting mostly solves this problem, rendering the argument moot.

I don't know if the intent is to implement with current technology displays. Frankly I'd be surprised as I can't see a huge amount of photonic power getting through. The thought is that they may be targeting different technology. Ultimately what one needs to do is to make the OLED emitters also function as collectors. Maybe the could get the display to switch modes such that when the screen is off it effectively generates power.

Dave

 

[smythey]

iPhone is 11.5x6.1 cm so a total surface area of 70cm2. A solar panel under the LCD screen isn't going to cover that whole area - maybe more like 50cm2. A 50cm2 solar cell of 12% efficiency under 'standard test conditions' has a peak output of around 0.6Watts, i.e. it would be generating power at the same rate that it's used.

Cells rated for 12% peak would be tres expensive - much more likely they would be of the 6-8% dye-sensitized variety. Id be shyt scared leaving my iphone baking in direct sunlight in any event...

 

[dicklacara]

... What separates Apple from other consumer electronics manufacturers (sorry people, facts are facts – please save any debate on that topic for another thread, if at all) is their better understanding of and their genuine concern for how it's users interact with their product(s)...

This is the brochure that attracted me to buy my first computer. I think it says what you are trying to say, better!

 

[concordeBOAC]

Looks like a variant on Citizens eco drive technology....of course, the power requirements are different but the idea is the same... works great for the watch !


http://www.citizen-watch.co.uk/technology.html

 

[megfilmworks]

Even if this doesn't reach production, it does show just how Apple will look at
ideas that others may not.

 

[Allingby]

DAMN! DAMN! DAMN! I have for over a year thought of this, I had this od sci-fi dream where an iMac with no foot can levitate, get sun energy, have an iSight through the screen, and such as sci-fi stuff, now apple goes ahead and patents why didn't I?

 

[lazyrighteye]

This is the brochure that attracted me to buy my first computer. I think it says what you are trying to say, better!

While it may say it better, I said it with less words.

Wow, that PDF is a classic...
Thanks for sharing that link!

 

[dicklacara]

While it may say it better, I said it with less words.

Wow, that PDF is a classic...
Thanks for sharing that link!

Your point was spot on! That's what Apple does better than any other company-- give people what they want (even they may not know they want it).

The ad on the first page of the brochure, IMO, is the best ad Apple ever did!

 

[frank781]

Solar panel also work on artificial light

Cool! So soon we may very well have OLED razor thin displays with solar power and iSight cameras built into the displays themselves Sounds good to me!

My only question is how much do your iPods, iPhones, Laptops etc. actually have their screen exposed to the sun??? Don't you usually have your portables in your pocket and your laptops avoiding sun glare when outside??? How much power would this really add then?

Solar Cells can work under artificial light conditions (i.e.: indoors) that is why you see a lot of use in calculators and other office equipment.

What's unique about this potential use, is that you can use the same surface that the screen occupies as a solar array. Since partial light might peek through to the cells, the practical use of this is to extend the battery use between charges. Only when off would the device be able to self charge.

 

[chris200x9]

Um... Study up on your thermodynamics. What you're suggesting wouldn't work for the same reason perpetual motion is impossible.

I don't understand your response, perpetual motion doesn't work because there is always some loss and it will never produce as much energy as it consumes. But for EXTENDING battery life I don't see why this wouldn't work. It's efficiency and cost/benifet ratio is another story though.

 

[LethalWolfe]

While not feasible today I think it's nifty Apple is looking this direction for products down the road. The people in my office that have iPhones and Blackberries tend to keep them out on their desks because it's more convenient that stuffing such a rather large device in and out of your pocket dozens of times a day so, at least for users w/that habit, there is ample opportunity to grab some light.


Lethal