Core77

This is madness! No for real, as far as I know there were thousands of concepts sent, and you choose what? Things that you think were the most funny. I mean this is completely uninspiring, you had 10 minutes to show shortlist and you still wasted the time for stupid e-mails and an 11year’s old concept. You had great people around like the editor of engadgets and together you could rise the awareness and inspire the public, to tell the truth you could bring a thing to the actual production coz it is about the PR, what did you do? It is very sad to see such things happening…I’m more than disappointed, not because my entry wasn’t showcased but because of the conception attitude of yours. IT is my personal point of view but that was crap.

Notwithstanding the previous sour grapes comment by silent bob, several designs were excellent. It was also interesting to hear the positive/negative comments during presentation.

It's too bad the judges didn't know anything about physics. They might have realized that the 2nd place design is completely impractical. In order to produce the amount of light claimed in the design specifications, the lamp would have to be 100 ft tall or weigh 1000 lbs.

Of course it's not for real. Have you read what the blogs are saying about the impossibility of Clay Moulton's Gravia Lamp, you know, the one that won a $1000 second place prize? I'll spare you the analysis, but it would run for about 1 minute - assuming 100% efficiency - not 4 hours. Welcome to the wonderful world of design, where content is cuckolded by presentation.

Here is an analysis of the physical feasibility of the "Gravia" light:

http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/03/03/stop-press-pixie-dust-unsuitable-for-household-lighting/

You'd get at most a minute or two at a 40W brightness, not four hours....

But if I had known you get $1,000 for concept that sounds great but is physically unsound, I would have submitted my anti-gravity belt - surely a green product if there ever was one!

I think its cool that people are trying to make more environmental gadgets. I like the idea suggested at the competition, of a more universal adapter for all the different gadgets. The different power sources & outputs required by different gadgets will be an issue. But I do hope the governments & related authorities & all the leading big name manufacturers in the industry can come to a consensus on that so that we do not need a new adapter every time we buy a new gadget & the old adapter will have to be put aside & disposed of. Because technology is evolving so fast, 20years from now, a 1 year old gadget will probably be obsoleted by newer technologies. I believe thats something you guys inn the industries can hopefully work out in the next 5-10 years?

The subdermal electronic "phone" tattoo... Can't 'unfurl' - the skin happens to be attached to the body. Blood supply can't be interrupted so easily for the power. The skin above the matrix would die within a short time and decay within hours, and new dermis re-grow beneath the matrix, resulting in a rejection, because there would be a permanent interruption to blood flow, nerves (and hair follicles) resulting in the death of the epidermis. The complex biology of scanning for disorders wouldn't be possible for long in the 'cell' either. It could monitor levels of certain compounds but certainly could not function as an 'early warning' system. It wouldn't have the chemical capacity.
Assuming the world of biology turns upside down any time soon, another factor would be the cost of complex microsurgery and plastic surgery required. It would not be a simple short procedure, would require a general anesthetic, time off work, recovery, educating the patient/customer for long term care of the skin, and many other factors. Finding surgeons skilled enough to do sich fiddly work for something so superficial would be rather difficult, and again would add to the astronomical cost of the unit. Then consider you'd be asking the patient/consumer to take out of date technology (bluetooth) and mount it permanently. What happens when it's not supported by the next generation products? Another procedure to remove it and another still for another short-term technology replacement?

More flaws than Mick Jagger's face.

The closest you'll ever get is a keypad or image projected onto the skin from a seperate device, possibly housed in spectacles worn by the customer, somewhat similar to projector-keyboards.