Comments

• 

  Dominic Muren

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  This design, and the promotion of it by core, speaks to a much larger problem in product design today: If you are trained as a form giver, give form. This is a "concept" that should never have reached this level of technical resolution. Concepts are valid if, as with cars, we partner with engineers and scientists to ground them in reality. And, as with cars, Core and others should take the degree of this technical grounding into account. Not doing so just makes us all look like idiots.
  
  A safe rule of thumb is "the higher the tech involved, the less likely a designer is to invent it". Lamps and chairs, yes. Trains and rockets, no.

  !Report as spam
• 

  bluebird

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  This is a perpetual motion machine, it will never work.

  !Report as spam
• 

  gregeb

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  Energy can be harvested from motion, if that energy would have otherwise been wasted. For example, if you deploy a windmill on your car while coasting downhill, that windmill replaces the brakes, and actually nets energy to the car. But, windmills on the side of a road are likely to create a headwind and turbulence, increasing drag, making the car work harder, and thus wasting energy overall. Even when you can scavenge net energy in this manner, the economics are almost always unattractive.

  !Report as spam
• 

  manu

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  He should not have skipped physics class in middle school.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
  "energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another."
  end of story

  !Report as spam
• 

  Kostas Syrtariotis

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  I agree with the above comments.
  Dirt and water are definitely an issue, but also snow, sand and even small rocks shooted by the train running like hell.
  But the main problem is wiring, controlling and distributing the energy: a huge infrastructure for a small amount of energy gain.
  
  

  !Report as spam
• 

  vinuiyer

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  @gregeb... very true. I see basic logic and multi directional analysis of a solution disappearing... The design process these days is - 'Got idea. End of story.'

  !Report as spam
• 

  Ari

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  Design without knowledge or understanding...
  It would be really great it more designers were to get real world experience with USING objects in real world scenarios before setting off as conceptual designers.
  
  Drag, dirt, ice, cleaning...
  
  Hey, I know, why not place a WINDMILL on top of trains? Then they generate electricity through their movement. That is in effect the SAME idea as presented here. And the absurdity becomes obvious.

  !Report as spam
• 

  gregeb

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  Expensive and inefficient. Far better to reduce track air friction, so the train requires less energy to maintain its high speed, than to increase air friction in the name of saving energy harvested by an array of expensive turbines.
  
  Unfortunately, internet "design buzz" is inversely proportional to reality. The best designs are a harmonious blend of art and engineering, combining pleasure with practical action.
  
  Our design schools are failing our students.

  !Report as spam
• 

  octo

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  a: not clean juice
  b: dramatic increase in drag

  !Report as spam
• 

  Jerry D. Elmore

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  I don't know how brilliant it is that these are where dirt and water would be most likely to settle but, conceptually, I think it's a great concept.
  
  I think if they were integrated into a tunnel's structure off of the ground then they would only have the issue of soot to deal with.
  
  P.S. A coal-powered utility belching smoke is more of an eyesore than a wind generator...but that's just my opinion.

  !Report as spam
• 

  tobias

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  So, if the the trains power the turbines... What powers the trains?

  !Report as spam
• 

  John

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  I couldn't find an estimated cost-per-unit. It seems like a good idea but, if each turbine costs $5,000 I don't think anyone is going to be keen on putting down what may be thousands, or tens of thousands of these.
  Also, it seems like the energy cost of producing that many complicated turbines would take a really long time to offset.
  Looks cool though.

  !Report as spam
• 

  dw

  13 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  Perpetual motion machines sure are prettier with design thinking

  !Report as spam