brand new concept: world peace!
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me set some background for you before you take the following post out of context: first, it needs to be kept in mind that I always support innovation from a utilitarian aspect. I also support intelligence and the progression of society based on the scientific inventions and ideas of others. However, this concept bullshit needs to stop. A large portion of the websites that get recommended to me through either peers or StumbleUpon are flashy, extravagant pages for a concept product that has absolutely no scientific or technical background whatsoever.
“But Jake, we haven’t seen anything like this!” is the public outcry. Well, you lucky bastards, today you get to see the idiocy as I do, through the porn-weary eyes of the Intarwebs.
- LifeStraw:This is, by far, the best of the concept designs out there (which should give you a hint about the depth of the ridiculous-ness of these concepts.) First, a working prototype exists and the company that makes these is trying to gain funding. However, this “wonderful” gadget doesn’t filter any heavy metals, which are just as much of a problem, if not more so than the biological pollutants in the water of many regions this product is geared towards.
- Gravity Lamp: This one is my favorite of the bunch. This stupid lamp was featured in every “green” blog on the planet at least once, touting the various benefits of this magical lamp that would somehow defy physics to provide enough power to light up a room. However, some people who actually opened their physics books debunked this dipshit, forcing him to give up his award to the next person in line.
- Armband Phones: There are tons of these all over the net, circulating in blogs, flash videos, etc. Apparently, the biggest thing in utterly untested designs are super thin, wrap-able phones that are as fashionable as they are utilitarian. The problem is, no one has any idea of how to get the damn things to work (feel free to Google more phones, I only provided one of the dozens of concepts.)
NOTE: Oh, and before you comment me into oblivion, I know the LifeStraw is a proof-of-concept, working prototype. The problem is that it is marketed as a be-all, end-all solution for bad drinking water, and it takes scouring through the website to find out that the LifeStraw doesn’t address the greater half of the water problem: industrial-level heavy metal water pollution.
So, what’s wrong with concepts? Well, for one, they provide an endless source of material for any idiot with a blog to grab a soapbox and join the marketing campaign, stating how great the concept is without providing the slightest bit of information on how it will work. These concepts are akin to the following conversation:
Dipshit: Hey, you know what would be great?
Me: No… but I have a feeling you’re going to tell me. Why are you talking to me at a bus stop?
Dipshit: World peace!
Me: Wow. Absolutely fantastic, revolutionary concept. And how do you plan on implementing this grandiose solution when everyone in the world tends to want to kill everyone else?
Dipshit: I don’t know.
Me: *proceeds to beat the shit out of the moron as an ironic lesson in the futility of his concept*
It’s alright though, kids, this story has a lesson! As a self-sustaining argument, I will provide the solution to this problem. All we have to do is provide each designer with a mechanical, electrical, and civil engineer. Whenever the designer has the slightest inkling, the slightest clue of an idea, he has to run it by all three of these engineers. At any point, if one of these three engineers finds the concept unattainable, the following derisive comment can be made:
“No, jackass, try something not so retarded and justify that liberal arts degree.”
Thanks for the trackback, nice blog I like your posts, will definitely come back often
So you’re all for innovating, but not pushing the boundaries?
If the water filter doesn’t filter heavy metals, that is a critical flaw. I can understand your point there.
The gravity light is a very interesting idea. If nobody took that any further, it would be a shame. What’s holding him back? Current LED technology? Why not pursue the idea. Maybe he can apply it to some other gadget that doesn’t need to light up a whole room.
Wristphones? This is one of those instances where people get excited about what they can do vs. what they should do. Mobile phones aren’t phones anymore. As much as I hate Apple, the iPhone is setting a lot of precedents right now and you can finally see some other companies stepping up their game, Sony Experia HTC Touch Diamond, etc. Some phone that I can slap on my wrist al-la those stupid bracelects from ‘95 is something I’m less than interested in.
Now that retard that came up with a free energy device, ridicule him. Critical flaw in the product? Let the company know. But in all honesty I’ve never seen a concept for anything gravity powered before. If you made it higher weight, what’s to say it couldn’t be mounted on the wall and simply rotated instead of flipped manually?
Pushing the boundaries is one thing. Light-based circuitry, Optical Cloaking devices, these actually push boundaries, and they exist. Simply showing a picture of something and saying “we’ll work out the details later” doesn’t count as innovation in any aspect.
The problem holding the lamp back is the amount of weight needed to power even the most effecient LEDs we make. I’m paraphrasing a few of the comments here, but people have stated as much as 200 lbs. would be needed to power the LEDs at the light output needed (subjectively) to light a room for something around 30 minutes. It’s just way too limited by the physics behind it, as far as anyone can tell (I have a very basic physics background myself, so feel free to point out details and/or flaws.)
Innovation is fine, but that’s what the design phase is for. Want to power something via gravity? Great, bring it up with the engineering team to come up with a working prototype. Don’t just push out the concept because you think it’s great and state “oh, it’ll work somehow later on.”
I appreciate the comment from the Gadget guy (the blog who hosted the third product’s article I linked to,) but I have a strong feeling that it was automated. I let it through anyways because I didn’t know I could have smileys on my blog.
I really don’t see anything wrong with the guys’ light. Great idea. Products don’t come out tomorrow. Ever. There is 5 years of lead time to every new automobile. Technology can become obsolete in 6 months. Things move so fast, what is to say that someone couldn’t come up with a more efficient light? Who is to say that the people on slashdot were right?
Just because you can’t do something doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be explored. That is how great ideas happen. Through the exploration of failed ideas. Seems like the guy did everything right to me. He even handed down his award to the runner up. That is true class if you ask me.
Yup, wordpress allows smilies. It’s a bit odd, I think.
People like to get excited about things. We see concepts of shit that will never work and then we forget about them when we see concepts for the next hover car.
I remember when I was a kid I read about this awesome new nonviolent ‘gun’ the police would use. It would be a small backpack and a spray nozzle that sprayed a foam on criminals and then harden into a shell. It would eliminate handguns AND hand cuffs!
Yup, still waiting on that one.
The lamp was debunked several times on different sites, which caused him to give up the reward. I doubt someone would give up the reward simply because Slashdot says so.
As for innovation, I get your point, but I really feel it needs to have grounding. As an example, I’ve got an idea: I’m going to create an spaceborne biodome populated solely by nerds. These nerds will procreate like rabbits, and since IQ is somewhat genetic, we’ll eventually create genetic geniuses. Please donate to my project if you like the concept.
Possible? Not even remotely. Good cause? Maybe, if you’re a lonely nerd. Pointless waste? Absolutely, and if people love it, they’ll even give me money for it. That’s why concepts aren’t worthwhile without technical grounding and some sort of prototype or, as the name implies, “proof-of-concept.” Wonder why people came up with that phrase…
How many times did plane prototypes crash before the Wright Brothers pulled it off? How many terrible ideas did they have to go through, where they said “Okay, this won’t work…what can we change?” before they could finally say “It worked”?
And how many times did experts in physics have to say “Travel beyond the speed of sound is impossible” before we broke that barrier? Shit, we have cars that can do that now.
I say good for these people, that they’re at least trying things out. Yes, they may get them wrong at first, and yes, they should present them differently, but I’m all for silly innovation. There are alot of ridiculous ideas out there (nuclear powered cars, for instance), but for every 100 terrible ideas, there’s 1 brilliant one, and that makes it worth it to me.
Though I still want my fucking flying cars.
Exactly. If you can’t get past heuristic bias, learned behaviors that humans use to perform everyday functions, you’re never going to get anywhere.
Essentially, as long as you say you can’t do something, you won’t.
Restraints force innovation. Close-minded thinking doesn’t.
Ok, after reading that again, looks like you got it exactly right.
In a nutshell, that is how design works. The guys that can think outside the box do, and the ones that only think in concrete terms don’t and tell the designer what can and can not be done.