Solar Powered Trike

[FreeRunningHawaii]

How far does it usually go on a typical day's charge?

[TimpBizkit]

One of the most environmentally friendly vehicles known to man, little to no reliance on fossil fuel burning from generating electricity. Only the energy cost to make it. No one said not to use the earth resources though - just not to squander them. You're even making me feel like a polluter on my CO2 exhaling fossil fuel burning food industry powered pedal bike lol.

[ohiovr]

This is really neet! I think a 23 second video doesn't do it justice though

[dmould66]

@ohiovr batteries prob only last that long-lol

[davettalashley]

If you made some sort of roof over your head, you could put a bigger solar panel on it and take the one off your handlebars, perhaps?

[cody481]

i have a lung disease cant pedal very far and currently use a riding lawn mower for short travel my town passed a law so i can do this[tiny town we only have 9 stores] i wonder if this would get me out of the valley i live in 60 percent of the run off joins the creek in my back yard.very steep hills

[timerider4]

We have a trike like that now. Solar panels are a neat idea.

[297mx]

man this is dangerous

[KidEh1980]

emitting carbon dioxide is a lot more dangerous. Any idea how many people get sick and die from that?

[KidEh1980]

Have you heard the phrase, "Canary in a coal mine?". A canary was brought into the mines with miners as it would die from CO2 before the miners would, providing a warning for them. In 1988, 1700 villagers near Lake Nyos suffocated from CO2.

CO2 is toxic and can be deadly. Most things our bodies expel aren't that good for us (think about it). It contributes to climate change which is linked to other health problems.

I just think emitting CO2 without looking at alternatives is dangerous.

[Hivemind5747]

Canaries were used because they are especially sensitive to Carbon Monoxide (CO), not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is not inherently toxic, carbon monoxide is extremely so.

[KidEh1980]

Canaries certainly were used in coal mines to test for CO2 (among other things). Look it up yourself, it's called 'blackdamp', which contains CO2, not CO by itself. I'm not saying they didn't use canaries for that purpose, just that I was not incorrect when I said they used them to test for CO2.

[Ambelghan]

LOL cute, the "Dihydrogen Monoxide" part, that's water for the rest of you folk, but he is right, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. We have biological systems that break down CO2, they are called plants. We don't have a system that breaks down CO, which is emitted by non-biological entities, such as cars. It amazes me how these green talking heads screw that up all the time, the problem with CO is that there is no efficient counter to break it down like there is for CO2; science should build one.

[luislinuxero]

@Ambelghan He just wanted to sound like he knows something lol

[Unmannedair]

@ luislinuxero

I'm an aerospace engineer...

When it comes to making statements about gas properties and interactions I'm am very well qualified. The only time CO2 becomes toxic to people is when it exists in high enough concentrations to start interfering with your ability to absorb oxygen. At that point any gas can be considered toxic. Carbon monoxide CO on the other hand chemically reacts with the hemoglobin in your blood preventing your blood from absorbing oxygen. Lethal at low doses.

[luislinuxero]

@Ambelghan i mean @Unmannedair

[Hivemind5747]

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infra-red (i.e. thermal) radiation and then re-emits it back to earth, this causes the planet to warm up. Yes, plants clean it up, but the whole problem we have is that we are producing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses at a far higher rate than the plants can clean them up.

Being a greenhouse gas is not about how easy it is to clean it up.

[Unmannedair]

The problem with current egg heads is they think they can build a mega engineering project to just "fix it". Carbon dioxide is the smallest problem we face regarding climate control. Building a system to fix it would make our national highway system look like a erector set by comparison. Not to mention the absurd kind of energy requirements needed.

[KidEh1980]

Nobody is arguing with you that CO isn't toxic. Your argument seems to be

1. CO is toxic, therefor CO2 should not be a concern". That isn't logically sound.

The other point you make is that CO2 can be broken down. Again, nobody ever said it can't (though you seem to assume we are all stupid). This also does not mean it isn't dangerous. Your body can process heroine, but that doesn't mean heroine isn't dangerous.

Bringing up other dangerous substances doesn't mean CO2 isn't dangerous.

[Ambelghan]

@KidEh1980

The greenies are talking about the expulsion of gasses, yes there are more mammals on the planet than before, so there should be more CO2, however, when they talk about emissions they are talking about cars, cars do not produce CO2, so when I see someone talking about regulating emissions and they mention CO2 they are off bases. If they want to stop the amount of gasses people are releasing, fine, but don't start in on cars and then just lump CO2 in there,

[Ambelghan]

CO2 is dangerous in high quantities, in fact most substances are, "toxic," in high quantities, even water, even O2. What makes CO, an unnatural substance, especially toxic at low quantities is its ability to bind to hemoglobin, and cause a conformational change to the protein structure that neither allows it to bind to CO2 away from the lungs or release CO or pick up O2 at the lungs. Again its danger, environmentally and biologically come from not having a natural system for metabolism.

[KidEh1980]

@Ambelghan

You posted:

"cars do not produce CO2"

That is wrong.

When a hydrocarbon (e.g: gasoline) is burned, it releases water, carbon dioxide, and energy.

Cars absolutely do produce CO2. The greenies aren't off bases, you are.

[Ambelghan]

@KidEh1980

Will there be combinations of CO2? Yes, it is after the most stable form. All atomic species are allowed to exist if their constituents are present. That means in a sample of pure oxygen atoms you will find, some mono atomic oxygen, some diatomic and some triatomic. Entropy and various energies of the system will dictate which species predominates. The nature of the combustion engine predominates CO as the major exhaust of any quantity.

[AlfistaWayne]

@Ambelghan. Wrong. IC gasoline engines produce CO2. Read up on it. Study a little bit about combustion.

[luislinuxero]

@Unmannedair "Hey you dumb dumb! You emit SHIT! You can't get sick from shit![...]"

[Unmannedair]

Actually eating shit is a commonly practiced survival technique...

[gasmarkfive]

Unmannedair - Dihydrogen monoxide...hmm...let me think....

Is that the stuff that is contaminating our water supplies on a truly massive scale? The whole government conspiracy to somehow brainwash us all by contaminating every single water source with dihydrogen monoxide?

Two Hydrogen atoms, one Oxygen?

Also known as water???

It's depressing how many people organise massive protests about water contaminating our water....

[Unmannedair]

gasmarkfive - Right on dude...

Kudos to you for getting my sarcasm...

You know while we're organizing protests about water contamination, lets organize a protest about all the B*^! S*!t in main stream political propaganda...

[Unmannedair]

I would like to apologize for my former rudeness. I just get irate when people get the facts mixed up. Carbon Dioxide is not dangerous. It is about as dangerous as Hydrogen Monoxide. Please see my comment below as to why it is not dangerous.

[KidEh1980]

CO2 is an asphyxiant, which is lethal, and therefor dangerous. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that it is linked to global climate change. Climate change is responsible for the spread of vector born and airborne diseases, and arguably dangerous weather patterns.

I've studied atmospheric science and anthropogenic factors in climate change at university. I'm convinced CO2 is currently the single most threatening substance to our race, if not an immediate danger to yourself.

[Unmannedair]

Overwhelming scientific observation...

Everything we know about earth's history beyond the last few hundred years is an educated guess...

Climate changes... I'll agree on that.

We know so little about our planet that there is no way I'll endorse flying off the handle about doomsday. If you believe in evolution then change is natural... no big whoop. If your a Christian, then you believe that the end is coming anyway. In either case, hang on for the ride, and do the best with what you have.

[KidEh1980]

What are those problems? Are they related to CO2 per chance?

[Unmannedair]

Assuming that CO2 concentrations started to climb radically like that...

Yeah, they would be related to that...

Your talking about acidifying oceans and lakes, rapid plant growth, whole sections of the food chain being wiped out...

It would be a catastrophe in every sense of the word.

I won't say that it is impossible for that to happen, but society as we know it would probably come to a screeching halt long before any of this happened.

[Unmannedair]

Our atmosphere is the prime example of chaos. We have great difficulty predicting the weather only a month in advance. With all the advancements we have made we still can't predict what will happen. We can't even agree how big of a role CO2 even plays in our atmosphere. Estimates range from 2/3 to 1/8 as effective at trapping heat as water.

All I'm saying is that with all the uncertainty we face, there is no need to be hasty in our declarations.

[KidEh1980]

If you are actually an aerospace engineer, you know that all 'scientific facts', are educated guesses. Even the laws (such as newtons laws) are not necessarily 'proven'. So a hypothesis is either supported by evidence or disproven.

This is why people who make stuff up have such compelling arguments, because scientists say "it's supported", and people who aren't scientists say ' it's a fact.

Overwhelming scientific evidence is usually good enough for anyone without a political agenda.

[Unmannedair]

I'm not disputing the scientific method.  I'm saying, I fail to see the overwhelming scientific evidence. I see a lot of observations that we are very poorly able to understand.

[KidEh1980]

Well, I respect your scepticism.

[Unmannedair]

It's been a pleasure talking to you.

[AnimatorDude1122]

I got an idea, when the solar power runs out, connect a simple dynamo to the front wheel (or back wheels) that transfers the spinning motion of the axle to the battery for extra milage while the solar panels do their work. Think it could work?

[bncesper]

No need for extra parts here, a PMDC motor works as a generator when spun manually.

[PandaVampires]

... Is that guy pedaling or is he just going for the ride? I cant tell.

[RusteeShackleford]

no pedaling

[twinomad]

Absolutely great and the best use of solar power, looks like great fun.

[PostcardDIY]

I would agree... if you can only go 10 miles or less why not just use your legs? Plus you get some (probably much needed) exercise!

[iamdmc]

Why not just use your legs? This solar trike has a lower top speed than a bicycle, and is less reliable (more complicated = less reliable). It's impressive, but impractical in its current form. More impressive would be a solar powered motorcycle-like vehicle (think paint-on solar panels -they do exist- and lightweight materials). This trike is a good first step. My hats off to the team that built it.

[Junodude72]

why not just enjor it? damn.

[TimpBizkit]

You could give the 'use your legs' argument to the millions of car drivers out there. Sometimes it's nice to have a form of transport with its own motor, otherwise cars and motorcycles wouldn't exist. This uses a lot less energy/mile than a car anyway. Besides you can still pedal this and it's nice to have a speed boost as sometimes all those hills can get a bit sweaty and sluggish, even if you're a pro racer. Funny thing is this is even more environmentally friendly than leg power lol.

[piratesport]

What could be better?