what the hell google, im on a computer not a tablet

I love the green hue. Next step would be utilizing this to create white light or more usable light. Although, I'd definitely rock the green in my house.

Mood lamp to soak up all the sex air.

..who is having sex in underground parking garages besides rapists? ..rapist

>> ^BoneRemake:

Mood lamp to soak up all the sex air.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

..who is having sex in underground parking garages besides rapists? ..rapist
>> ^BoneRemake:
Mood lamp to soak up all the sex air.



Thats what you came up with ? go brain go.

Surpassed only by the comeback..

I think the green aspect makes it pretty useless as a light source for roads, and they're really dim. Never once mentioned advancements or improvements. Is that as good as it gets? Because it looked bad. Maybe they could be used to clean the air, and shine onto solar panels which store it for later release through an actually decent light. Heh, there's an idea. Solar powered torch (well, carbon powered really).

Well I was talking about a mood lamp for a bedroom once it takes off. You can not confine that sort of technology just for parking garages. Boom TOp that !

Sounds good, doubt it works like they claim.

Space exploration? Submarines? Airplanes?

My only question is is this stuff harmful to people or the environment if spilled? Like would it fuck with the ecosystem?

If not this guy should just market and sell the stuff I'd pay for one of these it's a really neat idea.

If you put that finger in my face one more time I swear I'll snap it in half.

That's really neat technology. We could also make park spaces in urban areas an plant some trees.

@dannym3141

It's a brand new technology. Give it a decade or two of investment and of course it'll become brighter and more efficient.
Hell start a business model based on these and put it on kickstarter if you're that concerned.

@Darkhand

It's fuckin' algae, man. Unless it mutates into corrosive flesh-eating algae. I think we're safe.

@BoneRemake

Heh, I knew you meant a bedroom. But if I hadn't made that rapist joke.. you'd have never graced us with your terrible 80s white man rap. ..rappist

@GenjiKilpatrick - genuine question; are you involved in this, or in other things that give you a good idea of exactly how something like this will develop? I'll explain myself better:

My assessment is that if you make this thing DEEPER, than you have a seeing depth element to the equation. The light on the inside (deeper) is going to have to make its way outside and i think it is likely to do this via infra red (ie. heating the whole thing).

The only way i can imagine to get more visible light out of this, other than actually increasing the intensity of the light emitted per cell by the stuff, is to make it very thin and with a huge surface area, but then you spread the light out over a bigger area and things like cost go way up.

Perhaps you can increase the density of the cells in the fluid, but then you're gonna have to worry about their access to the carbon - if you over fill, you may starve some of them of food; there may be a perfect ratio that he's already reached.

If you have a better assessment i'd love to hear it, but simply saying "it'll get better" doesn't cut it with me as there is no direct way i can see of making it better. I hope you can explain yourself a little better too, because i'd actually be happy to think it will get better.

@GenjiKilpatrick, you forgot rule #427,362: If Danny can't think of a way to improve a technology that he was just introduced to, off-hand, via information he learned in a two-minute video, then further innovation is clearly impossible.
>> ^dannym3141:

The only way i can imagine to get more visible light out of this, other than actually increasing the intensity of the light emitted per cell by the stuff...



@dannym3141: I too assumed that the cells were emitting the light, but if you read/watch it again, the cells are merely producing energy (via carbon somehow) that is stored in batteries. The light source is still just a light.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

@GenjiKilpatrick, you forgot rule #427,362: If Danny can't think of a way to improve a technology that he was just introduced to, off-hand, via information he learned in a two-minute video, then further innovation is clearly impossible.
>> ^dannym3141:
The only way i can imagine to get more visible light out of this, other than actually increasing the intensity of the light emitted per cell by the stuff...


@dannym3141: I too assumed that the cells were emitting the light, but if you read/watch it again, the cells are merely producing energy (via carbon somehow) that is stored in batteries. The light source is still just a light.


Perhaps you've forgotten rule #427,362 ammendment A which suggests you read things carefully to ensure you're not over reacting, for example when someone uses the phrase "genuine question" and then tries to explain their point more clearly and asks for clarification from the other.

I'm afraid i don't have time to read up on every technology that i see cool videos of, but lucky for me some other people do and if i ask nicely and sound interested i tend to find they're happy to explain it to me.

If you'd read my first post which actually started the matter i think you'd have understood my confusion and maybe not needed to be rude? Earlier i asked "why don't they shine the weak light onto a solar panel?" Well, it seems that kinda is what they do, thanks for letting me know

I'm surprised that someone as apparently vigilant to information as yourself (what with you knowing rule #427,362 so well) didn't even bother to read the original question. So when genji tells me "it would get better", i think the method of operation has been confirmed and then i try and use my understanding of how something like that might work to try and understand how it might be improved. Then, i try and discuss it.

I'm not going to apologise for trying to figure out and find out how something works.

@dannym3141

Put the light bulb on the outside. (or top or bottom) Problem solved.

What happens when it freezes?

Release them into the ocean. Global warming? Solved. Cool greenish night-time glow world-wide? Hell yes! The dark, murky depths no longer dark and murky! Dolphins would dig it. They're smart, ya know.

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank. If the power is supposed to be coming from the algae, not the grid, how is the light supposed to be being powered without any algae in the tank? There is never ANY mention of POWER being produced from the algae in the video itself, and the few ways I've read this could be possible are NO WHERE NEAR being financially viable, just possible. They require specialty genetically altered algae (expensive) and reactors with exotic materials to capture electrons from charged algae (also expensive), and the algae must be exposed to light to become charged. If, as the written description claims, they have solved this problem and ARE generating electricity from nothing more than an anaerobic reaction without external heat/light/energy required, you would think they would have said so in the video itself, and made a HUGE deal about it. They did not.
If this really worked without outside electricity added, they could put panels of the algae and reactors outside and run the white light (now inside the algae tank) indoors as a living solar panel/light setup, I note they did not do or even suggest this.
Without the 'magic', unmentioned light/electricity generating portion, this is NOT a new idea in the least as he claimed, people have advocated using simple algae and micro algae to scrub CO2 for decades, and usually in sun light rather than electric light so it's better than carbon neutral. What this really seems to be is a filter you can put OVER a light to make it produce some O2, but it also gives off far less light. There is no indication whatsoever from the video that this is intended to produce light or electricity itself without external power. I can't see where the poster got that idea. Perhaps they are involved in the project and want 'investors' that can't see the difference and can't do any research?

>> ^rottenseed:
I love the green hue. Next step would be utilizing this to create white light or more usable light. Although, I'd definitely rock the green in my house.


Green light in the greenhouse is exactly what you DON'T need. Plants reflect green wavelength, and use the red and blue. What did work was a flourescent pink plastic that took the green wavelength and converted it (somehow) to pink. The plants could use this extra red(ish) light, and didn't waste the green energy. It's odd they never started selling that.
This is why they sell green flashlights to use in the greenhouse at night, the green light doesn't upset the plants light cycles because they don't absorb it.

...Oops, mis-read, thought you said 'in my greenhouse'. Never mind.

>> ^newtboy:

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank.


If you follow the chain of reposting and adding more sensational claims that goes through shashdot and their source geek.com you eventually arrive at this site, which has already redacted it's claims about the algae in the lamp producing any light or power.

Going only from what's said in the video, I think the entire point is carbon sequestration. But keep in mind the algae is also absorbing some of the light from the lamp, requiring the use of more lamps to light the same area.

I love lamp.

Wow that's a large wall of text, @newtboy.

But yes, it appears that:
"Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae."

I guess that's why the video emphasized that Calleja has been a biochemist for twenty years. i.e. years of research have helped developed a strain of algae with such properties

Apparently the electricity the algae produces is stored in a battery underneath the unit.

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/biochemist-creates-co2-eating-light-that-runs-on-algae-2012055/

This one ?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Wow that's a large wall of text, @newtboy.
But yes, it appears that:
"Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae."
I guess that's why the video empathized that Calleja has been a biochemist for twenty years. i.e. years of research have helped developed a strain of algae with such properties
Apparently the electricity the algae produces is stored in a battery underneath the unit.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cete
ra/biochemist-creates-co2-eating-light-that-runs-on-algae-2012055/


>> ^newtboy:

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank. If the power is supposed to be coming from the algae, not the grid, how is the light supposed to be being powered without any algae in the tank? There is never ANY mention of POWER being produced from the algae in the video itself, and the few ways I've read this could be possible are NO WHERE NEAR being financially viable, just possible. They require specialty genetically altered algae (expensive) and reactors with exotic materials to capture electrons from charged algae (also expensive), and the algae must be exposed to light to become charged. If, as the written description claims, they have solved this problem and ARE generating electricity from nothing more than an anaerobic reaction without external heat/light/energy required, you would think they would have said so in the video itself, and made a HUGE deal about it. They did not.
If this really worked without outside electricity added, they could put panels of the algae and reactors outside and run the white light (now inside the algae tank) indoors as a living solar panel/light setup, I note they did not do or even suggest this.
Without the 'magic', unmentioned light/electricity generating portion, this is NOT a new idea in the least as he claimed, people have advocated using simple algae and micro algae to scrub CO2 for decades, and usually in sun light rather than electric light so it's better than carbon neutral. What this really seems to be is a filter you can put OVER a light to make it produce some O2, but it also gives off far less light. There is no indication whatsoever from the video that this is intended to produce light or electricity itself without external power. I can't see where the poster got that idea. Perhaps they are involved in the project and want 'investors' that can't see the difference and can't do any research?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Wow that's a large wall of text, @newtboy.
But yes, it appears that:
"Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae."
I guess that's why the video empathized that Calleja has been a biochemist for twenty years. i.e. years of research have helped developed a strain of algae with such properties
Apparently the electricity the algae produces is stored in a battery underneath the unit.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/biochemist-creates-co2-eating-light-that-runs-on-algae-2012055/



It appears that this is NOT the case...which is why they redacted the claims here...http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/04/algae-powered-street-lamps-suck-up-c02/
(thanks entrOpy) Don't believe everything you read, especially if the writer is looking for investors!
...and I think you meant emphasized, but maybe they did empathize with him about something and that's why they agreed to re-print his unverified, improbable, sometimes completely wrong claims. *edit-after reading other articles and comments, I find that others claim Calleja is NOT known for being a leading biochemist, but instead is a businessman, which makes me even more warry of his claims.
Also, did no one else notice the name of the company...shame-an(d)-go, is that a play on words describing their actions?
Sorry for the wall of text, there were a lot of mis-statements and implications that needed pointing out and correcting. Science is rarely simple.