What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
105 Comments
- cheez, on 06/30/2008, -2/+41Why is it inconceivable that in 100 years solar technology will have improved to allow a small solar panel to power WALL•E?
- DreKor, on 06/30/2008, -1/+34FTA:
While humans are very good at creating solutions, we're also very good at being stupid. - fhernand, on 06/30/2008, -3/+31"you would need MILLIONS of abacuses to reach the computing power needed to run a poker game... not happening in a hundred years.."
Victorian Geek, 1880 - rawg, on 06/30/2008, -1/+25I also expected WALL•E to be taking the trash cubes to some type of incinerator or reactor to be used as a power source rather than just stacking them. Crushing and stacking trash is a little pointless.
Still a good movie though. My wife cried a few times... and by "my wife" I mean me and by "cried" I mean slobbered on my wife's shoulder until the 7 year old kid next to us told me to shut up. - plaunie, on 06/30/2008, -3/+24because there isn't enough energy available in sunlight to perform the actions WALL-E performed...
Basic physics and the law of conservation of energy and all that. - pyrotix, on 06/30/2008, -6/+25SPOILER: WALL-E RUNS MAC OS
- bsonline, on 06/30/2008, -0/+16I'm just suprised that Wall*E isn't self replicating. Yes, I know, it's a cartoon. But in 700 years he could have produced an army of himself with the materials he was collecting. I'm betting in that fashion Earth could have been repopulated by adorable robots and cleaned up to boot.
- justinbonnet, on 06/30/2008, -5/+21I love how the Internet has become a place to pick every detail of every single thing apart. That article was over the inaccuracies of a cute robots solar panels. Are details like this the reason many of you loose sleep at night?
- Q3Man, on 06/30/2008, -0/+15It has to do with maximum theoretical efficiency of solar. From our current orbit, the earth receives approximately 164 Watts per square meter on the surface (more near the equator, less at the poles). The numbers you hear about on solar efficiency being 20% or 40% reflect the amount of useful energy they can obtain from this 164 Watts that falls on them. Assuming near 100% efficiency (we still obey the laws of thermodynamics here!) you will still need a substantial size panel to obtain enough energy to run all the gizmos.
As the article mentioned, there may be an orbital power station (could be a solar collector, nuclear or fusion powered) that is beaming microwave power down to the arrays at an intensity much greater than 164w/m2, however that begins to move away from the standard definition of 'solar' power. - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -4/+18Its a ***** movie...
Why are you people trying to make sense out of the solar charger magically working in 5 seconds..?
ITS A MOVIE, meaning its just meant for entertainment, just shut up and enjoy the damn thing - Nailrabbit, on 06/30/2008, -5/+18Are you serious? Is this a joke? This is a cartoon where impossible things happen, if you need to examine a cartoon characters power supply then you need to evaluate your life.
WHO CARES - revjustin2, on 06/30/2008, -4/+12Um..guys...movie...
- KMartSheriff, on 06/30/2008, -6/+14Sounds like another "the sky is falling and we're all gonna die" kinda article.
This won't be the end of us. We're just a speck on the timeline of Earth. Things will change. Technology will improve. If nothing else, trends will move things along (like the current trend to "go green"). - rawg, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9I just went to see WALL•E yesterday with my wife. Pretty good movie and the environmental message wasn't too overbearing. I thought they did a good job of using it as a futuristic backdrop to the main story which was a robot version of the princess and the stable boy. If anything they hammered on the evils of consumerism more than promoting environmentalism.
- Pixelante, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Next on Digg: the zoology of Bambi.
- revjustin2, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7@bingopower - if you're handing out cookies, you'd better have enough to go around.
- kqeda, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Foreign Contaminant
- darthbob, on 06/30/2008, -3/+9Not everyone knows how to type an interpunct you grammar Nazi.
- WELLDOITLIVE, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7Bears eat beets.
- DreKor, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Battlestar Galactica
- kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6heh, it's that little giggle, even with no physical attraction she has that feminine charm that only an egg shaped piece of metal with a laser cannon for an arm can have.
- musntSurfatWork, on 06/30/2008, -3/+8Eve is so hot!
- BingoPower, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6That made me laugh. Have a cookie :)
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -3/+8MALFUNCTION. NEED INPUT.
- NewBrunswickMan, on 07/12/2009, -0/+4Eve, or Eva seems to be the mac. Its funny how disney is always able to give us emotions towards objects isn't it?
like why do we find Eve cute? - scaliacheese, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5Explain.
- hankmt, on 06/30/2008, -1/+51. Even at 100% efficiency it would take a lot of energy to melt iron...something which WallE's laser is capable of doing.
2. Only about 1 kw of solar power hits the earth per square meter on the hottest, sunniest day at high noon. Even if WallE captured 100% of that, he'd have to charge for several days to have enough energy to crush a block of metal quickly.
Not that any of this, like...matters... - luet, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4perhaps it takes such little time because wall-e itself is 100% efficient and doesn't require much energy to function. in 100 years energy requirements for devices like wall-e will go down by a lot!
- fallingdamage, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6mirror?
- SSCrow, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3dammit, I was hoping this would about about th CG technology that Pixar used to create those environments (Outside of just Maya)
- megamod, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Go watch the sequel... Wal-(Mart)-E
- EBFoxbat, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Better to be fully self-sustaining than reproducing.
- Azselendor, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Virginity mixed with desperation
- agjimenez, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Mirror?
http://www.duggback.com/movies/The_Environmental_T ... - scaliacheese, on 06/30/2008, -7/+10Because even with 100% efficiency, there is just not that much solar power to be had. At least, not in the five seconds it takes Wall-E to recharge.
- Suricou, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Thats now how you do it. Thats how you *write the history books.* What actually happened was the socially and financially successful could afford to evacuate, and so the top 5% of the population did - taking with them the last of the resources, and any piece of infrastructure not nailed down. Then the rest of the population starved to death.
- onineko, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4NO DISASSEMBLE
- Azselendor, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3The general sentiment is "Bitch and Moan" about it so we don't have to do anything to fix it.
It's a fun film, cute film. I only want to ask, out of everything from flying robots, spaceships, AI, etc, why is it solar panels is the most troubling bit of science in the film.
lol
It's a film. Enjoy the damn thing as that. - uberfu, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3ya think?
- kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Not sure if that was sarcasm but here goes: He does have a Mac startup sound when he boots...
- kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Well at first they were trying to clean the planet, so everyone moved off for 5 years while they did. The planet must have been in pretty bad shape, so much so that they couldn't just blast the trash up.
- asskicker32, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I wanted to know where they got the food...
- EBFoxbat, on 06/30/2008, -3/+5False.
- NJank, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3well, they obviously stopped off to pick up extra dilithium crystals.
- gbarger, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3No, it's why we *lose* sleep at night. ARGHHHAHHHHH!!!!
:-) - rishid, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Thanks I actually learned something new today.
- maeon3, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Mirror: http://green.vedvarende-energi.dk/ecogeek/the-envi ...
- DiggzDE, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Cuz us Digg users are fatties at heart.
- CpuZapper, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Indeed, and I'm not sure why...
- blofeld9999, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Watt is defined as one joule per second. So 164 Watts does not require a unit of time. A solar panel that can generate 164 Watts can generate 164 joules of energy per second given 100% sunlight.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is