The U.S. Mint’s Production Materials Problem: Nickels Cost 11 Cents to Make. Here’s Our Design Solution

It makes such little cents You probably know that the U.S. penny used to be made out of copper, which was once inexpensive. As the cost of copper began to rise, it would have cost more per penny than the penny’s own value, so the U.S. Mint switched over to a zinc alloy. But the price of zinc has been steadily rising since 2005. Which is why U.S. currency is in the absurd situation it is now: A one-cent piece costs about 2.4 cents to make. A penny is 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper, and that zinc ain’t cheap. The nickel’s got it even worse. This five-cent coin costs 11.2 cents to manufacture. That’s because 75% of it is zinc and 25% is, well, nickel, another expensive metal. Which means that a nickel costs more to produce than every U.S. bill from a one-dollar bill (5.2 cents) all the way up to a C-note (7.7 cents). The money math starts to make a little more sense when we get to the smaller dime (92% copper, 8% nickel), which rings in at a production cost of 5.7 cents. The quarter, which has the same ingredients as the dime, is only a slighly better bargain at 11.1 cents. Clearly the U.S. Mint needs to start researching cheaper alloys or phasing out the penny and the nickel. It’s true that the math is a little more complicated than it would be for pure product manufacturing; for example, while you’d quickly go broke selling a product for $100 that cost $240 to make, currency is a little trickier. The government has an obligation to produce and circulate currency because it enables commerce, so it’s okay if they lose a little in manufacturing costs, as its citizens will theoretically make it back up by creating wealth. But if we don’t do that fuzzy math and look at it in terms of straight production, in 2012 alone the U.S. government lost $58 million dollars just by making pennies. (more…)

Read the article:
The U.S. Mint’s Production Materials Problem: Nickels Cost 11 Cents to Make. Here’s Our Design Solution

How Many Calories Does a Mouse Click Burn?

For those of us who spend the best part of our day hunched over a keyboard starting at a computer screen, any physical exertion—however small—has to go some way towards constituting exercise. So how many calories does a mouse click burn? More »

Excerpt from:
How Many Calories Does a Mouse Click Burn?

Islamists In Bangladesh Demand Murder of More Bloggers

An anonymous reader writes “Days after the killing of leftist blogger Thaba Baba, mosques throughout Bangladesh called for a popular uprising to demand the killing of other bloggers who had held a rally calling for the death of Jama’at-e-Islami leaders convicted of war crimes. This happens in an atmosphere of ongoing tension between Left and Right, with the leftist government threatening to outlaw rightist parties while the right uses violence to quiet selected enemies.” Read more of this story at Slashdot.

More:
Islamists In Bangladesh Demand Murder of More Bloggers

The PhoneJoy Play: A Gaming-Geek Device Makes a Larger Comment About the Shortcomings of Touchscreen Interface Design

Whether or not you’re interested in videogames, this device is kind of fascinating from an industrial design/interface design point of view. The PhoneJoy Play is essentially a portable input device with a slick mechanical design: The two holdable halves can spread sideways, connected by a telescoping mechanism. Your smartphone or mini-tablet can then be “docked” in the middle, and the variety of buttons and motion pads interact with your device wirelessly. (more…)

Read More:
The PhoneJoy Play: A Gaming-Geek Device Makes a Larger Comment About the Shortcomings of Touchscreen Interface Design

GrinOn Industries’ System for Providing Immediate Beer– By Filling Through the Bottom of the Cup

Many of us enjoy a beer after work (and some of you, during), but for the most part we’re not in a rush; we understand the tap dispenses beer at a set pace, and I almost like the anticipation that comes with watching the glass slowly fill with amber up to the top. In a sports stadium, however, you want beer NOW. You sneak away from your seat because they called a time-out and you think you can make it back before they take the ball out; otherwise you wait in an interminable line during halftime, wondering if the Miami fan behind you will ever shut his mouth, or if he’ll require your assistance. To beer people faster, an Indiana-based company called GrinOn Industries has invented the Bottoms Up Beer Draft Dispensing System . As the name suggests, the system’s innovation is to inject beer into a cup through the botttom , which greatly speeds the filling time—they’re claiming it’s nine times faster than a tap, and that one person can fill 44 pint cups in one minute—while leaving a decent head on the brew. Observe: (more…)

See more here:
GrinOn Industries’ System for Providing Immediate Beer– By Filling Through the Bottom of the Cup

Ani Surabhi’s Biomimetic ‘Kranium’ Corrugated Bicycle Helmet Is Stronger, Lighter Than Traditional EPS

We first saw Anirudha Surabhi ‘s “Kranium” bicycle helmet shortly after he presented his graduation project at the Royal College of Art. Two years and £20,000 (courtesy of a James Dyson grant) later, the “Kranium” will finally be available to savvy cyclists in Europe. Surabhi, who goes by Ani for short, essentially designed the helmet from scratch: “the revolutionary Kranium liner is based on the corrugated structure found in the woodpecker and it is this structure, which provides the right amount of crumple zone to absorb impact energy.” Expanded polystyrene (EPS) helmets are proven to protect your head only 20% of the time. The Kranium liner has proven to absorb 3 times the amount of impact energy during collision. At the same time, it is 15% lighter than Polystyrene helmets. EPS helmets are made from petroleum based products where are the Kranium liner is made from recycled paper. They have been tested at several test labs across the globe, including TUV in Germany and HPE in the UK. They have been developed for mass production and will be available in the market in December 2012. As Ani explains in the must-see video (below), the project originated in his final year at the Royal College of Art, when he had the misfortune of falling off his bike and cracking the helmet which he was wearing at the time. The rest, as they say, is history: Having suffered minor concussions, I decided to take this as a design challenge and create the safest helmet on the planet. Looking into nature, the woodpecker is one of the only animal which experiences the same kind of impact on a regular basis. In fact, it strikes the tree ten times a second and closes its eyes every time so that they don’t pop out, which means a monumental amount of energy that goes through its head. (more…)

Read the original:
Ani Surabhi’s Biomimetic ‘Kranium’ Corrugated Bicycle Helmet Is Stronger, Lighter Than Traditional EPS

Reading and Calculating With Your Unconscious

lee1 writes “Using special techniques that present information to one eye while hiding the information from the conscious mind (by masking it with more distracting imagery presented to the other eye), researchers have shown two new and very unexpected things: we can read and understand short sentences, and we can perform multi-step arithmetic problems, entirely unconsciously. The results of the reading and calculating are available to and influence the conscious mind, but we remain unaware of their existence. While we have known for some time that a great deal of sensory processing occurs below the surface and affects our deliberative behavior, it was widely believed until now that the subconscious was not able to actually do arithmetic or parse sentences.” Read more of this story at Slashdot.

See original article:
Reading and Calculating With Your Unconscious

Artificial Muscles Pack a Mean Punch

sciencehabit writes “Here’s a twist: Scientists have designed a flexible, yarn-like artificial muscle that can also pack a punch. It can contract in 25 milliseconds—a fraction of the time it takes to blink an eye—and can generate power 85 times as great as a similarly sized human muscle. The new muscles are made of carbon nanotubes filled with paraffin wax that can twist or stretch in response to heat or electricity. When the temperature rises, the wax melts and forces the nanotubes to contract. Such artificial muscles, the researchers say, could power smart materials, sensors, robots, and even devices inside the human body.” Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Read More:
Artificial Muscles Pack a Mean Punch

Surprising News About Bicycle-Powered Electricity Generators

That hourglass-shaped device is the PowerPac, an energy storage device meant to be powered by a human on a stationary bicycle. Conceived of by South African design firm Ideso , the PowerPac won a Red Dot Design Award in the “Best of the Best” category. “Our aim was to create an aesthetically pleasing, user-friendly and functional design that marries the fluidity of cycling with dynamic power generation,” says Ideso MD, Marc Ruwiel. “It can be used by avid cyclists who can reduce CO2 emissions and generate their own electrical power, while enjoying a good workout at home.” I’m all for people-powered electricity generators, and I would’ve loved to have one of these during the recent blackout, but something struck me in the copy: “…An average cyclist could fully charge the battery from empty with 80 minutes of cycling and 132Wh of charge/potential energy can be stored in the battery.” The “Wh” designation stands for watt-hour , and “132Wh” means you could power a 132-watt device for 1 hour. For 80 minutes of cycling to yield, say, just over two hours of light from a 60-watt bulb sounds like a low yield, doesn’t it? My first thought was, can that be right? I did a little digging, and here’s what I found. It turns out hooking a bicycle up to something that directly powers a mechanical device is a fairly efficient way to generate energy. Rig a bicycle up to drive a sewing machine or a hand mixer and you get decent bang for your buck. But the second you get batteries and electricity involved, the efficiency drops way, way off. An article in Low-tech Magazine called ” Bike powered electricity generators are not sustainable ” explains why: …Generating electricity is far from the most efficient way to apply pedal power, due to the internal energy losses in the battery, the battery management system, other electronic parts, and the motor/generator. These energy losses add up quickly: 10 to 35 percent in the battery, 10 to 20 percent in the motor/generator and 5 to 15 percent in the converter (which converts direct current to alternate current). The energy loss in the voltage regulator (or DC to DC converter, which prevents you from blowing up the battery) is about 25 percent. This means that the total energy loss in a pedal powered generator will be 42 to 67.5 percent…. And it even turns out that the bicycle itself has mechanical inefficiencies that suck up more energy: (more…)

Excerpt from:
Surprising News About Bicycle-Powered Electricity Generators