So what do you get when you cross a soft flexible solar panel with a soft flexible battery?  You get a solar battery burrito AA battery!

Solar Batteries!

The Soft Solar Battery concept was designed by Wu Jian and won a prize in the Red Dot Design Award 2008 contest as the obvious next green technology to power your remote controls and random bits of gadgetry.  The concept is simple.  Laid flat, the solar cell recharges the battery.  Then roll it up and stick it in a device when it’s good to go.  Simple.  Easy.  Green.

It’s a cute idea anyway.  Even if today most devices have their batteries built in, or at least use proprietary batteries and chargers.  At least it shows some people are still thinking outside of the box.  My only real qualms with it would be price (which would have to be high) and battery life (which with that small bit of actual storage has got to be rather short).  Just how lean can this green be and still be useful and economical?

Seagate announced their new Savvio 15K.2 hard drives, and I have to say, I’m impressed.

Not by the 115 per cent performance improvement over 3.5 inch 15,000 RPM drives.  Not by making a 15K RPM drive in a 2.5 inch form factor that works so well.  (And is that much easier to cool.)  Not even by the 6GB/s transfer rate and SAS2.0 feature set.

Nope.  Not by any of these mightily impressive things.

But by the 70 per cent less power usage vs. typical 3.5 inch 15K drives.

Because this is thinking smart.  Less power.  Less heat.  Less size.  Better performance.  It’s everything a good server needs.  It’s green computing.  Good job Seagate!

Now if only there were affordable equivalents for the mainstream desktop market…

I already solved this once, a long while back.  And it was handy code to have.  But unfortunately I lost the code.  So now I’m re-solving the problem.  How do you convert from a red-green-blue color scheme (that typically used by computers) into a red-yellow-blue “primary colors” color scheme (that typically used by artists)?

I guess I should explain why this is useful.  From the time we’re born our mommies and daddies give us primary colors of red, yellow, and blue.  And we know that yellow and blue make green.  And that the opposite of red is green.  They’re complementary colors.  Anyone who has ever painted, drawn, etc. knows it.  Anyone who has ever taken even a basic art class knows it.  Heck, anyone who’s ever peed into a toiled filled with blue water knows it.  Primary and secondary colors are all around us.  From the day we’re born to the day we die, it’s the color system we know like the backs of our hands.

But those of us who have done graphics work on computers know that colors don’t work that way … on a computer.  Computers don’t use this color system.  Computers use a red, green, and blue color system.  It’s based on light wavelengths.  Red plus green makes yellow.  The opposite color of red is cyan, not green.  (Hence the other related color system based on the opposites of rgb: cyan, magenta, and yellow or cmy.)  It makes sense to anyone who understands light wavelengths, like a scientist.  But to a graphical artist trying to do work on a computer it can be downright confusing if not insanely ludicrous.  I mean just try taking your painting and doing a color inversion.  It doesn’t come out anything like you’d expect.  Your years of artistic knowledge completely fail you when you hop onto a computer.  All because computer monitors are based on light, so computers have always, from the very beginning, been designed in a way to display the proper images on your monitor; not to help you paint a picture.

Now you’d think that every graphics program ever written would therefor have a way to switch from the rgb color system to the ryb color system, because surely graphical artists use graphics programs, right?

Strangely, I’ve yet to see it.  Granted, it’s been a while since I looked at the biggies like Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro (I have used both in the past).  These days I’ve been using GIMP, because it’s free, and once you get used to the eccentricities, it’s darn near as good as Photoshop at nearly everything.

But where I’ve really needed it is in writing GUIs.  Say you’ve got a GUI where you’re describing a crystal.  You want a way to pick the crystal’s color.  You make buttons to choose colors.  Well the names of the colors on the buttons is great, but wouldn’t it be even neater to colorize the buttons themselves?  It’s easy enough to do.  (At least when using Trolltech’s Qt.  MFC makes it a tad more of a challenge.)  So you set the background color of the button widgets to the color defined by the button text.  It’s insanely easy, and pretty effective … for most colors.  But then there’s that nagging problem, some background colors make black text kind of hard to read.  Especially, you know, black.  Black on black is a bit of a challenge to read.  So you want to make the text always a good color.

Now, you can write an algorithm to calculate the luminosity of the rgb value and determine if white or black would contrast more against the button.  Which works.  But it’s kind of a … kluge.  It doesn’t look nearly as professional as it should.

So you take it one step further.  You use an algorithm to get the contrasting color of the rgb value.  It works.  But looks positively awful.  Because scientifically we know the opposing light wavelength to red is cyan, artistically, our whole life tells us that the opposite color of red is green.  And so the rgb-inverse method grates on our sensibilities.  It makes for readable text, but psychologically drives us nuts.

Which is what brings us to the ultimate solution: a rgb to ryb color system change.  Because once we work in an ryb color system, then the inverse of red really is green.  It does wonders for our GUIs, making the text readable and comforting in its simple “rightness”.  And maybe one day it’ll bring relief to graphical artists on computers when you can switch from rgb to ryb in GIMP or Photoshop and suddenly everything makes sense.

So that’s the explanation.  What’s the solution?  I did it once before.  I know I can solve it again.  Here’s what I’ve got so far just scrawling on some paper:

Step 1: Remove the luminosity.   I remember this clearly.  I remember in my first attempt at solving this years back, it took me a while to figure out that you really absolutely need to do this first and foremost, or else your colors will come out in all of the wrong shades.  This part is simple.  Given that red, green, and blue are input variables for your rgb color that you’re converting into an ryb system:


white = min(red, green, blue)
red -= white
green -= white
blue -= white


Now your rgb values contain no white value in them.  You’re working on converting pure color.  So you can take the next step, determining how much raw yellow there is, and how much of the green value is actually representative of the color green:


yellow_part = min(red, green) # In rgb red and green combine in equal parts to make yellow.  So we have to determine how much yellow there is.
green_part = max(0, green - yellow_part) # Now that we know how much yellow there is, we can take the raw yellow away from the green value to determine how much raw green is truly in the green value.


This next step I haven’t tested out yet.  I know that I’m not 100% certain that it’s a final solution because I know that at the very least I haven’t normalized the end values back into the proper scale.  What do I mean?  Well in an ryb system green is essentially yellow plus blue.  But we also have a blue value.  So in a worst-case scenario, we have a maximum blue value of 1/2 green plus blue.  In OpenGL where you’ve got a component scale of 1.0 maximum in rgb, this means blue could have a maximum value of 1.5 in ryb.  So you’ve got to re-scale the values after converting their components.  As I said, I don’t have that worked into the formula yet, but I do have part of the formula:


half_green = green_part / 2 # We know that green needs to be divided into equal parts of blue and yellow, so to optimize the code we calculate half of the remaining green component.
red = red - yellow_part
yellow = yellow_part + half_green
blue = blue + half_green


So at this point you should have the raw component color parts of a red, yellow, and blue color system.  Next up is normalizing the values back to the same scale as was used in the rgb system, and then putting the luminosity back in by re-adding the white value.  Do this and you should be done converting rgb to ryb.  Sometime when I get around to reinstalling Python + PyQt and/or some version of Visual Studio on my computer I may even get around to finishing the conversion code (and testing) in a follow-up Part 2 blog entry.

Okay, so I’m sick of this.  GM is notoriously bad.  But now even the high-end auto manufacturers are getting in on the stupidity.  I’ve just got to rant.  So let me make this one thing clear:

MAKING A CAR A HYBRID DOES NOT MAKE IT GREEN!!!!!

Say what?

Yes, you read that right.  Just because it has a hybrid logo on it, just because it has part electric power, does NOT make it green.  It does not by default make it fuel efficient.  It does not by default mean it has low emissions.

For example, here are some average gas mileage ratings of cars that actually get a high enough efficiency rating to be considered green:

Now, these cars all get above 30MPG in real-world driving, according to hybridCARS.  It is by no means an extensive list.  There are many others as well.  (And then there are the super-green cars like plug-in hybrids and electrics.)  And you’ll note that there are even diesel and normal everyday fuel cars in that list.  They don’t have to be hybrid to have a good fuel efficiency.

Now, here are some hybrids which are not green:

So I say again, just because it has a hybrid logo on it, does not make it green.

What makes a car green is that it does something for the environment.  It uses less gas.  It puts out less emissions.  There is no “in its class” beating around the bush.  Either it is green, or it isn’t.  The term “hybrid” is not some carte blanche to feel good about yourself by pretending that you care about the environment.  Slapping a “hybrid” logo onto a car does not suddenly make everything okay.

It’s a Sunday.  The afternoon sun is shining.  The birds are singing.  The cicadas are buzzing.  What a perfect day to mow the lawn, right?

I pull out my man-powered push mower that runs on neither gas nor electricity, but simply the power of my muscles.  (Because I’m so green … and because I can get away with it with such a tiny lawn.)  I’ve had this particular 20″ blade Task Force lawnmower for over a year now.  It’s not exactly the most fun I’ve ever had mowing a lawn (considering my last lawnmower was a powerhouse push mower with a powerful 6.5hp four-cycle engine) but I’ve only got a small yard now, and I’m being green.

It starts out like any other mow.  Only I’m halfway through now and I think I’m feeling something odd.  Only I’m not sure.

I’m three quarters of the way through the yard and I’m definitely feeling something odd.  The blades are spun by the wheels being pushed forward.  The blades spin free when the wheels move backward.  It’s a simple and nifty way to spin the blades by sheer manpower.  The force of the push spins up the blades.  But as I push forward now, the blades seem to kind of klang a bit before the spin. I’m sure of it now.

As I push the mower towards my shed so that I can take a look at it, it gives one last klang.  And now I just hear the gentle click-click-click of the freespin.  Only I’m pushing fowards, not backwards.  The blade no longer powers up when I push.  My lawnmower is dead.

Well drat!  That ain’t good!

Green proponents or just people with small yards may be quite familiar with this lawnmower.  It seems to be a popular one.  Until it broke on me, I didn’t entirely dislike it myself.  (What can I say? It’s a lot of work pushing a people-powered mower.)  I always kind of thought of it as the cream of the bad crop.

And as you look at the design, it looks built to last.  Except for the wheels and the handle tighteners and grip, it’s all metal.  It holds up well. … So I thought.

Then I get the wheel assembly apart.  It’s as simple as slipping a C clip.

On the inside of the wheel is gear toothing.  Which turns that black sprocket you see there.  That black sprocket is designed to move only in one direction.  When the wheels move forward, it grips, allowing the blade to spin up.  When the wheel doesn’t move, or moves backwards, it slips, allowing the blade to free-spin.  This way the blades don’t slow down just because you do.  And you can’t jerk moving blades to a grinding halt by moving backwards.

But wait.  What’s this?  While everything else important is made of metal, the sprocket that does all of this is made of plastic!

A quick examination of this cheap plastic sprocket, the heart of the blade spinning operation, the part that takes the most abuse, reveals the problem.  The inside metal catch that free spins one way and grips the other has torn this cheap piece of plastic to shreds!

I don’t care how any marketing guru cares to try to spin this one.  The most important part of this lawnmower, the part that takes the most stress and abuse per square meter of surface area, is made of plastic.

IT WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL!

And so the bad lawnmower has been thoroughly FUBARed by an intentional design by the manufacturer for it to break down.  There’s simply no other way to explain using a cheap plastic part at this most important juncture.

Is it even worth trying to get this thing repaired under warranty?  They’re just going to replace that god awful little plastic sprocket with another plastic sprocket.  The lawnmower is just going to fail again.  There is no “if”.  There is no question.  It’s only a matter of time.  It’s designed to fail.

If I were a blacksmith or a machinist I might try to die cast or machine out a new sprocket from metal that would last for years and years.  But I’m not.  I’m a tech geek.  I don’t have neat toys like that in my basement.  And frankly, if I were going to do anything to this lawnmower at this point, it’d be to strap a motor and a car battery to the bugger and make that sucker electric!  But I don’t have the R&D budget for that kind of tinkering, and frankly, the blade really isn’t so good at catching all of the types of grass and weeds in my not-so-perfect yard.

It’s time for something better.

Say hello to my little friend: The Black & Decker Lawn Hog 19″ corded electric lawnmower!

It’s my new best friend.  It’s the green lawnmower I always wanted.

Okay, so electric isn’t quite as green as human-powered.  It’s still a lot better than gas, so cut me some slack.  I could have spent like $450 (give or take) on a hearty battery mower.  Or $350 give or take on a severely underpowered battery mower.  But why spend that kind of money when I can get the el-cheapo electric that uses a cord instead of a battery?

I’ve already taken the new mower out for a spin.  Man is it so much better than that stupid man-powered mower.  Now mowing the lawn is literally as easy as, say, using a vacuum.  Really!  That sucker is light!  It just glides across the lawn.  Never have I felt a lawnmower push so easily.  Even my last gas hog, a self-propelled push model, didn’t move this easy.

And starting it is a breeze!  No more yanking a cord.  No problem starts.  It just whirrs right up!

As I pushed it to its knees, I found that you also can’t kill it.  You just can’t.  Electric motors may spin down, but unlike gas motors, they don’t stall if you push them too hard.

There are only two problems I’ve seen with this mower.  The first is true of any corded mower: the cord.  What happens when you run over a cord?  I don’t want to know.  I really really don’t.  Fortunately you literally just plug in an extension cord into the mower, so if you run over the cord you can easily replace it should you be squeemish about splicing it.  (Call me squeemish.  I tried that once as a child, and it wasn’t pretty when I plugged the spliced cord back in.  I’ve been leery of electricity ever since.)

The other problem is the mulcher.  The blade on this sucker is like half fan blade,  half lawnmower blade.  It really sucks up the grass.  Which means that, of course, it’s constantly trying to push the motor to its knees because it’s constantly trying to dice up way more grass than it should at one time.  Now the solution is simple - use the bag in the back instead of mulch - or whenever you hear it struggle, just lift the nose of the lawnmower up a smidge to break the vacuum so that grass can escape.  Both are fine solutions to such a simple problem.  But it’s still a minor nuicanse.

But hey, if those are the worst two things I have to deal with to use such a great and green lawnmower?  No worries, mate!  I’m so very sold.

My only ponderance at this point is whether or not the battery-powered mowers are as smooth as this corded mower.  Battery devices run at slower speeds to save energy.  That might suck.  Worse though, a battery for a device with that much of a motor has got to have some weight to it.  Will a battery version push as effortlessly?  I don’t know.  It’s so lightweight that it’s almost ridiculous.  It’s great!  I’d hate to see that feature lost by adding a battery.

So, thanks to a judicious expendeture of money and a great company like Black& Decker, my lawn has never been so easy to mow.  And I still don’t use gas!  In a way, I’m actually almost glad that the Task Force mower was designed to break, because now I’ve found something infinitely better.