The Train Break Turbine

Here's a quick energy generating idea. As well as all the usual green ways of energy production, why not tap into the wasted energy of breaks on a train.

You'd still keep the breaking mechanism on a train as a safety measure for the driver (and also for slowing near bends), but primarily breaking entering a station can be done by 'break turbines'. These are just a number of large turbine wheels built under the sections of track approaching the station, which will connect with long strips of break pad under each carriage. The break turbines will be adjustable from the signal box, so that they're only there if a train needs to stop. The turbines can be lowered so that they don't affect through-trains not intended to stop at the station.

For trains that should stop, the whole thing will be automated. There will be sensors on the track that register the speed of a train's approach to the station. The computer then knows how much pressure the turbine breaks need to initially exert on the train. This pressure is then gradually released until the train comes to a smooth stop at the platform.

Every time a train pulls into a station, a turbine will be turned which will generate electricity. Imagine the amount of power generated if every railway and tube station had these turbines spinning every time a train approached a platform. Enough to power the trains? Probably not, but I imagine there'd be a lot more force there than in wind or tidal power.

Naturally it would take much time and expense to convert both stations and trains to this method of breaking and energy production. But once all up and running, I should think they'd easily pay for themselves within a year.

Also, it would be easier to include this genius idea within the designs of new trains and train lines, rather than retrofitting it to existing ones.

I really like the proposed idea of the almost-frictionless vacuum tube train system* that they're gonna build in the USA or Japan**. I hereby give them permission to use my train break turbine generator idea as part of it's design. Just let me know if you've any questions guys.


* AKA The vactrain. A genius idea that's so crazy, it's like the sort of shit that I'd make up.
** I figure one of these 2 countries is bound to do it first.

Beep Beep

I almost find it ridiculous that in this day and age, a new car still only has one beep sound for it's horn. A sound that is supposed to convey numerous messages to fellow road users, from 'Cheers mate!' and 'look out, I'm approaching the corner' to 'Get the fuck out of my way! This is my road!' ...and everything in between.  The only current difference between all of the above, is the length of the beeeep.

Cars should have more than one horn sound.

I'm not suggesting that you have a great myriad of polyphonic sounds, just three or four alternative beep sounds, which better articulate the sentiment you're going for.
For example, for a simple 'Thank you' noise, you're going to want a lighter meep-meep sound  - not too dissimilar to the horn on Postman Pat's van. You know the one. Everybody knows his bright red van. So Pat's got that one sorted already, but what if he's in a pile up? What if Ted's truck's broken down, and Pat's got an urgent delivery for the vicar? He's gonna want the extra aggressive grunt in his beep. If only to help him let of a little steam. Unfortunately he's only got that little 'meep' horn; It doesn't really do the trick when what he really wants to say is 'Yo momma!' to Ted Glenn.
This could have also been a contributing factor for Post Office workers who have been known to 'go postal'. Despite the inadequacies of Pat's van, it has been recorded for the record that he feels he's a really happy man. Mind you, that was before news of the Royal Mail's impending privatisation.

The multi-horned car is an idea I came up with many years ago. In the interim I've heard one or two other people mention the same idea to me independently. I definitely thought if it first though. Oh, what's that? You came up with the idea too? ...When was that?...  Oh really? Well I thought of it about five years before then.

Science Friction (Perpetual Motion's Nemesis)

These days I seem to be posting my ideas more infrequently. Which is to say, I've been posting my ideas more sparsely, with a higher rate of infrequency, and in fewer abundance. Which is to say, in plain English, I've been posting less inperiodically or more commonly less frequently more often.

It is for this reason that I challenged my genius brain to come up with an idea that will solve more than one of mankind's problems in one go. We're talking killing two birds with one stone. But I didn't want to stop at two. Anyone who knows me knows how I love to maim a multitude of feathered creatures with one projectile, but on this occasion I decided to leave them be, and just think about the problem I'd set myself. Well within 15 minutes I came up with a single concept that will help reduce humanity's social, environmental, technological, residential and economic problems. All you need is a few decades work on an international scale, in a large section of Antarctica.

(an area of 500km radius around the south pole to be exact)

Problem 1.
The prisons in [insert country here] are full, but people keep doing crimes.

Solution: Send all the world's prisoners (or all the lifers at least) to one massive prison on an island. Perhaps not such an original idea. It's like when the US used to send criminals to Alcatraz. ...or when the UK used to send criminals to Australia. (In retrospect we call all agree that the latter was a terrible idea).
A large prison will be built in the centre of the continent of Antarctica, which (when the prisoners have finished building it) will be escape-proof. Anyone leaving the prison complex to go outside is essentially committing suicide. This of course is illegal, and will be punished by 24 hours isolation in the cooler.
Once it's up and running, a vast majority of the worlds prisons can be closed.  ... and then converted into budget housing. I'm not suggesting people will live in cell-sized flats. (not everyone anyway) I'm saying you could knock though several cells and have an apartment that was made up of up to 5 cells. Luxury.


Problem 2.
How can the world save money on the space program?

Solution: You'd have a lift into space. Yes, this isn't a new idea, not even by me. But it is an idea I came up with many years ago. I've adapted it though, so that the base of the lift is in the Antarctic (to capitalise on the very cheap/free labour among the local residents), and the counterweight at the other end is in a low orbit in space, but at an angle (of maybe 60°) from the base. The counterweight can make several orbits of the Earth each day in the opposite direction that the Earth is turning. The base in this new design however is actually anchored to a platform that moves around a large track with a circumference of approximately 3142km around the South Pole (again, built over many years by convicts). The speed of the platform around the track can be altered any time the lift needs to be used. Why the track? Well this is part of the answer to my third problem...


Problem 3.
How can we create renewable energy and stop burning fossil fuels?

Solution: This is also a question I've attempted to answer before. Albeit, not very convincingly. The idea was a very simple perpetual motion machine. And while that genius magnetic contraption has it's charms, I'll be the first to admit that it does sort of contravene Newton's third law of motion. Generally you can't create energy from nothing. You can only convert energy. Which is exactly what we're doing here. For all intents and purposes, this coasting Antarctic space elevator is a genuine perpetual motion machine. It would actually work. Why? Because it's not actually a genuine perpetual motion machine. But it almost is. The movement on the track will either turn a giant underground wheel, or turn a series of generator as the platform speeds round the track. The speed of the thing is determined by the radius of the track as well as the height of the counterweight's orbit.* It will never stop, so long as the Earth keeps spinning. A by-product of this ingenious suggestion is that (very gradually) the Earth's spin will slow down as a result of friction. The Earth's spin is slowing down very gradually anyway, but this machinery will increase this deceleration. However, it's worth pointing out that you won't see any noticeable effect of this for many hundreds of years.  ...probably.

Still, I'm always saying there aren't enough hours in the day.



*Assuming the counterweight goes round the earth just twice a day, and the track has a diameter of 1000km, then the base will be travelling at about 262km/h (163mph). For convenience this speed can be sped up or slowed down by decreasing or increasing the length of the counterweight's tether.

Above Us, Only Sky... (Improving the Capital - part 2)

Recently I was reminded of a conversation I had a few months back. It was a conversation with a colleague in a public house (where all good conversations take place) in London's Soho. I can't quite remember how we got onto the subject, but I was challenged with resolving the traffic jam problems of the area. Initially my thoughts were to pedestrianize the whole of Soho, thus instantly solving the problem. Why would you need cars in the area.... in the day at least? Delivery vans could have limited access to certain main roads in Soho in the early hours of the morning, and any requiring a taxi during the day can easily walk to the nearest main road that surrounds Soho; You're never more than a 5 minute stroll from either Charring Cross Road, Shaftesbury Avenue, Oxford or Regent Street.

This explanation seemed unacceptable to my fellow-worker, as he insisted that traffic would still require access throughout the day. Fair enough. And with that brief, I mulled the problem over for a couple of seconds and proposed a genius scheme that if put into practice, would drastically alter the centre of London as seen from above. My solution would be a ridiculously expensive one (to the point that it would be cheaper to demolish all the buildings of Soho and build it again with better planning), but a solution that would ultimately work, none-the-less. What is required is that all the roads become pedestrianized, and new overpass roads be built above the main thoroughfares of Soho (Berwick, Wardour, Broadwick, Dean Street, etc.). With regular temporary parking areas and pedestrian access to buildings/streets below. This would enable easy delivery of goods and people alike to the very centre of the West-End, whilst keeping the original roads traffic free (with the exception of bicycles, push-scooters and hoverboards) for the safety of tourists, London trendies, media-types and sex-workers alike.

At this point the sharper amongst you may have spotted a problem with the above proposal (as did my slightly inebriated colleague). It was pointed out to me that with half of Soho's roads having roads above them, much sunlight will be blocked from hitting the streets. The obvious solution to this is a simple yet costly one. On the underside of every flyover, there will be special optical tiles. These tiles comprise of millions of optic fibres, the end of such fibres will run through the concrete to the road above to a corresponding tile. Light will hit the road surface above and be emitted from the optic tiles below. The ones above will not actually be on the road itself (otherwise the light would be diminished every time the shadow of a vehicle goes over it) but in fact on the side and central barriers, and on the top of intermittent posts that will double as lampposts after dark. The result of which is that during daylight hours, the sky will be visible from beneath the road. The road itself will not be totally invisible to look at, but at first glance it will be totally transparent. Also there will be no sight of any vehicles (and in the future when all are electric, no sound or smell of any cars either).

You may think this all sounds implausible, but the technology already exists to make such things 'invisible' by various means. At this point, my co-drinking co-worker seemed extremely happy with the solution that I'd given him; not only was he smiling throughout my description of a possible future, but the moment I said the word 'invisible', he laughed out loud and said 'Invisible roads'. Then he continued to laugh. He couldn't stop. Only to take a breath or repeat the phase 'Invisible roads!' to himself, which would get him started again. I can only summarise that either this man is also a genius and could not contain himself at the thought that no-one had come up with such an ingeniously simple solution to one of our capitals traffic problems, or that I had vastly over-estimated his cognitive abilities; this high-concept glimpse of the future was enough to short-circuit his brain, rendering him a simpleton. I fear the latter to be the case, as I've subsequently witnessed several outbursts of uncontrollable laughter from this man. Occasionally he can be heard to repeat the phrase 'Invisible roads' to himself, before laughing some more. Thankfully his basic motor functions do not appear to be affected and he continues in is occupation with seemingly no problems. But I can't help but feel guilty for the long term damage that I may've caused. A lesson has been learnt however: Ensure those seeking ultimate knowledge are ready for such, for to impart ideas on an untrained mind can have tragic consequences.

Oh, the woes of being a visionary genius.

Hooked to the Silver Screen ... (3D Trifle part 1)

There were always advantages of viewing a film at the cinema: You can see it in wide screen, in complete surround sound and in 3D (if available). Pretty much like in your living room then? Viewing the same film at home on a top-of-the-line home cinema set-up can rival a theatre experience; you can watch a film on blu-ray on an HD screen, in the correct aspect ratio, in 7.1 surround and also in 3D.

With every advance the cinema has taken, the home cinema has soon caught up. Although I will admit that regardless the size of your television, it still doesn't beat actually going to the cinema. A real cinema experience (particularly one utilising actual film projection) has always been preferential to spending a night in front of your TV.

This is why I'm slightly saddened to report that this will no long be the case. ...in the near future.

Yes, this soothsaying genius has predicted the collapse of film industry funding. Ever rising tickets prices and an increasingly better quality of home cinema will cause more and more cinema to close in the future. The film industry won't die though thanks to blu-ray and film download sales, and the video games market. (more on this later).

The clear advantage of a cinema experience over watching a film in your living room was you can see it in 3D. Well now you can do so at home, but there's still the problem that you have to wear 3D glasses to do so. This will always be the case in the cinema, but at home there are a couple of technologies for 3D television that have not yet been mass marketed to the masses. If I were cynical I would suggest that this is because the folks in the industry don't want the 3D home experience to be better than that of the cinema. Lenticular, glasses-free TVs have already been produced, some to greater success than others. I personally am holding off buying a 3DTV for the day when the 3D technology is perfected enough to warrant the extortionate price I'll inevitably have to pay. ...And that day's not far off. The 3DTV industry has to move as one though; we can't have a variety of different technologies out there... (technically we can, but why waste all that extra bandwidth and conversion technology).

There is one obvious aspect of looking at an object in real life that differs from that of a 3D object on a screen, and that is focal point. I talking about creating movies more interactive (and this is where the crossover into video games territory comes in).

In real life you look round a room and your eyes focus on something. Look at something in the foreground and then something in the background. You can bring both into focus, but you can't focus on both at once. Ever since Orson Welles popularised the effect of deep focus in Citizen Kane, films have looked amazing artistically, but less realistic compared to how we see things in real life. Wouldn't it be marvellous to view a 3D film in which your focal length changes depending on which depth you're looking at? Well I've designed just such a device to do that. It won't change the way we view films in general, but it will make the 3d home cinema experience a lot more immersive and therefore more realistic. The same technology could however completely revolutionise the games industry.

Orson Welles, showing off in sharp focus in the background. (Citizen Kane, 1941)

More details on this genius invention at a later date. For now I need to look into whether anyone else has had the same idea. Surely some other genius will have thought up the same thing independently. But that's only an assumption; therefore I wouldn't want to reveal any details too soon.

Lasered Eyes

So last week I had my eyes lasered.

It's something I've been thinking about for some time. I won't bore you with details, suffice to say that my vision was pretty much my only sense that I wasn't happy with. (I actually have an incredible sense of smell and taste... I'm what people describe as a supertaster.)

Anyhoo, after shopping around I settled on a laser clinic that seemed professional enough and surgeon that I was happy with (as well as a price I was happy with).

Getting your eyes cut by a laser can be quite scary. The actual procedure is painless, but the build up can be a little nerve wrecking. I don't mind telling you, I was bricking it in the waiting room.

It occurred to me whilst staring at the lights in surgery with the eye clamp on, that it would be a good idea to know what you're in for before you actually get it done. It would be good to see the laser experience on video.... but to my knowledge, no-one has made such a video.

I'm not talking about some CGI version of what happens to your eye during surgery. Nor do I think it's a good idea to see footage of an actual eye operation before you get yours done. (Warning: If you plan to ever get you eyes lasered, DO NOT watch the linked video! It'll freak you right out. - not least cos it looks like they used blade technology to remove the flap).

What I'm talking about a POV video. If someone made a video documenting the eye surgery process from the perspective of the patient then no -one would have any worries. The audio on the video can be from an actual operation, and the footage created using the actual LASIK laser looking down on the camera with a perspex/polythene "eye" mounted above it. Everything else (eye clamp, laser movement, surgeon applying drops and removing/replacing the flap) should be repeated for this fake camera eye exactly as it is done in an actual operation. There's an array of white, red and a single green light/LED that you stare at. Once your drops are in, you view goes a bit blurry. Then when you flap is peeled back, everything is even more diffused. It looks kind of trippy... like an unused scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Watching such a video, looking at the pretty colours whilst listening to a calming surgeons voice will be reassuring. It's a genius idea and would definitely make laser eye surgery more appealing for nervous people. It'll be certainly better than viewing the video I link to above. ... Go on, watch it. I dare you. I double dare you.

After Surgery

Initially I lost an outer layer of cells from my right eye. Whereas my left was near perfect straight away.

Ten days later and my left eye now has 20/12 vision (that's nearly twice as good as 20/20). My right is still fairly blurry, but I'm told it'll be great within a few weeks. It'll be awesome! In the meantime, I'm like a really shit super hero with half a superpower. 

Other such ridiculous semi-superpowers include my aforementioned ability to taste subtle flavours better than most people, the ability to go translucent, and the ability to fly (but limited to a walking-pace and only few inches off the ground). I've yet to acquire the last two half-arsed special powers, but should I do so, I will devout my life to fighting crime... some of the time. Well... occasionally. You know, if it happens to be going on near me. ...I won't go out of my way or anything. In fact if someone was robbing a shop I happen to be in I might make an effort to put a stop to it. ...maybe. ....I mean I might not. But maybe I'll at least hinder their escape. Probably. If I thought it was safe to do so. Otherwise I'd get out of their way. I mean, I wouldn't help them escape or anything.... unless they forced me. And I certainly won't be committing any actual crimes myself. ...Not often anyway. (unofficial video/music downloads and copyright infringement don't really count, yeah?) 

...And from then on I will be known as...FAIRLY-GOOD-BLOKE!

 

Incidentally, if anyone out there also has any actual useless semi-crap superpower, you're welcome to join my team of lazy-bastard superheroes The Non-Credibles.

The Space Lift & Lunar Aqua Park!

Here's a couple of genius ideas I had at the same time. They're a good example of ideas that might sit at either end of the actual genius spectrum.

A Lift Into Space!

Possibly not to scale.

In 2002 I came up with a genius idea of an easier way to get people into space. A lift, that would climb up a really strong cable to a geo-stationary satellite. Then once they're up there, they people can get into their spaceships that are conveniently parked in orbit. Thus saving on all that oh-so-expensive rocket fuel. Oh how my colleagues laughed.
But then, around 2 years later I read in the Metro that this was exactly what scientists were working on. Had NASA stolen my idea?  ....well no. A quick shufty on wikipedia tells me that the idea had been around for over 100 years.
Great minds, eh? This has to be my first proven genius idea. (and it surely is a genius idea - NASA's spent millions on the research already).

The 22-year-old me was so smart. I remember that day, I was on a roll. Later that afternoon I also came up with...


The Lunar Aqua-Park!

I also told my colleagues about this one. Genius it is... and before I explain it to you, please bear in mind that this can be done, but only in the far distant future... and by a company/person with extreme wealth and little consideration for the future of life on our planet.
The concept is a simple one: A water park on the moon. Can you imagine it?  ...You'd have loads of water slides, shoots and swimming pools. All housed in some giant geodesic domes. It'd be like CentreParks in space. But of course, the difference being there is much less gravity on the moon. It'd be awesome.

Now here's the genius bit. ('What Jon? Was that not the genius bit already.... the general concept?' .... Well yeah, but it gets better.) One of the attractions in this park is a ride that tunnels through the ground right through to the centre of the moon  ...and there would be a giant cavern carved out, and about 4 swimming pools worth of water dumped in there.  The water would all float like a liquid sphere in the centre of the moon and people would dive in from all angles. I call it The Lunaquasphere™. How cool would that be in the centre?... swimming about with every direction being up. And also, because there's less gravity, you could dive in from much higher and not hurt yourself. Brilliant eh?  ... Nothing can go wrong. Although, like I say, I've not really looked into the earthly repercussions of having a big hole into the centre of the Moon. If the Moon lost some of it's mass, it may actually affect the Earth's tidal patterns, seasons, the Moon's orbit round the Earth, and possibly even the Earth's orbit around the sun. It would certainly jeopardise the future of life on Earth...  Still, imagine all the fun you could have in a Lunaquasphere™.