4 ms·

No, I didn't miss it. You'll note, if you read carefully, that the article only says they can be charged from indoor light, which I don't doubt is true. It doe

No, I didn't miss it. You'll note, if you read carefully, that the article only says they can be charged from indoor light, which I don't doubt is true. It doesn't say they can get a useful amount of energy indoors. The only concrete numbers quoted are for direct sunlight, which is several orders of magnitude more intense than ambient indoor lighting.

dspillett 4y ago
> No, I didn't miss it. It seemed so, or that you were ignoring it, from what you write. Perhaps offer more clarity in future to avoid such confusion. > the article only says they can be charged from indoor light The article says they can be charged from indoor light. Adding “only” there I think is needlessly negative. The article goes on to describe how this is expected/hoped to be useful, charging between uses even if (unlike direct sunlight) it is not enough to maintain power during prolonged use, which strongly implies a useful amount of energy if thought to be harvestable in typical indoor conditions.
- teraflop 4y ago
  > Perhaps offer more clarity in future to avoid such confusion. Sorry, I'll be more explicit: I give absolutely no credence to what a manufacturer "expects" or "hopes" or "strongly implies" their product to be able to do in a thinly-veiled press release, especially when they're unwilling to give any concrete facts to back those hopes up.
  - dspillett 4y ago
    I likewise, given how often people don't read things before responding to or about them, don't give the benefit of the doubt when someone's response looks like they may not have considered details that are openly presented. Feel free to be a cynic, it is often a healthy position IMO, but you'll be less stressed if you try not to let yourself get offended (or just surprised) when others are too, or consider how others might read you incorrectly which can be corrected with a little detail of your PoV (other than it is contrary to another one) up front.

dspillett 4y ago

> No, I didn't miss it. It seemed so, or that you were ignoring it, from what you write. Perhaps offer more clarity in future to avoid such confusion. > the article only says they can be charged from indoor light The article says they can be charged from indoor light. Adding “only” there I think is needlessly negative. The article goes on to describe how this is expected/hoped to be useful, charging between uses even if (unlike direct sunlight) it is not enough to maintain power during prolonged use, which strongly implies a useful amount of energy if thought to be harvestable in typical indoor conditions.

teraflop 4y ago
> Perhaps offer more clarity in future to avoid such confusion. Sorry, I'll be more explicit: I give absolutely no credence to what a manufacturer "expects" or "hopes" or "strongly implies" their product to be able to do in a thinly-veiled press release, especially when they're unwilling to give any concrete facts to back those hopes up.
- dspillett 4y ago
  I likewise, given how often people don't read things before responding to or about them, don't give the benefit of the doubt when someone's response looks like they may not have considered details that are openly presented. Feel free to be a cynic, it is often a healthy position IMO, but you'll be less stressed if you try not to let yourself get offended (or just surprised) when others are too, or consider how others might read you incorrectly which can be corrected with a little detail of your PoV (other than it is contrary to another one) up front.