7 ms·

I have conflicted feelings about this. On the one hand it's nice to see the creativity and spirit, on the other hand it's sad to have to invent solutions for p

• comex 13y ago
  Arguably, having the side effect of providing exercise counts as freeing up time for other things.
  • deckiedan 13y ago
    Yes, and while cycling, you can actually do some other things. Reading, watching TV, etc. Although, looking at first world countries, and how society is working, having solutions which force exercise on us would probably be extremely beneficial.
    • almosnow 13y ago
      You could be coding in Java...
      • chris_mahan 13y ago
        Then I wouldn't get the laundry done.
    • igravious 13y ago
      Wouldn't you need to find a TV that doesn't run on electricity first?
      • TeMPOraL 13y ago
        Well, electricity is made out of rotating things if you strap a magnet to them somewhere ;).
        • icebraining 13y ago
          If you're powering a washing machine and a TV by pedaling, I'm not sure you'll last a full cycle ;)
      • deckiedan 13y ago
        ha! good point. Although I was kind of thinking that even without the electricity, it's a benefit. Or alternatively, you could get 20 of these, all facing each other and be sociable. Or if you have some electricity in a town, get all of them in a hall, and play movies. :-)
      • r00fus 13y ago
        smartphone/tablet - and solar powered battery charging. No need for a big screen.
      • dredmorbius 13y ago
        Small electronics draw relatively little power. You can run a small LCD/LED TV (or radio) off solar PV and a small (regulating) battery. Large power (and heat) loads require far more (and more reliable) energy. Tapping into human energy is an option, though net net it's still fairly inefficient.
  • kokey 13y ago
    Exercise is only lacking if most of your daily chores and transport are handled by machines, which is not the case here.
• Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  TBH, this problem /was/ solved a century ago, if not longer, how do you think your grandparents (or their parents) did their laundry? First you had bashing clothes against rocks, then you got washboards, then you got hand-cranked washing machines. Not as clever as leg-powered washing machines, though, but then I'm sure we would be using those by now if it wasn't for electricity.
  • MrZongle2 13y ago
    Agreed; this came to mind as well. Before electricity was commonplace, people still washed their clothes...even if they didn't have easy access to a stream or river. This may be a clever refinement of a human-powered washing machine, but it is far from novel.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• agumonkey 13y ago
  Reminds me of the quite `rinced` Louis CK bit about the mainstream ignorance and disregard toward technology. ps: The assistant made me laugh. Very ironic.
• Mvandenbergh 13y ago
  This is probably still faster than washing by hand in a basin. If it is, it'll still free up time.
  • dredmorbius 13y ago
    Not only faster but generally more effective and, from what I can tell, more efficient in terms of water use. This looks like it mimics the cleaning cycle of high-efficiency washing machines which dip clothes through a small water/detergent solution rather than fill a large tank as top-load washers do.
• r0h1n 13y ago
  Agree. Also, it's a bit misleading to suggest she's created a washing machine that "runs without electricity". By the same logic, Fred Flintstone (or someone in his era) should be credited for designing a car that "ran without electricity". At this stage of mankind's industrialization, it's disingenuous to look at a human powered machine as an improvement over an electricity powered one.
  • acqq 13y ago
    It's a huge improvement over holding the stuff full of skin-attacking chemicals in the hands for extended periods of time. Women in India and not only there have to do that daily.
    • FooBarWidget 13y ago
      Because gloves are too expensive? Never mind that though. Pedalling is a lot easier than washing clothes by hand. It's better for your back too.
      • jxf 13y ago
        Gloves don't work. The chemicals impregnate the gloves and then the situation's even worse, since they're being pressed against your skin for long periods of time.
        • FooBarWidget 13y ago
          What? Latex gloves are water proof. Where can I learn more about the chemicals impregnating the gloves?
          • jxf 13y ago
            Here's a test for you: dry your hands, then take a pair of dry latex gloves, then dunk your hands in a soapy sink for three seconds. Take off the gloves. Your hands will be at least a little damp and soapy. How did that happen, if latex is waterproof? It's because your hand doesn't make a perfect seal with the glove. Also, dish soap and other detergents are surfactants, which reduce the surface tension of water. That makes it easier for it to get into tight spaces, like the space between the glove's edge and your hand. Finally, latex is soluble in many kinds of oil/petroleum-containing product (many waxes, some heavy-duty cleaners, etc.), so if you're wearing latex gloves, you'll literally be dissolving latex onto your skin and degrading the gloves. Gross. If that's what a three-second test will do, imagine how it'd feel to wash clothes for thirty minutes. Not pleasant.
• evrenesat 13y ago
  Free up time to go to gym and burn the calories we got from junk foods that we eat to compensate and cope with our terrible modern life problems?
• loceng 13y ago
  Well, it frees the user up from having to go to the gym later to do some cardio exercises.. Half-joking.