yes 5WH would be 18KJ, but this is now work, not just body heat, so thats 4000 calories - which seems a hell of a lot -
no bets either - but 16 calories of (human) work isn't very much - be nice if thats all it took to keep a ?watch powered.
4000 seems way high though.
If I go do a 40km time trial on my bike (~an hour on the road bike, less on the TT bike), I'll record about 300W (measured), and that will show 1080kJ. That's about 257 nutritional calories, but that's only what I'm putting to the road. I'm inefficient at around 23%, so I'm actually producing around another 77% of that 300W in heat for that hour too, which is another 860 calories. So the grand total is 1117 calories burned for the hour.
I've used my power meter (Powertap) to measure workouts for an off-season weight-loss cycle, and the above assumptions were good enough to predict my weight loss to the pound, from 6 weeks of dieting and riding at a fat-burning pace.
It seems like the 16 calorie number would cover your power calculations. That number is not really the challenge though -- it's the size and weight of a device that would turn natural wrist movement into 1.5Wh to charge the watch. If a 5g inertial mass generator is good for 5µW, I'm wondering how big/massive the generator would have to be to generate 18,750 times (1.5Wh / 16 h) as much power as the Sieko generator O_o
not waterproof, and 80% of human beings are comprised of water. What we do everyday involves water. So, it's impossible to track fitness while swimming, heart rate in the hot tub, cold tub, no steam room, no surfing, no standup paddling, no prone paddling, no scuba diving, no water parks, no hot springs, no showering or bathing, etc.
Short battery life. No sleep tracking.
So it's impossible to get a picture of your health with this device unless they make it waterproof at minimum up to 3 meters. Until then, you can send little heartbeats to your buddy.
Horrible design flaw. Almost shocking. See you in a few years AppleWatch...
Wrong. Rene Ritchie confirmed with Apple that it will be water resistant, not waterproof.
If I go do a 40km time trial on my bike (~an hour on the road bike, less on the TT bike), I'll record about 300W (measured), and that will show 1080kJ. That's about 257 nutritional calories, but that's only what I'm putting to the road. I'm inefficient at around 23%, so I'm actually producing around another 77% of that 300W in heat for that hour too, which is another 860 calories. So the grand total is 1117 calories burned for the hour.
I've used my power meter (Powertap) to measure workouts for an off-season weight-loss cycle, and the above assumptions were good enough to predict my weight loss to the pound, from 6 weeks of dieting and riding at a fat-burning pace.
It seems like the 16 calorie number would cover your power calculations. That number is not really the challenge though -- it's the size and weight of a device that would turn natural wrist movement into 1.5Wh to charge the watch. If a 5g inertial mass generator is good for 5µW, I'm wondering how big/massive the generator would have to be to generate 18,750 times (1.5Wh / 16 h) as much power as the Sieko generator O_o
pardon - i agree 4000 is high - that is real (scientific calorie) which is 4kcal, but of course in food its still referred to as calories (why in physics they stick to joules, and avoid the small calorie big Calorie
I totally agree its the conversion thats the issue - I was only trying to point out that if you made an almost perfect generator, thats still a lot of energy to find from wrist / body motion.
apparently a normal person uses 28kcal just to sleep for 30 mins, so keeping the watch going for 16 hours would use the same energy as sleeping for half hour. I still think thats a lot
pardon - i agree 4000 is high - that is real (scientific calorie) which is 4kcal, but of course in food its still referred to as calories (why in physics they stick to joules, and avoid the small calorie big Calorie
I totally agree its the conversion thats the issue - I was only trying to point out that if you made an almost perfect generator, thats still a lot of energy to find from wrist / body motion.
apparently a normal person uses 28kcal just to sleep for 30 mins, so keeping the watch going for 16 hours would use the same energy as sleeping for half hour. I still think thats a lot
Funny, I went through my first post on this and turned kCal into Calorie, then back to calorie, just to avoid confusion, and all I did was add confusion...
Yeah, the sleeping burn is fine when it's spread out through your whole body, but fueling that load through the inefficiency of an electromechanical device hanging off your wrist is not going to be fun.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/182207/apple-watch-users-will-need-to-recharge-nightly-company-still-working-to-improve-uptime-before-launch/200#post_2595869" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>SpamSandwich</strong> <a href="/t/182207/apple-watch-users-will-need-to-recharge-nightly-company-still-working-to-improve-uptime-before-launch/200#post_2595869"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />Wrong. Rene Ritchie confirmed with Apple that it will be water resistant, not waterproof.</div></div><p>I think you meant correct , its been confirmed water resistant not waterproof - <strong style="color:rgb(24, 24, 24); font-style:normal">univurshul </strong></p>
Funny, I went through my first post on this and turned kCal into Calorie, then back to calorie, just to avoid confusion, and all I did was add confusion...
Yeah, the sleeping burn is fine when it's spread out through your whole body, but fueling that load through the inefficiency of an electromechanical device hanging off your wrist is not going to be fun.
It's horrible isn't it. I looked at a lot of websites, including coca cola USA, and frequent use of calorie when they should use Calorie or kcal or something,
I had posted in this thread, I'm fine with rechargeable batteries in a phone, but for me I would like it to last a few days between charges. I don't want to carry a charger with me, or have my watch die just because I forgot or didn't get chance to charge it the previous night. Seems I'm in the minority.
Wrong. Rene Ritchie confirmed with Apple that it will be water resistant, not waterproof.
I think you meant correct , its been confirmed water resistant not waterproof - univurshul
It's horrible isn't it. I looked at a lot of websites, including coca cola USA, and frequent use of calorie when they should use Calorie or kcal or something,
I had posted in this thread, I'm fine with rechargeable batteries in a phone, but for me I would like it to last a few days between charges. I don't want to carry a charger with me, or have my watch die just because I forgot or didn't get chance to charge it the previous night. Seems I'm in the minority.
Yeah, I've got a Philmont Scout Ranch trip in my future, along with all of the training trips leading up to it. I think pack-mounted solar panels are in my future.
Yeah, I've got a Philmont Scout Ranch trip in my future, along with all of the training trips leading up to it. I think pack-mounted solar panels are in my future.
That's a lot of sun!
If you don't mind junk, this Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68751 is on sale for 199 at harbor freight.... If you don't mind a heavy pack! It's 45 watts of power
This baby is only $15, for 1.5w. Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68692
But this is the one I was looking at, it has protection built in Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68691
And coming from a huge Apple fan, I like how this watch looks!" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I find it to be kind of retro chic.
I'm not sure if I would get one yet. That remains to be seen, when I can see one in person, and besides it's not out until next year.
The retro would be enhanced if there's an homage time display that mimics the Cartier Tank with those sharp graphics... Slap on the black leather band and you're there. For a lot less than seven grand or more as well ( a lot more for a vintage one).
If you don't mind junk, this Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68751 is on sale for 199 at harbor freight.... If you don't mind a heavy pack! It's 45 watts of power
This baby is only $15, for 1.5w. Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68692
But this is the one I was looking at, it has protection built in Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68691
That big one is a bit much lol, but the other one is intriguing. I was thinking of something like the Goal Zero Switch 8, which charges a battery during the day, and you can charge other devices whenever you like (so I can burn phone battery during the sunlight, and recharge it while I'm sleeping). Of course I could make one much cheaper using another portable charger with the $15 HF panel...
Yeah, I've got a Philmont Scout Ranch trip in my future, along with all of the training trips leading up to it. I think pack-mounted solar panels are in my future.
For a lot less weight there's the Brunton hydrogen fuel cell approach: cloudy days don't matter for that tech.
Something to remember: Moto Almost 360 is a currently shipping product. Apple watch is not. I'll bet any money there are people on this project spending all their time right now trying to improve battery life.
Maybe not all their time; they need time to recharge their batteries. ????
No they haven't. At best it's an oblique statement by the PR guy or an unnamed source within Apple claiming this.
"There’s a good reason for that. Sources tell me that Apple isn’t yet happy with the watch’s battery life, which isn’t going to break any industry standards. “It’s about a day right now,” said one, adding that Apple is working on various modifications ahead of the device’s 2015 launch to improve it. "
So it might be around a day. It might be more if they can tweak it. It's also why they haven't given thickness as a dimension yet. It might get thicker or thinner based on that tinkering.
It's a shame the watch doesn't have a hybrid e-ink/LCD display that Apple has a patent for from 2011.
Apple sandbags at times too. With a release this far out they tend to be coy about some things because some hopeful breakthroughs or changes don't pan out. Early 2015 is a wide window and they can slip if need be.
When the iPod was revealed, did it look like an mp3 player? NO.
When the iPhone was revealed did it look like a cell phone? NO.
When iPad was revealed did it look like those ugly useless tablets of the day?.....
This thing, it looks like a watch. It looks like something I've already seen over a decade ago. Heck it looks like a Galaxy Gear!!
Yep, I feel the same way. Yesterday was the saddest day for me as an Apple fan since Steve died. Apple Watch is easily the worst product Apple has made in decades.
Apple used to enter an existing product category only if it could make a significant contribution and revolutionize the industry. What is the revolution in the Apple Watch? That it makes everything worse? That it takes the classis watch's months-long battery life and makes it hours-long one? That it takes mobile apps and makes them tiny and watered down? That it looks like an ugly square watch? And where it can make a great contribution with advanced sensors, it totally disappoints?
Steve killed the Newton in 1997 because the technology wasn't there and then patiently waited for 13 years to give us the perfect tablet, the iPad, watching everyone fail in the process. In 2014, a flexible display, flexible battery and advanced sensors technology clearly isn't ready for a revolutionary unibody wearable device but that doesn't stop Tim Cook to release this horrible half-baked product because the Wall Street wolves have been crying for a new source of revenue for the past 3 years.
Tim Cook has clearly failed as an innovator and needs to go, I have no doubt about that.
Steve killed the Newton in 1997 because the technology wasn't there and then patiently waited for 13 years to give us the perfect tablet, the iPad, watching everyone fail in the process. In 2014, a flexible display, flexible battery and advanced sensors technology clearly isn't ready for a revolutionary unibody wearable device but that doesn't stop Tim Cook to release this horrible half-baked product because the Wall Street wolves have been crying for a new source of revenue for the past 3 years.
As a note the Newton was not a tablet but a PDA. Everyone else did not fail with PDAs and Palm was THE business device to have. Much like a smartphone today. In fact the smartphone is the subsequent evolution of the PDA and cell phone that everyone carried.
The newton was a distraction in a company centered around macs. There was a lot of house cleaning and fixing to do so it got axed. Plus it was someone else's baby.
The watch is as ready as the original iPhone. There were huge limitations on the iPhone that we only vaguely remember today. Battery life was also an issue in comparison to phones of the day. The was no App Store. There was no SDK. There were few usable apps from Apple. It was probably a product that was a year premature which is why some folks say don't buy the first apple anything. That first iPhone demoed in its Keynote was a huge kludge and demo very very scripted.
But people didn't care because it was still highly refined, did what it did well, had a great user experience and was best in class when it did launch. And when their contracts ended they gladly picked up a replacement.
A $350 watch is a disposable item. There are no classic $350 watches that you will leave to your son. They simply aren't that well made. From what everyone has said this is a great feeling watch with excellent attention to detail. It is best in class and may well revolutionize the way we interact with the world.
Steve killed the Newton in 1997 because the technology wasn't there and then patiently waited for 13 years to give us the perfect tablet, the iPad, watching everyone fail in the process. In 2014, a flexible display, flexible battery and advanced sensors technology clearly isn't ready for a revolutionary unibody wearable device but that doesn't stop Tim Cook to release this horrible half-baked product because the Wall Street wolves have been crying for a new source of revenue for the past 3 years.
That first iPhone demoed in its Keynote was a huge kludge and demo very very scripted.
But people didn't care because it was still highly refined, did what it did well, had a great user experience and was best in class when it did launch. And when their contracts ended they gladly picked up a replacement.
A $350 watch is a disposable item. There are no classic $350 watches that you will leave to your son. They simply aren't that well made. From what everyone has said this is a great feeling watch with excellent attention to detail. It is best in class and may well revolutionize the way we interact with the world.
With a wave of a wrist.
You've just called attention to the fundamental difference between the iPhone introduction and the Apple Watch introduction.
The audience were gasping in amazement at regular intervals at the iPhone demo by Jobs. No such thing at the Apple Watch demo by Kevin. It was largely watched in silence. In fact, the deflation in atmosphere was palpable. His demo was too complicated and he rushed through things. Jobs took his time to focus on a few things.
Comments
Hmm... 5Wh would be 18kJ, which is like 16 or 17 calories at 23% human efficiency? I'm better at math than arithmetic... so no bets here.
yes 5WH would be 18KJ, agreed - if you perfectly converted 18KJ from food calories (100% efficiency) its only 5kcal, or 5 Cal.
I guess if you can really convert food kcal into electrical energy with say 20% effy, then thats 25kcal, over 1% of daily effort/intake
yes 5WH would be 18KJ, but this is now work, not just body heat, so thats 4000 calories - which seems a hell of a lot -
no bets either - but 16 calories of (human) work isn't very much - be nice if thats all it took to keep a ?watch powered.
4000 seems way high though.
If I go do a 40km time trial on my bike (~an hour on the road bike, less on the TT bike), I'll record about 300W (measured), and that will show 1080kJ. That's about 257 nutritional calories, but that's only what I'm putting to the road. I'm inefficient at around 23%, so I'm actually producing around another 77% of that 300W in heat for that hour too, which is another 860 calories. So the grand total is 1117 calories burned for the hour.
I've used my power meter (Powertap) to measure workouts for an off-season weight-loss cycle, and the above assumptions were good enough to predict my weight loss to the pound, from 6 weeks of dieting and riding at a fat-burning pace.
It seems like the 16 calorie number would cover your power calculations. That number is not really the challenge though -- it's the size and weight of a device that would turn natural wrist movement into 1.5Wh to charge the watch. If a 5g inertial mass generator is good for 5µW, I'm wondering how big/massive the generator would have to be to generate 18,750 times (1.5Wh / 16 h) as much power as the Sieko generator O_o
Wrong. Rene Ritchie confirmed with Apple that it will be water resistant, not waterproof.
4000 seems way high though.
If I go do a 40km time trial on my bike (~an hour on the road bike, less on the TT bike), I'll record about 300W (measured), and that will show 1080kJ. That's about 257 nutritional calories, but that's only what I'm putting to the road. I'm inefficient at around 23%, so I'm actually producing around another 77% of that 300W in heat for that hour too, which is another 860 calories. So the grand total is 1117 calories burned for the hour.
I've used my power meter (Powertap) to measure workouts for an off-season weight-loss cycle, and the above assumptions were good enough to predict my weight loss to the pound, from 6 weeks of dieting and riding at a fat-burning pace.
It seems like the 16 calorie number would cover your power calculations. That number is not really the challenge though -- it's the size and weight of a device that would turn natural wrist movement into 1.5Wh to charge the watch. If a 5g inertial mass generator is good for 5µW, I'm wondering how big/massive the generator would have to be to generate 18,750 times (1.5Wh / 16 h) as much power as the Sieko generator O_o
pardon - i agree 4000 is high - that is real (scientific calorie) which is 4kcal, but of course in food its still referred to as calories (why in physics they stick to joules, and avoid the small calorie big Calorie
I totally agree its the conversion thats the issue - I was only trying to point out that if you made an almost perfect generator, thats still a lot of energy to find from wrist / body motion.
apparently a normal person uses 28kcal just to sleep for 30 mins, so keeping the watch going for 16 hours would use the same energy as sleeping for half hour. I still think thats a lot
pardon - i agree 4000 is high - that is real (scientific calorie) which is 4kcal, but of course in food its still referred to as calories (why in physics they stick to joules, and avoid the small calorie big Calorie
I totally agree its the conversion thats the issue - I was only trying to point out that if you made an almost perfect generator, thats still a lot of energy to find from wrist / body motion.
apparently a normal person uses 28kcal just to sleep for 30 mins, so keeping the watch going for 16 hours would use the same energy as sleeping for half hour. I still think thats a lot
Funny, I went through my first post on this and turned kCal into Calorie, then back to calorie, just to avoid confusion, and all I did was add confusion...
Yeah, the sleeping burn is fine when it's spread out through your whole body, but fueling that load through the inefficiency of an electromechanical device hanging off your wrist is not going to be fun.
I had posted in this thread, I'm fine with rechargeable batteries in a phone, but for me I would like it to last a few days between charges. I don't want to carry a charger with me, or have my watch die just because I forgot or didn't get chance to charge it the previous night. Seems I'm in the minority.
Wrong. Rene Ritchie confirmed with Apple that it will be water resistant, not waterproof.
I think you meant correct , its been confirmed water resistant not waterproof - univurshul
It's horrible isn't it. I looked at a lot of websites, including coca cola USA, and frequent use of calorie when they should use Calorie or kcal or something,
I had posted in this thread, I'm fine with rechargeable batteries in a phone, but for me I would like it to last a few days between charges. I don't want to carry a charger with me, or have my watch die just because I forgot or didn't get chance to charge it the previous night. Seems I'm in the minority.
Yeah, I've got a Philmont Scout Ranch trip in my future, along with all of the training trips leading up to it. I think pack-mounted solar panels are in my future.
If you don't mind junk, this Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68751 is on sale for 199 at harbor freight.... If you don't mind a heavy pack! It's 45 watts of power
This baby is only $15, for 1.5w. Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68692
But this is the one I was looking at, it has protection built in Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68691
And coming from a huge Apple fan, I like how this watch looks!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I find it to be kind of retro chic.
I'm not sure if I would get one yet. That remains to be seen, when I can see one in person, and besides it's not out until next year.
The retro would be enhanced if there's an homage time display that mimics the Cartier Tank with those sharp graphics... Slap on the black leather band and you're there. For a lot less than seven grand or more as well ( a lot more for a vintage one).
http://www.cartier.us/collections/timepieces/mens-watches/tank/tank-mc/w5330003-tank-mc-watch
That's a lot of sun!
If you don't mind junk, this Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68751 is on sale for 199 at harbor freight.... If you don't mind a heavy pack! It's 45 watts of power
This baby is only $15, for 1.5w. Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68692
But this is the one I was looking at, it has protection built in Thunderbolt Magnum Solar - Item#68691
That big one is a bit much lol, but the other one is intriguing. I was thinking of something like the Goal Zero Switch 8, which charges a battery during the day, and you can charge other devices whenever you like (so I can burn phone battery during the sunlight, and recharge it while I'm sleeping). Of course I could make one much cheaper using another portable charger with the $15 HF panel...
Yeah, I've got a Philmont Scout Ranch trip in my future, along with all of the training trips leading up to it. I think pack-mounted solar panels are in my future.
For a lot less weight there's the Brunton hydrogen fuel cell approach: cloudy days don't matter for that tech.
http://www.rei.com/item/867985/brunton-hydrogen-reactor-charger
For a lot less weight there's the Brunton hydrogen fuel cell approach: cloudy days don't matter for that tech.
http://www.rei.com/item/867985/brunton-hydrogen-reactor-charger
True. But a Scout is thrifty... the "hydrolyser recharge station" that keeps the cores up, is not.
Maybe not all their time; they need time to recharge their batteries. ????
Yes they have: a day or less.
No they haven't. At best it's an oblique statement by the PR guy or an unnamed source within Apple claiming this.
"There’s a good reason for that. Sources tell me that Apple isn’t yet happy with the watch’s battery life, which isn’t going to break any industry standards. “It’s about a day right now,” said one, adding that Apple is working on various modifications ahead of the device’s 2015 launch to improve it. "
http://recode.net/2014/09/10/codered-apple-watch-battery-life-charge-nightly/
So it might be around a day. It might be more if they can tweak it. It's also why they haven't given thickness as a dimension yet. It might get thicker or thinner based on that tinkering.
It's a shame the watch doesn't have a hybrid e-ink/LCD display that Apple has a patent for from 2011.
Apple sandbags at times too. With a release this far out they tend to be coy about some things because some hopeful breakthroughs or changes don't pan out. Early 2015 is a wide window and they can slip if need be.
I agree with you.
LOL...you people braying for Tim Cook's head on a platter are amusing.
And replace him with whom? For what? Because you don't like the watch you've never actually seen and isn't finished yet?
As a note the Newton was not a tablet but a PDA. Everyone else did not fail with PDAs and Palm was THE business device to have. Much like a smartphone today. In fact the smartphone is the subsequent evolution of the PDA and cell phone that everyone carried.
The newton was a distraction in a company centered around macs. There was a lot of house cleaning and fixing to do so it got axed. Plus it was someone else's baby.
The watch is as ready as the original iPhone. There were huge limitations on the iPhone that we only vaguely remember today. Battery life was also an issue in comparison to phones of the day. The was no App Store. There was no SDK. There were few usable apps from Apple. It was probably a product that was a year premature which is why some folks say don't buy the first apple anything. That first iPhone demoed in its Keynote was a huge kludge and demo very very scripted.
But people didn't care because it was still highly refined, did what it did well, had a great user experience and was best in class when it did launch. And when their contracts ended they gladly picked up a replacement.
A $350 watch is a disposable item. There are no classic $350 watches that you will leave to your son. They simply aren't that well made. From what everyone has said this is a great feeling watch with excellent attention to detail. It is best in class and may well revolutionize the way we interact with the world.
With a wave of a wrist.
I wouldn't agree with that part, but with most of what he said.
You've just called attention to the fundamental difference between the iPhone introduction and the Apple Watch introduction.
The audience were gasping in amazement at regular intervals at the iPhone demo by Jobs. No such thing at the Apple Watch demo by Kevin. It was largely watched in silence. In fact, the deflation in atmosphere was palpable. His demo was too complicated and he rushed through things. Jobs took his time to focus on a few things.