Remote control without batteries

A friend send me a pointer to this page: The 50 Greatest Gadgets of the Past 50 Years.

On place 21 (right on top of the page this link should take you to) is the "Zenith Space Command" form 1956, the first remote control. Of course the first (wireless) remote control is a totally cool gadget. But there is something that I found especially amazing about this piece: it doesn't need batteries!!

The way this is done (according to that page) is through sound. The space command has 4 buttons and each makes a small hammer strike a piece of metal which causes some ultra sound which the TV then picks up. Simple, elegant. You probably don't even have to point the remote at the TV for it to work. And it doesn't need friggin' batteries!

I'm an environmentally conscious person and I think we are way too battery happy these days. In fact you seemingly cannot buy almost anything (except maybe a hammer) that doesn't require some kind of battery. And I ask: is this really necessary? Even modern batteries are a hazard in the waste, and a battery is really a lot of valuable resources simply discarded after getting very little energy for a lot of money. Can't we finally find a better solution? Couldn't we build systems that are less reliable on batteries? (in another, forthcoming post I'll talk about batteries again)

As the space command shows it clearly is possible to build - for instance - a wireless remote without batteries. Yes it had only 4 functions and we probably don't want to have a brick with 50 different hammers in it to make a modern remote. But electronics has made so much progress since then, I cannot believe there isn't an alternative to batteries for many applications.

Maybe I'm totally day-dreaming now, but maybe the energy you get from pressing a piezo-electric button might be enough to power an IR LED, or there is some other effect that doesn't require a stong power source such as a battery? I'm not an electronics expert so somebody else will have to figure this out. But let's start thinking about alternative solutions and maybe we can come up with something and reduce the number of batteries we have to buy and eventually throw away (because I assume most batteries never see a recycling plant anyway, at least not in the US).

Web 2.0 explained

As the Web 2.0 buzzword gets used more and more one wonders... what IS is exactly? Who better to write an article about Web 2.0 than Tim O'Reilly. I happened to stumble over this article more or less by accident and I'm glad I did. It's a lengthy read but it's absolutely worth spending the time.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

As I'm just finishing up writing a book chapter with the title "From Social Navigation to the Social Web" I couldn't have found this article at a better time. (The chapter will be in a book on the Adaptive Web published by Springer some time in 2006)

Why can't I light my personal flame thrower?

I recently purchased a personal flame thrower - aka Professional Cooking Torch. Or, as most of us would call it: a creme brulee doohickey. Essentially a little butane torch. These things - especially the larger ones -- have pretty hot flame so you want to make sure there is some safety mechanism on it. Especially as there is also a lock, so that the torch continues burning even after you take your thumb off the trigger... Make it child proof, so to speak. Of course UI people know that the plain english translation of child proof is: "nobody above 6 years of age can figure out how to operate that darn thing" This cooking torch is no exception. Although I have it for over a week and have used it several times I still need at least 5 tries to light it AND engage the lock.

The basic layout of the device is pretty simple. There are two slider switches, one on the left and one on the right. There is also a trigger button at the back and below it a little safety latch. The slider on the right side controls the size of the flame -- simple enough. This means the thing really has only 3 controls to worry about. Yet, despite this simplicity it's obviously hard enough to consistently turn this thing on and lock the flame.

Part of the problem seems to be the lavish labeling of the controls (read: non-existing). The right level, the one the controls the flame size is soooort of labeled with + and - (barely visible). The other controls have no labels whatever. Essentially it should be a simple two button operation: you need to press and lock the safety latch and then press the ignite button (the big red button at the back).
Well not so fast. I press the safety down it stays down. Then press the ignite button. OK. Flame comes on. Release. Flame goes out. Something makes click. So far so good. Next iteration: I press the safety again, it locks, I press the ignite. Nothing happens. Hmmm. Press safety, it doesn't lock, press ignite. Nothing happens. Once more. Press safety, it locks, ignite, it does ignite. Press. Safety, lock, ignite, it does. Again, Safety, doesn't lock, ignite, nothing happens. *sigh*

Read manual. That doesn't help much (of course not. These manuals never help, but it tells me how to make Chocolate Creme Brule, if only I could reliably turn this thing on). So I play some more with the lock lever (on the left) which makes the whole procedure more complicated, because now the torch could be in a "mode" where it simply cannot be turned on. Or at least I thought so because the thing never lit whenever the lever was in the back position. Eventually I figured out there is actually no mode and there is no connection between the lock and the inability to light.

This should be simple, but it isn't. After way too much experimenting I think the safety latch doesn't always properly release when you extinguish the thing. Waiiiit... isn't the safety latch the ONE piece on a little flame thrower in your kitchen that should be the most reliable piece? Aside maybe from the gas tank itself? Of course I'd rather have it not come on when I want to than the other way round. But why does a simple cooking implement have to make me feel stupid? And then it turns out it's probably not even the design itself that's so bad, but maybe bad workmanship? Again... do I want to have a potentially unreliable butane torch sitting around in my kitchen?

But as I'm a geek I will not admit defeat. I will practice till have mastered "Le Torch". After all I don't want to feel stupid when I use it and friends are around. Or maybe I'll ask a friend to do the torching and gleefully observe how s/he cannot get it to light... this puts the whole torch into a new light. It's not a creme brule torch at all... it's an entertainment device!

PS: As I'm bitching already... they could really be more explicit about how to gas up the torch as well. Essentially you connect a gas cartridge to a valve at the bottom and press down. Gas flows from the one canister to the other. Fine. But how long should you fill it? How do you recognize when it's enough? The manual only says "don't overfill" and that a backspray of liquid gas from filler valve indicates that the torch is full. Helloooo? Back spray of liquid gas? How about some information how to avoid back spray!? I don't think I want any backspray of liquid gas in my kitchen. A simple "this takes about 15 seconds" or something along those lines would help tremendously here.

"iPod-thumb"

A recent article on the ipodobserver shows that again that even very elegant designs can have their issues. The article reports about concerns about RSI (repetitive stress injuries) from using the iPod click wheel. Well, my first thought was just to laugh, but of course this concern does make a lot of sense if you really use the spin wheel a lot. Although I have a very long list of - say - artists on my own iPod I would probably very rarely spin the wheel so much that it becomes an issue, there are probably people who use the thing very differently than I do.

The lesson to take away from this is a reminder that you just have to observe users, not think what you believe users are doing. And I know I am occasionally guilty of that (aren't we all when there are close deadlines...)