Don't have a laptop so this would be nice.

Nice!

This would be sweet! (Even though it is WinMo)

"minimum of 750 megawatts"? I wonder how they get that minimum even when the wind is calm.

@ Mikey...

I think you are correct that, according to the article, the plan is only to harness the braking power. Therefore simple physics would mean that the power you get out of the braking is going to have to be less than the power you put into the pedaling. And obviously it would be significantly less because most of the energy of riding is dissipated as friction.

My point is not that there aren't ways of reclaiming power generated by humans. The point is how small of an amount it is. No matter how efficient you can make the technology you can't violate the laws of physics. Even at 100% efficiency, the human body is no match for other energy sources.

The other point is that most ideas like these are implying a net energy gain but they rarely talk about how much energy is used to produce the bikes, deliver them their locations, maintain their systems (including more travel by vehicles to where the bikes are), etc. To me this makes these plans more about politics and giving people "warm fuzzies" than actually making a difference for our energy needs.

Let's keep up the innovation like Henry Ford, but let's make sure that we are actually having an impact.

Typo... Should have read "300 calories = 1.1897 BTUs"

The problem with all these kinetic energy ideas is that people don't realize just how little energy they can actually produce. Here's my calculations...

Average size person using moderate effort cycling for 30 minutes = about 300 calories burned
100 calories = 1.1897 BTUs
One gallon of gasoline contains approximately 12000 BTUs of energy

Therefore, the cyclist will produce the energy equivalent of 0.0099147% of 1 gallon of gasoline.

Then factor in all the energy used to make and maintain all those ultra capacitors and the infrastructure and it just doesn't work out.

Sorry to burst bubbles. I think it's a great concept too but I've just never seen anyone prove how this stuff could actually generate any significant net energy gain.

Is smooth scrolling a new feature?

Again a prime example of why insane hardware is nothing without software to utilize it. I know everyone hates the iPhone references but I've had smooth scrolling on my iPhone for almost two years now.

I mean, really, what WinMo devices need more than super fast processors right now is the software to take advantage of it.

I really liked the one where there was this new gadget-ey thing that came out. Oh, yeah - and some new apple product. That's always good.

I'm hoping that the new iPhone will be getting this screen... http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/31/the-2008-iphone-display-sharps-next-gen-multi-touch-lcd-reveal/