backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 91 comment(s) - last by emboss.. on Aug 28 at 11:45 AM


Green Microgym creator Adam Boesel tests out one of his energy generating bikes. After years in the business, Mr. Boesel was inspired to open the eco-friendly gym in Portland.  (Source: Green Microgym)

The Green Microgym is a perfect place to work out with a broad array of equipment.  (Source: Green Microgym)
This gym is powered by blood, sweat, and determination!

You wake up in the morning and hit the treadmills.  After a few miles, you hit the exercise bikes.  Drenched in sweat, you finally call it a morning.  Sure it's a good workout, but you also have to do your part to keep the local green gym's power flowing strong.

This is exactly the kind of scene that has begun unfolding this week at the Green Microgym in Portland Oregon.  The gym is the first human-powered gym in the U.S.

Adam Boesel, a personal trainer and the owner of the gym came up with the unique idea.  He describes, "We're just harnessing that extra energy that they put out anyway.  For people, that's a no-brainer. They say it's there, you might as well capture it."

Mr. Boesel is no mental slouch either.  He helped to rig up the gyms spin bikes with weedwacker motors and truck alternators to provide juice to the gym's systems.  The gym will also use solar power to offer the remainder of its electricity needed.  It even uses energy-efficient treadmill motors, specially ordered.

The idea has serious potential for gyms nationwide, to provide both cost savings and environmental benefits.  At the Green Microgym, the Team Dynamo and Spin Bikes can generate 0.750 kWh a  piece.  And Mr. Boesel is currently cooking up new gizmos to harness the power of elliptical trainers.

Some may feel that it is outlandish for a 2,800 square-foot gym to be fueled by manpower.  Mr. Boesel doesn't think so.  He states, "It's just going to move the human powered renewable energy technology to the next level.  We're going for 100 percent.  I think at the beginning, we may be 20 to 25 percent."

The gym is not the first worldwide to have dabbled in human power.  In Hong Kong, there is a gym with gadgets connected to the weight machines, where athletes power up the gym with every lift.  The Hong Kong gym's patrons produce enough power to fill its batteries and keep the lights burning bright.  Other companies are also seeking to exploit human based kinetic energy, such as M2E Power, which is debuting a human based iPod/cell phone recharger next year.

The Green Microgym is located in downtown Portland on Northeast 13th Avenue and Alberta Street.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Similar thought
By GreenEnvt on 8/27/2008 10:10:57 AM , Rating: 5
I always thought it would be a good idea to hook my TV up to my exercise bike. Not to power it directly as I probaly can't make that much power for any length of time, but just to open the relay and allow the TV to be powered. When you stop pedaling, TV turns off.
Good way to force exercise :)




RE: Similar thought
By xsilver on 8/27/2008 11:04:29 AM , Rating: 5
Great idea, it can even be more directly linked to diet.

You want that deep fried chicken? No problem, fire up the deep fryer via pedal power first! They should have these at the line in fast food outlets too :) "Sir, you need to prove that you're worthy of this hamburger, pedal this bike up to 40km/h and we'll serve it to you" There goes a major part of the obesity problem right there :P


RE: Similar thought
By GreenEnvt on 8/27/2008 11:35:55 AM , Rating: 1
lol :)


RE: Similar thought
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/27/2008 12:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
I like to save money...so if I could hook up an exercise bike to some sort of battery which helps me save 10% or more on my home electric bill...Then I'd have a good reason to get on the bike an exercise verse just to get in shape. I don't think I'd join a club that uses this equipment....I'm not in a club now why join this one. :)


RE: Similar thought
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/27/2008 1:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
Of course something else has popped in my head....If we can hook up a exercise bike, then can a exercise wheel for a pet hamster be hooked up? All I would need to do is buy 2 hamsters, a few hundred wheels and the cable to connect all the wheels to the device that converts to the needed power. Then in 6 months I have hundreds of hamsters and I could then sell back the extra hamster power to the electric company and make millions off of the little rodents!!! Yes, then sell their poop as fertilizer and make more yet....


RE: Similar thought
By xsilver on 8/27/2008 1:14:15 PM , Rating: 4
Even if you take a gallon of steroids, you're not going to contribute any more than 1% of your energy bill if you're heating/cooling your house.

Better idea: Ride an ACTUAL bike rather than an exercise bike when you're going a short distance. Its very EFFICIENT :) and its going to save you more than 1%


RE: Similar thought
By mindless1 on 8/28/2008 8:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
If you're cooling the house, you have a net loss from the heat generated exercising.


RE: Similar thought
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 1:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you pay 16 cents per kWh (U.S. average is 10 cents, but let's assume you're in an expensive region to make your idea look as favorable as possible), and you're in great shape, you're generating ~4 cents worth of electricity per hour. If you quit your day job and ran the exercise bike for 8 hours a day, 250 workdays a year, your annual electric bill savings would be $80. If you exercise 1 hour a day, every day, for a year, your annual savings would be $14.60. If you exercise a more typical 30 minutes a day, 3 days a week, your annual savings would be $3.12.

Yes, energy is ridiculously cheap. It's a reflection of how advanced and efficient modern power generation and distribution has gotten, and how cheap coal/nuclear/gas/oil is for the energy it generates. We've come a long, long way from the old horse-drawn carts and oxen-driven mills, romantic notions of the old agrarian days notwithstanding.


RE: Similar thought
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/27/2008 2:32:29 PM , Rating: 3
well it was not to make a killing, just an excuse to ride the bike... I was thinking it would be around $3 to $8 per month. But if only $3.12 per year it would not even pay for the equipment.


RE: Similar thought
By Spuke on 8/27/2008 4:55:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But if only $3.12 per year it would not even pay for the equipment.
I would imagine the business would charge enough to recoup the equipment costs and some extra to make a profit.

I think it's a great marketing ploy. Everyone's wanting to "go green" (whatever that is). Why not make a buck off of it?


RE: Similar thought
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 5:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Because its exploitative, misleading, and ultimately harmful? The West Coast is already suffering from its lack of will to build sufficient power to handle its own demands. If people get the mistaken idea that "human power" can solve their problems, they're going to be even less likely to approve the next power plant they need.


RE: Similar thought
By Spuke on 8/27/2008 6:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because its exploitative, misleading, and ultimately harmful?
You're right but so are other things that no one gets riled up about. Not saying we shouldn't get riled up over this, but it's just one of many. Buyer beware.

Why are oil speculators needed? Why can't the price of oil be tied directly to supply and demand like other things? Why is some a$$hole needed in the middle manipluating the price of oil because he "thinks" it will go up or down sometime in the future or today? I think that's unnecessary and harmful but you and others tell me that's just the way it is (in so many words).


RE: Similar thought
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 6:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
To be precise, oil speculators -- and commodity speculation in general -- are indeed helpful to us consumers. It signals price changes in advance, giving the market more time to react. Without a commodities market, we'd go back to the spot markets of yore, a time when a single night's bad news meant prices rising by 1000% the next morning. Or falling by nearly as large a margin, a result that puts suppliers out of business and ultimately keeps prices high.

Unlike what a few politicians tell you, speculators exert zero long-term influence on oil. Theoretically, they can have some effect on gold and other commodities which can be stockpiled, but no speculator ever takes delivery on an oil contract. Where would they put it?

Their influence is strictly over short-term prices. And any speculator who guesses wrong about where prices *should* be quickly loses their shirt.


RE: Similar thought
By Spuke on 8/27/2008 6:51:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Unlike what a few politicians tell you, speculators exert zero long-term influence on oil.
Well, I didn't really get that from "our great leaders" but thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.


RE: Similar thought
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 6:59:30 PM , Rating: 1
Michael Asher for president! Seriously, he couldn't possibly be any worse than the two idiots we've got running now. Unfortunately I have to vote for one of them. :(


RE: Similar thought
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 10:49:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unlike what a few politicians tell you, speculators exert zero long-term influence on oil. Theoretically, they can have some effect on gold and other commodities which can be stockpiled, but no speculator ever takes delivery on an oil contract. Where would they put it?

Their influence is strictly over short-term prices. And any speculator who guesses wrong about where prices *should* be quickly loses their shirt.

Generally I agree. However, Time had an interesting article on how the process may be short-circuited:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1...

Basically, they're claiming that the oil producers are able to bid anonymously on the market. Essentially it's like what would happen on eBay if it had no (or very low) sales commissions and the seller were able to bid anonymously on his own auctions. He can artificially bump up the price above market by creating phantom demand. If he goofs and ends up being the highest bidder, well he just bought oil from himself so it doesn't cost him anything, and he just re-lists the contract.


RE: Similar thought
By tmouse on 8/27/2008 1:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there is someone who already did this. I do not have a link off hand but I remember he set up the system with storage capacity to run his families TV. The kids had to pedal a certain amount each day to watch a limited amount of TV for the week. The system served 3 purposes: provided exercise to avoid the couch potato syndrome, encouraged reading and cut some of the electricity bills. He said the only downside was in the fall when he had to pedal to watch football.


Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By Indianapolis on 8/27/2008 11:09:23 AM , Rating: 4
But what about all the additional carbon dioxide these human power-generators are pumping into the atmosphere? Are we sure that this will actually result in a smaller carbon-footprint for the gym?

Seems to me like this "green" stuff is getting a little ridiculous, and that the true purpose of many of the so-called conservation efforts is to take advantage of people's guilt to make a profit.




RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By rollakid on 8/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 12:18:02 PM , Rating: 3
The harder you workout, the more you breathe and the more CO2 you exhale. They're promoting exercising with this and thus, promoting CO2 production.

Illogical and irrational arguments are at the heart of the environmental mindset so I'm just playing along.


RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 1:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
The energy your body burns comes from the food you eat, which derives its energy from plants capturing sunlight. The plants do this by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and converting it to sugars (sap) and sugar chains (cellulose). So there is no net CO2 production from respiration.

It does however require you to consume more food, and modern food production does consume energy. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels, so it does generate CO2. Given the relative efficiency of respiration (about 33%) vs. a modern coal plant (about 50%-60%), I'd say it's likely you're better off powering your TV with an electric socket instead of your exercise bike. Unless of course you were going to be using the bike anyway (like at a gym).


By Indianapolis on 8/27/2008 1:23:57 PM , Rating: 3
So I guess the question is whether it's more efficient to burn coal, or to burn Snickers.


RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By teflonbilly on 8/27/2008 1:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think you hit the mark there. People are already at the gym to workout. The power is lost unless its hooked up to something.

As for efficiency of eating, keep in mind that many of the people in gyms are losing weight so their eating habits are changed to lesser amounts.


RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By jimbojimbo on 8/27/2008 3:26:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
keep in mind that many of the people in gyms are losing weight so their eating habits are changed to lesser amounts

You should change that to "keep in mind that many of the people in the gym are trying to lose weight" and just end it there.


RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By Spuke on 8/27/2008 1:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless of course you were going to be using the bike anyway (like at a gym).
Actually, I was going to use my car.


RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 1:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
My comment was not a serious one.


RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By nayy on 8/27/2008 4:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly!! That is why as an environmentalist, I avoid doing exercise as much as I can! :)


RE: Oh noes! Carbon-Dioxides!!!
By semo on 8/27/2008 5:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
take advantage of people's guilt to make a profit.
that's how religion works.

seriously, have you seen those tv religion stations that show pushy old ladies holding bibles urging you to buy their stuff. *shudders*


Not even close.
By littleprince on 8/27/2008 9:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
Top level pro riders cannot put out 750watts for any sustained period of time.
The avg Fatty Joe at the gym is nowhere near that.
200-250watts for the avg person at the gym is more reasonable - efficiency.

A gym is the only place where this type of setup might be worthwhile $$$ wise, as the energy generation will be over longer periods of time, vs at home where a person might use an exercise bike 30mins 2-3 times a week.




RE: Not even close.
By porkpie on 8/27/2008 10:14:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Top level pro riders cannot put out 750watts for any sustained period of time
750 watts is just over 1 full horsepower! Even a pro rider can't put out that much for even a few seconds.

Its a shame a tech site author doesn't even question obviously false information like this. Talk about gullible.


RE: Not even close.
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/27/2008 10:42:26 AM , Rating: 1
If you followed the links instead of just attacking the article, you would find this page

http://thegreenmicrogym.com/index.php?itemid=82

which clearly supports my statement.

Granted, perhaps this is an error, as I have read 75 watts per hour is typical, but please direct your inquiries on the topic to Mr. Boesel.

And I have to ask, if you don't like this kind of article (i.e. alternative energy) why do you read it and post on it?


RE: Not even close.
By guacamojo on 8/27/2008 11:07:58 AM , Rating: 2
From looking at the Green Microgym website, it's pretty clear that they're just trying to be as efficient as possible, not actually power the whole facility from the exercisers.

There is a technical error on their website stating that they can generate "up to 750 watts per hour." That's nonsense. Watts are a measure of power, not energy. They might be able to generate up to 750 W, but that sounds more like a peak output figure rather than RMS (as indicated by "up to.") That would be a pretty realistic number, especially for a pair of bikes.

It's interesting to note that the 3kW PV panels on the roof generate more peak power than the exercisers.

The other energy-conserving measures they're using are good, though. Especially if people remember to turn off the individually-switched CF bulbs.


RE: Not even close.
By JustTom on 8/27/2008 12:37:37 PM , Rating: 1
So, if a source has a blatant error the author of an article citing this error has no responsibility in propagating the error? You could have enquired of Boesel how he calculated his figures, you could have quoted him as using the figure, you could have stated Boesel claims on his website that “At the Green Microgym, the Team Dynamo and Spin Bikes can generate 0.750 kWh a piece.” You did none of these, you made a statement of fact.

Furthermore, the website you cited does not claim “At the Green Microgym, the Team Dynamo and Spin Bikes can generate 0.750 kWh a piece.” what it states is “The Team Dynamo and Spin Bikes generate up to 750 watts per hour”. This is a serious difference. The way it is stated on the website could reasonably lead one to believe that the total output of all the Team Dynamo and Spin Bikes is 0.750 kWh rather than 0.750 kWh per unit.

A journalist certainly does have a responsibility to fact check his sources. It appears that you did not.


RE: Not even close.
By jbartabas on 8/27/2008 12:48:28 PM , Rating: 3
Both your statement and theirs don't make much sense. If you're going to go on with your articles on alternative energy, it would be nice for your readers to start to learn some basics in physics, and not hide behind a "source" that clearly lacks credibility.

Saying that a stuff can generate X kWh without specifying over what period of time, is the same as ... saying nothing. So as far as your 0.75 kWh is concerned, you could as well have said 0.3 kWh or 1000 kWh ... it all depends over what period of time.

As for their "The Team Dynamo and Spin Bikes generate up to 750 watts per hour", it is even more esoteric ... :-(


RE: Not even close.
By porkpie on 8/27/2008 1:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
perhaps this is an error...but please direct your inquiries on the topic to Mr. Boesel.
Your usual copout. Do you not understand that journalists have a responsibility to do more than just parrot unchallenged facts? Lying down and crying, "its not my fault!" your article is wrong doesn't cut the mustard.

quote:
And I have to ask, if you don't like this kind of article (i.e. alternative energy)
I have to ask, why are your alternative energy articles always wrong? Does your love of "all things green" explain why you don't perform even the most elementary fact checking?


750watt
By dickeywang on 8/27/2008 10:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
I thought that 746watt = 1 horse power. So I guess the energy a normal people could output should be much smaller than that.




RE: 750watt
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 1:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
In fourteen hundred and ninety two,
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
Divide the year of his voyage by two,
and you get the number of Watts in a horsepower.


RE: 750watt
By foolsgambit11 on 8/27/2008 2:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
Brilliant! The whole coffee house looked at me funny when I busted out laughing.


I wonder
By hlper on 8/27/2008 10:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
Will they let me work off some of my membership dues?




RE: I wonder
By xsilver on 8/27/2008 11:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
Hell No! They'll probably charge you extra for this privilege of "green power"

Then they'll charge you an outstanding fee for not providing them with enough "power"


RE: I wonder
By hlper on 8/27/2008 1:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
That made me laugh. Cheers.


Eco-Gym
By TimberJon on 8/27/2008 12:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
They really need to design and build a Gym within a treedome or something. You need a breeze, wood chips on the floor, grass, trees, mild sunlight (though not in your eyes and not glaring on the TV's), running water, sounds of nature in the background.

Personally I'd rather be running where the air is cleaner, smells like mountains and dew and greenery. Couldnt they build a facility that mimics this? Medical-grade air scrubbers and real soil with trees, Etc.. to provide the outdoors scent?

You'd have to pay up for the membership man... but I could see it working. I can think of a few people who would pay upwards of $100 per month for such an excercise environment.




RE: Eco-Gym
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 1:56:03 PM , Rating: 3
I'd prefer a gym of hot, desperate, horny women with nice jugs running on treadmills where I am the only man in the place. But that's not gonna happen either.


100 calories = 0.1163 W/hr
By geeg on 8/27/2008 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think it is 0.75 W/hr meant in the article.




RE: 100 calories = 0.1163 W/hr
By Kaldskryke on 8/27/2008 11:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
No. Your units are messed up. Maybe you mean watts * hours, but definitely not Watts per hour.


Zappppp!!!
By 7Enigma on 8/28/2008 7:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
I hope that picture was a joke with the owner on the bike, or all the energy capturing equipment temporarily moved into the picture. I go to our company gym 2-3 times a week and one of the machines I use is the same type of bike. I have a SERIOUS concern about having a car battery 2' away from the bike. These type of stationary bikes are incredible sweat generators. Because the upper body doesn't really move, evaporation isn't near as effective (you get a sort of heat shield around your skin). This causes the body to sweat tremendously.

When I'm done (and I'm a skinny guy at 6'2" 175lbs), there are PUDDLES of sweat all over the floor, and my shirt is soaked. And this is only a 5 mile ride at 95-100rpms on about level 12 (out of 18 total levels). I believe in the slightly under 16 minutes that it says I have burned 250 calories, but I don't know what that would be in watts generated. I know on the row machine I generate about 75 watts in 5 minutes, which would be ~900 watts per hour if I could sustain the exercise (not a chance).

I'd just be more concerned someone with a fantastically electrolytic sweaty hand touches a terminal on the battery and gets a real workout!




RE: Zappppp!!!
By 7Enigma on 8/28/2008 7:48:42 AM , Rating: 2
Upon looking at the pic I'm hopeful the battery is normally kept INSIDE the container it is sitting on. That would obviously make it much safer. Just that picture looks rediculous.


Great marketing idea!
By ScottHardy on 8/27/2008 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
This is quite the novel idea, but as many have pointed out it's still in the "novel" stage and nothing more than that. Since everyone uses heart monitors and electronic tension and height mechanisms in their treadmills, elliptical machines and stationary bikes, there's no way he can generate enough power to support the treadmills, let alone HVAC or computers. If I wanted to use a non-computer assisted workout machine I'd drop $100 at Wally World and buy one. I like the training programs I get at the gym. Very clever marketing idea and I applaud him for it, especially in a market like Portland.

Warm Regards,
Scott Hardy
http://www.topclassactions.com




Wind power
By mydogfarted on 8/28/2008 10:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
People immediately assume the only wind powered generators are the huge things we see in the "wind fields" on TV. The fact is you can purchase smaller units that can be mounted on your property, so even just on the roof of your house that are not only capable of generating enough kWh for a small house, but actually be able to feed back in to the grid and can cost $2000-$3000. It's not going to solve the worlds energy problems, but it certain will make a dent in my electric bill - my chubby, geek, lazy american ass is certainly not going to give up all my electronics.




Noteworthy at best
By FITCamaro on 8/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Noteworthy at best
By goku on 8/27/2008 9:28:34 AM , Rating: 1
They said the bikes can put out .75KWh, basically 750watts. On an elliptical, if you read the readout, it's pretty easy to get to 250watts of energy output so I'd imagine a bicycle being far more efficient since the majority of the "difficulty levels" are using brakes to add more resistance to the workout instead of putting out more work. A bicycle has gears and so when there is excess torque, you can put out more speed and then pile on the torque again, much like a car.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By AnnihilatorX on 8/27/2008 9:33:48 AM , Rating: 3
The figure of 750W suprises me actually. 750W is a lot of electricity, enough to power a high end PC. For a 60W tugsten equivalent energy saving bulb (15W real usage), 750W can power forties of them.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By MrBlastman on 8/27/2008 10:45:38 AM , Rating: 1
Local Hillbilly:

Mah computer is a beast Billy Ray, I gots a whole 1 horsepower under mah hood! Hoo dawg!

Billy Ray: 1 horsepower, that's only 750 watts! I have a 1.6 horsepower Briggs and Stratton in mine! Yer 'puter ain't nuttin to mine.

...

I can only imagine the day I hear this. Regardless, a PC using 750 watts is very impressive. Mine heats up my bedroom. The concept of a gym powering itself - or trying to, why not?


RE: Noteworthy at best
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 12:52:04 PM , Rating: 4
Nobody can put out 750W sustained. Paul MacCready had to do measurements of the power output of a trained cyclist for his Gossamer Condor and Gossamer Albatross projects (first human-powered aircraft to cross the English Channel). The figures they came up with were:

0.25-0.33 hp (186-246 W) sustained
0.35 hp (261 W) for 30 minutes
0.45 hp (336 W) for 7 minutes
1.2 hp (895 W) for short bursts

Since the guy's life was literally on the line, they were very careful to measure accurately. Albatross was designed for a minimum 0.25 hp, and it barely made it across the Channel. The MIT Daedalus (human-powered flight across the Aegean Sea, current distance record at 74 miles) was also designed for 0.25 hp minimum, with the expectation the pilot/cyclist would be able to generate at least 0.27 hp.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gZKVf5_CY-cC&pg=P...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossamer_Albatross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus

(The power figure in the Wiki article is wrong. Dr. MacCready gave a guest lecture in one of my classes, and he specifically stated a quarter to a third of a horsepower sustained.)


RE: Noteworthy at best
By emboss on 8/27/2008 4:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure how trained that cyclist was ... That or they were running at a sub-optimal cadence. A Tour de France time triallist will average around 400 W over a one hour-ish course. The sprinters will peak at 1500+ W during the final sprint. Track cyclists have been known to hit over 2 kW (though only for a few seconds), since they don't have to survive the 150-odd km prior to the TdF sprints :)

When I push myself, I can average somewhere between 350 and 400 W (depending on whether I overdo things during the first half) over a fairly flat ten minute course, and I don't regard myself as a particularily trained cyclist.

Though I completely agree that 750 W sustained for any reasonable period of time is unobtainable.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 4:55:31 PM , Rating: 3
Not sure where you got your figures, but Floyd Landis (Lance Armstrong's teammate) was measured during the Tour de France. He averaged 232 watts for the entire course, and hit as high as 379 watts during the final time stage:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005...

Of course, for anyone but a world class athlete, even those values are completely unobtainable.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By emboss on 8/28/2008 11:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
379 isn't that far from 400 you know :) Especially given that they're only accurate to about 2% anyhow. There is also quite a bit of variation between different years due to changing lengths and profiles of the courses.

The 400 number comes from the commentators during the final stage of this years TdF. The final ITT this year was flatter and shorter than many previous years, and as a result the average power outputs were a bit higher. Both Schumacher and Cancellara averaged around 410, though oddly enough Cancellara actually averaged slightly above Schumacher (which is why I remember it). Within the margin of error however. I can't find a link online, but
http://srm.customer.sasg.de/index.php?option=com_c...
has power profiles for two of the competitors in this years final TdF time trial. The person who came 11th averaged 385 W, and came in 2:29 behind Schumacher (who completed the stage in 1:03:50). For reference, Floyd Landis came in 2:02 behind Armstrong in the 2005 TdF final ITT, which was one of the more hilly final ITTs of late (so lower average power levels).

There's also an interesting summary of various power outputs at:
http://caliradocyclist.blogspot.com/2007/11/dr-js-...

My personal data comes from a amateur SRM Powermeter. It was bought second hand and calibrated shortly before I got it, so it shouldn't be too far outside the specified +/- 5% accuracy.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By blaster5k on 8/27/2008 9:55:52 AM , Rating: 5
kWh is not the same as a kW. You need to know the duration for .75 kWh to be translated into instantaneous power. I highly doubt the output from a cycle is 750 W.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By daftrok on 8/27/2008 12:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's all relativity. If they maintain a constant speed of 120 RPM throughout a 10 minute intervals, is it enough to maintain the power? And what about times when people DON'T use the machine? Will they turn off lights in areas of the gym if there isn't enough power generated? And what about treadmills? Will there simply not be any or will the other machines power them? And do you have to sign in at a time with other people so that the facility can remained powered? And...OH GOD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M58vGDEF6YA


RE: Noteworthy at best
By daftrok on 8/27/2008 12:16:42 PM , Rating: 1
It's all relativity. If they maintain a constant speed of 120 RPM throughout a 10 minute intervals, is it enough to maintain the power? And what about times when people DON'T use the machine? Will they turn off lights in areas of the gym if there isn't enough power generated? And what about treadmills? Will there simply not be any or will the other machines power them? And do you have to sign in at a time with other people so that the facility can remained powered? And...OH GOD!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M58vGDEF6YA


RE: Noteworthy at best
By spluurfg on 8/28/2008 9:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
kWh is not the same as a kW. You need to know the duration for .75 kWh to be translated into instantaneous power. I highly doubt the output from a cycle is 750 W.


Agreed... they could have meant 0.75KWH per day. Suppose it's used for 8 hours a day and that looks like something reasonable for an exercise machine.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By IvanAndreevich on 8/27/2008 10:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
Haha 750W on a bike? Lance Armstrong wouldn't even get close to pushing 600W at his best even for a minute.

300W on a bike is a freaking achievement. I bet 80% of people wouldn't even push 200W for anything over a few minutes. Most probably not at all!


RE: Noteworthy at best
By guacamojo on 8/27/2008 10:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
This is nothing more than a publicity stunt. The math doesn't work out. The publicity might, though... especially in Portland.

Even elite level cyclists can't generate 750 watts on a sustained basis. A treadmill draws 10-15 amps @ 120 VAC depending on deck and belt wear. Even if you had magic motors that were twice as efficient, that's still 600-900 W. When you factor in inverter efficiency, it would take at least 5-6 average people on bikes to power a single "magic" treadmill.

Most gyms do have HVAC, lights, TV's, sound systems, and computers in addition to the equipment, so there's really no way to run the whole gym on that.

Still, most machines today (besides treadmills) are self-powered, so they don't need any support from the grid to count up the number of twinkies you burned. Some ellipticals have moving ramps that are powered by the exerciser. But that's nothing new; they've been doing that for the last 7-8 years or so.

By the way, I'm an engineer for a large OEM of club-type exercise machines.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By FaceMaster on 8/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Noteworthy at best
By mdogs444 on 8/27/2008 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 3
Coal, yes. Nuclear, yes. Rain forest animals? now you're reaching.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 12:15:08 PM , Rating: 5
Nah man. I throw small endangered animals in the fire to keep myself warm during the mild winters here and watch with enjoyment as they scratch against the glass of the fireplace door as they burn to death. Don't you?


RE: Noteworthy at best
By teflonbilly on 8/27/2008 1:22:30 PM , Rating: 1
I can't see why you would prefer burning anything over this. Even if this system only provides 2-5% of the gym's power needs, its still that much less power required from other sources. This is power that would be generated and thrown away regardless. Its like having coal burning plants out there burning coal and producing power but never hooking them into the grid. The power just goes away.
Ok, I know that we don't produce that much power on a bike. I have installed enough power meters on bikes in my shop to know that, but its still something. Gimmick or not it is still a valid idea and good implementation. And if it brings more people into the gym, how can that be bad. Looks to me like there are enough people who could use a gym out there that having a gym sell itself on something other that just working out is good.

They also talked about bringing in efficient motors for the treadmills so thats also a move int he right direction.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 1:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "Even if this system only provides 2-5% of the gym's power needs, its still that much less power required from other sources"

And what about the energy required to build all those "weed wackers and truck alternator motors" required to implement this scheme? And all the various other inverters, belts, gears, and what-have-you neccesary? Humans just don't output a lot of energy. Using a lot of components to capture that energy just isn't a net gain most of the time...which explains why this gym will be more expensive than those around it.

The free market usually finds the most efficient alternative on it own, and assigns it the lowest price. This same principle explains why "green" sources of power like wind are actually more environmentally destructive than nuclear. Wind power costs more, because it uses far more resources (steel, concrete, etc) to build the turbines and towers. The environmental cost of all that mining and production is substantial.

Plastic shopping bags vs. paper are another example. When environmentalists were busy telling people to select paper, they neglected to do simple math. The cheaper solution here is environmentally superior. When one factors in all the energy and production steps needed to produce a paper bag, plastic wins easily.

Obviously externalities may mean this general rule of thumb isn't always true. But it works more often than that. A more expsensive "environmentally friendly" solution usually is anything but.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By lifeblood on 8/27/2008 2:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
Any new technology or experimental system is relatively expensive when it is first produced. However, over time the price of production comes down. Laptops and their big inefficient batteries used to cost top dollars, but now are quite reasonable. And the batteries have gotten more efficient thanks to improvements in battery technology and power reduction features of the laptop. As we continue to use it, solar, wind, and others will become more efficient to produce, just as nuclear power has.

Many exercise bikes now power themselves rather than using wall power. Using the exercise equipment to supplement the power used by the gym is simply a continuation of the "self powering trend". If after X number of years his savings from using less external power exceeds his initial investment, than congrats to him, he made a wise decision.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 2:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Laptops and their big inefficient batteries used to cost top dollars, but now are quite reasonable"

This is a common mistake. A windmill isn't a computer chip. The price of a laptop and similar electronic components is primarily driven by R&D and capital costs, not bulk materials used in their construction. Once those costs have been amortized, the price can plummet like a stone.

The above leads some people to believe this is true for all products. It isn't. When a majority of a product's cost is the price of the raw materials used in its construction, it's price is not going to drop as demand rises.

Windmills require vast amounts of steel and concrete. That sets a very high price floor on their construction. If we suddenly began building millions of windmills, their price would rise sharply. Not drop. In fact there is evidence that even the small number we're building at present is raising the world price of steel.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By lifeblood on 8/27/2008 3:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually thinking more along the lines of materials used to create solar cells/panels or technologies to make windmills quieter thus allowing them to spin faster. The steel and concrete used in windmills was not what I was thinking of although it's possible a better replacement for them will be devised.

It seems to me from reading your posts you have a decidedly nuclear and nothing else stance. Anything that isn't nuclear is bad. Maybe I'm misreading it, but that's how it appears to me. Nuclear has gotten a very bad and undeserved rap. Small but vocal fringe groups (greenpeace, etc) have totally polluted the issue here in the US and it prevents an intelligent discussion. I propose that your attitude does the same by inflaming the issue further. Nuclear is part of the solution, it is not the whole solution.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 3:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
My stance is to use the best solution for the problem at hand. If and when wind and solar become viable solutions, I'll support them utterly.

As for nuclear being "not the whole solution", I ask you-- why not? It's the cheapest and cleanest of all the alternatives and, unlike wind and solar, works all the time. It also has the ability to ramp supply up and down to match demand...something that isn't possible with other renewable sources.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By lifeblood on 8/27/2008 4:32:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If and when wind and solar become viable solutions, I'll support them utterly.

Nuclear was once very theoretical, experimental, and dangerous. Time and use has made it reliable, practical, and not nearly the danger it was. In order to become equally practical solar and wind require time and use. Wasn't one of the current game consoles more expensive to produce then it was first sold for? It was expected to become cheaper over time and the loss to be made up by the sale of the games for it. Roughly similar to what I am proposing.

quote:
As for nuclear being "not the whole solution", I ask you-- why not?

Nuclear is based on a limited resource, Uranium or whatever their using these days. Solar and wind are not so limited, at least until the sun goes nova. Also, I cannot foresee a time in the future that I will be able to buy a Nuclear plant for my house in case some idiot hits a power pole with his car and knocks it down. I can get a wind power generator or a solar panel and batteries now.

Consider this scenario. All power stations are nuclear and all houses have solar panels on them. The biggest drain on the power grid (at least in the south) is during hot sunny summer days when everyone's turned on the AC. Hot sunny days are perfect for solar power. The solar panel on their roof would provide additional power and thus reduce the draw on the grid. The temperature drops at night reducing the need for AC, equaling the loss of power by the solar panel. In this scenario solar does not preclude Nuclear, it supplements it.

I am quite sure their are other scenarios and situations where large wind/solar farms are desirable. However I do not agree solar or wind will be able to provide all or even the majority of our power. Nuclear or other source is required.

Still, at the risk of making this post excessively long I must bring up one other issue. During my undergrad my geography professor claimed their was enough potential hydroelectric power in the Northwest of Canada to power the whole N.American continent. The problem was transporting it. This was the same time the University of Houston was trying to woo some researcher who was an expert at Superconductivity (ie, transport electricity long distances). I have no idea how factual this claim was, I do simply mention it as another possible alternative to Nuclear (albeit far fetched).


RE: Noteworthy at best
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 5:04:49 PM , Rating: 3
> "In order to become equally practical solar and wind require time and use"

We've been building windmills since the 1400s. Billing it as an immature technology that will see enormous gains in the near term is off base.

> "Wasn't one of the current game consoles more expensive to produce then it was first sold for?"

Read my comments above. Windmills are not microchips. Different laws of economics apply.

> "Nuclear is based on a limited resource"

Red herring. There's enough uranium on earth to power human civilization for many tens of thousands of years. Add advanced reprocessing and reactor designs, and the figure jumps to hundreds of thousands of years...and after that, we can just as easily use thorium, which is 3X as prevalent an element as uranium.

> The biggest drain on the power grid (at least in the south) is during hot sunny summer days"

The largest drain on the power grid is industrial/commercial baseline usage. Residential usage is about a third...but in the smmer, that peaks from the 2pm-6pm timeframe, a period in which sunlight is already declining. In the winter, nighttime residential usage is much higher, a period in which no sunlight is present at all.

And that's today. In 15 years, if electric cars become prevalent, night time usage could very well be higher than day, regardless of the season.

Could solar power shave a bit off of peak consumption? Sure. But no more than that....and at a cost much higher than conventional sources. Given we're going to need those conventional sources anyway, what's the benefit to the extra cost of installing the solar?

> "their was enough potential hydroelectric power in the Northwest of Canada to power the whole N.American continent. The problem was transporting it. "

Which explains why solar farms in Arizona can't power the entire US.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By lifeblood on 8/27/2008 6:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've been building windmills since the 1400s.

I'm not talking small windmills used to pump water or grind grain, I'm talking large scale windmills for the production of electricity. That's a fairly modern use. Also, everything has an effect. The use of steel in windmills will effect the cost of steel just as the cost of coal in coal plants effects the cost of coal. The storage or disposal of spent reactor fuel & cores has a cost. Nothing is free. Every action has a cost, including inaction.
quote:
There's enough uranium on earth to power human civilization for many tens of thousands of years.

I was not aware of that. That is comforting to know. How accessible is it? Is it in unstable regions of the world like oil? I don't know. I do know that the availability of the sun, wind, geothermal power, etc are generally not subject to the whims of two bit dictators. If the US has large supplies of it then so much the better.
quote:
The largest drain on the power grid is industrial/commercial baseline usage.

I didn't say what or who is the largest user, just when.
quote:
that peaks from the 2pm-6pm timeframe

Solar panels still produce power between 2pm - 6pm. Power produced between dawn and 2pm can be stored by batteries for use when needed. Yes, batteries are big, heavy, and not as efficient as we would like, but that will improve with time and research just as solar cells are becoming more efficient at converting sunlight to electricity.
quote:
Which explains why solar farms in Arizona can't power the entire US.

Actually, the creation of a practical long distance electricity transport system would benefit Nuclear as much as solar. A few huge Nuclear/coal/oil/whatever plants are more efficient than many smaller plants. The economies of scale.

Again, I definitely do not claim Nuclear is bad. I simply argue that their is room and uses for other sources. If nothing else I've seen sailboats with solar panels to power radios, GPS, etc. No nuclear in the middle of the ocean.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 6:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "How accessible is [that uranium]? Is it in unstable regions of the world like oil?"

The US and especially Canada has large uranium and thorium deposits. In any case, we have enough Pu to power the nation for the next several centuries, just from the present nuclear weapons we're decomissioning, all without mining another ounce. Unfortunately, we're too stupid to build reactors to use it.

> "Power produced between dawn and 2pm can be stored by batteries for use when needed."

I'm sorry, but battery storage of electricity at commercial quantities just isn't feasible. Solar power without energy storage runs 3-5X as expensive as nuclear. Throw in battery storage, and it can run 50X as much. Do you really
want your $100 power bill to run $5,000 a month?

This is why I've said repeatedly that solar power needs several quantum advances in technology to be feasible. 1, in the cost of the panels themselves. 2, in energy transmission, to allow places which get plenty of sun to service those which do not, and 3, in energy storage technologies.

IF and when all those major advances come about, you'll see me cheerleading for solar. Until then, its a pipe dream, sold only to those unable to do simple math.

> "The use of steel in windmills will effect the cost of steel...The storage or disposal of spent reactor fuel & cores has a cost. Nothing is free."

While true, you're still dodging the issue here. The more windmills we build, the more expensive each one becomes. The more reactors we build, the cheaper each one gets. There's a huge difference between the two approaches, especially when nuclear is already the cheaper of the two alternatives.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By lifeblood on 8/27/2008 10:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately, we're too stupid to build reactors to use it.

Nuclear is now much safer then it used to be, although the consequence of an Nuclear accident is still far worse than a accident in a wind or solar site. It is also more efficient, and reliable now, but it wasn't a few decades ago. From what I read both candidates support it so hopefully we shall begin building reactors again soon.
quote:
battery storage of electricity at commercial quantities just isn't feasible.

My example was residential, not commercial. Also, my scenario used solar as a supplement, not a replacement. Solar for houses does work as their are houses that use it exclusively now. However, as I've conceded, it fails as far as cost / benefit. My argument is that those problems will be resolved with time and use. Once the cost of the panels comes down solar on houses as well as individual businesses and factories, as a supplement to the grid, will become a no-brainer.
quote:
The more windmills we build, the more expensive each one becomes. The more reactors we build, the cheaper each one gets.

I admit I am not an expert on the effect of Windmills and steel, but as I look around at all the giant steel towers for power transmission lines, and the steel frames for new buildings, I have to wonder why windmills suddenly become price prohibitive because they use steel. Nuclear plants are expensive to build, they are expensive to maintain, they are expensive to shutdown and cleanup. Wind, like solar, is also good is a supplement, either individually (a single tower on a building in a windy city) or in a farm in an acceptable location.

It's late, I'm tired, good night.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2008 10:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "I have to wonder why windmills suddenly become price prohibitive because they use steel"

They're not price prohibitive simply because they use steel. Rather, it's because they use so much steel to generate such a small amount of electricity.

A 1.5MW wind turbine normally stands on a tower about 250 feet tall (higher than the Statue of Liberty). While 1.5MW may sound like a lot, that's peak output. Normal output is about 0.35 of that (for incredibly ideal locations) and about 0.25 for that for suboptimal locations.

Per MW generated, wind mills use 10X the steel and 5X the concrete as a nuclear plant. And that's only if you attempt to generate about 10% of your total electricity with wind. As the percentage rises, the economics get worse and worse. Why? Because wind is inherently variable, just like demand. But they don't vary at the same time...at times when wind is high and demand low, excess power is wasted.

Toss energy storage into the mix, and supply matching becomes possible. But the economics get even worse. Storing energy is more expensive than generating it in the first place...which is why utilities now don't do it, beyond a few minutes of load-levelling.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By lifeblood on 8/28/2008 9:17:37 AM , Rating: 2
I accept your argument that large wind farms are not without their hidden costs. However, I still stand by my statement that wind, solar, geothermal, etc are or will be very useful as a supplemental source of energy, be it individual solar panels on houses to small geothermal plants like Iceland uses. As such I applaud the use of these sources as it helps move the technology forward and make them cheaper/better. According to the companies pushing it, the addition of solar panels to a house has an (approx) 15 year Return on Investment. When that ROI hits 5 years I think you will really see it's use take off.

BTW, if your concern is that by acknowledging the potential for alternate sources you might encourage Californians to continue resisting the obvious, I don't think it will matter. Having been stationed in California for many years, I've concluded their is something very wrong about that whole state. They are going to keep chasing meaningless fashionable trends and reality is not going to change their minds one way or the other.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By Pythias on 8/28/2008 1:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuclear is now much safer then it used to be, although the consequence of an Nuclear accident is still far worse than a accident in a wind or solar site.


I know. We're still reeling from three-mile island. The price we paid that day was...wait...how many were killed or injured that day?


RE: Noteworthy at best
By lifeblood on 8/28/2008 9:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
Luckily no one was killed. From what I understand after a quick google, the reactor is sealed and will have to stay that way foreseeable future. It was a rather expensive mess, but no casualties except for the public image of Nuclear power.

And yes, we are still reeling from that day. The Nuclear industry took a black eye from that which resulted in a decline in new plants being built. Many of the fears of Nuclear power can be directly attributed to that accident. Although it used a different and far riskier technology, Chernobyl only added to those fears. Because of it we've continued to use dirtier coal plants.

My point doesn't change. Their are inherent risks with Nuclear that are not there with other energy sources. Terrorists don't make dirty bombs out of used solar panels.

Having said that, don't make my comment more than it is. Modern reactors as we will build them are very safe, and we are very careful about radioactive material walking away. Assuming the regulatory agencies do their job I doubt we here in the US will ever have a serious Nuclear accident resulting in death, despite what Greenpeace wants you to believe. But it is a risk that must be considered, understood, and planned for.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 4:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
or technologies to make windmills quieter thus allowing them to spin faster.

Off-topic, but I thought you'd appreciate the corrections. Friction losses in something as large as a power-generating windmill are almost negligible. Noise and vibration (in the bearings) can be eliminated by simply rearranging weight. Noise due to turbulent flow over the airfoils is currently inevitable, and impractical to overcome (NASA and the USAF have been working on this one for decades). But is a potential area of improvement in the future:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/Publications/PDF/...

And an airfoil has a specific speed at which it's most efficient. You don't want to be spinning faster or slower than that. In fact if the wind speed gets too high, the windmill needs to be feathered and shut down. Otherwise this can happen:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/windmill.asp


RE: Noteworthy at best
By iNGEN on 8/27/2008 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think the real question here, Masher, is the effect of the design change on equipment costs. So many peices of gym equipment already have generation equipment built in I suspect the marginal cost for the design change will not alter the market pattern.

It is noteworthy that self-powered equipment (of specific types) has become the norm. For this reason I think it possible such a change could possibly be the point of greatest market efficiency.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 1:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
When I started grad school, I visited a half dozen banks to figure out where I should put my savings. I collected info on the different types of accounts, CDs, and interest rates. I put them all in a spreadsheet, and figured out which one would be the best. The difference in earnings over the next year between the best and worst was a little over $12. The whole project took about 4 hours. At the time I was making $10/hr as an RA. In other words, I would've been better off just putting my money into any bank, and spending the 4 hours working. I basically gave up $40 to earn $12.

Yes a gym would save some energy by doing this. But it requires a considerable amount of additional equipment, effort, and time to implement for a very small return. Chances are they'd be much better off doing something else. Like maybe increasing the building's insulation, or changing the lighting, or replacing the hot water heater, etc.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2008 12:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By Spuke on 8/27/2008 1:17:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
so you'd rather we powered the stations with coal, nuclear or the animals from tropical rain forests instead?!?!
LOL!!!! Is this statement supposed to make people feel bad? It just reads so idiotic. My 8 year old niece would say something dumb like this. I would hope an adult would have a better argument that this.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By FaceMaster on 8/28/2008 3:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
Seems as if humour is beyond the reach of most Americans. Though I know you'd want to burn those fluffy animals if it was profitable.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By Samus on 8/27/2008 2:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Powering a single light bulb is possible from a single exercise bike.


A bicycle can produce a great deal of power. Back in grade school I saw a sciense project of mice producing upward of 40-watts running in a wheel. 40-watts from a creature that weighs less than 8 ounces! Unless you're talking about metal halide of high pressure sodium light bulbs, a bicycle has no trouble powering most lighting systems; it takes a great deal of energy to power a bike, so there is a great deal of energy to be captured.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By Solandri on 8/27/2008 6:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
40 Watts, is enough power to lift a 1 kg weight 4 meters in one second. I can assure you a mouse is nowhere near capable of generating that much power. A mouse can barely move its 8 oz. self horizontally at 4 meters/sec (9 mph), much less lift a 1kg weight at that speed.


RE: Noteworthy at best
By mindless1 on 8/28/2008 8:35:38 AM , Rating: 2
If a mouse could generate 40W, it would cook itself from the inside out.


Hey Jason...
By jimpaka on 8/27/08, Rating: -1