backtop

Gadgets MSI's Solar Powered MP3 Player
Johnny Parker (Blog) - March 14, 2006 5:45 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 25 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Mar 15 at 10:00 AM

MSI's MEGA 540 - CSTN LCD on one side, Solar recharge panels on the other
No batteries, no problem

MicroStar International Corp has a slogan, “Innovation with Style” -- and inovate it did.. While testing new waters, MSI has created the first solar powered MP3 player now on showcase at CeBIT in Hannover, Germany.

Though bulkier then the industry preferred iPod, this gadget can last at least 8 hours while playing and can recharge even during heavy use. The idea behind this device obviously to increase environmental awareness by cutting back on discharged batteries. It is also designed to be effective in areas without much, if any, electricity.

Unlike other MSI MEGA MP3 players, the MEGA 540 actually uses a Color SuperTwis Nematic (CSTN) LCD display as opposed to a RiDisplay OLED display.  CSTN is a passive LCD matrix that does not have a particularly quick response time, but is more than ample for devices like MP3 players. Since it is a passive display, the CSTN uses very little power outside of the backlights. 

The test subject for this experiment was MSI’s MEGA Player 540 infused with solar cells which cover almost the entire backside of the device. A USB cable can also be used to recharge the internal batteries. Although a great achivement, the solar cells make the MEGA 540 a rather costly product and will likely not be sold in mass production any time soon...


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Environmentally friendly?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2006 9:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
> "The idea behind this device obviously to increase environmental awareness by cutting back on discharged batteries...."

How so? It still has batteries, and they still need to be charged and discharged. Sorry, but I don't see the 'environmentally friendly' aspect of this device.




RE: Environmentally friendly?
By Burning Bridges on 3/14/2006 9:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
The quote means starndard batteries, that must be thrown away after use, I belive. Also, it is better for the enviroment to charge your mp3 player from a solar panel that takes its energy from the sun, than it is to charge it with a mains charger that takes its energy from say, a coal-burning power station.


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2006 9:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
> "The quote means starndard batteries, that must be thrown away after use"

But plenty of players use rechargeables. That's the step that solves the consumable battery issue-- not adding a solar cell.


> "is better for the enviroment to charge your mp3 player from a solar panel that takes its energy from the sun"

Not when you factor in the additional energy and resources used to manufacture the solar power cells, and balance it against the miniscule amounts of electric power actually saved by such an approach. Given most players are broken, lost, or upgraded within a few years time, this solar-powered version is almost certainly worse for the environment than one using standard rechargeables.


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By Bonrock on 3/14/2006 1:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "Not when you factor in the additional energy and resources used to manufacture the solar power cells, and balance it against the miniscule amounts of electric power actually saved by such an approach."

You might be right about that. Or you might not be. Do you have any numbers to back up your claim that manufacturing the solar cells consumes more energy than recharging your MP3 player several times a week?


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2006 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "do you have any numbers to back up your claim..."

Sure do. For most commodity-level products, their wholesale cost is a rough measure of the amount of energy and resources expended to produce them. A very rough measure in some cases...but useful for comparison purposes. In other words, if (commodity) Item A costs one hundred times as much as Item B, then it almost certainly required more to produce it.

Now, a pair of rechargeable NiMH AAA batteries holds maybe 1500 mAh. Recharging them 3 times a week for a full year would consume perhaps 350 watt-hours. Or 1/3 of a KW-h. At, say, 10 cents per KW-h (I pay 0.08 myself) that would cost you a grand total of 3.5 cents to charge them. Per year.

Now contrast that to the cost of the solar cells. The article doesn't mention specifics, but since it does say the cost would be "prohibitive" for consumer-grade players, we have to assume its at least $50. Probably much more.

Assuming a device lifespan of three years, you have a cost of 10 cents for the standard version, versus $50 for the solar-cell version. A cost differential of (at least) 500 times as much.

You can do a more sophisticated analysis if you like, but I can assure you the results would likely be even more in favor of the non-solar cell version. And I'm not even taking into account the toxic materials used to manufacture most high-output solar cells...just a simple estimate of the energy and resources used.

In summary, this device is useful for campers....and for empty-headed environmentalists willing to spend money to gain the illusion they're actually doing some good.


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By Griswold on 3/15/2006 4:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
It doesnt matter what it costs you in terms of environmental friendlyness (the fact that fossil or nuclear electricity is cheap doesnt mean its good for you, duh!) - and I can assure you, a solar panel of that size does not cost $50 to produce. Try $5, maybe $8 at most. You can buy panels like that for 10 bucks at your favourite electronics shop.


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/15/2006 9:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
As has already been proven countless times, nuclear energy produces far less pollutants than solar, when you compare an equal-output nuclear plant to a solar one spanning thousands of acres, and the manufacturing required to create that area of solar cells.


> "a solar panel of that size does not cost $50 to produce. Try $5, maybe $8 at most"

If this player was using an $8 solar cell, then the article wouldn't claim the cost as "prohibitive", now would it?


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By ItsOnlyMonday on 3/14/2006 1:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Devil's advocate are we..? ;-)

Solar panels are not very expensive to produce nor do they require a lot of resources--Especially if they are going to be at a size like the one pictured and requiring such little energy. IMO, this is a nice step toward more environment friendly technologies.


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2006 1:53:57 PM , Rating: 1
> "Solar panels are not very expensive to produce nor do they require a lot of resources"

If this was true, why do solar panels sufficient to power an average home cost far more than the total amount of power consumed over the entire lifetime of that home?

And that's for fixed panels which are illuminated pretty much 100% of the time in daylight hours. For a consumer device which is going to be charging in sunlight a small fraction of its lifetime, the amount of power generated vs. power consumed in manufacture is even more unbalanced. For such devices, the "green" factor is nonexistent.


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By DarthPierce on 3/14/2006 2:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Solar powered calculators are very popular in 3rd world countries. (and are VERY cheap to manufacture....)

It all depends on hohw much power the cell needs to provide. The amount of power a hairdryer uses compared to an MP3 player is incredible.... on the order of 1000X more energy.
(and a hairdrier is only a small part of the energy budget of a pure solar house)


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/14/2006 2:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "Solar powered calculators are very popular in 3rd world countries"

But not for environmental reasons.

> "It all depends on hohw much power the cell needs to provide. The amount of power a hairdryer uses compared to an MP3 player is incredible"

But the less power needed, the fewer environmental savings there are to be realized, and therefore the less likely solar charging will be environmentally "friendly". If it doesn't work for a house, it certainly doesn't work for a device that consumes a million times less power.


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By Zoomer on 3/15/2006 9:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't there a series of articles proclaiming that the breakeven point has been, or is about to be, reached?


RE: Environmentally friendly?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/15/2006 10:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
People have been predicting imminent breakeven for solar power for 30 years. For some rare situations, we're already there...for instance, powering a remote ranger station in the wilderness. Solar power makes more sense than running a hundred miles of power line just for a single location. For most applications, we're still a long ways away.


I might actually buy that
By Griswold on 3/14/2006 7:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a nice part. Charging batteries on music players always annoyed me, no matter how long they last - your standards grow with battery life. With this one, you can just turn it around while flexing in the sun.

But oh wait, what is that? 2 months from now, Apple will announce the iPod Sun, which will of course run on solar cells, and quickly patent this ingenious fusion of lifestyle and environmental care!




RE: I might actually buy that
By Burning Bridges on 3/14/2006 8:01:58 AM , Rating: 3
I have to agree - that does look pretty funky, if they could produce it at a reasonable price, I would be very tempted.


RE: I might actually buy that
By DarthPierce on 3/14/2006 9:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
That is a dream product for any serious backpacking or other extended outdoor trip. (NOLS, outward bound, things like that)

Granted I'm a hard core outdoors person, but I've gone months without a power outlet, and believe me, no regualr mp3 player is up to that (nor would I want to carry all the AA batteries it would take either).


RE: I might actually buy that
By CorrND on 3/14/2006 1:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is a dream product for any serious backpacking or other extended outdoor trip. (NOLS, outward bound, things like that)


That was one of my first reactions as well. However, part of the camping experience -- for me at least -- is getting away from technology. This device will certainly have appeal to certain campers, though.


RE: I might actually buy that
By DarthPierce on 3/14/2006 1:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. VERY good point....


Yeah, but....
By Lord Zado on 3/14/2006 8:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't the latest craze in the MP3 player world to make them smaller and invisible? I know I try to keep my MP3 player in my pocket whenever possible. So why on Earth do they think making a device which is bulkier (due to the solar cells) and requires you to have it in plain view (to recharge) is a good idea?




RE: Yeah, but....
By Burning Bridges on 3/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah, but....
By Burning Bridges on 3/14/2006 8:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
Also : you can't recharge your mp3 player in your pocket, can you? AFAIK all mp3 players need to be in plain view to recharge :)


RE: Yeah, but....
By plewis00 on 3/14/2006 8:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's innovation, and even if it's just that and doesn't sell that well it still separates this from other players in an increasingly copycat market.

When you think that most MP3 players are small consider carrying the charger too and then the bulk adds up. With this it would not be unreasonable to take nothing more than this and a set of earphones with you. It is practical in many aspects to be recharged on-the-go, consider bike riding or driving where you can mount it solar side up on the dash or handlebars to charge it. Also how often have you gone somewhere and realised you left the charger behind? What with Apple and others not supplying mains chargers any more anything like this is welcome. It may not appeal to you but you can't deny this is a very interesting concept.


RE: Yeah, but....
By Lord Zado on 3/14/2006 2:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, it is an interesting concept and highly useful in certain specific scenarios (riding a bike, etc). I guess the industry had to ask itself "what else can we do to be innovative?" and this is one direction. If they refine it a bit more by making it smaller and maybe a bit more efficient, I would be sold on it.


panels err panels
By stephenbrooks on 3/14/2006 3:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
As for the "it won't recharge while in your pocket" problem, they just need to make the solar panel either hinge or clip/unclip so you can have it outside your pocket or coat (wherever you can stick it in the sunlight). A bit of a bind I guess, but there ought to be a convenient way to work it.

I just like this device from the "completely self-sufficient" point of view.




RE: panels err panels
By tygrus on 3/14/2006 6:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
The advantage is that if you have a bit of sunlight while your using it, you can save on battery replacement.
If you run off battery for 100% then every x hrs of use (x being the standard runtime of the battery pack) you have to recharge and that reduces expected remaining cycles (eg. rated 500 recharge cycles to be about 50% of original capacity). If the solar panel is providing power while your are using it then the batteries will last longer based on playing time.

If you use the solar panel to recharge the batteries while not using it then the battery life will be the same as before in terms of recharge cycles and playing time.

Charging batteries from mains power is typically not very effiecient. The batteries take 20% to 50% more energy to charge than the stored energy (wasted as heat due to internal resistance). The charger requires the 240v AC (or whatever your local power is) down to a lower voltage DC and also power the internal charging control circuitry. That could waste 70 to 50% so you might as well double it. Recharger/pwer supply may still waste power when idle (finished charging) as parts of it are still connected to mains power and are still active (but less than when charging).

You should think of battery capacity as AH (amp hours) x voltage of battery as a whole. Two cells in series, each being 750mAH and 1.25v would be .75*2.5=1.875wH. 160 recharges per year (~3/wk). >50% loss when charging so conservative 5wH per recharge. 160*5wh=.8kwh = 8c/yr @ 10c/kwh. Solar panels do not have very good ROI. It's only a convience thing that when you are at a sporting fixture, camping etc. you can recharge without access to mains power.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki