Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by ncruces on Monday August 25, 2025 @10:44AM
(#45014432)
Now try to escape it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by teiferer on Monday August 25, 2025 @11:39AM
(#45015052)
You are not hiking much in the mountains, are you? 1000m of elevation gain per day are no problem for a slightly out of shape sit-all-day programmer. Not sure how high up you want me to go, but given a high enough mountain (and a thick jacket and supplemental oxygen) and most people here can do that in a few weeks or months.
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by ncruces on Monday August 25, 2025 @11:59AM
(#45015263)
That doesn't really escape the gravity well, does it?
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by recursive on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:13PM
(#45016177)
It would if there was a mountain that kept going up, and you had oxygen to breathe.
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by javcasas on Monday August 25, 2025 @11:20AM
(#45014838)
What limits me is the lack of solid matter to push against, not lack of strength in my muscles.
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by galangalalgol on Monday August 25, 2025 @11:56AM
(#45015233)
Gpt says that would require about 275 million steps on a magic rigid weightless stairway. Roughly 4.1 million calories. So at Phelps level energy expenditures you are still talking over a year of climbing every day.
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by LgWoodenBadger on Monday August 25, 2025 @12:11PM
(#45015415)
Well, 100kg raised 10000m is only about 2350 food calories, from a purely physics perspective.
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by galangalalgol on Monday August 25, 2025 @03:19PM
(#45017813)
You'd need to go to about 47km for the end of the stairs to reach escape velocity I think? Past geo. Was using 20% efficiency. Still something off there.
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by recursive on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:13PM
(#45016164)
GPT not so good at elementary physics evidently.
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by 0x000xca0xfe on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:30PM
(#45016389)
Assuming you don't have to carry your food... 4.1 million calories would be around 0.5 tons of olive oil.
Re:Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries
by lawlessone on Monday August 25, 2025 @02:36PM
(#45017305)
ok, but what do you say?