News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Standard Thermal: Energy Storage 500x Cheaper Than Batteries. Parent comment

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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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?
[ Parent | on HN ]