this concept has been around for a while. i read about it about a year ago in MIT’s Technology Review. It was developed for places like airports and concert hall floors. It actually does generate a decent amount of electricity! Think of it this way: 500 people * 150 lbs=75000 pounds of mass going up and down hundreds of times… it probably doesnt even make a dent in the multi-kwatt stereo but it would power some light bulbs and stuff at least. Hey, every bit helps

Posted at 10:51 pm on Jun 20th, 2008 by tophiannan

Energy = Force * distance. Seriously, how far is the floor going to deform?

Ever try to light a light bulb using a generator attached to a bike? 100 watts is no small feat when you’re pouring all your effort into it. (yeah… I know… racers… we’re talking dancers here.)

Trying to harvest any meaningful energy out of a dance floor stiffer than a water bed will be a joke.

Posted at 11:22 pm on Jun 20th, 2008 by Fizz Sicks

Why not put this stuff underneath highways and let cars generate electricity? Because its too expensive, and if the crystals flex a little, some of a car’s energy will be spent travelling on it. So not so “fuel efficient” as we thought.

Posted at 12:29 am on Jun 21st, 2008 by android_04

This is like some thing I had seen about using revolving doors to generate electricity… The idea is there, but won’t really work…
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/02/07/generate-energy-with-fluxxlabs-revolution-revolving-door/

Posted at 12:31 am on Jun 21st, 2008 by Michael

i do not approve of this post.

no details. how much energy is produced? what is the cost of the floor. what is the roi?

Posted at 1:47 am on Jun 21st, 2008 by miked

the same idea was being looked at to harness some kinetic energy from raindrops by attaching the system to a roof. i’d like to know how much the dancefloor costs to buy and to produce, as this surely wont pay back for a huge amount of time.
either way, it is a fun idea as a whole club. £10 entry unless you can prove you walked, biked or took a bus, especially as its in london.

all in all, post could do with some more details, but realistically what can you expect from The Daily Mail and The Evening Standard.
Interesting use of piezotransducers, so i’d class it as a hack

Posted at 3:43 am on Jun 21st, 2008 by steaky

With that many people walking, do you think there would be enough “up and down”. With enough people the floor would be squashed down from the weight, and probably do little traveling up. If it was flexible, how long would it last, would the electricity saved compensate the repair bill?

Posted at 12:14 pm on Jun 21st, 2008 by ACZ

do the math: if the floor were to flew even 1/16th of an inch, 75000 lbs / 16 /12=390 foot*pounds. If everyone jumps just once and provides 390 foot*pounds, that in itself won’t provide a whole lot of power. But over the span of a whole night people do a lot of jumping. in other words, the floor doesn’t have to deform 6 inches to provide meaningful power.
as far as it getting worn out, think of a basketball court. those things are made of wood. they flex a lot, which is why falling on one is not as painful as falling on concrete. how often do basketball floors get replaced? except in the pros, pretty much never. durability would not be an issue either.

Posted at 4:34 pm on Jun 21st, 2008 by tophiannan

Energy isn’t free. Think about the extra effort it takes to walk on soft beach sand, where the grains of sand sink under every step, versus the spring in your step when you walk on a sidewalk. Or how hard it is to ride a bike over soft grass turf as opposed to on hard pavement.

This dance floor would suck the life out of the dancers. They’d last minutes, maybe one or two dances, and then they’d be tired.

It’s a stupid idea that’d fail even if it worked.

Posted at 10:18 pm on Jun 21st, 2008 by jaded

There’s a point where this “environmental consciousness” is just too much. Has anyone considered how much energy it takes to build this piezoelectric dance floor? Chances are, the energy it generates will take forever to offset the additional energy required to make it. Let’s stick to the basics–use less petroleum for transportation, and find non-CO2-generating power sources (*hint* clean nuclear energy! add the new nuclear waste processing stuff to the chain, build a couple new plants, and a heck of a lot of our CO2 problems are solved! [ignoring the risk of terrorist attacks, of course])

Seriously, though, I think people are spending too much time on the little things that seem cool and “feel” environmentally friendly but are just too many orders of magnitude smaller than the whole problem that they’re not going to save the world.

Posted at 1:45 am on Jun 22nd, 2008 by threepointone

I agree with threepointone. A lot of “environmentalists” are very short sighted and have no concept of scale.

They like to say things like “I measure the daily temperature since december; It increased from -25C to +25C!!! That’s global warming! I estimate that all our oceans will be boiled dry by next december (i.e. 50C/6 months). DOOM!”. Bring up things like “math” or “statistics” and they call you a seal hater or oil baron. 2000 yrs / 5 billion years = god awful sample size.

Posted at 5:09 pm on Jun 23rd, 2008 by Obvious Man