h a l f b a k e r yWhy on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Waste is bulky, and taking bags out is a pain in the backside. So, I propose a crushing bin. This will consist of two VERY SLOWLY rotating interlocking rollers, simelar to an inverse Roots-style supercharger.... inverse because the route is through the middle not the sides. These rollers should have
teeth which loosely interlock allowing space for the rubbish. You place your cans or plastic wrapping or paper or whatever and it VERY SLOWLY using a massively downgeared motor, possibly some form of massive tourque epicyclic malarkey. The fact that it moves very slowly is it's safety feature, possibly including a scream-induced reverse mode. There would be separate sections of the rolers for the separate recycling bins and what not underneath. Done, compacted rubbish.
Roots Type Supercharger
http://en.wikipedia...s_type_supercharger
[jurist, Jul 01 2010]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
So, this is different from any other ordinary kitchen trash compactor in that it uses interlocking rollers to reduce the volume of the waste rather than a top press. And crude sorting of the trash is accomplished by using different sections of the rollers to separate recyclable metal, glass, paper, and non-recyclable food waste and other rubbish. |
|
| |
This seems inherently unsafe and prone to mechanical jamming and also prone to cross-contamination of the recyclables and waste items. I think this is going to be a hard sell to the average homeowner who is probably content with his current kitchen trash compactor. |
|
| |
Unless I'm misreading, it would compress individual pieces, but not the entire mass of garbage. This would result in less total compression than the box type mashers by a value dependent on the packing factor of the output. |
|
| |
//possibly including ... // yea... we're gonna go ahead and
scratch that... yea, I know you guys have been working on
it for the last four months but... yea, hey you're still
coming in on Saturday though, right? yea... |
|
| |
I understand that this device may compact better than the
bulk ones because the bulk ones allow for void spacing
which hinders compression of the actual material. |
|
| |
wouldn't mind a better recycles compactor but I'm not sure this is it. [ ] |
|
| |