Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Breakfast of runners-up.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


           

Crusher bin

A refuse compacting waste recepticle
  (+3, -2)
(+3, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

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.
bs0u0155, Jul 01 2010

Roots Type Supercharger http://en.wikipedia...s_type_supercharger
[jurist, Jul 01 2010]

[link]






       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.
jurist, Jul 01 2010
  

       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.
MechE, Jul 01 2010
  

       //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.
daseva, Jul 01 2010
  

       wouldn't mind a better recycles compactor but I'm not sure this is it. [ ]
FlyingToaster, Jul 01 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle