Posted by quibbler on October 24, 2003, 4:56 pm
Well, it's not generating more than the stored energy in the syringe.
It's generating 1% of that energy, which is no violation. But from
what I can glean about electrokinetics, the charges it can produce are
only due to the motion of the fluid. I think Jack is assuming that the
water can have an electrical charge above and beyond any produced by
electrokinesis. I don't know if that's how water chemistry works or
not, but nevertheless, even if the water does carry an electrostatic
charge of its own, that charge had to ultimately come from somewhere.
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Posted by Anthony Matonak on October 24, 2003, 12:36 am
I don't exactly know what you are saying here but if you are claiming
that more energy is extracted from that water then is put into it
from the hand pushing the syringe then I think you are wrong. If you
were right then you could connect a pump to this device to create
the pressure and, since it generates more energy than goes into it
via pressure, there would be enough electricity generated to power
the pump and something else besides. This describes a perpetual motion
device and violates the known laws of physics. I very much doubt that
it operates in this fashion. It may, perhaps, be more efficient at
generating power than a mechanical turbine though.
Posted by Jack on October 24, 2003, 1:52 am
Anthony Matonak wrote:
I have meant exactly what you have said in your last sentence.
Both mechanical turbine and electret-like electrostatic energy is
But who knows for sure.
There is still no details avaliable on the net.
Posted by Say not the Struggle nought Av on October 25, 2003, 3:27 am
When I was in college I remember a demonstration, where a water stream,
ie water flowing from the tap, will generate enough static electricity
to creat arcs, just like a van de graf generator. It was amazing to see.
Posted by Nemo on October 28, 2003, 6:59 am
I have read the research paper from the IOP website (where it is
freely avaialble ofr a month). Some of my comments.
1. I was amazed at the kind of press coverage this article has got.
Let there be no doubt about it, it is a good piece of work; but it
tout it as the 'next big thing since Faraday' and make it seem like
commercial large scale power generation will be based on this effect,
seem a bit over stretched to me... may be i am naive.
2. One interesting aspect, which i am trying to understand is how do
they make the channels add in parallel? (this is a sincere question as
i am not able to understand this aspect clearly); They have a
experimental setup (last figure i guess), where water flows into the
porous rock coated with meshed electrodes. My question is water flow
horizontal (ie., along x axis as per the diagram), and if so are the
channels parallel to x-axis? and how to the charges add up?
3. Another interesting question is interface chemistry between rock
and Ag electrodes important?