Perpetual Battery

[chilehed]

I would encourage you to watch the video. He ruled that out.

Not really. Another explanation is that the galvanic reaction rate is a function of temperature, and by raising the temperature he brought the current up so that it was detectable with his meter.

Normally I would write this off as crazy kookalookaness

There's no reason to make an exception in this case.

 

[HARK!]

Gee .. micro-amps can be generated by static electricity for goodness sake!

...and micro-volts add up, Have you heard of a Van de Graaff generator?

 

[HARK!]

Not really. Another explanation is that the galvanic reaction rate is a function of temperature, and by raising the temperature he brought the current up so that it was detectable with his meter.

I thought of that possibility. So did the producer of the video. His use of carbon rods, removes that factor from the equation.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

...and micro-volts add up, Have you heard of a Van de Graaff generator?

Or in this case a variation of a Kelvin Water Dropper.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Can you then explain how the one using like carbon rods works?

If they are truly only carbon then no, but perhaps there is some purposeful contamination going on. I'm not saying that the guy is a fraud but I've seen many of similar gizmos that were indeed frauds using some sort of trickery or lies to dupe people for financial gain.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Who says they're 'like carbon rods'? He presents no evidence of their composition .. in fact he mentions clay and wax in the manufacturing process and then says they can be extracted from existing batteries, (I think?), which contain electrolytes. The rods could well be contaminated for all we know!

The patent reads like gobbledygook to me. That dude seems to think 'a load circuit' generates current!? (ETA: I misread the layout of the patent application. However, he refers to 'a stream of water supplied by a household water faucet, the water having sufficient impurities to render it conductive'.)

Gee .. micro-amps can be generated by static electricity for goodness sake!

You could probably get more power from the water pressure than any chemical reaction regardless of trickery.

 

[chilehed]

I thought of that possibility. So did the producer of the video. His use of carbon rods, removes that factor from the equation.

No, it doesn't.

 

[HARK!]

Who says they're 'like carbon rods'? He presents no evidence of their composition .. in fact he mentions clay and wax in the manufacturing process and then says they can be extracted from existing batteries, (I think?), which contain electrolytes. The rods could well be contaminated for all we know!

You do realize that electrolytes are conductive; right?

Gee .. micro-amps can be generated by static electricity for goodness sake!

You do realize that in order for a potential difference to develop between two bodies, that those bodies must be insulated from each other; right?

Do you believe that conductors and insulators are one in the same?

 

[HARK!]

Not really. Another explanation is that the galvanic reaction rate is a function of temperature, and by raising the temperature he brought the current up so that it was detectable with his meter.

Chemical reactions are not a function of temperature. Functions are constants, not variables. Heat can be a catalyst for a chemical reaction; but the same results were produced at room temperature, by adding motion to the electrodes.

Did you watch the video?

 

[HARK!]

If they are truly only carbon then no, but perhaps there is some purposeful contamination going on. I'm not saying that the guy is a fraud but I've seen many of similar gizmos that were indeed frauds using some sort of trickery or lies to dupe people for financial gain.

I've seen lots of frauds too. This guy seems credible. Aside from that, he's working off of a patent. In order to get a patent; one needs a working model.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I've seen lots of frauds too. This guy seems credible. Aside from that, he's working off of a patent. In order to get a patent; one needs a working model.

As someone that has taken Engineering Chemistry and Engineering Physics in College you cannot get energy from something that doesn't give any out. If the water doesn't lose either electrical or potential energy (movement) and there is nothing in the water contaminating it then likely if there is energy you can trace the source of it.
It is like the con job awhile back where people were taking water in a car and using electricity to break it down into hydrogen and oxygen molecules and burning them to get power. I've argued with fools that couldn't believe that when you burn something the state of energy drops in the molecules and to get them back to that higher state of energy (H2O back to 2H2 + O2) requires an input of energy at least the same as what was released when combusting it. Water itself requires power to change it to where it is combustible and it itsn't a good medium alone for a battery in fact pure water is essentially an insulator it is the impurities in it that allows it to conduct electricity.

 

[HARK!]

You could probably get more power from the water pressure than any chemical reaction regardless of trickery.

We don't know that to be the case. One early primitive PN junction was a length of copper that was clean on one half, and corroded on the other. Semiconductor technology sat idle as vacuum tube technology reigned. The NASA had weight considerations for the space race. The semiconductor was developed; and the technology all but replaced the vacuum tube.

I'm sure that the guy who discovered the PN junction didn't even begin to dream that his discovery would lead to worldwide satellite communication.

That same technology lead to solar energy. That too was dismissed as practically useless until recently.

In my lifetime I've seen a dismissed technology bring tremendous change to the world; and I believe that we are still on the threshold to where that technology will unfold.

 

[Sophrosyne]

We don't know that to be the case. One early primitive PN junction was a length of copper that was clean on one half, and corroded on the other. Semiconductor technology sat idle as vacuum tube technology reigned. The NASA had weight considerations for the space race. The semiconductor was developed; and the technology all but replaced the vacuum tube.

I'm sure that the guy who discovered the PN junction didn't even begin to dream that his discovery would lead to worldwide satellite communication.

That same technology lead to solar energy. That too was dismissed as practically useless until recently.

In my lifetime I've seen a dismissed technology bring tremendous change to the world; and I believe that we are still on the threshold to where that technology will unfold.

actually if you are talking microvolts/microamps likely water pressure is a huge amount more of potential energy. A standard battery discharges in the microamp range so power sources that small are almost useless if they aren't micromillimeter sized.

 

[HARK!]

As someone that has taken Engineering Chemistry and Engineering Physics in College you cannot get energy from something that doesn't give any out. If the water doesn't lose either electrical or potential energy (movement) and there is nothing in the water contaminating it then likely if there is energy you can trace the source of it.

Getting to the source of it was the purpose of this thread.

In a video posted by another member, an intriguing hypothesis of that source was presented.

I've taken Engineering, Chemistry, and Physics courses too. I've also taken a course in Thermodynamics.

Those courses didn't help me to reach a conclusion about the cause of this phenomenon.

I was hoping that someone in this forum would present some ideas.

Fortunately I now have a hypothesis which can be tested.

This is going to be fun.

It is like the con job awhile back where people were taking water in a car and using electricity to break it down into hydrogen and oxygen molecules and burning them to get power. I've argued with fools that couldn't believe that when you burn something the state of energy drops in the molecules and to get them back to that higher state of energy (H2O back to 2H2 + O2) requires an input of energy at least the same as what was released when combusting it. Water itself requires power to change it to where it is combustible and it itsn't a good medium alone for a battery in fact pure water is essentially an insulator it is the impurities in it that allows it to conduct electricity.

I'm well aware of all of this. This doesn't provide an explanation for the matter at hand.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I'm well aware of all of this. This doesn't provide an explanation for the matter at hand.

I think that something not revealed is going on if this works, and that something may be cheating.
I don't trust a patent on something to make it fraud proof. If this tech is valid and cost effective we may see it in the future but I've seen dozens of claims of super batteries or this and that energy producing thing and none of them ever surfaced in normal production. I lean towards this "discovery" vanishing into thin air in time like most of them made.

 

[HARK!]

actually if you are talking microvolts/microamps likely water pressure is a huge amount more of potential energy. A standard battery discharges in the microamp range so power sources that small are almost useless if they aren't micromillimeter sized.

The ocean isn't under any known usable pressure; however, the moon, wind, and convection keep it moving.

Microvolt producing devices can be transformed, or daisychained, to yield working voltages.

 

[HARK!]

I think that something not revealed is going on if this works, and that something may be cheating.
I don't trust a patent on something to make it fraud proof. If this tech is valid and cost effective we may see it in the future but I've seen dozens of claims of super batteries or this and that energy producing thing and none of them ever surfaced in normal production. I lean towards this "discovery" vanishing into thin air in time like most of them made.

Well when I have some free time; I'm going to build one. It's easy enough to build, and easy enough to test.

 

[sjastro]

Chemical reactions are not a function of temperature. Functions are constants, not variables. Heat can be a catalyst for a chemical reaction; but the same results were produced at room temperature, by adding motion to the electrodes.

Did you watch the video?

Incorrect chemical reactions are most definitely a function of temperature.

In the chemical reaction nW + iX → cY + dZ where W and X are the reactants, Y and Z are the products; the reaction rate R is defined as;

R = k[W]ⁿ[X]ⁱ
where [W] and [X] are the concentrations of W and X respectively and k is the rate constant.

The rate constant k is a function of temperature defined by the Arrhenius equation.

​

 

[HARK!]

Incorrect chemical reactions are most definitely a function of temperature.

In the chemical reaction nW + iX → cY + dZ where W and X are the reactants, Y and Z are the products; the reaction rate R is defined as;

R = k[W]ⁿ[X]ⁱ
where [W] and [X] are the concentrations of W and X respectively and k is the rate constant.

The rate constant k is a function of temperature defined by the Arrhenius equation.

​

Interesting. I was thinking linearly. I need to stop that.

 

[HARK!]

No, it doesn't.

For example?