Yeah Dixon
You're a stupid idiot for posting about this on your blog
Never do it again I mean that was so stupid of you
(just ask airjoe if you are not convinced)
Elation wrote:
Yeah Dixon I'm not insulting Dixon, or really even the inventor. I'm mostly insulting the stupid media for making this a big deal when it's, uh, not? Electrolysis of water: 9v battery 2 Pencils Wire Water Step 1: Sharpen both pencils on both ends. Step 2: Attach wire from + side of 9v to one end of Pencil 1. Attach wire from - side of 9v to one end of Pencil 2. Step 3: Put the unwired pencil ends in a bowl of water. Step 4: ??? Step 5: Profit! No really, that's all there is too. And heck, this guy is using salt water, so he's even got an additional electrolyte in there. | |
What we really need, is a whole bunch of AlGa.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/20/ 1943221&from=rss That's where we're going. | |
Sounds interesting. What alloy of aluminum does it need though? Aluminum can get expensive, as I understand it. It is an interesting use for recycled aluminum if it can be almost any grade. I'd also be interested to see what it takes to reform the aluminum after the process, so it could be reused for this again, or just used as a metal.
Depending on how well you can rejoin the aluminum, it might actually be better than normal recycled aluminum. Meaning that the cost of the process will be lowered because companies doing it can recoup the cost by selling the aluminum back, even if only at the price bought. | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
Sounds interesting. What alloy of aluminum does it need though? Aluminum can get expensive, as I understand it. It is an interesting use for recycled aluminum if it can be almost any grade. Aluminum Gallium. AlGa. Check out the comments on the link. A lot of people were saying whatever's used is easily recycled and reused. | |
I still think it's nice. Seriously. If not for the energy thing then his idea on ridding the body of cancer cells.
That could actually work. Why does that NOT impress any of you aside from Cavern? | |
Dixon wrote:
Why does that NOT impress any of you aside from Cavern? You answered your own question on the line above that. It doesn't work. | |
So, then why arent we trying harder to find a way to use salt water in place of oil?
| |
Actually, no longer polluting will aid the environment. If there is no more pollution, then there is nothing to cause global warming, is there? The state of the planet wont change form what it is now, but it wont get worse.
Actually, if I recall correctly, the planet can repair itself, much like a smokers lungs. If a smoker decides to quit smoking after fifty years, their lungs will start to repair themselves. The same can be said for the planet, I believe. -- What's more, using water is stupid. We're moving from one apparently valuable resource to an even more important valuable resource. Sure, there is plenty of water on the planet, but eventually it will go down, and probably cause much more of a problem. | |
There's no way to use water as fuel. None. It can't happen. Water is too tightly bonded. There's no way to split it up using less energy then you get out of recombining it - thermodynamics guarantees it.
| |
The state of the planet wont change form what it is now, but it wont get worse. That's debateable. The whole point of how global warming works is that past a certain point it self-heats and makes itself worse. Some say we're already past that point, which is why I'm glad we're all going to die of obesity before we die from burning. | |
Airjoe, I understand there's some kind of radio frequency generator involved, but is it established that it consumes more energy than the flame releases?
Jp, where does recombining come in? I thought the idea was that the hydrogen and/or oxygen would be burned as gases. Tiberath, I suspect you underestimate the amount of water available in the world! | |
Gughunter wrote:
Airjoe, I understand there's some kind of radio frequency generator involved, but is it established that it consumes more energy than the flame releases? My apologies. I didn't watch the full video, only the first 3 minute segment, and Danial.Beta had started with it being more inefficient than current designs, so I figured he watched the whole thing and they said this. Cavern also said that they said they were trying to improve it to make it so that it doesn't use more energy than it makes, so that's why. Be it less efficient or equally efficient as current designs and methods, it's still nothing to great. I'd have a really hard time believing it's better than current models, where so much energy is wasted as radio waves not hitting the subject saltwater. In electrolysis, all the energy is dedicated to splitting the water. Jp, where does recombining come in? I thought the idea was that the hydrogen and/or oxygen would be burned as gases. Right, and burning H2 is a combustion reaction: 2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O + Heat. Burning Hydrogen makes water and heat as energy. Tiberath, I suspect you underestimate the amount of water available in the world! Burning the Hydrogen, as discussed above, makes the H2O come back, so we'd never run out. | |
Tib said:
What's more, using water is stupid. We're moving from one apparently valuable resource to an even more important valuable resource. Sure, there is plenty of water on the planet, but eventually it will go down, and probably cause much more of a problem. Clean drinking water is a rare, important and valuable resource. We have plenty of water nobody in their right mind is going to drink, so use that. | |
Elation wrote:
Tib said: Referring to the ocean? Environment would kick us in the ass worse than our coal fetish. Recycled toilet water? Might be feasible. I mean, Australia will soon be powering a sewage plant with methane gas soon. | |
Gughunter wrote:
Tiberath, I suspect you underestimate the amount of water available in the world! And I'm sure people said somewhat the same thing back when we started with coal/oil. Or they would have, if we had the knowledge we do now. | |
I was actually referring to human saliva. We could have giant spit farms, where people are paid a pittance to spit into giant tunnels.
People would sometimes fall into them and never return, but that's the price you have to pay for infinite amounts of fuel. | |
Tiberath wrote:
Referring to the ocean? Environment would kick us in the ass worse than our coal fetish. You must've missed the part about where I explained that burning hydrogen is a combustion reaction, where one of the products is water. It's an equilibrium. We wouldn't run out of anything. | |
Of course, that means that you get nothing out of it, because you Can't Beat Thermodynamics.
| |
We were already doing this. This isn't helpful because this isn't new or better that what we're doing. In fact, it's worse.
First off, it's hardly an invention. I mean, sure he made it, but when you make something that does its job worse than current methods... I'm not sure you should be proud of it.
Uhm, matter of fact, I have. I separate hydrogen and oxygen all the time. I made a model hofmann voltameter to bring in to my chemistry class, and some friends and I are current working towards various hydrogen powered devices.
This is not new or special. It sucks.