Breakthrough Material Purifies Water While Generating Electricity

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by boncho

 

to be more specific, i think the distinction was that they wouldn't need to mine extra ore. So that would remove that aspect during its infancy.

You are missing it. They have to reprocess the spent Al. Meaning they have to use outside energy. And the whole thing is horribly inefficient.

I wasn't even referring to mining ore in the past couple posts.

This guy is setting himself towards an early career in crackpottery. This I'm sure is how they all start out. He even has YouTube videos up now, (But where's a scientific paper?)

There won't be one. Because the process is pointless. And anyone with a half grain of salt between their ears will be able to see that.

You are talking about 30% efficiency in Hydrogen production. Just use water electrolysis and get far better. Or better yet, don't use any secondary energy conversion and just use the electricity you already have. [Since that is what you are trying to make!]

As far as his heat capture.....

it sounds like a battery.
you melt alloy with othere stuff.
then get the engy out.
they melt it again and add the othere chemicals.

I bet this guy will commit "suicide" before this ever gets used or goes wide scale

reply to post by buddha


one of the articles I read said it could be used as a way to store energy from solar and wind when it is producing more than needed. so basicaly yes it could be considered as a battery for energy.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by buddha

 

one of the articles I read said it could be used as a way to store energy from solar and wind when it is producing more than needed. so basicaly yes it could be considered as a battery for energy.

That's a stupid idea, because as I said before this process is less efficient than just doing straight hydrolysis of water. So why not make hydrogen straight out of water as opposed to treating something, than doing a chemical reaction from your treated material....

I dont get exactly why you keep arguing this point. Yes I know it takes energy to make energy.

I guess you fail to miss the point of this whole thread in general, to point out something new. I wasnt necessarily arguing this is the path we will take. Its an interesting process, still in its infancy, If i had to guess, Im sure there will be more improvements in this field as time goes on.

your missing the whole point that we can take existing scrap and use it towards this process.
yes it may be a little more expensive, and this is where you miss the whole point of this stuff. We cant continue to keep polluting our planet. If were going to invest money in energy infrastructure we may as well go towards green methods. Even in the articles it says it would be intelligent to have these "plants" linked up with solar and wind generator. You see sometimes, we produce more energy than we need, so we need methods to store this energy.

This method happens to be storing this alloy and the potential energy for when it is needed. It may not be the most efficient method overall, however this method does overcome some of the obstacles to having a hydrogen economy. This technology isnt suitable for every environment, but it is for some.

so get over the fact. Quit arguing the laws of thermodynamics with yourself...

reply to post by boncho


so can you carry around the system your referring to as an emergency battery pack? does it need an external power source?

could it work as a dry battery where you just add water?

or would you rather carry around a large amount of hydrogen?

those are your two choices in a hydrogen economy, either carry it with you, or produce it as you go, your choice.

also, hydrolysis requires more energy than you put into it, very inefficient..

reply to post by VonDoomen

your missing the whole point that we can take existing scrap and use it towards this process. yes it may be a little more expensive, and this is where you miss the whole point of this stuff.

1. Show me a source of the scrap Al that is in elemental form.

2. Money represents energy, and in this case, the "expensive part" represents fossil fuels being burned. And this process doesn't apply to wind or solar, because there are more efficient processes out there.

If were going to invest money in energy infrastructure we may as well go towards green methods.

I don't see anything "green" about this method.

This method happens to be storing this alloy and the potential energy for when it is needed. It may not be the most efficient method overall, however this method does overcome some of the obstacles to having a hydrogen economy.

Are you serious? We don't have a "hydrogen economy" in the West, yet because you read somewhere that we can power a little village in Africa you think this is some kind of miracle.... You want to bring the future to the third world first?


This process is useless in regards to energy production

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by boncho

 

so can you carry around the system your referring to as an emergency battery pack? does it need an external power source?

could it work as a dry battery where you just add water?

also, hydrolysis requires more energy than you put into it, very inefficient..

Hydrolysis is inefficient However, Still more efficient than what you are advocating!

What kind of battery pack are you referring to.? Something that produces heat and hydrogen? Well, a canister of compressed hydrogen would be a battery pack then wouldn't it?

reply to post by boncho


Your inability to see anything green about it is your own fault.

invest in solar + wind + geothermal

use systems where the materials can be reused or comes from renewable resources, such as water.

coal and other crap pollutes and is not renewable. simple as that

we live on a finite planet. we have a finite amount of resources.

like i said before, this is a dry batter, just add water. If you cant see this technology ever being useful, then again, that is your own fault. Not others.

reply to post by boncho


yea if you want to walk around with an explosive can of hydrogen.

I can forgive you though, its a lot of things to keep straight in your mind. But yes, if have the choice to walk around with explosive hydrogen, or walk around with the means to create it in a controlled manner when needed, then choose what you want. I know what i would choose.

reply to post by VonDoomen


If there really was 'free' energy available to everyone our world economy would skyrocket. I can only imagine how much fun it would be to travel and not have to worry about the fuel, to be able to light my home or business, run my computers, etc. and not have to worry about the cost. Heck, just think of the businesses like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others with huge server farms able to run them for nothing. The Internet and such would explode.
Farming would be enormous if we could light crops in caves, mines, and greenhouses with controlled conditions and simply blow off the cost of heat and lighting. We could feed the world without regard to population size.
You are simply nuts if you think the world cannot handle 'free' energy.

It seems a danger to start binding oxygen on this planet to metals. I mean there is a limited supply, which would mean we could run out of water if this practice became too widespread. Not now or anytime soon, but nonetheless we would. This is what I assume happens, sort of a high energy reaction that is comparable to rust.

Is there a way to release the oxygen from it's bond to aluminum?

reply to post by VonDoomen

invest in solar + wind + geothermal

Except that you lose energy from these systems when you try and use what you are talking about. Horribly inefficient. There are better things to use them with (if you are storing energy) and if you are using it, than electricity is good enough. No reason to change it into something else.

If you cant see this technology ever being useful, then again, that is your own fault.

In certain circumstances, in certain applications it could be. But it has been wholly misrepresented in this thread.

I can forgive you though, its a lot of things to keep straight in your mind. But yes, if have the choice to walk around with explosive hydrogen, or walk around with the means to create it in a controlled manner when needed, then choose what you want. I know what i would choose.

You are not familiar with hydrogen storage.

There are plenty of safe ways to store it. Including using all the extra Aluminum lying around.




Yet, you condone doing an exothermic chemical reaction on the go to use as a battery... (As the technology stands right now)

reply to post by MarksThoughts


Your not really thinking this through my friend. I understand how awesome and great free energy could be.

But did you stop to think about some of the bad things even a single person could do if they had an unlimited supply of energy? 1 person with a grudge, or 1 "terrorist" could do a lot of damage. You seem to live in a world of roses and unicorn farts. Look at all the random and senseless violence that occurs everyday around the world. And your telling me you want those people to have access to free energy?

reply to post by VonDoomen


I have a suspicion Bedlam is a Dis-info Agent i see him on Every Article about Energy trying to dis-credit it by labeling it as "doesn't put out as much energy as you put in."

Well of course not but no Power plants do either. So Bedlam is falsely trying to dis-credit them and purposely driving attention away from something that may be more efficient than Coal/Gas.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by VonDoomen

 

I have a suspicion Bedlam is a Dis-info Agent i see him on Every Article about Energy trying to dis-credit it by labeling it as "doesn't put out as much energy as you put in."

Well of course not but no Power plants do either. So Bedlam is falsely trying to dis-credit them and purposely driving attention away from something that may be more efficient than Coal/Gas.

edit on 17-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)

Before accusing people refer back to this post of mine. and read.

If you comprehend everything, you will see that in the process described in the OP, that it gets it's raw energy reserve from Coal!

Unless the world were to switch over completely to some other source of energy tomorrow, this process gets it's original energy from coal, thereby making it physical impossible for it to be more energy efficient.

reply to post by boncho


Actually in the articles it states they are trying to get the whole process tied to solar and wind power, not coal..as that would be pointless.

Also no one is claiming it's more energy efficient that coal. The point being made that this technology could be suitable for small tribes and remote places where it would be inefficient to build a coal power plant to service 50 people.

reply to post by VonDoomen

The point being made that this technology could be suitable for small tribes and remote places where it would be inefficient to build a coal power plant to service 50 people.

You ever think that if there is a small tribe somewhere living without power that: Maybe we should leave them the %$&@ alone?

Seriously, how is there so much concern over globalization yet, when a "new energy" idea comes out, it turns into how can we get the tribes power?

Who cares about a little tribe somewhere. Give them their space and let them continue their tradition. Worldwide city centers should be the focus of power production and consumption.

And by the way, people having been using Coal for awhile now (Even in remote areas):

South Africa produces in excess of 260 million tonnes of coal (2003 estimate) and consumes almost three quarters of that domestically.[1] Around 77% of South Africa's energy needs are directly derived from coal[2] and 92% of coal consumed on the African continent is produced in South Africa.[3]

The use of coal in South Africa dates back to 300 AD when coal furnaces were used to melt iron and copper, but large-scale exploitation did not occur until the mid-19th century.[4]

As far as the solar argument, just use it as collected and no need to waste energy. There is a net amount of solar produced, a drain on that system would lower the efficiency of how much "green" energy was being used.

reply to post by boncho


how about this- we let these people speak for themselves. Im pretty sure they dont want you meddling in their affairs.
no one is pushing this tech onto anyone. This is called science and humanity. And im pretty sure there are some people out there without power or clean water who would love some. or how about building a solar plant for 50 people in remote africa? yea thats pretty economic.

You just seem to be a very negative person who likes to put down everything... If you dont like this stuff, then leave this thread and stop posting in it. your not going to change anyones mind. your not going to change the world in even the slightest bit. Just the rantings of a man who pissed about something and feels the need to let that out on other people.

many people were enjoying this thread and contemplating the possibilities of this technology. so just give up,, you lost the pseudo-argument.