NEWS: Water+Glass=Electricity

Dear sanman:

"Water is forced through a channel"... requires application of power. "10-micron-diameter-wide channels"... requires excellent absolute filtration, and water that will not either corrode (widening the channel) nor form scale (close the channel or form short circuit).

This is a pretty common device, and I remember dropping water through a large hole in a coffee can, creating a static charge. Not much difference from what they have done.

David A. Smith

This has to be mostly hype. The effect is probably real, but the ability to make batteries out of it, as has been widely reported, is a fantasy. They don't consider that it takes lots of energy to push the water through the little holes. These "batteries" will have to carry their own batteries! :)

HI all It stated that it may well be in service generating commercial energy, within 10 years. The phenomenon as been known for centuries, it took a genius to view it as something else, an apple is everyone's apple but not everyone's seed.. Being so simple anyone could put it together, and the head of water shown on the experimental version was 300 mm. Think tap, think turning on think everytime it flows you could be generating electric. ////////////// Dear sanman:

This has to be mostly hype. The effect is probably real, but the ability to make batteries out of it, as has been widely reported, is a fantasy. They don't consider that it takes lots of energy to push

I think many of the other posters are assuming that this thing is being marketed as a form of "free" energy... I've looked at a couple of different news stories on the thing and don't get that impression at all..

That said, I have no idea what it's good for. Why would one want to go through that process, just to get electrons into tiny circuitry?

My bet is that it's pure research being utilized in search for more funding... ;-)

But, who knows what kinds of efficiency it'll deliver unless someone plays with it a bit?

The first battery hung around a long time before someone came up with a use for it.

Al...

You mean "water+pressure,flow+glass=electricity"

Unless the water is absolutely pure, the microchannels will clog.

It's a worthless invention. Few cell phone users are going to want to be tethered to a water hose. Piezoelectric crystals are more usefull for generating power.

The originality was impressive to me. I'm not much concerned if it has no dramatic impact. I'm gonna get toy telephones for the kids. "I can't hear you from the orchard, wind up the water pressure!"

Can't the same very clean water recirculate ?

Most important inventions were labeled as worthless at the begriming.

Vlad

Dear Vlad:

Sure. But it will saturate with silicon, and then you'll replace the cell.

Piezoelectric is a much simpler choice. And can be operated below 0°C. Or above 100°C.

David A. Smith

Dear saict:

You don't need to buy their "invention". Simply put a metal ring around a stream of water, and connect the ring as one end of a battery. Connect the other end to ground. It is a less efficient form of a Van de Graaf generator.

David A. Smith

They say this thing works for liquid water, but what about steam, or some other gas with polar/ionic character?

It would be a lot easier to force steam thru microchannels, and cleaner too, without worrying about clogging of the microchannels.

Why would things have to be liquid?

If steam worked, would it be an alternative to the steam turbine, at least at small scales?

Dear sanman:

Greater number of electrons for a given velocity. Reduced rate of dissolution of the walls of the channels due to silica absorption. Easier to fit in a laptop...

Could use acetone. If it is a static electric device, then any non-conductive liquid would work. Pure water is very non-conductive. And Van de Graaf generators us giant rubber bands to create their charges... certainly not "polar". Since the water is being moved through the channel, "polar" is not required. Ionic would be required if it were an ionic membrane.

Energy efficiencies not stated in the article. Hard to beat 40+%, especially with a static electric device. I suspect that much more power was applied than 10 volts times 1 milliamp, or 0.01 watts.

David A. Smith

It would first have to work better than a piezo crystal and for the same or less cost. Then it can replace all those piezo crystal applications, all two of them? Maybe it could power todler LED sneakers. Whoopie.

Actually, the power generation capability of piezo is sorely limited to the fractional watt status. Piezo is also a change-only generator, meaning the total energy is further limited.

As is electrostatic anything. With few specialized and costly exceptions, virtually every commercial piezo device above micropower has been a dismal failure to date.

Detailed analysis on my website.

Yes, it certainly was very original when the geologists first published in in the 1940's.

Not really.

The Curie Point of piezo strictly limits the high end range. Common piezo materials limit you to room temperature apps.

Not sure how the low temps behave, but I suspect there is a dramatic dropoff.

And that is different than the water/microchannel power generator, how?

And that is different than the water/microchannel power generator, how?

And that is different than the water/microchannel power generator, how?

A common Curie point is 300 degC, a conservative limit is 150degC.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK