NEWS: Water+Glass=Electricity

You do not dare get that close to a curie point. Also, the most common materials are MUCH lower.

Thermopiles have largely useless efficiencies. Especially at lower temperatures where the delta T is likely to be miniscule.

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. The Biefeld Brown effect was understood before the '40s (20s?) and has plagued engineers for a hundred years before that. But pushing water through glass microchannels to produce electricity is turning the problem into a solution--something that neither Biefeld, nor Brown, nor those vaunted geologists accomplished. Kostiuk and Kwok aren't claiming to have discovered anything about electrokinetics.

Nevertheless, the work which they claim is original. You don't have to discover the principles to put them to work.

Sorry, but that's such a silly appraisal. Someone might just find a use for it (clearly not you).

The fact remains that it is a novel way to generate electricity. Tug your head out of your butt and appreciate it for what it is.

Roland

They were, "Efficiency is a fraction of 1%".

Just read the article to the end.

Roland

Who knows? Maybe it'll replace all those wonderfull uses we have for piezoelectric crystals. Maybe it'll be the dawn of a new age for powering toddler LED sneakers.

grow up. At least try to act mature enough to qualify for some of those lovely toddler LED sneakers.

This discovery was made at the University of Alberta in Canada, the city that was home to Wayne Gretzky for those superb years when Edmonton won the cup for so many seasons.

The two researchers who made the discovery have not made any great claims for it, such as replacing electricity generation by conventional means. Why do people who read these things always jump to conclusions. The simple fact is that when water is forced through the device under appropriate conditions, a small flow of electricity is produced. Lots of people predicted that the incandescent lamp would never become viable. Same sort of thinking.

It's a worthless invention. Few cell phone users are going to want to be

Who knows? Maybe it'll replace all those wonderfull uses ///////////////// Some people cannot see past the end of their nose, the inventor of this generating medium stated that he envisaged the possibility of super large power stations for the commercial generation of power using his concept. this is or can be as big as your imagination, and also a very practical method of generation using no moving parts in the case of falling water using pressure from the reservoir.

The researchers are, of course, describing a 1928 Australian patent that was thoroughly published as geology papers in the 1940's.

Dear Rusty and carlp:

Don't buy any stock. With only a 1% efficiency, they have a long ways to go to get as efficient as a turbine.

David A. Smith

This, of course, was the original inventer per the 1928 Australian patent.

If everyone had a balloon, rubbed it against their head, that generates electricity too. I think I'll patent that, its revolutionary

This discovery was made at the University of Alberta in Canada, the

The researchers are, of course, describing a 1928 Australian patent that was thoroughly published as geology papers in the 1940's.

-- Many thanks, /////////////////////// Sorry but you are the one that failed to read BLURB release on this and it was a direct quote from the inventor, he actually stated he hoped and envisaged that this invention could be producing commercial energy in ten years. Carlp.

He apparently did not "invent" anything that had not been common knowledge for almost a century.

give it a rest. It is a micropower power source and nobody has found a use in nearly a century.

Actually incandescent lamps are only marginably viable even today, and for pretty much the same reasons that have always existed and made people skeptical in the early days (typically filament evaporation). Even today firms like GE and Sylvania cannot produce a simple 60-watt incandescent bulb that will last for more than a couple of months in typical/normal use. By contrast, while I hate the light emission from fluorescents, I have had the same 40-watt, 48" fluorescent tube running over my workbench since, while still in junior highschool, I constructed a home-made fluorescent fixture back in 1954 with parts purchased mail-order from Allied Radio!

Getting back to your post, what should really disturb most readers is that so very many people jump to rash conclusions about the positive viability of things that are at best sadly marginal technology. Sadly, I believe this comes as a result of the continuing scientific "dumbing down" of the American public.

Harry C.

If you know what to ask for, things go much smoother. A heavy duty 130 volt lamp (On the US market) gives several thousand hours. A Commercial "traffic light duty" lamp is spec'd at 9000 hours. Both are incandescents.

Brian W

//

Lamp life is proportional to the seventh power of the current. If you want your bulbs to last forever, use 220 volt ones.

What do you consider normal use? Riding on the handle of a jackhammer?

I routinely have 60W bulbs last three years.