Water Battery

In this video, at about 24 minutes, they find a negative charged water layer near a plastic surface, and positive charged beyond it. They insert electrodes and measure a current flow:

Now, I don’t care how small it is, if you can get charge separation, you can make a battery.

They also find the ‘exclusion zone’ has different light absorption and different (low) IR emissivity. This has some significant implications for the whole AGW IR theory (as I’m sure they do not allow for this). At about 39 minutes they find that the charge separation comes from absorbed photons. Even IR photons.

So a ‘to be determined’ would be if you still get a current in the dark… but it looks like ‘no’. However:

Regardless of why, be it IR or thermal, and regardless of how big; the charge is there and the size scale is very large compared to what we do with semiconductors and thin film devices. So we ought to be able to make a micro-cell that captures that charge separation into conductors. At that point, it is just a question of ganging them up to make more voltage and amperage.

Am I missing something here, or is that a real “possible”?

It doesn’t matter if the energy is being taken from ambient heat, just let some metal conduct air heat in to the battery. It doesn’t matter if it needs light, we have lots of light. At least as far as I can tell, all it takes is some very small scale engineering.

It can’t be that simple. There’s got to be something missing… doesn’t there? At 54 minutes they claim it can be done…

Subscribe to feed

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Tech Bits and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Water Battery

  1. Petrossa says:

    Aside if it’s possible, let’s just assume it is. You’d need such a massive surface to produce energy that counts it’d weigh tonnes. Or make some form of folded surface but that would need focused light to drive it.

    I just read about this marvelous fully ‘green’ electric car ferry, 800 kw of onboard charge, enough for one roundtrip of half an hour.

    Battery weighs 11 tonnes. It works, but why on earth would you build it?

  2. tckev says:

    Are they using proper homeopathic methodologies to maximize the output?

  3. DirkH says:

    @Petrossa: For a stationary battery designed to buffer fluctuations of reneable energy sources the weight and size are not important criteria; cost per kWh and efficiency are.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    Petrossa says:
    9 February 2013 at 11:04 am
    I just read about this marvelous fully ‘green’ electric car ferry, 800 kw of onboard charge, enough for one roundtrip of half an hour.

    Battery weighs 11 tonnes. It works, but why on earth would you build it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You would be better off with a paddle wheel run by mules, and no I am not kidding.

    Horse Powered Ferry Boat discovered in Lake Champlain
    The horse-powered ferryboat, though patented in 1819, can trace its origin of design back to the time of the Romans. The Roman ox boat was an early war vessel propelled by a team of oxen. During the 1700’s, boats propelled by horses could be found on various rivers and canals of Europe. It was a natural course of events that those people immigrating to America from Europe would bring their knowledge of horse powered boats to our lakes and rivers. By the early 1800’s, horse powered boats could be found on Lake Champlain and the Hudson River. By the 1820’s, this mode of transportation had spread to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, the Great Lakes, and to several other rivers and lakes in the Northeast…..

    The horse powered boat was discovered by Jim Kennard and Scott Hill in the Fall of 1983. The vessel is basic in its design and construction and has a length of 63 feet and a beam of 18 feet. ….

  5. jim2 says:

    I notice the current is decreasing with time. Is a chemical being consumed to produce the charge? If so, it’s just a conventional battery and, as they say, nothing to see here.

  6. DirkH says:

    jim2 says:
    9 February 2013 at 4:53 pm
    “I notice the current is decreasing with time. Is a chemical being consumed to produce the charge? ”

    Photons create the charge separation over time; discharging destroys the charge separation. The only chemical is water (and H+ and OH- ions which together form a H2O).

    One could imagine a multitude of tiny electrodes discharging their section one after the other and one could turn that collection of voltage spikes to DC with a capacitor.

    Maybe this “battery” could transform ambient IR into electricity.

    Regarding ambient IR, there is other research underway using carbon nanotubes as tiny antennae with a length corresponding to the wave length of the photon to be intercepted which could theoretically deliver 100% efficiency.

    In any case, making use of ambient IR as energy source is interesting, as it would be endothermic and practically remove heat from the system if you make use of the harvested electricity somewhere else.

  7. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jim2:

    The current (charge separation) also increases with light… it is light that is being “consumed”, not a chemical.

    @Petrossa:

    As it uses a plastic, that can also act as a ‘light pipe’ to conduct light into a ‘folded’ structure. The charge separation happens in a thin film of mm scale, so not huge.

    Why? It uses IR. We are awash in IR. It becomes effectively free energy supply. Water is effectively free too. The cost only shows up in the structure to extract the energy.

    @Gail Combs:

    Neat boat! But horses want hay, not ambient IR….

    @Tckev:

    Nothing homeopathic about it. All demonstrable physical surface chemistry effects.

  8. Steve C says:

    Interesting, if not as potentially (no pun intended) spectacular as Ben Franklin’s experimentation. Not sure I’m likely to try and run my radio equipment off one anytime soon, though.

    I am tempted to try harvesting atmospheric electricity, on the other hand: I found a thing on the net ages ago about a fellow who kept a deep-cycle battery charged using about 200′ of ‘aerial conductor’ into an old-school car ‘coil’ and a spark plug. The wire charges up ’til the spark plug fires, then the coil transforms the little pulse down in voltage and feeds another erg or two into the battery. Nice, if you don’t mind some crackly interference on your radio.

  9. A C Osborn says:

    Another “forgotten” science and very interesting.
    Could this also contribute to the creation of cloud lightning?
    The light for a battery could also be concentrated using lenses and parabolic reflectors, to achieve better results.
    I have personally heated a 0.25 diameter piece of steel to 450 degrees C using UK sunlight and a 3″ torch reflector.

  10. adolfogiurfa says:

    Everything in the universe works with polarity.

  11. adolfogiurfa says:

    Master @E.M. you have found Ying & Yang!

  12. Gail Combs says:

    @Gail Combs:

    Neat boat! But horses want hay, not ambient IR….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Sunlight=>photosynthesis=>sugars, starches, proteins,… => horse food. Just the long way round.

    Everything is powered by the sun but people forget that.

    I am going to have to nag my husband into letting me see that video on his computer, mine doesn’t support vids because it is an old salvaged dinosaur with Ubuntu.

  13. KevinM says:

    What makes this better than solar panels?

  14. Petrossa says:

    Well, it doesn’t need a toxic fabrication process, a buttugly black panel hurting aesthetic senses, easily repaired if broken.

  15. E.M.Smith says:

    @KevenM:

    Generally we consider IR as ‘waste heat’. This lets us turn “waste” into electricity. That’s a big deal. So set up your solar panel. Even really good ones turn about 25% into electricity. The rest ends up as IR off of hot black panels. Now you can ‘back it’ with one of these things and all that “waste” (the 75%) become suitable input to making electricity…

  16. alex says:

    Endless cheap energy could be very near at hand. It’s called a heat pump; the refrigeration cycle utilising the Coefficient of Performance (COP) characteristic. You put in 1 kWh as electrical power and you get 4 kWh of thermal energy. Now suppose that those 4 kWh of thermal energy in the hot pressurised gas are used to turn some Stirling engine-alternator couple or other thermal-to electric energy convertor which would output 1.1 kWh of electric power. Then we get 1 kWh electric produces 1.1 kWh electric. Now, improve that efficiency as much as possible and put let’s say, 10 units in series each upping the previous input. if the COP of the system would be 1.1, ten units in series would up the first kWh to 2.8. If the COP is 1.5 then it would up it to 38 times. Think about it.

  17. Wayne Job says:

    This research is not about electricity it is about the properties, strange tho’ they be of the fundamental building block of life. The science was settled long ago about H2O, a simple molecule, except that it was not, for the strange anomalous behaviours keep throwing curve balls.

    If science can come to terms with water and all it’s implications it might mark out a road map for all other scientific endeavours that seem to have wandered from the path of truth.

    If the offshoot is a cheap battery that becomes useful sobeit.

    .

  18. Paul Hanlon says:

    Wow, amazing video. Okay, totally noob question here. Does this go anywhere to explaining why it takes so much energy for the phase transitions between ice, water and steam?

  19. eqibno says:

    Photosynthesis went into creating the wood that I am burning to keep the room warm. Up here in the Great White North, the “water” outside is very, very crystalline already…
    Hot sunny areas tend to be dry.
    Now, were we to talk about ocean surfaces and “harvesting” electricity from them, I am sure that there would be objections about upsetting the local ecology…
    Still, such devices could be practicable but only if they could withstand to odd tropical cyclone.

  20. John Robertson says:

    I wonder if there is a connection to lightning over lakes, on a hot still day followed by the afternoon thunderstorm.
    Is the exclusion zone a reason life is scarce right at the waterline?
    The wonder of water comes across well on the video, the implications are enormous and science shaking. I especially admire Professor Pollack’s honesty and the recognition of the work done 50 years prior.
    Wayne Job says it well, I love the way a small piece of information allows us to ask questions, unthought of before.

  21. Jason Calley says:

    @ Steve C “I am tempted to try harvesting atmospheric electricity, on the other hand: I found a thing on the net ages ago about a fellow who kept a deep-cycle battery charged using about 200′ of ‘aerial conductor’ into an old-school car ‘coil’ and a spark plug. The wire charges up ’til the spark plug fires, then the coil transforms the little pulse down in voltage and feeds another erg or two into the battery.”

    For a higher tech version, one which reportedly provide power in the kilowatt range, check the reports and patents of Hermann Plauson from the 1920s.
    http://www.rexresearch.com/plauson/plauson.htm
    “Plauson was the director of the Fischer-Tropsch “Otto Traun Research Laboratories” in Hamburg, Germany during the Weimar Republic of the 1920s. He built on Nikola Tesla’s idea for connecting machinery to the “wheelwork of nature”. ”
    Note that one of the articles quoted is by Hugo Gernsback, one of the early inventors during the crystal radio phase at the beginning of the 20th century, magazine editor and popularizer of science fiction, friend of Tesla — and in fact the man who arranged a death mask sculpture of Tesla upon his death.

  22. adolfogiurfa says:

    Prof.Pollack lectured in a convention held by the Electric Universe people. This new paradigm, based on the fact that 99.9999% in the universe is plasma has rediscovered the Rosetta Stone of Cosmology.

Comments are closed.