Perpetual Battery

[HARK!]

Or in this case a variation of a Kelvin Water Dropper.

Awesome! I haven't seen this one before.

 

[SelfSim]

You do realize that electrolytes are conductive; right?

That's what I'm saying .. yes .. if he reads a current, then there's a conductive pathway somewhere in his setup.

You do realize that in order for a potential difference to develop between two bodies, that those bodies must be insulated from each other; right?

Do you believe that conductors and insulators are one in the same?

I don't understand the model of what you have in mind there, which led you to pose such questions and direct them at me?

 

[sjastro]

Well when I have some free time; I'm going to build one. It's easy enough to build, and easy enough to test.

Replication is the best way to go and educational in finding flaws.
This thread reminds me of one of the greatest farces in science in the late 20th century which ironically also involved batteries and electrodes, cold fusion.

​

When it came to replicating the test no one was able to reproduce cold fusion reported by the chemists Pons and Fleishmann.

 

[HARK!]

That's what I'm saying .. yes .. if he reads a current, then there's a conductive pathway somewhere in his setup.

How much current flows through a capacitor, or between the primary and secondary windings of a transformer?

I don't understand the model of what you have in mind there, which led you to pose such questions and direct them at me?

Potential difference doesn't build within conductors.

Electrolytes are conductive.

Static charge is a potential difference.

 

[HARK!]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

Your input still wouldn't explain why he got different electrical readings at the same temperature, by creating motion in the water.

 

[SelfSim]

How much current flows through a capacitor, or between the primary and secondary windings of a transformer?

So you're suggesting that he's demonstrating a capacitive (charging) or inductive effect?

Potential difference doesn't build within conductors.

Depends on how effective a conductor it is(?)

Electrolytes are conductive.

Ok ..

Static charge is a potential difference.

The buildup of separated static charges can create a measurable potential difference.

So we're close in the understanding the basic principles then(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Replication is the best way to go and educational in finding flaws.
This thread reminds me of one of the greatest farces in science in the late 20th century which ironically also involved batteries and electrodes, cold fusion.

​

When it came to replicating the test no one was able to reproduce cold fusion reported by the chemists Pons and Fleishmann.

So the patent application might be a hangover from the cold fusion era?
Interesting ..

 

[HARK!]

So you're suggesting that he's demonstrating a capacitive (charging) or inductive effect?

I'm not. I simply asked the rhetorical question to put things into perspective.

Depends on how effective a conductor it is(?)

There is no ideal conductor, nor ideal insulator; but electrolytes are not considered to be insulators.

The buildup of separated static charges can create a measurable potential difference.

So we're close in the understanding the basic principles then(?)

The potential difference that would be existent between two points, an inch apart within an electrolyte alone, would be negligible.

You need to need to pick one, the other, or another.

It's either a chemical reaction, and current is flowing through the electrolyte, for a complete circuit through the resistor; or the water, in one sense, is acting as an insulator, with an imbalance of charges on each electrode. If there was an imbalance of charges. on the electrodes, then the water would have to have a higher resistance than the load resistor' or the current would take the path of least resistance, through the water, and not through the resistor.

You have to pick one or the other.

I'll give you a simple analogy. If you are braking, in your car; you're slowing your car down. If you are pressing the accelerator; you're making the car move. You can't speed up, and slow down, at the same time. It's one or the other.

As the primary source of the current, we either have a static charge being equalized; or we have a chemical reaction generating electron flow, or it's something else.

 

[HARK!]

So the patent application might be a hangover from the cold fusion era?
Interesting ..

It looks more like the Kelvin Water Dropper to me.

I'm going to have to take a close look at that one too.

 

[sjastro]

So the patent application might be a hangover from the cold fusion era?
Interesting ..

Not at all it's coincidental.
The best way to evaluate an experiment is to replicate it instead of theorizing whether the experiment will work or not.
I've participated in repeatability and reproducibility testing of experimental procedures with various laboratories around the planet.
The objective is not to critique the procedure irrespective of how bizarre it appears but whether it produces sensible results.

 

[SelfSim]

Not at all it's coincidental.
The best way to evaluate an experiment is to replicate it instead of theorizing whether the experiment will work or not.
I've participated in repeatability and reproducibility testing of experimental procedures with various laboratories around the planet.
The objective is not to critique the procedure irrespective of how bizarre it appears but whether it produces sensible results.

All good ..
(The focus then shifts to the design of the experiment itself .. including generating sufficient data for making the basis of objective conclusions .. which I personally don't think the video (OP) presenter did in this case ..?)

 

[SelfSim]

Galvanic corrosion offers the best explanation of the effects in his video, IMO.

See anodic index:

To reduce galvanic corrosion for metals stored in normal environments such as storage in warehouses or non-temperature and humidity controlled environments, there should not be more than 0.25 V difference in the anodic index of the two metals in contact. For controlled environments in which temperature and humidity are controlled, 0.50 V can be tolerated. For harsh environments such as outdoors, high humidity, and salty environments, there should be not more than 0.15 V difference in the anodic index.

Brass and aluminium are separated by difference of 0.5 V.
The galvanic series predicts the aluminium rod will most likely erode first. Other factors such as temperature, water aeration, ion concentration and flow rate influence the rate of the process markedly.

 

[HARK!]

Galvanic corrosion offers the best explanation of the effects in his video, IMO.

See anodic index:
Brass and aluminium are separated by difference of 0.5 V.
The galvanic series predicts the aluminium rod will most likely erode first. Other factors such as temperature, water aeration, ion concentration and flow rate influence the rate of the process markedly.

Easy enough to test.

Put one set of these electrodes in still water, and another set in stirring water. Confirm the voltage difference between the two sets; then note any acceleration of corrosion on the second set of electrodes.

If the metals are reacting to produce the current the difference should be strikingly visually obvious, in a short amount of time. The time would vary significantly based on how much current was running through the electrodes.

 

[SelfSim]

Easy enough to test.

Put one set of these electrodes in still water, and another set in stirring water. Confirm the voltage difference between the two sets; then note any acceleration of corrosion on the second set of electrodes.

If the metals are reacting to produce the current the difference should be strikingly visually obvious, in a short amount of time. The time would vary significantly based on how much current was running through the electrodes.

Did you notice how the notion of galvanic corrosion shaped your test suggestions, there?

 

[HARK!]

Did you notice how the notion of galvanic corrosion shaped your test suggestions, there?

Notion?

I'm being objective.

Shape the test?

That is the purpose of the test. It's a simple test to confirm, or rule it out.

I don't have an idea of how to perform this test on the carbon rods.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Notion?

I'm being objective.

Shape the test?

That is the purpose of the test. It's a simple test to confirm the confirm it, or rule it out.

I don't have an idea of how to perform this test on the carbon rods.

I wish they would have given us voltage as well as current.

 

[Estrid]

The producer of this video builds an invention that was patented in 1979. It is composed of an aluminum tube, and a brass tube. Electricity is purported to be generated when the assembly is exposed to moving water.

Normally I would write this off as crazy kookalookaness; but the producer seems to be credible; and he makes a somewhat convincing presentation.

This is easy enough to test.

I saw this video a few days ago; and I'm still puzzled as to why it might work.

Assuming that it's not just another free energy hoax; does anyone have any insight into the theory behind this effect?

Expose a turbine to moving water, you get electricity

 

[SelfSim]

Notion?

I'm being objective.

Shape the test?

That is the purpose of the test. It's a simple test to confirm the confirm it, or rule it out.

I don't have an idea of how to perform this test on the carbon rods.

Ok .. I only just finished watching the third video, which made all the difference for me. He also covers my point about how the respective models (galvanic action and graphene surface charge movement) set the context for actually arriving at an understanding of what's going on in the two cells (and also sets the scene for designing for improvements in efficiency).
Efficiency and longevity in maintaining it, is primarily what this stuff is all about, I think.

I rarely ever see anything which challenges the almost-never-stated assumption that efficiency (or longevity) is a simply preserved when scaling up of prototypes.
As the engineering aphorism goes; 'The devil is in the details' ..

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Ok .. I only just finished watching the third video, which made all the difference for me. He also covers my point about how the respective models (galvanic action and graphene surface charge movement) set the context for actually arriving at an understanding of what's going on in the two cells (and also sets the scene for designing for improvements in efficiency).
Efficiency and longevity in maintaining it, is primarily what this stuff is all about, I think.

I rarely ever see anything which challenges the almost-never-stated assumption that efficiency (or longevity) is a simply preserved when scaling up of prototypes.
As the engineering aphorism goes; 'The devil is in the details' ..

which brings me back to what are we talking about? Is this an electrostatic generator or a galvanic battery? Or are we talking about two different scenarios dependent on the probes?

second question, how did you access further videos? I didn't see any.
Also is there any discussion of power output vs input energy from moving water (electrolyte)

 

[SelfSim]

which brings me back to what are we talking about? Is this an electrostatic generator or a galvanic battery? Or are we talking about two different scenarios dependent on the probes?

There are two distinct gizmos covered in the patent. They exploit dissimilar physical principles. @HARK!, (I think), is pointing out that there should be two different ways of verifying these (already well known) respective mechanisms.
The dude in the video is encouraging further pursuit of those phenomena.

second question, how did you access further videos? I didn't see any.

@HARK! posted three video links in his early thread posts. I was confused (apologies for my part in that) about his purpose in creating the thread, as he wasn't particularly clear about that in his opening post, (IMO) (and I didn't have 30 minutes of free time to focus on all 3 videos, at that time).

Also is there any discussion of power output vs input energy from moving water (electrolyte)

Nope .. probably too detailed in chemistry for the purpose behind the videos (for its target audience).