Perpetual Battery

[HARK!]

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;

What cells? Cells aren't mentioned. Galvanic action isn't mentioned either.

'The devil is in the details' ..

 

[HARK!]

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

You can find two more videos here: Perpetual Battery

 

[SelfSim]

What cells? Cells aren't mentioned.

That's galvanic 'cells' I mean there.

Galvanic action isn't mentioned either.

Yep .. I think in the 3rd video where he's talking about the patent application(?) (From memory there .. it may also have been mentioned in the 1st one too?)

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

You can find two more videos here: Perpetual Battery

Found video 2, interesting, sort of, also read the patent. SS I think is right, he is describing two things, one in a galvanic cell, no big deal, the other is an electrostatic generator, the versions that require flowing water. Ultimately, both are 19th century physics.

I didn't find the third video, but did run into one where he was pitching "Browns Gas" . End of road, he is either dumber than he looks or he is a charlatan.

Build it if you want, it will do something as he says, but really nothing to develop that hasn't been known about for 100 years.

 

[HARK!]

Build it if you want, it will do something as he says, but really nothing to develop that hasn't been known about for 100 years.

The first known observation of the effects of a diode were in 1873 by Frederick Guthrie; but only recently has solar power been considered a feasible energy source.

If the phenomenon had been dismissed as useless for all of these years; the technology would not have been developed.

 

[SelfSim]

The first known observation of the effects of a diode were in 1873 by Frederick Guthrie; but only recently has solar power been considered a feasible energy source.

What's the dependent connection between a diode and solar power?

If the phenomenon had been dismissed as useless for all of these years; the technology would not have been developed.

Unidirectional currents were forgotten, then re-observed and then put to good use though(?)

 

[HARK!]

What's the dependent connection between a diode and solar power?

 

[SelfSim]

A semi -conductor physics model .. I can't see a dependent connection with solar power though?
ETA: Maybe a model for the photovoltaic cell effect though(?)

 

[HARK!]

A semi -conductor physics model .. I can't see a dependent connection with solar power though?

Diodes are PN junctions. Notice the PN junction in the image.

The technology that is used to build solar panels, is built on PN junctions.

The subject of this thread is neither solar energy, nor PN junctions.

The point is that unless the phenomenon is studied and developed, nothing much becomes of it.

 

[SelfSim]

The point is that unless the phenomenon is studied and developed, nothing much becomes of it.

Ok ..
In many cases though, no-one knows what the outcome of some observed phenomena will be in the future .. yet they still study it .. and the outcome of the phenomenon appears, nonetheless.
(I was unclear as to whether this was intended as part of the subject of this thread, or not).

 

[HARK!]

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

Here is an explanation of why this works:

Which leads me to the question: Would adding another stage, increase the amount of energy that could be captured from the same water?

See where I'm going?

If so, that leads me to the next set of questions.

Does the principle behind the invention in the OP depend on rods? Could we get the same effect by passing water through spaced metal sleeves within an insulative hose?

Would using a bundle of smaller hoses increase the effect? I'm thinking in terms of a capillary honeycomb.

What if this bundle of smaller hoses was coiled up to contain 1000's of feet (if not miles) of hose in a small volume of space?

Are there other liquids that could be used which would increase the effect?

What if the system was closed?

A circulator pump (not water pump) could be used to get the liquid motion. Circulator pumps require far less energy to move the same amount of water as a water pump.

With enough hose, could enough static electricity be captured to drive a circulator pump?

 

[Nithavela]

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?

It's a hoax.

There's already a way to turn moving water into energy, it's called a turbine.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You do realize that electrolytes are conductive; right?

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?

The two electrodes of an ordinary battery have a potential difference between them, and they are separated by an electrolyte.

Which of your statements above would you like to retract?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Here is an explanation of why this works:

Which leads me to the question: Would adding another stage, increase the amount of energy that could be captured from the same water?

See where I'm going?

If so, that leads me to the next set of questions.

Does the principle behind the invention in the OP depend on rods? Could we get the same effect by passing water through spaced metal sleeves within an insulative hose?

Would using a bundle of smaller hoses increase the effect? I'm thinking in terms of a capillary honeycomb.

What if this bundle of smaller hoses was coiled up to contain 1000's of feet (if not miles) of hose in a small volume of space?

Are there other liquids that could be used which would increase the effect?

What if the system was closed?

A circulator pump (not water pump) could be used to get the liquid motion. Circulator pumps require far less energy to move the same amount of water as a water pump.

With enough hose, could enough static electricity be captured to drive a circulator pump?

I will reiterate, this appears to be an electrostatic generator at least in the carbon rod version (the versions with dissimilar rods are probably best covered as galvanic cells). The principle is that of the van de Graff generator in this case using the fact that flowing water through friction generates small imbalances in local charge in dielectric materials such as water. These can be accumulated even to the point of generating very high voltages that were developed such as the Westinghouse Atom Smasher.

Ultimately this patent and other references seem to all be harvesting a very small portion of the kinetic energy of a moving fluid system that contains electric charges developed through friction. I did however run into an interesting potential application, where it appears that the idea is to create a larger availability of charge into a moving stream and then harvest that.

I think your real question is should we not be studying these potential ideas, and the answer is we are, it is sometimes called blue sky research, the funding however is often argued against as not having practical applications. This is what universities and corporations do all the time, and we really need to fund this or we will either stagnate or somebody else will get there ahead of us.

Here is another example. High-efficiency ballistic electrostatic generator using microdroplets | Nature Communications

Support science research, even if you don't understand why.

 

[HARK!]

The two electrodes of an ordinary battery have a potential difference between them, and they are separated by an electrolyte.

Which of your statements above would you like to retract?

It seems that you either misunderstood what I was driving at; or you don't quite understand how a lead acid battery works.

The opposing lead plates in a lead acid battery aren't reacting with each other. One of the plates is reacting with the sulfuric acid. Aluminum and brass will react with each other on contact; but they will not react with other; if they are separated by an insulator.

 

[HARK!]

I will reiterate, this appears to be an electrostatic generator at least in the carbon rod version (the versions with dissimilar rods are probably best covered as galvanic cells). The principle is that of the van de Graff generator in this case using the fact that flowing water through friction generates small imbalances in local charge in dielectric materials such as water. These can be accumulated even to the point of generating very high voltages that were developed such as the Westinghouse Atom Smasher.

Ultimately this patent and other references seem to all be harvesting a very small portion of the kinetic energy of a moving fluid system that contains electric charges developed through friction. I did however run into an interesting potential application, where it appears that the idea is to create a larger availability of charge into a moving stream and then harvest that.

I think your real question is should we not be studying these potential ideas, and the answer is we are, it is sometimes called blue sky research, the funding however is often argued against as not having practical applications. This is what universities and corporations do all the time, and we really need to fund this or we will either stagnate or somebody else will get there ahead of us.

Here is another example. High-efficiency ballistic electrostatic generator using microdroplets | Nature Communications

Support science research, even if you don't understand why.

I'm not sure what to think at this point.

I did a quick test on V and A in a 5 gal plastic bucket.

The static friendly plastic bucket was sitting out with rain water in it. It also had some leaves decomposing in it. I'm sure that it was slightly acidic. I tried Al and Cu electrodes. I got a steady V. I tried swishing it back and forth. The V change was negligible in both directions; but this was hardly an accurate test. I tried changing the Cu to brass. The voltage jumped; but no significant change with motion.

I then switched back to Cu, and measured A, @ ~.1mA. No significant change with motion in either direction. I then took the Cu and Al over to a garden hose. I got ~.05mA in both directions.

I'm going to test this more carefully in the future; but so far, these quick tests were a big let down.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems that you either misunderstood what I was driving at; or you don't quite understand how a lead acid battery works.

The opposing lead plates in a lead acid battery aren't reacting with each other. One of the plates is reacting with the sulfuric acid. Aluminum and brass will react with each other on contact; but they will not react with other; if they are separated by an insulator.

I didn't say they were reacting with anything - I said that there was a potential difference between them and they are sharing an electrolyte.

IOW there is a potential difference between them but they are not insulated from each other because "electrolytes are conductive; right?"

 

[HARK!]

I didn't say they were reacting with anything - I said that there was a potential difference between them and they are sharing an electrolyte.

IOW there is a potential difference between them but they are not insulated from each other because "electrolytes are conductive; right?"

What potential difference might we expect to see between two lead plates, immersed in sulfuric acid, having not undergone any formation process?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What potential difference might we expect to see between two lead plates, immersed in sulfuric acid, having not undergone any formation process?

Never mind that - do you accept that in a chemical battery a potential difference develops between the +ve and -ve electrodes when they are immersed in a conducting electrolyte?

Because this contradicts your claim that, "... in order for a potential difference to develop between two bodies, that those bodies must be insulated from each other".

Just sayin'.