Archive for the ‘Free-Energy’ Category

This article was linked to on Digg recently, and there has been some misunderstanding of its content. It concerns a discovery of a new catalyst that could make it possible to use sunlight to directly split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This might turn out to be quite important in the future (if we start using hydrogen as fuel, and if this turns out to be more efficient than other ways of producing hydrogen, etc.), but you can’t mention “water” and “energy” in the same sentence without certain people assuming that the useable energy is in the water itself. I know I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: water is already in its lowest chemical energy state. You cannot extract energy from water using chemical* means. That means no water-powered car engines, no water-powered batteries, etc.

Of course this discovery is interesting enough in itself. Storing solar energy for later use has always been a bottleneck in this particular form of alternative energy, so if you could store it as chemical energy in hydrogen, it could potentially surpass the standard lead-acid or lithium-polymer battery solution. However, this remains to be seen. For the time being, this technology is still in experimental stages.

*Other forms of energy are routinely extracted from water in order to generate electrical power, for example kinetic/potential energy in a hydroelectic station, or thermal energy at a geothermal plant. The hydrogen in water could also be used as fusion fuel**, thus releasing nuclear energy.

**Note that a fusion reaction would far surpass (by several orders of magnitude) the energy required to split the hydrogen and oxygen apart, thus avoiding the problem that makes it impossible to get a surplus of chemical energy from water.

It seems every other day that someone comes up with a way to extract useful chemical energy from water. The fact that it’s physically impossible is less important than the fact that one can always find gullible people to fork over large quantities of money for these so-called “inventions”.

But this guy is really taking it to the next level. 25 employees, 60 MILLION dollars in venture capital funding, and a 2000-page book describing his new theory of quantum physics; I’m almost impressed by the amount of effort he’s put into this scam. He even put a new twist on the usual process for getting energy from water. From the article:

Mills’ theory, which he expounds upon in his self-published 2,000 page book, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, rests on what he describes as his discovery of the hydrino – an altered version of hydrogen that has an energy level lower than its ground state, or the baseline energy level. These modified atoms, he argues, are the stuff that comprises dark matter, the invisible material that many scientists believe composes more than 90% of the universe. The mechanism that creates hydrinos – a chemical reaction whose released energy can allegedly be harnessed for power – is what Mills calls the BlackLight Process.

What the article doesn’t say is that this is a pretty stardard explanation of zero-point energy – the kind found powering starships and death-rays in science fiction, not the actual scientific concept. The crux of the matter is the supposed “energy level lower than ground state”, which is impossible by definition.

It is true that nobody has ever created a new theory of physics without first questioning the old theories. In fact, scientists are encouraged to look for flaws in established theories in order to better understand the universe. But for a new theory to supplant an old one (for example, relativity superseding Newtonian mechanics), there needs to be quite a body of repeatable experimental evidence, and the theory must bear the closest scrutiny by other scientists. Dr. Randell Mills (note that he is a physician, not a physicist) has only the results from his laboratory, and responds to academic criticism with the same old crap about how science is hostile to anyone who would try to think differently, etc. His exact quote is “As long as you’re in the mainstream, you’re fine. But if you’re doing something paradigm-changing, you’re proving that academics have been going down the wrong path,” which quite frankly makes me angry. He is nothing more than a con artist, and to see him accusing people who are doing real science is infuriating.

As for whoever gave him $60,000,000 to develop a free energy machine, well, I hope they weren’t counting on recovering that investment. (Seriously, where can I find such stupid and naive people with so much money to give out? I’ve got a lovely Brooklyn Bridge here to sell them…)

Free energy (and its little brother, perpetual motion), is an idea that’s been around a long time, and has persisted despite the complete and utter failure of every single invention purported to generate energy “from nothing”. Why has it lasted so long? It seems that there are two reasons for this: the first is that there is confusion over what actually constitutes “free” energy. There are two types of free energy devices; those that generate power from nothing, and those that generate power from some unknown external source. The “power-from-nothing” types often use magnets in their construction, and are usually disclaimed with a “would work if there was less friction”. Of course, the laws of thermodynamics expressly forbid such things from existing. So why do they continue to be invented?
Read the rest of this entry »

To say that claims of free-energy are frequent would be an understatement. It seems that nearly every week, be it on youtube, personal websites or news reports, someone, somewhere, somehow claims to have successfully challenged the very core of physics. None do. More often than not (roughly 9 out of every 10 times) magnets are involved. Every once in a while, however, a gizmo appears with equally absurd claims, but different mechanics.

This would be such a device.

The information provided is dubious, as is usually the case, but the claim is very straightforward: The device is purported to output far more energy than it uses. This, I can say with absolute certainty, is not the case.

To break it down, the device is a water pump seemingly designed to cause a reaction within the liquid called inertial cavitation. As the rotor spins rapidly, the gaps in its surface cause pockets of extremely low pressure to form. Any liquid within the presence of these pockets evaporate into bubbles (or cavities), which, within the presence of the higher pressure surrounding the pockets, eventually collapse in a very violent reaction. So violent, in fact, that the resulting implosion can not only emit a burst of light, but also reach temperatures as high as five thousand degrees Kelvin! Think about that. Through pressure changes within a liquid, you can initiate a reaction resulting in the same temperature as that of our sun’s photosphere!

As cool a phenomenon as cavitation is, the machine as demonstrated in the video seems, at least to me, very lame. A phrase fundamental to the skeptic’s creed is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that is not what’s provided in the clip. The claim provided is that the overall efficiency of the machine is 170% thereby contradicting the laws of thermodynamics, although no mention is made as to how this figure was reached. Of course, there’s a brief shot of two pressure gauges, but what does this mean? What are they measuring, exactly?

I suspect, at the very least, that any calculations made in determining both the energy input and output of the device are either erroneous or a downright fabrication. That’s not to say that the owner of the water pump is a charlatan, however that possibility, as always, should remain on the table. Until the pump can be verified by a panel of scientists, the laws of thermodynamics remain comfortably intact.

Free-energy proponents may find this reasoning, or my doubt, unfair… but that’s science, folks. Every claim, no matter how wonderful it may be, must be examined, tested, and reproduced by peers if it’s ever to be adopted as a science. Until it is, [I wouldn't hold my breath] it seems we are still at the mercy of the laws of conservation of mass and energy.

According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, virtually everything with mass can be turned into energy. That, as Sherlock Holmes would say, is elementary. Outside of Albert Einstein’s work, and far beyond the borders of any conceivable logic, however, many desperate for either fame or for a solution to the so-called ‘Energy Crisis’ have become convinced that saltwater can not only be converted to energy, but can be a source of cheap, useful power.

Take, for example, this video. In it, an unidentified reporter visits the home of John Kanzius, an American inventor who discovered a fairly effective way of separating hydrogen and oxygen from a saline solution using radio waves. The result is a bright, colorful flame as the hydrogen is ignited the instant it separates from its oxygen bonds. The water appears to burn like a fuel.

What the reporter, who is, at best, naive, then claims is where the bad science rears its ugly visage. As is perhaps expected, he claims that salt water can thus be used as a fuel, and, even worse, that scientists are “baffled” by the chemical reaction.

Let’s start with that first part. Although there is an output of energy as Kanzius directs radio waves to the solution, the water, first, is not burning. The hydrogen is. Though this bright, hydrogen-burning flame may seem impressive, it is not, truly, a significant output of energy. Quite simply, more energy is going into the system (via the radio wave transmissions) than is coming out, instantly destroying any claim that this salt water can be used as an alternative fuel. I’ll repeat that: The experiment results in a loss of energy, not a gain.

I’ll lend Mr. Kanzius the benefit of the doubt and assume that his goal is not that to achieve fame through bad science. At least here, this is a case of news reporting dismissing science entirely for a big story. Mr. Kanzius himself, on several occasions has admitted that this does not mean saline can be used as a source of fuel. There is, however, the problem of that last part of the video clip, where he says downright that this chemical reaction could be a method of powering an automobile. Whether this is a result of poor editing or a true claim, I can’t say for certain. What I will say is that it’s wrong, wrong, wrong.

And then there’s that second part, where the unidentified man claims that scientists have been left “baffled” by the experiment. I won’t waste much time on this, so I’ll just go ahead and state that this is utter trash. There is no question as to what’s occurring in the experiment, and I have very, very little doubt that there isn’t a true scientist anywhere in the world who could be baffled by the notion that things burn.

So what are we left with? Well, an admittedly cool experiment, but nothing closer to ending our fossil-fuel woes. We’re also perhaps left with a little bit of knowledge: If the media claims that something has “baffled” scientists, well, it probably isn’t science.

Each and every evening, I make it a priority to visit Ken Ham’s absolutely appalling website, www.answersingenesis.org. It isn’t so much that I’m a masochist, but I do oftentimes find the nonsense Ham ad libs to be amusing, or even, in a very odd way, charming.

Imagine my excitement to discover his latest podcast entry, which turns out to be as much honest and enlightening as it is classic rock. In it, Ham attempts to expose evolution’s “racist roots.” He first recites a 19th century newspaper article which describes the natives of Tasmania as “a lower order of the human race.” Ham then recounts an alleged story where Charles Darwin’s grandfather dug up the grave of a Tasmanian aboriginal man to be placed on display at the Royal College of Surgeons. He thusly concludes that evolution is inherently racist. We have therefore all descended from Adam and Eve…and those who hear the podcast have therefore all gained a better understanding of the non sequitur.

Oh Ken, you’ll be the the end of us all.

Linking evolution to racism is nothing new; Creationists have used this tactic for years upon years in an effort to trivialize evolution. Despite Ham’s effort, his latest anecdote fails to make such a link.

Most skeptics have heard this all before, and it’s no longer easy to appear surprised. Anti-evolutionists such as Ken Ham seem to believe that claims of Darwin’s racism somehow refute the incontrovertible nature of evolution. Even were it the case that evolution stood on such shaky ground, it’s not necessarily true.

Yes, I wrote “necessarily,” and, to perhaps shock you even further, I wrote it in italics. What could that possibly mean? Could I actually be agreeing that Darwin was a racist?

Well, yes and no. Read the rest of this entry »