I'm not very knowledgable in physics. But I do know there is a rule you cannot break. That is you cannot get more energy out than you put in. Perhaps someone can break down what these scientists did here.
http://www.naturalnews.com/032069_salt_water_electricity.html
This is just a way to take advantage of the natural conductivity of salt water. My only problem with this is you need a potential difference to have a flow of current (that is what current it- charged particles moving from a high to low concentration [or electromagnetic stuff- but this is the simple DC stuff] ).
I've gone back tot he original Eureka article Natural News got their info from and I cannot see where the potential difference is.
Okay - I've found something that actually explains.
What happens is you take the 2 electrodes, immerse in saltwater, absorbing the ions- which produces the current flow, you then replace the water with reduces the ions (cleans the salt off) and start over- that is why they want it where the 2 mix- they are just cleaning the rods.
EDIT:
Also, this is not more than you put in- you are just taking energy naturally present and putting it to work, if you take the earth as a system- the energy does not change, IE No Breaking of Thermodynamics.
you are just taking energy naturally present and putting it to work
I think the same water can be reused again and again, so this is not it.
My guess (without reading the article, sorry) is that the energy (in a mechanical form) is actually provided by the experimenters when they change water.
No, when you take the electrodes from salt water and put them into the new freshwater, this water is turned brackish- not as salty as the sea is, but not fresh enough to use- thats why they wanted it near these meeting points where it naturally becomes brackish, it wouldn't change the sensitive ecosystem, and the critique of these systems (not the first one to exist, just the highest effeciency so far), is that sea water is for all purposes unlimited, fresh water is not.
>>But I do know there is a rule you cannot break. That is you cannot get more energy out than you put in.
This is no more magical than striking a match to light what will become a roaring fire, the minimal energy 'you' contribute by the motion of your arn is swamped by what is hence radiated out. This does not challenge mass-energy conservation.
The point being: in the match-fire example, all the energy liberated for small kinetic input is acounted for in the loss of chemical energy. Considering the system over all, and accounting for all forms of mass energy, the system conserves energy. When you simply ignore lots of the energy configuration and focus on comparing your mechanical input to the radiation output 'you care about' , its a surplus from that perspective..
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
"This is no more magical than striking a match to light what will become a roaring fire, the minimal energy 'you' contribute by the motion of your arn is swamped by what is hence radiated out. This does not challenge mass-energy conservation.
The point being: in the match-fire example, all the energy liberated for small kinetic input is acounted for in the loss of chemical energy. Considering the system over all, and accounting for all forms of mass energy, the system conserves energy. When you simply ignore lots of the energy configuration and focus on comparing your mechanical input to the radiation output 'you care about' , its a surplus from that perspective."
Yup. This is just poor wording on the part of the guy they interviewed is all.
I think they are letting themselves get fooled, principally by the MnO2. Manganese is a potent oxidizer with a very mallable d orbital which allows you to really push electrons around in interesting if unpredictable ways. Given from what is in the article, their claims are very silly.
It's a poorly worded article. I'll give an analogy for what they seem to be describing. Take two balloons full of water, connected at the ends by a tube that can be closed off. One balloon represents the ionic charge of the electrodes. The other is the charge in fresh water.
Squeeze the electrode balloons so that water flows into the fresh water balloon. Now, close the tube off, remove the fresh water balloon, and take the salt water balloon, which is filled with about three times as much water as the fresh water balloon after the transfer from the electrodes. Attach the salt water balloon and open the tube. The electrode side will inflate beyond the original size of the unsqueezed electrode balloon.
The problem, this being the case, is obvious. You don't need the freshwater. You can just stick the electrodes into saltwater. But the charge is less apparent because the charges reach equlibrium more quickly, since the charge of the electrodes has not been tampered with. As far as this article describes it, it's just a trick that moves charged particles back and forth. It is also horribly inefficient. What's powering the device that changes the water? It can't be powered by the charge itself. It would be like having batteries power an arm that turns a generator to charge the batteries. It spirals to its own death.