Pouring Saltwater Over Graphene Generates Electricity

[ionbasa]

Nope

That would break the laws of physics. Chances are the salt might be used up in the process so you would have to keep adding salt to the loop if it was a closed system.

Or losses due to heat in the energy conversion. Nothing is 100% efficient, we can only get closer, but never get more energy out than we put in. The three laws of thermodynamics can explain this better than I can, but it seems that they are using the graphene and salt water as electrochemical cell. This is of course if we look at the reaction from a chemist's point of view.

 

A physics would most likely say that the conservation of energy and mass prevents more output than input available. Although a quantum physicist would claim that if an object had an infinite mass, then that could be converted into infinite energy.

[mr moose]

Or losses due to heat in the energy conversion. Nothing is 100% efficient, we can only get closer, but never get more energy out than we put in. The three laws of thermodynamics can explain this better than I can, but it seems that they are using the graphene and salt water as electrochemical cell. This is of course if we look at the reaction from a chemist's point of view.

 

A physics would most likely say that the conservation of energy and mass prevents more output than input available. Although a quantum physicist would claim that if an object had an infinite mass, then that could be converted into infinite energy.

 

A quantum physicist would probably argue that mass contains more energy than the conversion process can extract.

[ionbasa]

All powerstations produce more power then they consume. There is more energy stored in the materials then there is required to transport them and use them.

I/e when you light a piece of coal on fire with a match, you don't have to use a match with more energy to start it up.

Well, take for example a hydroelectric dam, you do not 'produce' power, but rather convert potential energy into kinetic energy by means of mechanics (a propeller drives a turbine which drives a coil/magnet generator), although doing so will never net you more energy than can be supplied. And as such we can only approach 100% efficiency.

 

Also you mention charcoal, well, you can't think of it in terms of mechanics, but rather in chemistry terms. The charcoal ignition has a set activation energy for the reaction to occur. If you would like to learn more about activation energy please read here: http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Kinetics/Modeling_Reaction_Kinetics/Temperature_Dependence_of_Reaction_Rates/The_Arrhenius_Law/The_Arrhenius_Law%3A_Activation_Energies

I'm not going to post an entire month of university work to demonstrate why your charcoal example is wrong, but if you want me to convince you, please send me a PM and I will try my best.

[ionbasa]

A quantum physicist would probably argue that mass contains more energy than the conversion process can extract.

True, true, because we will never see 100% efficiency. The quantum physics comment was my attempt at a tongue in cheek joke, poking fun of the theoretics of infinite energy.

PS: I think my joke may have been taken too seriously...

[topsu]

Graphene is just purified graphite. It doesn't pollute anything... It's a rock.

 

But what happens to the salt?

[LAwLz]

All powerstations produce more power then they consume. There is more energy stored in the materials then there is required to transport them and use them.

I/e when you light a piece of coal on fire with a match, you don't have to use a match with more energy to start it up.

I should have been more clear in my comment. I assumed he was talking about a closed system that generated an infinite amount of energy. Kind of like a water power plant that also pumped the water back into itself.

Of course you could generate energy if you just keep adding fuel (in this case probably salt) but I doubt this "pouring water over graphene" generation would be very efficient.

 

 

speakign of physics. didn't scientist successfully break the law you speak of a month or so ago? I rememeber someone posting about scientist doing nuclear fusion but just barely.

Nope, no laws of physics were broken. Fusion is just a more efficient way of extracting the energy that's already stored in a material.

Even the drop of water has a huge amount of energy stored in it as described by this handy equation: Energy = mass * speed of light² , aka e=mc². You need about 20 drops of water to make up 1 gram. 1 gram of water could (in a 100% efficient conversion) generate about 25,000,000,000 watt hours (or in terms of explosive power, stronger than the biggest atom bomb the US dropped on Japan during WW2).

[LukeTim]

Nope, no laws of physics were broken. Fusion is just a more efficient way of extracting the energy that's already stored in a material.

Even the drop of water has a huge amount of energy stored in it as described by this handy equation: Energy = mass * speed of light² , aka e=mc². You need about 20 drops of water to make up 1 gram. 1 gram of water could (in a 100% efficient conversion) generate about 25,000,000,000 watt hours (or in terms of explosive power, stronger than the biggest atom bomb the US dropped on Japan during WW2).

Rather than saying "stored in" it would be more accurate to say that the water itself is energy. Just in a form that isn't usful as energy as we know it.

[jmaster299]

But what happens to the salt?

He is talking about using in a motor that is in a body of saltwater. The salt won't hurt/affect anything. But, like I said, there likely won't be any type of exhaust that's pumping the water back out. It would simply take in water as needed and the only reason why you would need to take in more is due to evaporation. 

[Hyrikan]

cars that run off carbon dioxide in the air.

 

I'd really like to see the chemical reaction to make this possible: CO₂ is the highest oxidated form of carbon so you can't burn it more and get energy out of it. I'm pretty sure that every usable reaction that uses CO₂ as an reagent requires energy and doesn't "produce" energy.

[LukeTim]

I'd really like to see the chemical reaction to make this possible: CO₂ is the highest oxidated form of carbon so you can't burn it more and get energy out of it. I'm pretty sure that every usable reaction that uses CO₂ as an reagent requires energy and doesn't "produce" energy.

Obviously you have plants in the engine which convert the CO₂ into Glucose which is then stored or used to generate energy in a sustainable process until eventually the plants die, wherein seeds are replanted inside the engine and the old plants are moved into a compressor which converts them into a more manageable form so they can be injected into the Engine cylinders and ignited...

Or something.... I don't know.

[Hyrikan]

Obviously you have plants in the engine which convert the CO₂ into Glucose which is then stored or used to generate energy in a sustainable process until eventually the plants die, wherein seeds are replanted inside the engine and the old plants are moved into a compressor which converts them into a more manageable form so they can be injected into the Engine cylinders and ignited...

Or something.... I don't know.

 

Yeah sure we could use solar energy to process CO₂ into Glucose etc.. But we could also just use the solar power to generate electricity or similar and don't bother with the loss of usable energy if we first convert CO₂ to something usable.

[dragosudeki]

Put this in sinks or in the piping system of houses. Generate electricity as you use water or something.

[LukeTim]

Yeah sure we could use solar energy to process CO₂ into Glucose etc.. But we could also just use the solar power to generate electricity or similar and don't bother with the loss of usable energy if we first convert CO₂ to something usable.

I was joking but whatever. 

[jezza39]

Isn't this basic chemistry? Just like graphite is a conductor of electricity as the rings of carbon have a free flowing electron in them, and salt water contains more ions, more free electrons etc etc

[rhyseyness]

Put this in sinks or in the piping system of houses. Generate electricity as you use water or something.

You use saltwater in your house?!

[Hyrikan]

I was joking but whatever. 

 

Sorry man, I'm up for like 40 hours straight, detecting jokes on the internet in this state is quite hard .

[A/C]

5 words: boat hulls made of graphene.

 

Bam! Mind=blown.

[totjup5]

This is pretty cool. They could use tides on the ocean to do this and produce tons of energy.

[theroflcopta]

could be used for on shore power plants that use the power of the waves to push the water over? Or maybe flotilla platforms that are attached to the shore. Either way could be very cool.

[alepodj]

i want it in the housing of my Waterproof phone so i can charge it at the beach yeah baby, eternal power. :lol:

[EclipseSkye]

Every time I come across something like this, I think of this

 

 

But that doesn't mean I don't want it to be true. I really, really do.

 

 

This seems more related though

[wpirobotbuilder]

This isn't very useful for generating power. However, it IS useful for detecting the presence of saltwater.

 

This tech could be applied to submarines and ships, creating a sensor to help detect small leaks.

[_Shaho]

I never said all cars would have this. I just want to see some.

I never said cars either.

[bcredeur97]

roads are overrated. flood ALL THE ROADS. ALL OF THEM. we'll all drive graphene hulled boats.