We don't want to take this seriously, so we won't.
Another company has claimed to have produced a device that produces more energy than is put in, which --we shouldn't have to tell you -- is
impossible. The Daily Mail is the dumb -- but actually kinda clever, 'cause they'll get lots of readers, and they don't mind bending the truth -- deliverer this time, adding some kind of twisted authority to the "news." The company behind the free publicity is called EcoWatts, who are apparently keen to sell their £1,500-2,000 white tube thing to homeowners, with the aim of reducing their electricity bill (and not solving all the world's energy problems in one fell swoop, apparently.) Al
together now:
"ughhh.
"
[Thanks, Alan]
W. T. F.
posted Sep 16th 2007 4:56PM
FIRST!
this comment is relevant... I was imitating Sean McCarthy
My Theory of Increasing Returns on Forum Activity states that if Engadget posts a free energy catalyst article an ever-expanding reverberation of free-energytards and easily-trolled scientsts will eventually replenish any previously drained discussions, measured in deadhorsewhips.
Deadhorsewhipsian technology however is far from ready for the desktop, as most of the regenerated verbage is instantaneously transformed through spooky quantum behaviour into beer which is consumed while the entire Engadget staff kicks back to enjoy the shitfest in the comments.
Conrad=nih
This is as funny as it is pathetic!
Spot the reincarnation of Tesla delusional.
Science fucking hates you.
The device is actually a hydrogen generator, Potash is KOH or Potassium Hydroxide, by using electricity to water and KOH you generate hydrogen and oxygen, the higher the electric amps the hotter the reaction will be. Where does the generated oxygen and hydrogen go????, the device does not allow for this, this is a sham.
ughhh.
ugg is right.
The obnoxious, arrogant tone of this article REEKS unprofessionalism.
We come here for news and links about tech and gadgets, some still be born in the lab. We don't come here for derisive "I shouldn't have to tell you" rants about one guy's OPINION. Guess what, I shouldn't have to tell you that at one time you'd be thrown in jail or a mental hospital for suggesting the world was round. And guess what, there will come a time where people understand the mechanics that make "free energy" devices a possibility, and a practicality.
These advances -WHICH ARE INEVITABLE- will not come from people like the dickhead that wrote this article, or the minions who pride themselves on blind faith to dying laws. It will come from the person who asks..."what if".
So you're saying Engadget need to stop expressing opinions on their blog? Whose should they express? Yours?
Just a hunch, but you probably don't matter to Engadget.
Maybe as one "clicker" I don't. But as someone said the tone of this article and others like it are "repulsive".
Keep up the polarizing articles and engadget won't to worry about posters expressing disapproval because they will probably stop coming altogether. If engadget doesn't care about the hit it could take by going from "neutral" to biased/polarizing, then by all means continue.
Nikola:
Your absolutely right. So what if the laws of thermal dynamics say its impossible to even get the same amount of energy out as you put in. So what if their website says nothing of any of the magical physical properties that would be required to do this. So what if there's no proof it works. If we blindly believe utter bullshit, it has to be true! Laws of science and reason be damned!
ughhh
(It says to say that in the article...)
They say they broke the laws of thermodynamics with a plastic tube.
Rather than share this technology with the world, or even (gasp), use this technology to create an energy company that would literally be able to rape the world blind under it's current setup, they've instead decided to just market their technology in the form of a plastic tube that sends hot water around your house for cheap.
This definitely doesn't deserve any sort of mockery or condescension, you're right. I think I speak for everyone when I say that Engadget really screwed the pooch here by poopooing a miracle of science just b/c they think they're superior. Oh wait, that's not what happened. You Nikola, are a tard. I hope your name isn't a reference to Tesla, b/c if it is, you're insulting him.
Wow! Now, if they invented a pipe that outputs more water than you put in aswell, then it could reduce your water bill too! These guys are onto something!
I like one of the traditional Daily Mail comments left by one of their readers at the end of the article
"...Let us hope that yet another great British invention is not lost to this Country and then exploited by foreign corporations and industry."
Everything has to be turned into how 'foreigners' have stolen x or that the world was better under the British Empire etc
[Ps I sent this in! Wahoo!]
Yeah! I'm irish and I hate that belief the brits have. They don't adopt Metric; Brittish is better(despite it being almost universal) They don't use the Euro(that would be far too handy)
Alan Partridge,
Perhaps you just don't know that lots of countries only joined the patent scheme after they had their own inventions to protect ... as in they didn't mind ripping other people off but when they actually invented something themselves they wanted to protect it.
And yes, thing were better under the British Empire since loud mouthed, uneducated and loathsome characters such as yourself would have been decapitated :0p
Wait, Wait! How about also inventing a blog that generates far more text that what's fed into it!
@Derry:
Don't make the easy mistake of thinking that the Daily Mail represents intelligent English people. It doesn't. Almost by definition if you read the Daily Mail you are likely to be a small-minded, gullible, sense-of-humour deficient, racist, homophobic bore. And luckily that characterisation doesn't fit a high proportion of Brits. Some, it's true, but no more probably than would fit that same characterisation in most other countries.
And I agree with you about metrication, but I think the Euro is a much bigger topic than just a question of whether it would be "handy".
Oh, and I love the Irish like they're my brothers!
but we aren't your brothers. you shouldn't assume otherwise.
"Secret Catalyst" LOL
A recipe for an electric fire imho.
"Electric current passes between
the cathode and anode causing
a reaction in the mixture of
water potash and the secret
catalyst, generating heat"
The secret catalyst is something also known as BULL SHIT and these guys have plenty of it to sell. Oops, now that the secrets out I should ca$h in! Get your energy generating bull shit here. Best prices, I will not be undersold!
horay! =)
This is great.
I am reading Voodoo Science right now.
Laws of Thermodynamics are still batting (and always will) 1000.
This is a great book, BTW. I think it may be out of print.
If I put an egg in one end will I end world hunger?
No, but man, will your house be messy....
An electric water heater? Fail.
Missed a zero off the price there ;)
'Ecowatts says the device will cost between £1,500 and £2,000, in line with the price of traditional systems.'
'Ecowatts says the device will cost between £1,500 and £2,000, in line with the price of traditional systems.'
What traditional systems? Do they mean 'traditional perpetuum mobile systems'? These guys are fun! Give them a Comedy Central contract.
Hm... a water heater! Genius!
They'll probably trick a lot of people, though, because I don't think most people are going to go out and measure the energy inputs for the device and the energy contained in the heated water...
So how much energy does that "catalyst" thingy consume to get produced? And how often do I refill it? Ouch.
That's not really free energy at all (even if it works) -- if you actually look at that crappy diagram it looks like energy is stored in chemical form and is released once the activation energy passes through (with the help of a "secret catalyst"...). That would just represent a nice energy storage machine, not a free energy gadget.
Whoever wrote the article for The Daily Mail is an idiot that clearly doesn't understand chemistry. They mentioned the word catalyst implying a standard chemical reaction (in this case exothermic). Even if they don't know the mechanism of the reaction, it's still clearly not free energy.
umm, I don't think you know the definition of a catalyst. A catalyst is a chemical that is used up, and then produced in a later reaction, because it creates an alternate reaction mechanism, you should never have to refill it, or its not a catalyst.
This thing it still ridiculous though.
Dragoneye: is it 100% left over after the reaction? If yes, oopsie, my bad. Then you will use up your stash'o'potash. Still not free.
Hey Dragoneye,
As far as I know, a catalyst is something that "speeds up" a reaction, and is not used up in a reaction. They generally work by improving the probability of the 2 (or more) substrates of a reaction combining several thousand fold, and reduce the activation energy of a reaction. They are not used up, or they would be substrates.
As far as I can tell from this gizmo, they merely put chemical energy in the tube which, when mixed with water and is activated (electrical energy or heat), allows an exothermic reaction to occurr. Nothing amazing here. You are still putting more energy into the system (if you add up the electrical energy and the chemical energy, not just electrical energy), so it is not magic. It is just stored energy that is getting released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalysis
yes, the catalyst should not be used up.
I did think afterwards that the other stuff in their mixture would probably be used up though.
skraddah: what you said is pretty much right, as far as my knowledge in chemistry.
My simple as possible description:
First off is that most reactions are multiple steps. A catalyst enables a new step (or set of steps) that occur at a lower activation energy, so therefore are more likely to occur. At some point along the reaction, the catalyst is then produced again, so therefore is said not to be used in the reaction.
ie.
A+B+C->AC+B
AC+D->AD+C
and is written as: A+B+D->AD+B
You are correct in all that this is is chemical energy being released.
Dragoneye:
Hi again.
I don't want to keep harping on this point, but a catalyst is never used up in a reaction (only to appear later). If it was, it would be a substrate.
A catalyst merely allows the reaction to occur at a faster rate. All reactions will occur (albiet at unbelievably slow rates) without catalysts, but catalysts will greatly speed them up. They are not used at all, they merely facilitate the reaction.
An example I like to use is that of a wheelbarrow.... you do not "use" a wheelbarrow
when moving dirt from one pile to another, but it does speed up the process. However, the wheelbarrow can get used over and over and over, and is not "used" in each reaction. It merely makes it happen faster.... a "facilitator".
Catalysts do not get reformed in a reaction, as they merely allow the substrates to interact in a more efficient manner. Some reactions have substrates that are used up at the start of the reaction , and can be reformed later in the reaction(like you describe for catalysts), but they are essential components of the reaction (substrates) and are not catalysts (they don't speed the reaction; they "are" the
reaction).
take care,
Brandon
skraddah:
I didn't want to harp on this either, but you are wrong according to all my sources I can find.
I will quote from my chemistry textbook 'Chemistry for Scientists and Engineers" :
Catalyst- A substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without being permanently consumed in the process
and they example they give in the book is essentially what I showed above, but with actual chemicals. from Wikipedia a substrate is the chemical that an inhibitor reacts on.
Hi Dragoneye,
Well, I guess we'll just agree to disagree :).
I'll put my last 2 cents in, and you can as well.
Inhibitors affect catalysts, not substrates. Essentially, reactions won't happen without enzymes (catalysts), but technically they will happen (just really really slowly). Inhibitors oftern react with catalysts by filling up their binding sites and not letting the desired substrates interact with the enzyme (essentially making them useless).
Look for the classic "lock and key" diagrams of enzyme (just checked, and there is a good diagram on wikipedia if you search for "enzyme". Also, this wiki directly states that inhibitors act on catalysts (not substrates).
In the reactions you described (A, B, C, etc.), you do not have any enzymes (catalysts) represented.... all of the letters represent substrates or products.
I do not have a Ph.D. in chemistry, so any other experts are welcome to chime in... I do have a Ph.D. in Physiology, and I'm pretty certain what I am saying is correct. I would suggest looking at the wiki for enzymes. I think you may be confusing the substrates in your model (letters) with one of them representing an enzyme. I've never seen that depicted before.
OK, nice discussion Dragonfly, i'll check back for your response later, but we'll let this rest now..... i've got football to watch!!!!
Take care,
skraddah
I guess we will disagree.
What I describe is what I have been told to me by High school chemistry teachers, and what I have read in my University textbook. I would suggest you look at the Wikipedia page on catalysis and read the definition, it pretty much agrees with me totally.
Now I don't have a PhD (actually I'm an undergraduate Engineering student) so I have emailed my chemistry professor to get this cleared up, so I will post back whenever I get an email back from him.
I am assuming you are more knowledgeable with organic compounds and enzymes than other branches of chemistry since you have a PhD in Physiology, so I may guess that enzymes behave a little differently than other catalysts?
Thank you,
Dragoneye
You guys are both wrong- because you're just splitting hairs! Check your wikipedia page again. A catalyst is something which speeds up a reaction without being consumed in the /overall/ reaction. Keyword is "overall"! It may or may not be consumed at some point in a multi-stage reaction, but overall it is not used up.
From what I know, a catalyst is consumed in a slow step in a reaction and then produced in a later step, resulting in a net consumption of 0, though it is technically "used" during 2 steps. And as for a substrate, I believe that is what "gets catalyzed," so to speak.
Bingo Dragoneye, that is where all this confusion lies. Enzymes do indeed behave differently than inorganic catalysts. It could be said that an Enzyme is a type of catalyst, but all catalysts are not enzymes. An enzyme is usually a complex protein while a catalyst can simply be a pure atomic substance. In fact very few inorganic catalysts function by anything close to a "lock and key" mechanisms. Most actually do interact with one or more of the substrates.
I don't have really extensive training in chemistry but I am a medical student, and I've gone through quite a few courses in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, and all that good stuff and I'm pretty positive that my above explanation is accurate.
Also skraddah you should know that even in an enzymatic reaction one or more of the substrates typically binds to a particular site on the enzyme. So even enzymes bind to substrates and are thus substrates themselves by the definitions typically used in inorganic chemistry.
OK.... thanks for the comments everyone. I realize I was wrong by using enzymes (a type of catalyst) for my argument....enzymes are catalysts, but not all catalysts are enzymes. So, I'll defer and admit defeat.
I also find it interesting that, by the definition of inorganic chemistry, binding to an substrate makes a catalyst a substrate. I really find this one interesting, since (with enzymes at least) the reaction can occur without the enyme (it may take 1000 years, but nevertheless...). I don't think anyone in the biological sciences would consider an enzyme a substrate for a reaction.
Thanks everyone, it was my fault for assuming enzymes represent all catalysts. I do not have an indepth knowledge of inorganic chemistry (or organic chemistry for that matter ;)).
good stuff.
off to watch my Chargers take another beating in the second half against the Pats....ugh.
these guys are like modern day alchemist trying to find a secret formula for lead into gold...
At least alchemists can be said to have contributed something to modern science (by laying the foundations for modern chemistry). These guys are just con artists.
At least what the alchemists were trying to do was physically possible.
Oh yeah... they forgot to mention that... it DOES turn the water into gold! That pays for the electricity that the unit consumes! ;)
well it beats my hamster wheel idea... or does it?
Crazy
Orbo cares NOT for your puny Earth schemes!
chuckle...
if you would have a device, that produces energy - would you sell it for lousy £1500-£2000?
I don't know if I'd call this "Steorn redux" so much as "Cold Fusion redux."
There are similarities here to Pons & Fleischmann-style Cold Fusion, as well as the John Kanzius device, possibly also the "Blacklight Power" claims. Each involves electrolysis that isn't really electrolysis :-) that creates some kind of plasma. What is interesting is the *recurring theme* here.
A quick search on "Gardner Watts" turns up a bunch of similar stories from 2003 -- I am not sure what changed to warrant the recent story.
Up to 2x as much could also include, say, 60% as much.
See, they're not realy con-artists!
/sarcasm
I dont care, I love this crap! More mad scientists now!
Whether this technology is a real or not, the derisive tone of this article is a bit much. The "laws" of thermodynamics will not stand for eternity. Remember that people have always ridiculed seemingly contradictory discoveries. Healthy skepticism is wise, but it seems important to temper doubt with belief.
I disagree. An idea that has no evidence, explanation, or credibility shouldn't be respected.
The laws of thermodynamics may not stand for eternity, but this ridiculous concept won't last a month.
Actually, the laws of thermodynamics WILL stand for eternity. Thats what a scientific law MEANS
@ thethirdmoose
Actually, just because a scientific theory was made into a law doesn't mean it is permanently (or even at all) true. For example, newton's LAWs of physics. They were accepted as true for a long time, and they are so close it really doesn't matter in most applications. But they are WRONG. Therefore, Law != Definite Truth
I'd like to point out that no one ever names their principle "The Pretty Likely Explanation of Thermodynamics". We call them 'laws' because they've so far proved inviolate. You can never say that you've discovered something absolute, because there's a whole eternity for people to prove you wrong. That said, I will bet laws of thermodynamics vs crackpot theories any day.
Newton's laws hold true over the domain in which they were tested. Mathematical proof shows that you cannot end up with more energy than you started with. Think about it. Mass = energy. If you ended up with more energy, you would be making something from nothing. Clearly, that is impossible.
like John said, we accept the Law of Thermodynamics because it has SO FAR not been disproven...
actually, with only one group apparently showing a break from the usual LoT, doesn't mean that the law is broken either...all likelihood is that they are either cheating, or doing something wrong...
that said, if they are going to scam me, at least make it look impressive looking, not something that they stole out of my plumbing...
Real scientists know what the Laws of Conservation and Energy is, thus adhering to what has been established over several centuries through countless experiments.
Fake scientists file patents and lawsuits on baseless claims to such things as miracle hair growth or free energy from nothing, then market and sell it to the general public.
Now, who would would you believe more?
Excuse me Conrad, but the tone of this article is DISGUSTING. You are supposed to be reporting as a neutral news writer, yet your level of obvious bias is ridiculous. Either report the news without bias, and with some freaking RESPECT, or go write for FOX News.
PS- It has NOT been proven that you CAN'T produce more energy with a device than is put in, it just hasn't been proven that you CAN. You close-minded people are really pathetic for being so allergic to the possibility of scientific progress in alternative energies.
It HAS been proven that such a device cant be built. Look up the laws of thermodynamics, buddy. Engadget is right to disparage the idea because it IS bullshit.
well it was also proven that the world was flat. Things change, science moves forward and changes everything again. Nothing is set in stone.
Who ever said that Engadget was supposed to be neutral? I've never seen them even pretend that they were neutral. This is why I love them.
"well it was also proven that the world was flat."
No it wasn't, is your source the cartoon network or something like that?
I agree adam. We already know about the whole free energy concept. There was no need for this guy to make a hit-piece on it. It came off as out-of-balance and a little strange. I mean, why put so much energy into debunking something that we "should already know" is false. Its not like people are selling fake free-energy generators on the street corner.
And "thethirdmoose", your comment highlights why I have such a big problem with this article. It is purposely disparaging the IDEA of free-energy. Simply because we haven't officially verified the medium through which such devices could extract their energy doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
To disparage an IDEA simply because it isn't officially recognized is against the spirit of discovery which has allowed to many advances to take place. If not for the lone hobbyist or scientist working on some undiscovered new technology or idea, we would still be in the stone age. This article isn't disparaging just an idea, it is disparaging the very concept of personal discovery & experimentation (which IS the backbone of technological advancement), just because it isn't officially recognized. That is wrong.
I just hope this article didn't discourage a future Tesla or Einstein.
Thank you for your thoughts Nikola, I agree with you whole-heartedly and I really hope that the writers take notice of your comment and change their ways.
@ Adam
Please tell me you are just being argumentative for the sake of it. I would hope that everyone here is intelligent enough to know that this Free Energy device is a crock. You cannot make energy from nothing. The act of doing 'anything' actually uses energy, so the best you can hope for is to get less energy out than you put in.
The day that Engadget writes up this 'news' and implies there might be truth in it is the day that the wackos take over.
they look like a scam, they act like a scam. they might be stupid enough to believe in the device themselfs - that doesn't matter, for an outside observer it's still a scam(and impossible to know without mind reading devices, which they might sell to you for cheap).
so, any reporter should say that they're probably a scam.
for lots of reasons, if they had a device that really made such power from "nothing" then they could go into business of selling electricity - not just some puny house warmer. it would be very easy to prove that it works too, if it really put out twice the energy that was put in it could be turned into a electric generator in a day - that was self sufficient. now they haven't done that, instead they sell it as an appliance that is sold directly to vic.. suc.. err, consumers.
btw.. did all the "give steorn the benefit of doubt" "earth was once thought flat, give steorn a chance" idiots come back ever to apologize how idiotic they were? of course not. why give the benefit of doubt to scamsters who would not suffer from being doubted IF THEY HAD A REAL DEVICE - if they had a real device they could go into producing electricity, thus getting all the money they want in very short order.
if you want to read a funny site about sad individuals with their heads on quite wrong check out www.overunity.com , crackpot "scientists" heaven where everybody has an overunity device.. that never can sustain itself.
I don't want to play Devil's Advocate, but didn't it used to be a "law" that the world was flat and that if you ventured past its outer edge you would fall off? Didn't it also used to be a "law" that we were at the center of the universe?
Just because we haven't found a method of violating the "law" of thermodynamics doesn't mean it's impossible to violate it.
I see that that Adam above me also has the same idea, great minds think alike!
it must be an Adam thing ;-)
Most things in science are theories.
The main part of scientific work is to disprove these theories. A theory is only a good theory, if you can think of ways, that it might be disproved.
There are very few things in science that are facts and definite. The laws of thermodynamics are among those. The laws of thermodynamics will by all accounts stand forever, because:
1. If they would not hold and you could produce anything but a zero energy balance, this universe would be in serious trouble. (No matter wether it is an energy gain or an energy loss).
2. They are very broad and at the same time very specific.
It is not free energy, if you use up the energy stored in magnets. It is not free energy if you use up energy stored in chemicals. It is not free energy if you convert matter into energy. There are lots of different forms of energy in this world, and sofar all ideas have used up one form or the other.
My take is that for these kinds of announcements there are only to options:
- Completly ignore these nutters, by saying they produce free energy, they have proven that they can not be taken seriously
Or
- Make absolut and total fun of them, to get at least some entertainment value out of the announcement.
I think the post was absolutly justified, if just a bit on the tame side.
Bye,
Gaspode
Most learned men at the time knew the world was not flat just the unwashed masses thought it was.
There mistake was they thought it was smaller. A Nobel prize waits for the man who can disprove any law of thermodynamics but he had better prove it with something more that a “secret catalyst”
It was "assumed" the Earth was flat, not "proven"... big difference.
Very good, MacGyver. That is correct. They assumed that the Earth was flat since they had never ventured past the horizon. We have tried many methods to produce free energy and to disprove the basics of thermodynamics, and have so far been unsuccessful. It is my belief through experience that it can not be done, but I'm also intelligent enough to not make any broad claims that "it can't be done." Will it be done by one of these "businessmen?" Nope. Of that, I'm sure.
Gentlemen, this is absurd. It is entirely reasonable, and does not in any way constitute bad journalism, to base a statement on well founded and widely accepted scientific principles. It would be much worse for us as readers if Engadget were publishing and supporting every ridiculous claim that came their way. In fact, even posting a story about such a device is an act of exceptional kindness -- this kind of sensational claim does not deserve any sort of press, good or bad.
they did that with linear evolution...look how that's turning out.
The secret ingredient is gerbils. The business end of the tube contains gerbils and potash. The gerbils, who are potash-intolerant, but having nothing else to feed on, eat the potash. The resulting gastric distress produces large quantities of methane, which is ignited and burned in a chamber by electrical arcing, which then heats the water, thus filling the room with heat. Smelly heat, but heat nonetheless.
Of course, you have to replace the gerbils every couple of years.
Wasn't all of astrophysics based on the "fact" that the universe was slowing down in its expanse not more than 10 years ago. Now it is believed to actually be accelerating outwards.
That said, i think this is a load of crap. I do think that the laws of thermodynamics will be broken..one day, but not this day. And not with some simple machine.
Why don't people just create something that uses an energy so plentiful that it is negligible because its free. Like gravity, or tidal forces, or obnoxious internet users.
I understand this to be a water boiler isn't it? It's saying that it can heat the water using half the energy it would normally take.
So if you introduce a catalyst with the electricity it's possible. or am I not understanding something?
Let's say hot water = 2 then you need 2 electricity. (I know it sound's stupid but hear me out).
But if 1 electricity + 1 catalyst (which = 1 electricity) then you get 2 (hot water) with only half the energy consumption.
"only half the energy consumption"
Yes, from your electricity. The other half of the required energy comes from a catalyst, which just stores energy that's already there.
No, because a true catalyst cannot be consumed in the process. A catalyst can only enable the process at lower energy, but the net result will have a lower energy as well, so you get a zero balance again.
Or in youur words:
2 electricity + 2 cold water = 2 hot water
or
1 electricity + 2 cold water + 1 catalyst = 1 hot water + 1 cold water + 1 catalyst
or
1 electricity + 2 cold water + 1 catalyst = 2 medium warm water + 1 catalyst
Bye,
Philip
The Earth was not commonly assumed to be flat. If you know your history at all, you should be aware that throughout time people have generally supposed a spherical Earth (where records show they imagined anything at all). That our ancestors believed in a flat Earth is a myth.
Isaiah 40:22 ((NIV)
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
circa 8th Century BC
Hi Dragoneye,
Well, I guess we'll just agree to disagree :).
I'll put my last 2 cents in, and you can as well.
Inhibitors affect catalysts, not substrates. Essentially, reactions won't happen without enzymes (catalysts), but technically they will happen (just really really slowly). Inhibitors oftern react with catalysts by filling up their binding sites and not letting the desired substrates interact with the enzyme (essentially making them useless).
Look for the classic "lock and key" diagrams of enzyme (just checked, and there is a good diagram on wikipedia if you search for "enzyme". Also, this wiki directly states that inhibitors act on catalysts (not substrates).
In the reactions you described (A, B, C, etc.), you do not have any enzymes (catalysts) represented.... all of the letters represent substrates or products.
I do not have a Ph.D. in chemistry, so any other experts are welcome to chime in... I do have a Ph.D. in Physiology, and I'm pretty certain what I am saying is correct. I would suggest looking at the wiki for enzymes. I think you may be confusing the substrates in your model (letters) with one of them representing an enzyme. I've never seen that depicted before.
OK, nice discussion Dragonfly, i'll check back for your response later, but we'll let this rest now..... i've got football to watch!!!!
Take care,
skraddah
pfft ... i'm starting my cold fusion plant next week ...
Again, this sort of rhetoric comes from a profound lack of understanding of the chemistry involved in this sort of process on the part of the public, and a profound arrogance on the part of the party feeding the public aforementioned rhetoric. This reaction obviously uses the chemical and electrical energy in the reactants and power line. It's just transforming energy from one form into another not creating it. The closest thing that can compare to an infinite energy machine is nuclear fusion, creating energy from mass, but even then the energy comes from somewhere.
Are you serious? How ironic that you would criticize everyone for their "profound lack of understanding of the chemistry involved" and then in the next breath say, "This reaction obviously uses the chemical and electrical energy in the reactants and power line. "
No it obviously does not use up chemical energy stored in the reactants since in a tube that size with standard household electricity going through it, all the reactants would be used up in seconds. Even if they found reactants that would react extremely slowly under those conditions there is no way they could use chemical energy to consistently put out 200% of the energy intake for more than a few minutes. And any reaction that would be exothermic enough to make a significant difference in the water temp would be irreversible. So you'd have to replace it several times a day.
Look its certainly bogus, but they just don't give enough information in their description to know exactly why. All these people who've taken chem 101 and thus think they know exactly what's going on here crack me up.
It's not like you're describing anything more advanced than what is taught your so-mocked chem 101, but the main principles needed to debunk this rhetoric are covered in any introductory chemistry course. You make the fatal assumption that this device actually works or at least produces as much energy as they claim if it isn't a true infinite energy source.
I am extremely confident that it is not capable of doing so, if it exists, and that even if it isn't a infinite energy source it has no way of providing that much energy. Are you implying that though it may not be in dissonance with established physical laws, that it may actually be able to produce a reaction with has the illusion of such a scientific wonder? Because of the fact that it is so small and the chemical energy comes from such a small pool of reactants it has no way of actually producing that much energy at all, which is precisely why I mentioned that. Based on those principles the device obviously has no way of producing 200% of the energy intake and for some reason you chose to assume I thought it could do that.
Steorn's Orbo didn't sort of work, it didn't work at all. I could make that crap with some PVC piping from home depot and call it a time travel machine, but that doesn't mean we could argue about physics and relativity call it bullshit because I'd only be to theoretically travel forwards in time despite the fact that I claim otherwise. If you're not going to be some of the crap, then discard all of it. Otherwise you are a fool.
All I know is that they claim to have a "secret catalyst" which does not in itself generate energy, and that's a dead giveaway that they hope people will forget that the energy has to come from somewhere: the chemical bonds, and the power main--even if that reaction lasts seconds and generates a few joules.
where do you insert the magic?