Steorn redux: more mad "scientists" tout free energy gadget

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.) Altogether now: "ughhh."

[Thanks, Alan]

W. T. F.

[The Schizo @ Sep 16th 2007 5:03PM]

FIRST!

[The Schizo @ Sep 16th 2007 5:05PM]

this comment is relevant... I was imitating Sean McCarthy

[nih @ Sep 16th 2007 9:07PM]

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.

[Nikola @ Sep 16th 2007 9:24PM]

Conrad=nih

This is as funny as it is pathetic!

[nih @ Sep 16th 2007 11:58PM]

Spot the reincarnation of Tesla delusional.

Science fucking hates you.

[Dr.Derek @ Sep 18th 2007 1:47PM]

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.

[Erik @ Sep 16th 2007 5:07PM]

ughhh.

[Nikola @ Sep 16th 2007 9:05PM]

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".

[nih @ Sep 16th 2007 9:12PM]

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.

[Nikola @ Sep 16th 2007 9:42PM]

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.

[Joshua Susmarski @ Sep 16th 2007 10:40PM]

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!

[coffeepot64 @ Sep 16th 2007 11:53PM]

ughhh

(It says to say that in the article...)

[Sam Murr @ Sep 17th 2007 8:05AM]

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.

[Ali @ Sep 16th 2007 5:08PM]

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!

[Alan Partridge @ Sep 16th 2007 5:58PM]

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!]

[Derry Quinn @ Sep 16th 2007 7:35PM]

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)

[Rimblock @ Sep 18th 2007 5:18AM]

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

[Dave Ulmer @ Sep 17th 2007 10:49AM]

Wait, Wait! How about also inventing a blog that generates far more text that what's fed into it!

[Nick Collingridge @ Sep 17th 2007 3:18PM]

@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!

[Jared @ Nov 30th 2007 7:44PM]

but we aren't your brothers. you shouldn't assume otherwise.

[Chrisboff @ Sep 16th 2007 5:10PM]

"Secret Catalyst" LOL

[Chrisboff @ Sep 16th 2007 5:12PM]

A recipe for an electric fire imho.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Sep 17th 2007 3:09AM]

"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!

[Mike Salem @ Sep 16th 2007 5:11PM]

horay! =)

[Nathan @ Sep 16th 2007 5:11PM]

This is great.
I am reading Voodoo Science right now.
Laws of Thermodynamics are still batting (and always will) 1000.

[Don @ Sep 16th 2007 7:12PM]

This is a great book, BTW. I think it may be out of print.

[Simon @ Sep 16th 2007 5:14PM]

An electric water heater? Fail.

[RazorD @ Sep 16th 2007 5:14PM]

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.'

[T1 @ Sep 17th 2007 3:16AM]

'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.

[Andrew Davidson @ Sep 16th 2007 5:14PM]

If I put an egg in one end will I end world hunger?

[Fubar @ Sep 17th 2007 1:19AM]

No, but man, will your house be messy....

[Tyler Crumpton @ Sep 16th 2007 5:17PM]

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...

[andr @ Sep 16th 2007 5:23PM]

So how much energy does that "catalyst" thingy consume to get produced? And how often do I refill it? Ouch.

[t3_slider @ Sep 16th 2007 5:42PM]

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.

[Dragoneye @ Sep 16th 2007 5:43PM]

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.

[andr @ Sep 16th 2007 5:48PM]

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.

[skraddah @ Sep 16th 2007 6:15PM]

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.

[Dragoneye @ Sep 16th 2007 6:19PM]

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.

[Dragoneye @ Sep 16th 2007 6:28PM]

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.

[skraddah @ Sep 16th 2007 6:48PM]

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

[Dragoneye @ Sep 16th 2007 7:02PM]

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.

[skraddah @ Sep 16th 2007 7:15PM]

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

[Dragoneye @ Sep 16th 2007 8:29PM]

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

[treetrunk @ Sep 16th 2007 9:03PM]

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.

[ryan @ Sep 16th 2007 9:05PM]

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.

[RJRibeira @ Sep 16th 2007 9:19PM]

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.

[RJRibeira @ Sep 16th 2007 9:29PM]

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.

[skraddah @ Sep 16th 2007 10:01PM]

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.

[Kyle @ Sep 16th 2007 5:35PM]

these guys are like modern day alchemist trying to find a secret formula for lead into gold...

[Josh L @ Sep 16th 2007 5:47PM]

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.