Comments for Urine Powered Battery – Too Good To Be True? at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 11 out of 11 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:15:17 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-30165 hi....my question is....where did u buy a battery? is it empty inside? how did you do that....sounds intereting.... pls reply as soon as possible...thank you!!!! - liz Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:35:01 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-28526 That is a weird and interesting concept - Fred Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:50:24 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-25818 I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. Joannah http://myscones.com - Joannah Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:03:29 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-24435 http://greenbydesign.com/shop/product/10-1022/ - Michael Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:14:40 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-24340 Thanks for clarifying, Brandon. I agree that it's more of an efficiency, rather than possibility, thing. My only point re: truths was that for something to be called a 'truth', then there shouldn't be more than one explanation. So yeah: semantics. Thanks for the clarification on the use of the term "chemical reaction"; being in physics, I typically refer to electron-transfer reactions as "chemical", and nucleon-based reactions as "nuclear". After a quick Wikipedia search I see that you're 100% on nuclear reactions now generally classed as "chemical" - it's on Wikipedia, must be true ;) - Kris Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:39:18 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-24338 I guess my point came across a little skewed. I wasn't saying that the phrase "getting energy from nothing" was some sort of rule to be broken. I was just trying to make the point that getting energy from a molecule of water wouldn't be "from nothing" because all molecules contain energy. The problem is finding a way to get that energy without having to put too much in. It was based on the statement Yoni had made about the process (not the process the battery make because I don't think that this battery is doing anything complex, just the process in general) Just to clarify, nuclear reactions are considered under the scope of chemical reactions. I would also like to throw out there that I did mention that I didn't think that this battery was working on that level, but I guess it ended up being a little obscure (I just mentioned it in a caption thingy [whatever you call these kinds of comments]). Lastly, the comment about truths SOMETIMES being subjective was meant to refer to truths like scurvy being a vitamin C deficiency (when it was "known" at the time to be a disease that you could catch) or Einsteins own beliefs that nuclear power could not be achieved because it did not yield enough power return on input (when they used protons to start the reaction before realizing that they needed to use neutrons). These were known to be true until proven false. Laws are only theories that have yet to be disproven. I'm not gullible, but I don't like to just assume things to be impossible. - Brandon Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:53:41 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-24335 It will be interesting to see how it is received in France where the word popo mean poop for children! NoPoop. Very good. - Nick Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:47:05 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-24333 Sorry, Yoni. I mis-spelled your name :( - Kris Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:24:22 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-24330 Brandon, you're not quite right when you say that nuclear energy is an exception to the "you can't get energy from nothing" comment. 'Nuclear energy' is just that: energy derived from nuclear forces. You even essentially say that above: "All atoms contain energy". This nuclear binding energy is released when events that are energetic enough can 'split' the nucleons and thus release the binding energy deficit. This clearly isn't "energy from nowhere", then. Energy is still conserved and Thermodynamics still holds. The source of the energy is just NUCLEAR, not CHEMICAL. The above case of the battery is an example of a CHEMICAL reaction, hence Yuri's comments on Thermodynamics and the "mixture of carbon and magnesium" essentially being the fuel (with water permitting the oxidation reaction). I suppose Yuri is assuming a certain level of scientific education on the reader's behalf. Perhaps this is wrong; although, I would certainly hope not. Regardless, explaining every point would be far beyond the scope of the story. Also, scientific truth is NEVER subjective!!! NEVER EVER EVER! If an idea is to describe the physical world at all, it MUST be logically consistent (hence UNIQUE). If there is more than one logical interpretation of a phenomenon (i.e. it is subjective), then it simply can't be interpreted as a 'truth'. That's the whole point of scientific research: finding a logically consistent, unique, description of particualar phenomena. This holds for all true sciences (e.g. psychology could have many interpretations of a particular phenomenon since it's more of a psuedo-science - not bagging psychology at all; I think it's fascinating). In discussing this, I'm reminded of this old post: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2223/ ;) - Kris Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:58:42 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-24329 If it could run on water.. why would you put urine in it? I believe this may be a hoax created by 9 year olds. - a. brown Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:37:09 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/power-storage/2568#comment-24323 I agree about being skeptical about energy creation when someone says it runs on water, BUT I disagree with you when you say you can't get energy from nowhere when you refer to water. All atoms contain energy and a simple example is the atomic bomb, where an unbelievable amount of energy was created by breaking the atoms of an unstable material. We only believe that the atomic bomb works because "smart people" already figured out WHY it happens (Einstein didn't believe it at first until a friend of his explained it to him how he figured it out). I can't say that people DO know how to create energy from water (I doubt this battery has the answer), but people have reverse engineered inventions without completely understanding the principles before. And I just don't like when people throw out little things as if they were obvious truths (of course, truth can be subjective sometimes) just to make the point they are proving even more obvious. - Brandon Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:58 +0100