First discovery of a new electricity source in more than 160 years...

[KrazyHorse]

Why would there have to be water flowing continuously? The water has to flow is order to generate the current, but when you turn it off then you can allow the flow to stop. The energy is stored in this scheme via hydrostatic pressure.

Which brings me back to my original point that there's no way you can rival the energy per mass of an electronic or fuel cell battery.

Since you're going to have to generate the pressure anyway, then why wouldn't you put the energy into a more efficient form?

[Chemical Ollie]

As I've pointed out before, what it really comes down to is if a electrokinetic generator yields more energy than a traditional hydroelectrical one from a given flow of water. I would think that as very unlikely.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
The thing about nuclear power is nuclear fission does not actually produce electricity. A nuclear reactor is essentually a big heater.

It is a generator spun by a steam turbine that produces the electricty. That method of producing electricity has been around for a while.

That's true, but it seems that steam turbines hasn't been around for that long.

Besides, we also have fuel cells and solar panels. I am positive that they are more recent than 160 years.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
As I've pointed out before, what it really comes down to is if a electrokinetic generator yields more energy than a traditional hydroelectrical one from a given flow of water. I would think that as very unlikely.

That's what I said.

[Kuciwalker]

Besides, we also have fuel cells and solar panels. I am positive that they are more recent than 160 years.

Photoelectric cells I'm not sure about, though I know we had them in a basic form in the 1800's (in fact, certain strange things about them were what led to quantum physics). Fuel cells (batteries, right?) have been around for a LONG time.

[Dis]

yes what he said. I believe the initial article pointed out that fuel cells were aroudn 160 years ago. Though probably not in working form I would think. But maybe. They just weren't efficient enough back then to pursue.

[Japher]

I am confussed on what people use the term fuel cell for. Can someone clarify?

I tend to think of it as the converted power for H2, but then it could just be batteries, but still, those batteries need someway of charging them.

As for this capilarry power thingy, I don't think it will fly. Like Ollie and KH I don't think the efficiency will ever reach the standards of other alternatives. Though the study is nice and insightful and can lead to other useful discoveries.

Besides Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar, Carbon, H2, and Natural Gas there are plenty of other alternatives being investigated out there, with the afore mentioned being improved... My fav, which I haven't seen anything on since the fires in Los Alamos a couple years back was harnessing sound/harmonics to generate energy... That was kool. Last I heard they got the device to turn on at temperatures far below what they expected, room temp I believe...

[Dis]

this is sort of how I think of it

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell1.htm

[Japher]

That's what I thought Diss, thanks

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Japher
I am confussed on what people use the term fuel cell for. Can someone clarify?

Fuel cell means using a pH gradient to generate electricity.

[Japher]

Fuel cell means using a pH gradient to generate electricity.

Confused again... That's what a battery is, isn't it?

[Kuciwalker]

Right. Battery = fuel cell. You have an acidic solution on one side, a basic on the other, and it generates an electric current on a wire that runs from one to the other.