PURIFYING WATER - MAKING WATER BATTERIES * Dr. Gerald Pollack discovered an Exclusion Zone in water where it contacts any surface. This zone becomes negatively charged by light and tends to exclude impurities. So the following setup was found to make water 200 times more pure. Putting the purified water through the setup again would make it 40,000 times more pure. * Dr. Pollack's video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7jKL2-B0QA * The Pollack Laboratory home page: http://faculty.washington.edu/ghp/ * The water bridge is explained by this discovery. Here's a water bridge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhBn1ozht-E&NR=1 * The natural charge separation in water makes it a plasma. It can also produce electricity.
fosborn
Re: Technology
Lloyd »The natural charge separation in water makes it a plasma. It can also produce electricity
I thought it was awesome how he compared it to the way plants do photosynthesis. Also I wonder what the efficiency might be compared to solar cells? I think they up to 24%. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea ... rd-at-24-2
Looks like we might be using plants for batteries some day. This a 250 mv scale on the voltage output graph of the water battery they tested.
Nitai
Re: Technology
Water Battery is cool. 4th Phase of Water is also cool. I like his research and presentation!
Lloyd
Re: Technology
* Who's going to build one of those devices to purify water? It should work on any water, including salt water, bacteria infested water etc. Pollack used nafion tubing, apparently because it's hydrophobic, repels water. But I don't know if it's necessary to use that to get the same effect. Nafion tubing doesn't seem too expensive. Do a Google search under Shopping to find some sources. Otherwise, you can run melted wax through a hose to get a wax coating, which would be hydrophobic. I think I'll try something without hydrophobic coatings to see if it works anyway. I think you could tell if it works by using salt water. If it tastes less salty after running through the device, then it works. I think the gap between the two tubes needs to be about half a millimeter.
fosborn
Re: Technology
Lloyd » Nafion tubing doesn't seem too expensive. Do a Google search under Shopping to find some sources.
Qty Product Catalog Number Price
Nafion Dryer 18 inches long with male luer connectors 17049 50.00 Buy 5 or more for $45.00 each
Nafion unbraided, 0.64mm ID, per meter 17048-XS 95.00 Buy 5 or more for $75.00 each
For this reason, exposure of Nafion to tap water will "denature" the Nafion. Substitution of other cations (positively charged ions) for the hydrogen ions bound to Nafion will reduce its ability to permeate water. Depending upon the size and chemical nature of the other cations,this reduction in water permeability will be severe. http://www.permapure.com/tech-notes/key ... y-concepts
I thought he said in his lecture people were working on the purification system. Also, I didn't here him talk about retentsion time for contact, to seperate the charges? I would think the micro beads would be pretty handy to experiment with. We have a Zenon purification system at work, I think it uses Nafion, first time we replace a cartridge, I will get some samples and check it out ( only with gloves on, it purifies waste water)
solrey
Re: Technology
Lloyd, the materials they use are hydrophilic, or water absorbing...not hydrophobic water repelling.
We find, however, that colloidal and molecular solutes are profoundly excluded from the vicinity of hydrophilic surfaces, to distances up to several hundred micrometers.
On the Pollack Laboratory site there is a section covering water-based technology. Desalination is one of them.
Desalination. Obtaining drinking water from seawater has been fraught with the problem of excessive energy requirements. This limits practicality. The separation principle outlined above is a promising alternative because it is powered by radiant energy, which is typically abundant in areas in which drinking water is most seriously needed. Hence, the idea of exploiting this principle for desalination is attractive. At present we are exploring the underlying scientific issues that could make this approach practical.
They are also looking at generating electricity.
Energy from Water and Light. We found that the solute-exclusion zone is charged, while the zone beyond is oppositely charged. This separation constitutes a battery, from which current can be drawn. The battery is re-charged by incident radiant energy. Hence, the process resembles photosynthesis in that incident light yields charge-separation and useful energy. It is effectively a photoelectric effect, except that the medium is ordered water.
I would design a thermosiphon system with a modified version of the filter with an electrode in each concentric tube. Charge separation would be maintained throughout the length of the modified filter. The two separate outflows would re-mix in a hot water tank located above the collector panel in a closed loop system, thereby maintaining a steady cycle of charge separation and recombination.
Several modified filters would be used in a passive solar collector providing both electricity and hot water.
I've installed both photovoltaic electric and passive solar hot water but they're two completely separate systems so to think we might be able to combine the two is like a dream come true. Other advantages a "water battery" would have over photovoltaics is no rare earth metals would be required and way less toxic waste produced in the manufacturing process. Indeed, if water can store a charge like a battery, that might eliminate the need for traditional batteries required for photovoltaics where the water based system might only require a capacitor bank to produce a steady output. It seems as though there is potential to both generate and store electricity with this system. I think I'll call it pH2O-electric.
cheers
Lloyd
Re: Technology
* Thanks for the clarifications, guys. I wonder why Pollack's diagram shows nafion tubing, if hydrophilic material works best. I guess it shouldn't be hard to discover which materials work best anyway. * Yes, I remember the video said the exclusion zone at the perimeter of water is about 500 microns thick, which is about half a millimeter. A milimeter is a 25th of an inch, so half of that is a 50th, or 2 hundredths of an inch. I guess the thickness of it may depend on how much light reaches the water. * I hope to set up a purifier one of these days. I'm discussing it with my brother tonight.
fosborn
Re: Technology
Hey Lloyd, I wanted to see if I could measure electrical charge using light to create an Exclusion Zone. So I have a 150ml beaker filled with bottled water, a coiled copper wire shallow on top and one on the bottom ( I might try deionized later).
BeakerCopperConductor22gaWire.JPG
Turned off the lights to let the volt meter settle down to its lowest level and measured it, then turned on the light. No change.
NoWater_meterValue1.JPG
So I turned on a 250 Watt IR Heat lamp (if some is good more is better ).
H2OTestOvr.JPG
Nada, Nope, accessed denied.
solrey posted a link (Re: Evaporation of H2O) to a Dr. Polack interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRh38KfT8pw With the advice to watch it. So He mentioned how IR keeps re radiating after the source is gone. So I got a cooler and put the apparatus in there.
Cooler.JPG
Crashed and burned, no change.
But then Dr. Polack talked how boiling water will create an Exclusion Zone.
BoilWater.JPG
I thought I was on to something, when I could see bubbles rising to the top and dancing on the surface. Then poured it in the beaker and hooked up the meter leads.
BoiledTested.JPG
I didn't get vary far with light, but boiling caused the charge to last about 3 or 4 minutes before it began to drop off.
Lloyd
Re: Technology
Fosborn's Report * Thanks for the report, Fosborn. It's nice that you're getting to practice organizing and posting images and carrying out such an experiment, but I don't know if the images will be much appreciated by admin. They used to remove images after a while. I don't know if it's because they make it harder for low bandwidth computer users, or if it increases the chances of the forum crashing too much. So don't be surprised if they don't stick around. I learned to post URL links along with the images, so, if the images get removed, people can still click on the links. * By the way, I'm not an expert on electricity etc, but since the exclusion zone is only about half a millimeter wide next to the walls of the container, it's probably necessary to use a conductive container to measure a current and connect one lead to the container and place the other in the center of the water, not touching the container. And you may have to measure the resistance, instead of the current. Purifying Saltwater * I talked with my brother about trying to purify water, so I hope he'll try that out soon. I suggested that he add a bunch of salt to the water and use a multimeter on it to see how strong a current the water has before and after running it through the tubes. As he pointed out, he'd have to measure the resistance in ohms, rather than the current in amps. I think the resistance should be a lot less in saltier water and higher in less salty water. Which means the current would be stronger in salty water and weak in pure water, as I think pure water is not a good conductor. So I hope to hear from him about that some day. In the mean time, anyone else is welcome to try that. I mentioned to my brother that with salt I can see a possible problem with the fact that I think the sodium and chloride separate into positive and negative ions, instead of remaining as neutral microparticles. So it's possible that this method won't desalinate saltwater. I see that the sodium is positive and the chlorine is negative. Light is supposed to separate water into negative ions along the container surfaces and positive ions in the center. It seems that the positive sodium would be attracted to the negative water and the negative chloride would move toward the positive water in the center. So we might end up with water containing sodium. But that might be better than having salt in it. * So that's a question for anyone who's read Pollack's material. Does he explain what happens with saltwater?
fosborn
Re: Technology
Thanks for evaluating my post Lloyd.
byLloyd » but I don't know if the images will be much appreciated by admin. They used to remove images after a while. I don't know if it's because they make it harder for low bandwidth computer users, or if it increases the chances of the forum crashing too much. So don't be surprised if they don't stick around.
Thanks for the advice. I think I rember such information from past reading now.
byLloyd » By the way, I'm not an expert on electricity etc, but since the exclusion zone is only about half a millimeter wide next to the walls of the container,
I was thinking exclusion zones were also part of the structure of surface tension. So I wanted to test for voltage potential across a resistance, charge separation. I thought it would be testing for plasma like effects. Also I repeated test without the coiled conductor and used only the end of the conductor to penetrate the surface as little as I could adjust it to. I think it eliminated some voltage fluctuations from induced stray voltages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRh38KfT8pw In Dr. Pollack's youtube interview, he commented that the boiling of the water isn't necessarily what might create the exclusion zones. He thought the bubbles create them and each bubble has its own. I noticed that it took several minutes for the voltages to dissipate and is vary exciting to me. Sense they hang arround a while a person has more opertunity to utilze them. I think my next obvious step is to pull out my fish tank air pump and do similar test with it.
Purifying Saltwater * I talked with my brother about trying to purify water, so I hope he'll try that out soon. I suggested that he add a bunch of salt to the water and use a multimeter on it to see how strong a current the water has before and after running it through the tubes. As he pointed out, he'd have to measure the resistance in ohms, rather than the current in amps. I think the resistance should be a lot less in saltier water and higher in less salty water. Which means the current would be stronger in salty water and weak in pure water, as I think pure water is not a good conductor. So I hope to hear from him about that some day. In the mean time, anyone else is welcome to try that. I mentioned to my brother that with salt I can see a possible problem with the fact that I think the sodium and chloride separate into positive and negative ions, instead of remaining as neutral microparticles. So it's possible that this method won't desalinate saltwater. I see that the sodium is positive and the chlorine is negative. Light is supposed to separate water into negative ions along the container surfaces and positive ions in the center. It seems that the positive sodium would be attracted to the negative water and the negative chloride would move toward the positive water in the center. So we might end up with water containing sodium. But that might be better than having salt in it. * So that's a question for anyone who's read Pollack's material. Does he explain what happens with saltwater?
If it turns out bubbles alone can produce lingering exclusion zones, at the water surface, could a simple low tech device of simple decant water, suffice for purification? Decant; as water spilling over the top of a container, at low enough rate, not to exceed exclusion zone production? You could still test for the conductivity of water before and after.
Even more low tech, Dr. Pollack said jello utilizes exclusion zones, what I might try is put jello mix in salt water and test for conductivity before and after. Should not the jello have a much lower content?
Lloyd
Power from Water
Creating power from water March 25, 2011 by Katie Gatto http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-power.html This sounds similar to Pollack's research. The Tata Group and SunCatalytix have found that placing an artificial sheet of cobalt- and phosphate-coated silicon into a jar of water produced an effect similar to photosynthesis. The splitting of hydrogen from water was used to generate more power than existing solar panels can. By next year the team expects to be able to power a small home with only a bottle of water. * See http://www.suncatalytix.com/tech.html.
Lloyd
Make Solar Panels from Cheap Solar Cells
Make Solar Panels from Cheap Solar Cells * I just found out about how to get cheap solar cells with which to make your own solar panels cheap at this site: http://www.homemadeenergy.org. * Then I found this site, http://www.bringaboutgreen.com/solar/where-buy-solar-cells, which has a link to where to find solar cell dealers to order from on eBay. You can also go to eBay and search for "solar cells". This site says tabbed solar cells are a little more expensive than untabbed ones, but it takes about 6 hours to make a solar panel from untabbed solar cells, but about 2 hours from tabbed solar cells. So the tabbed ones are likely worth the small extra price. * I'm in NH now with an RV and I plan to order solar cells soon and make a solar panel. They should save lots of money on electricity prices. * Pollack's findings mentioned earlier in this thread show that illuminated water produces charge separation, like a battery, so how would one get the charges to produce a current? Could small transparent containers of water be illuminated and generate electricity, like solar cells? If so, how much current would Pollack's water battery produce? * I heard a long time ago that a pile of decaying organic matter, compost, generates electric current, so one can put electric leads at the top and bottom of the pile to power a lightbulb. Living plants or animals might be better for producing electric current. Eels generate currents, you know.
Removing salt from salt water is almost as simple. Use one of those boxes. Put in a glass of saltwater. Sun will evaporate it and it will condense on the top and run down to the bottom. Put the water into a 2nd growth box to remove more salt. On a bigger scale i d combine it with a cleaning method based on plants.
Keep the salt, its required for food
Take the water from 2nd box and use the SODIS method on it.
Happy survival
Lloyd
Re: Technology
Thorium Nuclear Energy * Looks like Thorium is the way to go: something like 200 times more efficient than uranium and thirty times more abundant, if I remember right; doesn't need complicated water system; could even solve energy needs on the moon, as thorium is fairly abundant there too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw&feature=yout~ http://energyfromthorium.com
Lloyd
Re: Technology
A theory to explain a Windhexe: EU, Mathis, Mike or C.Chandler? by Chromium6 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:34 am
Tornado in a Can The awesome destructive force of tornadoes — iconized in ''The Wizard of Oz'' and fetishized in ''Twister'' — has been harnessed by a 65-year-old farmer who, as central casting would have it, hails from Kansas.
Frank Polifka, who farms wheat and milo, invented a contraption called the Windhexe, which creates a tornado-force wind within a steel funnel. A contained cyclone, it turns out, is very useful for pulverizing things. Polifka has reduced broccoli to powder. Same with rocks, aluminum cans, shark cartilage, coal, sewage, household garbage and the membranes that line eggshells. Now, with the help of business partners, his machine is being put to use on bigger things. Energy companies in Australia are using it to remove moisture from coal. A garbage-processing plant in Pennsylvania will go online with its Windhexe next month; the machine can turn two tons of trash into one ton of sterile powder. And in November, a North Carolina poultry processor started turning chicken parts into a high-protein powder for use in the manufacture of pet food.
Polifka, who made his first Windhexe about 15 years ago, designed his machine to push compressed air through nozzles at the top of the funnel-shaped can. Small deflection plates then force that air to flow in a counterclockwise direction, creating a miniature tornado. Using just a fraction of the energy employed by conventional crushers and dryers, the Windhexe breaks solid material down, increasing its surface area. It then exposes the degraded material to the heat cast off by its air compressors, evaporating any moisture within. David Winsness, an engineer who is working with Polifka to market the invention, envisions a day when every home will have its own Windhexe — churning loads of household trash and sewage into handfuls of fine powder.
These mundane uses don't mean the fearsome twister has lost its mystique. One of the most delicious things about the Windhexe is that theoretically the thing shouldn't work at all. Its compressed-air streams don't have enough energy to crush much of what it pulverizes. But somehow when those air streams are molded into the shape of a tornado, they become supercharged. ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.'' (Polifka has a 12th-grade education.) ''I don't know what it really does,'' admits Polifka, who once tried and failed to photograph the inside of a working Windhexe using strobe lights. ''No one's been able to explain it.''
).
