It makes me wonder if it’s down to understanding the units.

“But officer, I was only going 44.7 m/sec and the speed limit is 60.”

 

“But officer, I was only going 44.7 m/sec and the speed limit is 60.”

I have wondered about why so many writers in science reports do use such goofy comparisons. Of course, in journalism class the goal sis taught to aim for the least literate and avoid "big words", so that may be part of the reason why. But grams, pounds, and tons should be clear to most folks.

 

It is not just a matter of units. The public, including journalists, do not understand the difference between power and energy. This is a lack of understandings of physics, not confusion over units.

 

It is not just a matter of units. The public, including journalists, do not understand the difference between power and energy. This is a lack of understandings of physics, not confusion over units.

IMO most of the pop-sci journalists are not confused, they intentionally make the articles sound fantastic because somebody (that does understand physics) is able to find the nuggets to twist into the fantastic.

Classic example here: https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/captain-obvious-headlines.186851/post-1915558

Ian0 said:
Following the links at the end of the article leads me to
https://superinnovators.com/2024/06/new-method-makes-hydrogen-from-solar-power-and-cow-dung/
so they have reduced the energy to make hydrogen by 600%.
If they reduce it by 100% then it takes no energy at all. Beyond that it ‘s a free energy device so I’d better shut up about it.

The entire site reads like AI generated misinformation. The actual cow dung paper warns against using such bogus efficiency numbers.

While this non-circular approach has been used in the literature with some degree of utility for conceptual purposes, it should be used with caution, having also been referred to as a pseudo-energy efficiency to highlight the importance of accounting for the energy content of various reactants—for instance, in the pseudo-energy efficiency calculation, "efficiencies" in excess of 100% can be calculated.

The best part? The AI generated image for the article.

 

While the material in the picture can certainly be used to produce METHANE, I am not aware of fuel cells that operate using methane. It is true that hydrogen can be separated from methane, butr that process consumes a fair amount of energy. And none of the "free" covers the work done to compress that hydrogen, or the methane, to a pressure suitable for storage and transport. So whole lot of free solar power will be required.

 

 

While the material in the picture can certainly be used to produce METHANE, I am not aware of fuel cells that operate using methane. It is true that hydrogen can be separated from methane, butr that process consumes a fair amount of energy. And none of the "free" covers the work done to compress that hydrogen, or the methane, to a pressure suitable for storage and transport. So whole lot of free solar power will be required.

Yes, there are methane fuel cells. And it is much easier to store and transport than hydrogen.

 

Certainly methane does not need to be stored at nearly so great a pressure. But also, it is a hydrocarbon fuel. So not legal in California. Or maybe they cancelled that law.

 

The system functions by a pressure generator, that injects pressurized air into the tube thus causing the tube to move.

Did you get any further with this scam company?
I did some calculations on the energy required to press a certain amount of air into the bottom of the water column of 25 m high and the work that can be performed by this air rising ro the surface as it is also expanding going upward and guess what... they are the same.
As the buckets have a lot of drag going downward a lot of losses occur in the system and the bicycle chain powering the generator at the speeds in the video surely isn't realistic when the supposed generated power is taken into account.
It's a sure scamming operation.
( a bit like Sheerwind, you buy franchise rights to production of a non/ barely working system).

 

OK, now that the requirement has been made clear, we can make some progress. I did a bit of research to find the best pressure generator with the large flow capacity. The bad news is that none of the suppliers produce a pressure generator with the needed 1200% efficiency to make the concept work economically. Thus there is a fair amount of supplier research required here.

 

I work for a government agency and they ask us to be subsidized. They claimed 4 kW power for the air compressor and 12 kW power output. We asked all details about the KPP, how much air is in the buckets, dimensions, rotation speed, etc. This way you can calculate a torque, and torque x rotation = power. It turned out: 4 kW goes in, and 3 kW came out, so it has a 75% efficiency, and we rejected all government money for this project. The website is still active, and they operate from Montenegro now.