Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redacted123]

-

[Earthquake Damage]

I'll only address one thing:  They claim the box can use a wide variety of energy sources (e.g. natural gas, wind, sunlight).

I doubt anyone can effectively use more than one of these with the same box simultaneously, and there's no way they can use all of them effectively.  So they're basically overcharging for a general-purpose box when most end users would benefit much more from specialized boxes designed to use just one energy source each.  Specialization is usually more efficient anyway.

Want solar power?  Buy a solar power box.  Want to use natural gas?  Buy a natural gas box.

[Akroma]

I would definetly prefer some more scientific articles on that thing, instead of just promises as to how this can take in almost any kind of fuel, including solar energy

whaaaaat?

how can something convert both solar rays and chemical energy into electricity ?
those two are entirely different in nature and application

chemical energy works, and solar energy works, but making both work in a single gadget seems impossible


and what kind of chemical reaction are they talking about ?

[Earthquake Damage]

This purported clean energy source is apparently capable of taking in Oxygen and any fuel such as natural gas and bio-fuel and producing clean energy, no burning or emissions.

And another thing:  No burning implies they're not oxidizing the fuel.  So what sort of reaction are they using?  We burn stuff to extract energy (mostly as heat).  How are they consuming fuel and oxygen without oxidizing the fuel?  I smell black magic!

Oh, and whatever happened to economies of scale?  Are these boxes really more efficient than the same technology applied to a larger power plant?

[redacted123]

-

[Earthquake Damage]

I'm just wondering what the hell they're doing if they're not burning the fuel but still need oxygen as an input.

And please note that the fuels in question are hydrocarbons ("natural gas and bio-fuel").

[redacted123]

-

[Akroma]

reversing the process, while still having a net-gain of energy ?

I am most intrigued, because hey, that's a perpetual motion mashine.

[andrea]

well, whatever he built for NASA probably took some energy to work... if he really built that. and if the first reaction goes "uphill"(needs energy) then the opposite one may be "downhill" ( releasing energy.). Still it looks very much like a magic box, rather than a piece of technology. But if it actually exist and works, I am really curious to see how it works. byproduct would probably be a rock or CO2, if he reversed a reaction that was supposed to happen on mars.
Since Co2 is quite unclean, then I suppose it takes fuel and gives stones with high carbon content. Or some other fancy thing.

I read that they will officially speak about this Wednesday... we will see.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I want a nuclear box. I take box to mean something the size of, say, a large engine.

In other words, I want a fallout style nuclear Cadillac.

EDIT:
Just saw the goddamn box. Even considering the size of big old cars, no awesome high-tech hot rod for me :<.

[redacted123]

-

[Sensei]

I want a nuclear box. I take box to mean something the size of, say, a large engine.

In other words, I want a fallout style nuclear Cadillac.

EDIT:
Just saw the goddamn box. Even considering the size of big old cars, no awesome high-tech hot rod for me :<.

You realize Ford already tried that, and it was a flop, right?

Besides, it's a dirty bomb if someone crashes and burns, to say nothing of driving into a building deliberately.

[Eagleon]

In the interview with CBS he says he "bakes" "beach sand" and paints on the anode and cathodes. Essentially he's using glass wafers (or more probably some more advanced ceramic) as the electrolyte component in a proton exchange electrochemical cell. Nothing mystical or non-scientific about that. If he's developed a non-expensive and long-lasting formula for the anode/cathodes, this could very well be legitimate. Fuel cells are theoretically very efficient power producers, the problem has been making them cheap enough to be worth it.

[Lord Dakoth]

He has been running a pilot project of the technology at the University of Tennessee for the last two years, where the Bloom Box reportedly proved twice as efficient as traditional power sources and produced 60% fewer emissions.

I am incredibly skeptical of the take on efficiency. Alternative energy is horrifyingly inefficient when compared to coal/oil/nuclear. I always hear about how such-and-such energy source is "clean, efficient, and renewable." After looking into it, I always discover that the U.S. government is saturating the market with subsidies (like tax credits and the like) in order to make it a remotely viable option for businesses and residences.

I'm not going to be holding my breath, but if the man managed to create a new efficient energy source, good for him.

[smigenboger]

XD