Talk:Electrohydrodynamics

This sounds like a perpetual motion machine. What is the source for the energy? What is consumed to make this energy? pstudier 08:52, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

I thought that it was the pressure that was required in order for the apparatus to generate electricity.--Chao 02:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I could believe that pumping water through the channels could generate electricity, with the energy coming from the water pump. But to say that they have "created a new source of clean, non-polluting electric power with a variety of possible uses, ranging from powering small electronic devices such as cell phones to contributing to a national power grid." implies something for nothing. pstudier 02:41, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

It certainly does. Typical overblown press release. It could be used to extract energy from anywhere there is a pressure difference, but who knows if it's actually any more efficient than current methods.

Isn't electrokinetics the same thing as electrohydrodynamics? If so, they should be merged. — Omegatron 12:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that this Electrokinetics is just perpetual motion, and I have labeled it as such. Therefore, I am against the merge.pstudier 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the press release was just very misleading. ---CH 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — Omegatron 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The term electrokinetics is an older term equivalent to today's electrohydrodynamics term, so I agree that there is no need for a separate entry for electrokinetics. However I do agree that the paragraph regarding the water electrokinetics device is very misleading to say the least. I shall try to reword that paragraph so that Wiki's version of the article is scientifically correct. - Blaze Labs Research 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the merge of Electrokinesis

EHD and electrokinetics refer to the study of ....., while electrokinesis, dielectrophoresis, etc... refer to the actual transport phenomena. So, the topic electrokinesis has to have its own description as do the other transport mechanisms. The EHD page being reserved for topics relating to the STUDY of the phenomena. So, electrokinesis should NOT be merged into EHD, even if EHD study covers the electrokinesis phenomena. - Blaze Labs Research 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections, I've removed the merging notice. - Blaze Labs Research 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re vandalizations of Lifter (ionic propulsion device) and Biefeld–Brown effect

Just a note re problem edits of related articles: the user.ono.com anon near Valencia, Spain has used the IP: 81.203.105.99 (talk · contribs) Apparently not the vandal over at BBeffect. ---CH 02:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not a perpetual motion device. Kwok and Kostiuk derived this concept from surface thermodynamics, and built the prototype to test an idea for a new type of energy conversion device. This electrokinetic battery doesn't create energy, it just converts it from one form to another.

Merge

Does anyone else agree with the merge? — Omegatron 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge, yeah. ---CH 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. From Science-daily article about the discovering: A team of researchers in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Alberta (U of A) has discovered a new way of generating electricity from flowing water. It may soon be possible to never have to charge up a cellular phone again instead, the phone could be fitted with a battery that uses pressurized water. And from Dr. Larry Kostiuk's website This interest led to a publication outlining the groundbreaking work that produced an electrokinetic battery in 2003. Pressurized water can not store a significant amount of energy because water is almost incompressible. There is no plausible mechanism for energy storage. This makes it a perpetual motion machine and not legitimate science. pstudier 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The press releases are bullshit. They're exaggerations of a device that takes some of the energy of flowing water and turns it into electricity. No perpetual motion there. Just pop sci fluff with a bad description written by someone who didn't do well in high school physics. (Just like the ones that say that metamaterials will provide Harry Potter's invisibility cloak in the next few decades.) They are of no consequence.

These little power device things are just one of the many applications of electrokinetics, on the other hand, which has been around for decades, and, as far as I know, is a synonym for electrohydrodynamics, or the science of electrically conductive or charged fluids. That's why I suggested it be merged. I believe "electrokinetics" is just an older term for EHD. (However, I was thinking about it the other day, and got confused, and started this discussion.)

And yes, you can pressurize water and cause it to flow through tiny channels quite easily. — Omegatron 23:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can pressurize water, but pressurized water can not store energy. I remember water rockets when I was a kid. The energy was stored in the air, not the water. I agree that most journalists don't understand conservation of energy or the difference between kilowatts, killowatt-hours and killowatts/hour. Is there a good description of this phenomenon that does not turn it into perpetual motion or a non credible form of energy storage? pstudier 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[1] and [2]? — Omegatron 23:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the Water EK section so that it makes more sense than the original press release version. - Blaze Labs Research 20:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electrohydrodynamics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822054546/http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/staff/Kostiuk/Kostiuk_index.htm to http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/staff/Kostiuk/Kostiuk_index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)