Powerful video (watched at 2.5x using Enounce MySpeed)
Yay for the powerful women who refused to stand by silently. Most moving portion begins at about 6:28 . . . but you have to watch the build-up. The whole thing is strong, but if you're in a rush, start at about 4:47.
Yowza!
WWYD Employee With Down Syndrome Insulted By Customers - YouTube
Yay for the powerful women who refused to stand by silently. Most moving portion begins at about 6:28 . . . but you have to watch the build-up. The whole thing is strong, but if you're in a rush, start at about 4:47.
Yowza!
WWYD Employee With Down Syndrome Insulted By Customers - YouTube
The internet says scam. In my limited reading, I tend to agree.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Luke. Good call!
ReplyDeleteBest response I saw was this:
The origin of this article, appears to be Reuters, their standards are slipping:
http://www.reuters.com/news/video/technology?videoId=239348466
The second comment by Bruce, refers to support for this idea from
research by 3 people including Geraldine Botte, however she is realistic
about this project:
The Ohio University chemical engineer who invented the urea electrolysis
process, Gerardine Botte, was asked by NBC News to comment on the
generator. She responded, “What these kids are doing is taking urea
electrolysis and making hydrogen and then using that hydrogen to make
electricity.” Botte concluded, however, “You will never get more energy
out than you put in because you are treating urea … but it is a unique
and elegant way to treat urine waste, which will allow you to
co-generate electricity.”
Source: http://wafflesatnoon.com/2013/05/17/urine-powered-generator/
The girl in the video says that the hydrogen is temporarily stored in
the gas container. In other words this isn’t a continuous process,
making a lie of what the commentator says. The piping and equipment
looks suitable for maybe 30psi/ 2 atm (atmospheric pressure).
Hydrogen gas at 1,000 psi (medium pressure rocket tank) has a density of 1/120th the density of petrol.
So with a gas bottle filled to 2 atm then emptied to 1 atm, we’re
talking 15 psi of drop, which is 1/67th of 1,000 psi, so would therefore
have a density of 1/(120*67) = 1/8040th of that of petrol.
Hydrogen gives off three times the BTUs per gram, so 1/8040 *3 = 1/2680
That gas bottle looks like its about ten litres (10,000cc). 1/2680th
of 10,000 means you’re getting about the BTU equivalent of 4 cc of
petrol per each time you run it.
Of course, that wont be anywhere near enough BTU’s to convert into
electricity to produce the next batch of hydrogen by electrolysis.
I’m very disappointed with Reuters for relaying pseudo-science, but
well done to the girls for making what they did. It’s the commentary
that is misleading.
I don't know if I would call it "scam"... but definitely misleading. Here's an authoritative article and simple graph that explains how/why it's incredibly inefficient to do this. http://phys.org/news85074285.html
ReplyDeleteThe girl's unit does the "electrolysis" part. Note that by the time you're done, you've lost 80% of the electricity that went IN to the original electrolysis.
NOTE: I **disagree** with the conclusion of the article I linked. Just because it's inefficient does not mean it should not be done. Right now, there's a hydrogen-fueled car that costs about the same as gasoline to fill up (Honda FCX Clarity http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/). It only gets about 240 miles on a tank, which is a problem. BUT -- this is one way to solve the problem of refueling what is essentially an electric car. Compressed/liquid hydrogen can refill in a few minutes, whereas a regular electric car must sit for a very long time to "refill"...