Slashdot Mirror


Piezo Crystals Harness Sound To Generate Hydrogen

MikeChino writes "Scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have discovered that a mix of zinc oxide crystals, water, and noise pollution can efficiently produce hydrogen without the need for a dirty catalyst like oil. To generate the clean hydrogen, researchers produced a new type of zinc oxide crystals that absorb vibrations when placed in water. The vibrations cause the crystals to develop areas with strong positive and negative charges — a reaction that rips the surrounding water molecules and releases hydrogen and oxygen. The mechanism, dubbed the piezoelectrochemical effect, converts 18% of energy from vibrations into hydrogen gas (compared to 10% from conventional piezoelectric materials), and since any vibration can produce the effect, the system could one day be used to generate power from anything that produces noise — cars whizzing by on the highway, crashing waves in the ocean, or planes landing at an airport."

187 comments

  1. This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

    But can it produce enough electricity to power a small radio that plays the music used to create the vibrations necessary to produce the electricity?

    1. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by sackvillian · · Score: 5, Informative

      But can it produce enough electricity to power a small radio that plays the music used to create the vibrations necessary to produce the electricity?

      No.

      Sincerely yours,

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
    2. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by RabidRabb1t · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe you meant the First Law of Thermodynamics -- conservation of energy is violated.

    3. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      No.

      Sincerely yours,

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics

      But isn't the First Law of Thermodynamics to never talk about the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

    4. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that depends on what you do with the hydrogen. If you re-oxidize it by combustion, obviously no energy will come out.

      If you fuse it into Helium, you've got free energy until you run out of water.

    5. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by numbski · · Score: 1

      What part of 18% did you not understand? :P

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    6. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not free if you're spending water, therefore first law is not violated

    7. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      That only counts on a raed.

      Pools closed.

      etc.

      etc.

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    8. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Funny

      But can it produce enough electricity to power a small radio that plays the music used to create the vibrations necessary to produce the electricity?

      Only if you are willing to listen to Barry White all the time...
      You'll never find,
      another vibe like mine,
      to shake those crystals,
      the way I do...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    9. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by thrawn_aj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But can it produce enough electricity to power a small radio that plays the music used to create the vibrations necessary to produce the electricity?

      Am I missing something here? The summary clearly states - "any vibration can produce the effect, the system could one day be used to generate power from anything that produces noise — cars whizzing by on the highway, crashing waves in the ocean, or planes landing at an airport". Even if the conversion efficiency was MUCH less than it is (18% fta), it would still be worth it since you're using sound energy that is wasted anyway. It would be inefficient in principle but HUGELY efficient in practice since it would be using energy that is otherwise WASTED.

    10. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Khyber · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "No.

      Sincerely yours,

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics "

      WRONG! 18% pretty much specifically implies there is nothing CLOSE to violating ANY of the laws. The answer is YES. From the starting current from the battery, the radio will produce noise, which will begin the hydrogen-separation process. This hydrogen is converted into energy by being directly injected into the fuel injector and mixed with the atomized fuel. It will produce power.

      Sounds like you can't follow the basic route of energy.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your absolutely right, you're just getting bogged down with the pedantic ramblings of the Slashdot crowd.

      They're joking and arguing about a perpetual motion machine, nothing to do with reality...

    12. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you can't follow basic reading comprehension...

    13. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by toastar · · Score: 1

      But can it produce enough electricity to power a small radio that plays the music used to create the vibrations necessary to produce the electricity?

      No.

      Sincerely yours,

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics

      Not if you take into to count the power of Dance!

    14. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Khyber · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sounds like you don't have a clue what you're talking about - I've been playing with water engines for years. Give me a gallon of gasoline and ten gallons of water and I can drive from California to Texas before needing a refuel.

      I love how you remain ignorant of technology that has been around for nearly a century.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anarki2004 · · Score: 1

      tell you what, drive out here with your contraption and I'll pay for the gas/water. I will then proceed to take the device in question and sell it to Exxon Mobil for no less than one billion dollars.

      Seriously though, do you honestly expect somebody to believe what you just said there? If such a thing were possible, don't you think it would be popular by now? I know there's a conspiracy theory surrounding the concept you mention, but if you have a working prototype, WHY THE F AREN'T YOU SELLING IT?!?

      --
      The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    16. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Rouverius · · Score: 1

      No, that's "Fight Club."

    17. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it converts 18 percent of the energy to hydrogen. So if I have 1 liter of water with the secret sauce in it and I add 1,000,000KWh to it, how much hydrogen do I get? Will I run out of water. how much Hydrogen is 18% of 1KWh? Is this hydrogen under pressure?
      Sounds like snake oil to me.

    18. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence the third law of Thermodynamics; never question the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    19. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Only if you are willing to listen to Barry White all the time...

      "You'll Never Find" was sung by Lou Rawls, not Barry White. And now they're both dead. I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY NOW!

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    20. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damnit, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

    21. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a merry WOOSH to you.

    22. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would be inefficient in principle but HUGELY efficient in practice since it would be using energy that is otherwise WASTED.

      Even better, in many cases said noise is undesirable and needs to be blocked or deflected as it is. Using it to generate hydrogen instead = win/win?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    23. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what they get for commingling their music on the album "The Walrus of Love".
      Jeez, EVERYBODY knows you shouldn't cross the streams...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    24. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by MadKeithV · · Score: 3, Funny

      Typical for you Americans, always assuming the rest of world has the same Laws of Thermodynamics.

    25. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by thhamm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, because in Soviet Russia, Laws of Thermodynamics violate YOU!

    26. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by tzot · · Score: 1

      No, it's the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Never talk about the First Law.

      --
      I speak England very best
    27. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I'd like PiezoAnalogyGuy to chime in on this topic.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    28. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the laugh! Even if there was no 2nd law*, you wouldn't need it. Put this thing on the seashore and there's plenty of noise AND water.

      A kind of related question for slashdotters better at math and physics than me - if you plug a potato into a glass of water, how much hydrogen could you produce? How powerful would a potato bomb be?

      * The second law of thermodynamics sayss that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible. This does not apply to Thiotimoline, Star Trek, or Star Wars. In these cases the second law of thermodynamics doesn't hold water.

    29. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Jenming · · Score: 1

      Sure, but current fusion technology still has a ways to go before we can start using it for electricity.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    30. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Do you (or anyone else in this thread) realize just how little energy is in noise, from which this crystal can only extract 18% at best, and that a large percentage of the noise will radiate in directions that don't pass through the crystals, let alone be absorbed by them?

    31. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by numbski · · Score: 1

      I'd not be too quick to judge here. I'm of course not doing a whole lot of math here, but let's apply some common sense...

      Any time you apply energy to water, it generally winds up expressed as heat - so you get evaporation, and that's before we even start talking about the crystals doing the work that they do. You could of course presume you have an airtight container trapping the vapors, but now you're talking about a pressure vessel. In either case, you're not going to get a pure hydrogen - you're going to get hydroxy *at best* because of the water vapor in the mix.

      Would certainly like to see this in action, even on small scale. If it's even remotely reasonable, they have the potential to turn the whole "hydrogen isn't a viable energy source/container" right on it's head, because now you have a renewable way of producing it (noise won't just go away), and plentiful supply. Production rate vs volumes of water and crystals required would be good to know too.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    32. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      What gives you the right to bring logic and reason to a /. discussion?
      You must be new here.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    33. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by Stick32 · · Score: 1

      But can it produce enough electricity to power a small radio that plays the music used to create the vibrations necessary to produce the electricity?

      No.

      Sincerely yours,

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics

      but you don't understand maan... Their radios... they go to 11.

    34. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by thrawn_aj · · Score: 1

      Do you (or anyone else in this thread) realize just how little energy is in noise, from which this crystal can only extract 18% at best, and that a large percentage of the noise will radiate in directions that don't pass through the crystals, let alone be absorbed by them?

      I say it again, It would be inefficient in principle but HUGELY efficient in practice since it would be using energy that is otherwise WASTED. In this case, your argument is irrelevant since it is simply NOT about how much of the sound energy is radiated in other directions. So what if it does? It would done so anyway - that's the default situation. We're not hiring gnomes to produce the noise for this system - the noise occurs naturally. If you can harvest a fraction of it, it's still worth it. The question that WOULD be relevant is the following:
      Given the cost of building and deploying this system and given its predicted lifetime, will it produce enough hydrogen in ts lifetime to amply offset its cost? As long as a finite amount of hydrogen can be harvested this way, any questions of efficiency are simply not relevant.

    35. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      I'd not be too quick to judge here. I'm of course not doing a whole lot of math here, but let's apply some common sense...

      Any time you apply energy to water, it generally winds up expressed as heat - so you get evaporation, and that's before we even start talking about the crystals doing the work that they do. You could of course presume you have an airtight container trapping the vapors, but now you're talking about a pressure vessel.

      ... and any time you add pressure you decrease waters ability to evaporate.

      In either case, you're not going to get a pure hydrogen - you're going to get hydroxy *at best* because of the water vapor in the mix.

      I'm not sure what water vapor has to with producing a "hydroxy" (I'm pretty sure it's nothing), but water vapor can be removed from a gas using molecular sieve; hydrogen separated from other gases by weight and a hydrogen permeable membrane, and a hydrogen permeable membrane can be used to convert it all into electricity.

    36. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      As long as a finite amount of hydrogen can be harvested this way, any questions of efficiency are simply not relevant.

      BS, if it takes more energy to produce the device than it will ever output in it's lifetime (or than other renewable energy devices would make) then efficiency is completely relevant.

      You are fighting the wrong battle, you should be focusing on the device captures energy from ANY motion; which doesn't preclude it to sound. A bump in the road, the vibrations of an engine, the gust of some wind; all of these have a much larger energy input then the sound wave that is created by these events.

    37. Re:This SOUNDS Like A Breakthrough! by thrawn_aj · · Score: 1

      BS, if it takes more energy to produce the device than it will ever output in it's lifetime (or than other renewable energy devices would make) then efficiency is completely relevant.

      Is there an echo in here? Here's what I wrote in the post you quoted:

      The question that WOULD be relevant is the following: Given the cost of building and deploying this system and given its predicted lifetime, will it produce enough hydrogen in ts lifetime to amply offset its cost? As long as a finite amount of hydrogen can be harvested this way, any questions of efficiency are simply not relevant.

      The point is that people keep harping on about energy conversion efficiency when that is simply not the full story. Like in this case, where the energy being converted was going to waste anyway. In such a case, the conversion efficiency is not the relevant parameter. The total cost to return ratio must ALWAYS be the criterion for deciding whether something is worth it. Why is this so hard to understand? Sheesh ...

  2. But Mom... by voss · · Score: 4, Funny

    "If we dont play it at full volume we wont be able to save the enviroment!" ;-)

    1. Re:But Mom... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At minimum your kids in the Apt below me would save me an electric bill. They rattle dishes in the cupboards.

    2. Re:But Mom... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ok. We'll just use those numerous nasty earthquakes that have been occuring lately (big excitations (music playing in background)) to vibrate our crystal in the water to produce the hydrogen. Lets call it geo-motion instead of geo-thermal energy now. Hell! if we have earthquakes we'll create mini tsunami's in our expermental beaker of water to shake the piezo crystal to generate hydrogen.

      The next experiment is to create severe turbilence around the piezo crystal surface to see if the hydrogen is produce in greater quantities. What if we go to superfluids or heavy water? Do we create more hydrogen?

    3. Re:But Mom... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      That's why it goes to 11.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  3. Cost Effective? by rmushkatblat · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Is this cheap?

    If not, can this be made cheap?

    Also, how much can this be scaled up?

    1. Re:Cost Effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it's cheap, can it be incorporated into bedsprings?

    2. Re:Cost Effective? by tms827 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it's cheap, can it be incorporated into bedsprings?

      I get the feeling that it would be of extremely limited use to the /. community if it were

      --
      Take everything I say with a huge grain of salt. I don't know everything, and don't want to give the impression I do
    3. Re:Cost Effective? by Genda · · Score: 4, Funny

      Au Contraire, I'm certain the /. readers have already taken this problem into their own hands...

    4. Re:Cost Effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the magneto Fleshlight.

    5. Re:Cost Effective? by molecular · · Score: 1

      Also, how much can this be scaled up?

      Oh yeah, it can be scaled up. To power one average household (using a fuel cell), you would need the vibrations of a whole city. It's possible, though.

      And also keep in mind, if there's bad vibrations, the hydrogen will go bad, too, and therefor your power will be bad and crash your computer.

    6. Re:Cost Effective? by pjabardo · · Score: 1

      Have you any idea how uncomfortable it is wearing a wristwatch like device when you take the problem into your own hands?

    7. Re:Cost Effective? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      The energy is powering their wristwatches already.

    8. Re:Cost Effective? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't read TFA[1], but this isn't new at all; in fact, electricity has been produced this way for hundreds of years, albeit very tiny amounts of electricity. A piezoelectric microphone produces electricity, as does a coil and magnet microphone. Take a microphone, put each lead on the end of a diode to convert it to DC, plug the diodes into water, and one lead will produce oxygen while the other lead produces hydrogen. However, the amounts produced will be incredibly tiny.

      You can buy a piezoelectric microphone for a buck or less, but you'd need a shitload of them to produce useable amounts of electricity. The turning electricity into hydrogen [2] thing is also quite old, and sounds like a gimmick to me.

      [1] I must not be new here. From experience I can guess that they've found a way to produce more energy than expected and that the science writers will leave out important info, get it all wrong, have nothing important that isn't in the summary, or will be two paragraphs spread out over twenty ad-laden pages.

      [2] Link is to one of my journals, Taking a "hydrogen bomb" to school

  4. Re:Fuck you /. elitists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's actually a bit of poetry to your comment history.

    I'm not sure if you are going for absurd-ism based humor or if you're really that full of piss, vinegar, and flamebait.

    Regardless, keep it up. Slashdot needs biodiversity in the posting pool. People using mod points on you will help to ensure that mediocre posts don't get undeserved +1's.

  5. Thermodynamics by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds (no pun intended) like this material would have to absorb energy from the sound wave. I wonder how well it would work as an acoustic barrier bordering a highway. It'd be refilled by rain, powered by noise, and it might just block the sound better than those lovely concrete walls we have now.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try "It seems like..."

      Then there is no pun, intended or otherwise.

    2. Re:Thermodynamics by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

          The #1 problem here would be.....

          If you had an infrastructure where highway barriers were full of water, generating a perfectly combustion mixture (like, not just good, but perfect) flowing into pipes, which would (obviously) need to be somewhere close to the road. If they are elevated, they run a risk of contact with a vehicle, or flames from an accident. I've seen bridges melt from accidents under them. Below the road, the gases rising create an extreme explosion hazard at ground level. One cigarette butt thrown out a window, and you could have an entire highway explode.

          Anywhere around a highway is a potential heavy impact and fire hazard. If you watch the news, you'll see the "freak" accidents where cars leave the road and end up in houses or other buildings, or burst into flames for various reasons. Anyone who's worked for a while as in the emergency response industry (police, fire, paramedics) have seen vehicles on their roof. Thousands of pounds of pressure may break a pesky hydrogen pipeline.

          I'm not against it though, it sounds like an interesting idea, although not a solution. If cars were powered by hydrogen instead of gasoline, and the noise on highways produced hydrogen to power them, the evil laws of thermodynamics jump in and say "don't get your hopes up."

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Thermodynamics by davester666 · · Score: 1

      That's what we need. Little tanks of hydrogen, all along our major highways. Maybe with pipes connecting them to refueling stations in our cities. Or course, it'll be too expensive to bury the pipes/tanks...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Thermodynamics by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using some of that energy that being absorbed by the sound barrier sounds fine, even if that cars run on hydrogen. You are not going to be breaking the laws of thermodynamics, but if you get a better sound barrier with free hydrogen to boot, why not?

    5. Re:Thermodynamics by shermo · · Score: 1

      I might be missing something, but we don't we just make the cars quieter?

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    6. Re:Thermodynamics by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I agree. Some, but not all, would be recovered. Folks will get anxious if they aren't reminded.

          I'd worry more about the tremendous explosion risk. The farther away from the road, the less effective it would be. But, the closer you put it to the road, the larger risk it becomes. Being that not all accidents happen *on* the road, it's a huge risk. Beyond the mentions above, in one community I lived in, there was a nice car-sized hole in the concrete wall. It was down the street from me, so I never got the details, but enough energy to punch through a brick wall is enough to do all kinds of bad things.

          At the entrance of the same community, there was a brick island around a raised (approx 3' high) area full of soil and trees. The front of that was ruined by a minivan that landed roof-first on it. From what I recall, the paramedics radioed to the helicopter to turn around, since there weren't any survivors to rush to the hospital.

          Needless to say, it was a kinda dangerous road to be on. The speed limit was 55. People frequently did 65 to 80 (or more), and almost as frequently lost control and the result wasn't pleasant.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:Thermodynamics by zethreal · · Score: 1

      If we did that, we couldn't use the noise to make hydrogen for the cars they've been promising us for a decade!

    8. Re:Thermodynamics by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems like the actual barrier could be near the road with some guard rails in front of it and the rain reservoir quite far away. Reducing the risks somewhat. Besides the news networks would love this.

    9. Re:Thermodynamics by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Adds mass to the car, meaning it is going to be getting even worse mileage.

    10. Re:Thermodynamics by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      ...Hindenburg Highway?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    11. Re:Thermodynamics by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, you do have a valid point there. There's nothing better for the ratings that big explosions and body parts strewn along the roads.

          I'd hate to be on the cleanup crew when there's an accident on I-95 or I-10, and the explosion blows cars off the road for miles. I'd think it would be cost prohibitive to have flashback arrestors every few feet.

          Something like this would have been more catastrophic if a hydrogen/oxygen filled line was anywhere near it.

          Some accidents have large fiery messes.

          I passed a burning car on I-5 once. The driver was out safely, and emergency crews were already on the scene when I got there. I guess it just caught fire, I didn't see any huge damage on it, but the flames were at least 15' high. His car was on the shoulder, and no cars were in the right lane because of the flames. I was in the second lane from the right, doing about 55, and even with my windows closed and air conditioner on (it was hot out that day), I could feel the heat through the window for just the second or so that I was near it.

          Pretty much, if it could happen, it will somewhere. That is, until we invent crash proof vehicles. :) Since we can't even prevent crashes on railroads, which are heavily controlled, I don't foresee that coming anytime soon.

       

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    12. Re:Thermodynamics by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Funny

          I can just see the headlines now. "1,000 dead as 1 mile of I-900 explodes into flames."

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You could instead use a sound conductor, like a drum on the end of a pipe, channeling the sound to this device further away from the road.

      The drum/channel might even improve the process. Audible sounds between 10Hz-41KHz would be attenuated at higher frequencies by the drum membrane, but some of that energy is added to the lower frequencies. Just an educated guess, but the piezoelectrochemical device probably works best over a specific narrow frequency range. I might have it backwards though, high frequencies could be better than low (small particles = short wavelength).

      However, with loose particles vibrating against each other, the end result might be that the stuff breaks into smaller particles, becomes ineffective and doesn't yield enough hydrogen to be practical.

    14. Re:Thermodynamics by hipp5 · · Score: 2

      you could have an entire highway explode.

      That would be AWESOME. Wait, I mean... oh the humanity.

    15. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Those concrete barriers are actually being replaced by Steel SIPs filled with expanded polystyrene foam, produced by a company called OceanSafe and sold in the northeast by a company called Hodara Property Management. They are made from recycled materials and the panels themselves are of course recyclable. They are both cheaper and more effective at blocking sound then concrete barriers and are extremely useful in home construction, their primary use. Although not wildly popular due to resistance from builders who are used to building with stick, Steel SIPs are to the construction industry what the computer was to the paper.

    16. Re:Thermodynamics by daveime · · Score: 1

      Although not wildly popular due to resistance from builders who are used to building with stick

      Stick ? So you're one of the three little pigs ? Remind me never to visit your house.

      Mr Wolf.

    17. Re:Thermodynamics by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before you start throwing around the fud, maybe you should check a few pesky facts. Lets start with current cars. Pretty much 4 wheels a cabin, an engine and big ass tank of flammable liquid with a low ignition point and a high explosive rating due to vapors. It's fuel air mixture is also fairly wide. To compare, we have hydrogen gas... Which has a narrow fuel air mix, a high ignition point, and which is lighter than air. So now we imagine a freeway with a wall on either side. The wall is an aquarium with crystals and a piping system to extract the hydrogen into the grid. Now, your car, which is a finely tuned BOMB ruptures the wall, breaking the aquarium and the gas lines. What happens? The water pours out, probably retarding any fire your car started, and the hydrogen goes straight up and dissipates harmlessly. Most likely, you never had a fuel air mix capable of igniting the hydrogen.

      Liquid fuel used in automobiles is about as volatile as anything gets (at least in public spaces). Ng, Hydrogen and other compressed gasses are considerably safer. They dissipate quickly, require fairly small windows for ignition, and most of them require significantly more spark to fire up in the first place.

    18. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There seems to be a missing option in all of these comments. No one mentioned any possibility of having them under the road. I suppose the vibrations would be dampened more, but I see as safer as I don't believe cars could rupture the asphalt and I also doubt it would be able to catch fire. Next to this option would be some low structure that cars could drive over if they lose control (those low-riders being the only trouble).

      In isolated locations the structure could be attached to under overpasses. All that echoing would increase performance as well as the distance that the energy made needs to travel would be reduced as overpasses are typically closer to higher traffic areas.

    19. Re:Thermodynamics by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Consider what was suggested.

          The crystals would break down water. It releases hydrogen, sure. What do you think happens to the oxygen? It's in the same mixture. It's actually a very wonderful mixture, since it is broken down from a very happy molecule. I ran a torch on pure gases from electrolysis. It makes a nice hot and virtually invisible flame. That's a hint that it's a great mixture. Sure, the gases would rise, but it's rising from a pipe of some sort. If the barricade, as implied, contains the crystals, which react with the water, then that means your rising gases are close by too.

          Liquid fuel used in vehicles is flammable, but it requires an oxidizer (i.e., oxygen). So, the limit to how fast it can burn *IS* how much oxygen can get to it. Your fuel/air mixture concern is absolutely reversed. The ICE in your car regulates the mixture of atmospheric gasses with liquid fuel to make a combustible mixture.

          I can't say that I've ever spotted gasoline pipelines with connections to highway barricades. I have seen accidents with tanker trucks. They're big, messy, but isolated. They aren't long stretches of road. To the best of my knowledge, explosive gas pipelines don't run along highways at all.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    20. Re:Thermodynamics by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Of course electric cars (including hydrogen-to-electric cars) are MUCH quieter than internal combustion. That's the only problem with being efficient, there's less wasted energy to recover :)

    21. Re:Thermodynamics by Trouvist · · Score: 1

      OH THE HUMANITY!!!

    22. Re:Thermodynamics by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 5, Informative

      hydrogen gas... Which has a narrow fuel air mix

      I don't think so.

      Flammability Concentration Limits
      Hydrogen 4% to 75%
      Gasoline 1.4% to 7.6%

      The auto-ignition temperature is indeed higher for hydrogen, 500 Celsius compared to 280 for gasoline. I had not known that.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    23. Re:Thermodynamics by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Actually, the #1 problem here would be that it would be disgustingly expensive, an ineffective sound barrier and an inefficient energy source.

      To start with, lining the highway with any kind of fancy tech would be fabulously expensive. Maybe you could install parabolic concentrators to reduce the cost, but it would still be impractical this side of Dubai.

      Second, consider how loud a speaker with a few watts of power, compared to a nearby highway. Truck rumblings will probably hit the wall with something on the order of a few watts per square meter, tops.

      Third, if this is 18% efficient, that's not even 1 dB down.

      Hydrogen isn't nearly as dangerous as people think. It doesn't have a very high energy density, and it rises as it burns. In the Hindenberg disaster, an airship with 200,000 m^3 of hydrogen caught fire while still in the air, then crashed into the ground, and almost 2/3 of the passengers and crew survived. I'm pretty sure a car colliding with this barrier would be less spectacular.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    24. Re:Thermodynamics by twisteddk · · Score: 1

      I dont get why you guys are discussing the possiblity of a hydrogen burn/explosion. This would only happen if the hydrogen is stored, and then only if it gets stored in large amounts. At the infinitessimal amounts that appears to be released during this process, it makes no sense to even try to store it beyond what makes for an efficient amount to bother igniting it. Storing hydrogen is impractical at best, and as hydrogen has the smallest possible atomic structure, it can pretty much escape any container, so noone stores hydrogen beyond what they need for immediate use anyway.
      So obviously, the hydrogen needs to be used (almost) immediately, and very little if any amount stored. Presumably it would be burned to produce electricity for lights, or during winter for heating the highways, Both of which would produce safer, greener highways. Or during summer and daylight, being transmitted directly into the electric grid, similar to power from water/windmills, wavemachines or solar cells.

      --
      --- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
    25. Re:Thermodynamics by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You couldn’t use rain, since it wouldn’t be clean enough. And any dirtiness would attach to the crystals, until the thing stops working.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    26. Re:Thermodynamics by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      And, finally, delivering.

    27. Re:Thermodynamics by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      Errr... well, crap. As you pointed out, hydrogen is kinda nasty stuff. Still, being lighter than air, it rather quickly dissipates, which is really the main safety feature at work in this scenario.

    28. Re:Thermodynamics by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      My biker friends and I will pick up the slack. No need to thank us - we're just doing our bit to help.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    29. Re:Thermodynamics by molecular · · Score: 1

      One cigarette butt thrown out a window, and you could have an entire highway explode.

      I bet this would look pretty fucking awesome. Let's do it just for effects.

    30. Re:Thermodynamics by mforbes · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this also means that the poor (at least in the US) would finally have a leg up on the rest of us. Where else can you most often find people blasting their car stereos at 125db and vibrating every window in a 2km radius, but in the slums? (Trust me on this one. I live in a not-well-to-do neighborhood, and am seriously considering building a device to hit those jerks with EMPs.)

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    31. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, just transmit the power across wires to a station.

      You could probably still even capture some of the rain and pipe it to the station. (using as much gravity as possible, rather than motors to force the water to the place.
      Best solution for that would be to have the container deep under the ground, then pipes sloping downwards in to that.
      Have them all join at one main pipe before going to the container so that it could be blocked off in case something went horribly wrong.

    32. Re:Thermodynamics by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do you think happens to the oxygen? It's in the same mixture.

      You throw away the Oxygen as it is created. When the hydrogen is combusted eventually, oxygen will be taken from the air for the purpose.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:Thermodynamics by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 1

      Below the road, the gases rising create an extreme explosion hazard at ground level. One cigarette butt thrown out a window, and you could have an entire highway explode.

      That's only a problem with gasses that are heavier than air, like gasoline fumes, etc. Hydrogen is lighter than air, so would float up and not pool on the road surface

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    34. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that Inside the pipes the mixture would basically be a perfect 2-1 Hydrogen Oxygen mix, so the ratios required don't matter that much as the perfect mix is already present by construction.

    35. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about 100% sustainability. It's about reclaiming waste energy.

      Cars run an engine which converts potential energy into kinetic via a chemical reaction. There is waste energy produced as heat, unburned fuel (potential), and waste byproduct (potential, but probably unusable). The kinetic energy makes the car go forward. But then there's wasted kinetic energy in the form of drag. Air drag produces pressure waves, which is why there's always a steady breeze near a busy highway. Ground drag produces sound (which are still pressure waves, but they're higher frequency, smaller wavelength).

      So to reclaim ALL of this waste energy, we would need:
      - a heat converter in the engine of the car and along the exhaust system.
      - a fuel reclamation system in the exhaust system
      - a way of converting reclaimed unusable components of that fuel back into fuel
      - a wind turbine system along the roadway
      - and this system of sound-reclaiming crystals in panels along the roadway, and all of the infrastructure to support it.

      Heat conversion is shaky at best, and is unlikely to be integrated in the already-confined space requirements of an engine anytime soon. Fuel reclamation is a pipe-dream, and a sorting and reprocessing system is a double pipe-dream. Wind turbines along the road would be a MAJOR safety hazard at the height they'd need to be for this to work. Leaving us with a much lesser hazard (really, just good engineering could solve any problems with it) of these panels/infrastructure.

      First, barriers. Make them as tall as the current barriers. They're about 20ft (6-7m) high. They're usually textured concrete (with an attractive brick or stacked stone pattern stamped into them) to absorb a lot of sound. If you coated them with these crystals, there would be plenty of surface area to absorb sound from. This would likely be considered high-yield.

      Next, water. Make the barriers the front wall of a water trough. Rainwater can fill this, or it can have a level switch that permits it to refill from municipal water sources if there isn't enough rain. It should also be divided into "cells" so that the whole system doesn't drain if a single area springs a leak.

      Next, "explosive gases" and their containment/processing. The pipes can be BEHIND the wall and the water. Nothing is going to get through a 3ft (1m) wall of water and concrete, not even a speeding tractor-trailer. There will be damage, but it will be limited to a single "cell" of water, and any smashed crystal panels on that cell. Any load-balancing system should be designed to handle this. Not even a large impact is going to come near the fortified gas pipes behind that wall, and if they're buried, there's even less chance.

      This could lead to small neighborhood generators supplied by the gas pipe system. They could be about the size of a ground-mounted power transformer. These generators would be a much more likely candidate for catastrophic damage if they were installed the way transformers are. But they would be on a small capillary gas pipe, so there would be a small fire jet at most (much like a natural gas line does).

      And the captcha is "fireman". Fitting.

    36. Re:Thermodynamics by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Actually, due to an echo chamber effect, it probably would work better.

      However, the application which immediately sprung to mind for me was: use it with waterfalls. Not only would it be continual and mostly consistent power generation (with a replenished water source), but it could be used to supplement existing hydroelectric power plants (dams).

      (I didn't read the article, but does this device require non-pure water - ie one with an electrolyte - to assist in the splitting? If it did not, it would be significant. I'd imagine it does not, which would be the reasonable conclusion.)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    37. Re:Thermodynamics by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea! Let's put them along all the California highways!

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    38. Re:Thermodynamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is Ng gas? a Vietnamese fart?

    39. Re:Thermodynamics by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I don't know where you live, but in the approximately 20 US states that I've driven in over the last few years (Generally along I-5, I-10, I-75, I-95) I can't say that I've seen more than the occasional locations with sound barriers, and with the exception of the lower supports of overpasses, none were 20 feet tall. 8 to 12 feet are about as tall as I've seen for sound barriers, and those are usually in limited locations, such as where a highway passes by a residential community that bitched too much about the highway noise (good planning, put your community by an established highway). I can't imagine anyone in the community complaining about noise wouldn't complain about a 2 story tall wall along their community. It's overkill anyways. The idea of a sound barrier is only to put something between the noise source (tires, engines, exhaust) and the listener (generally not more than about 6' tall)

          The majority of barriers I've seen are guard rails, approx 2.5' high, and "K-Rail" or "Jersey Barrier" which are also 3 feet tall. The tallest reference I could find is the "Ontario Tall-Wall barrier" at 3.5 feet tall.

          Where do you live, where the highways are lined with 20' tall walls?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    40. Re:Thermodynamics by hallux.sinister · · Score: 1

      You know, this sounds (npi) neat, but the revolution is I think in how much energy they could harvest with this technique. It might be easier, and not require the water, BTW, or at least, not require the water to be consumed (by breaking into H2 and O) by using a mechanical amplifier/impedance matcher akin to the way the inner ear works, and then mechanically rectifying THAT, to produce electrical power in a more conventional fashion. What I mean is, rather than having to electrolyze water, isn't there a shorter way to use sound to make usable energy? Seems to me that the breakthrough isn't so much a "HEY EVERYONE!!! We can use sound to make electricity, throw your gasoline-using devices AWAY!" moment as a "HEY EVERYONE!!! Check out this neat and novel approach to an old problem which while it may never be commercially viable as a replacement for conventional sources of energy, which is really neat and cool from a technological perspective!" type of moment.

    41. Re:Thermodynamics by Geminii · · Score: 1

      There's no need for pipes at all.

      Generate the tiny amounts of gases and immediately recombine them to produce electricity and water. Plug the barrier into a suitably monitored/fuseboxed buried roadside power line using breakaway connectors. Rig the entire system so that if the barrier component is not upright and plugged in correctly, or if it has experienced significant impact, the components of the catalytic process are physically removed from one another.

  6. Interesting side-effect: by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can be used as noise insulation. There might be some drawback to building walls serving as giant water tanks, but the upside is that living next to the freeway might actually have some benefits.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:Interesting side-effect: by lokiomega · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wow. The guy above you beat you to the same exact idea one minute ago.

  7. whoosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  8. Car Troubles... by cobryce · · Score: 5, Funny

    The next time you see someone screaming at their car on the side of the road, they might just be fueling up ;)

    1. Re:Car Troubles... by FragHARD · · Score: 1

      Now I have heard it all!

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
  9. Since when was oil needed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...as a catalyst for producing hydrogen from water? Every heard of hydrolysis by plain electrical current?

    1. Re:Since when was oil needed... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Keyword: catalyst.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Since when was oil needed... by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      But oil isn't used as a catalyst in those processes. There is a lot of research into catalysts that would facilitate the splitting of water, either by electricity or by sunlight; almost all of it centers around solid structures of transition metals like platinum. The confused summary is probably referring to the steam reforming of hydrocarbons, which is by far the largest industrial source of hydrogen (but hydrocarbons are the feedstock, not a catalyst). The process produces abundant hydrogen from water and methane, but is energy-intensive and directly produces large amounts of carbon dioxide (that carbon and oxygen had to go somewhere).

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    3. Re:Since when was oil needed... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to get off on the technicality that it's easier to extract hydrogen from water in the vicinity of oil, and it's not used up since you sneakily put in more oil when nobody is looking. There, it's a damn catalyst.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:Since when was oil needed... by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      Good enough for me- that's clearly the "Nothing to see here, move along" step of the reaction, which is an important part of many industrial processes.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  10. the plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we design structures which will create the noise when wind blows over it?

  11. Re:Fuck you /. elitists by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

    Give me the option to have -1 given emphasis and leave me to post as much as I fuckin' like down here, you google-dick-sucking fucktards.

    Um, not to be one of those self-absorbed, uninformed heavily biassed assholes, but I believe the first 'G' in google in you google-dick-sucking fucktards should be capitalized.

    you Google-dick-sucking fucktards.

    There, FTFY. Have a nice day.

  12. Too little energy? by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could be wrong, but I thought sound waves moving through air carried a surprisingly small amount of energy. When it comes with tangible vibrations, waves so strong they pulsed through the ground and other solids to reach you, the net effect might create significant amounts of energy, but just loud noises probably wouldn't give you much in the energy department, especially at 18% yield.

    1. Re:Too little energy? by ascari · · Score: 1

      I believe you are correct. Besides, it really doesn't strike me as very cost effective way to generate hydrogen, unless those crystals are extremely inexpensive to produce.

    2. Re:Too little energy? by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think so. Recall, energy is conserved. So, compared to say, wind, where the energy level is high enough to move a huge mass of air around, the only thing they're talking about taking energy from is something at such low intensities that they're safe to use around the human ear (unless they stick them at airports, or strap them to jackhammers, or something).

      Sound doesn't even usually waste much energy passing through things, if I recall correctly; I think most of the energy is lost from the expanding wavefront. Then, I suppose that's where the 18% efficiency number comes in.

      I guess the only saving grace in this department is that it can (I assume) take input continuously and indiscriminately, especially if the materials are cheap.

      Also, suddenly I'm imagining some kind of hardware failure in some of these devices that have run out of water, produced a lot of H, and are now suddenly buoyant. That would be amusing.

      I think I need sleep.

    3. Re:Too little energy? by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

      Yep.
      According to Wikipedia a rock concert loud speaker generates roughly 100W of sound, a jackhammer 1W and a chainsaw about 0.1W. Factor in the inverse square law for distance and it becomes obvious that ambient noise will provide very little energy.

    4. Re:Too little energy? by HEbGb · · Score: 1

      You're correct. There is far too little energy available from sound waves to be useful.

    5. Re:Too little energy? by BillX · · Score: 1

      You're correct. The amount of energy conveyed in typical ambient sound waves is VANISHINGLY small. I work at a company that does, among other things, piezoelectrics for conventional (non-hydrogen) energy harvesting. It's certainly interesting work, but selling Free Energy in any quantity attracts occasional kooks and customers without much backing in thermodynamics or science in general. Kinda like all those over the years who have had the idea to put a kinetic generator inside a cellphone/iPod/palmpilot type device (despite the Nokia patent recently covered on /., which mainly covers a specific construction of the device using the battery as a proof mass, the idea is not exactly new) - enjoy your 2.2 seconds of additional talk time :-)

      Getting back on topic... my favorite was someone who phoned up to discuss a piezo-based sound energy harvester for a phone. Their idea was to power/recharge the phone using only the power provided by the user's voice. You could even harvest the remote caller's noise from the speaker! Then the phone would never need recharging, as long as the user made enough calls to keep it charged...

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    6. Re:Too little energy? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      120dB is 1 watt of sound energy per m2. 120dB is the pain threshold. So yea, even at that rather silly level of noise you are getting 700x less that solar (approximately).

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  13. Another idea: by algormortis · · Score: 1

    the system could one day be used to generate power from anything that produces noise — cars whizzing by on the highway, crashing waves in the ocean, or planes landing at an airport.

    ...what about nightclubs? I'm pretty sure the heavy bass would be able to produce at least enough energy to cover the lights, especially since they're off for the most part.

    1. Re:Another idea: by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

      ...what about nightclubs? I'm pretty sure the heavy bass would be able to produce at least enough energy to cover the lights, especially since they're off for the most part.

      Nightclubs?

      Nightclubs?

      What about Congress?

      This invention is screaming to be used in DC.

    2. Re:Another idea: by colonelquesadilla · · Score: 1

      There are various hot air engines already usable for that purpose.

      --
      It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
  14. Wall linings by Trogre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If these can be manufactured cheaply enough, I imagine boards of this being made and marketed by Gib for any place where you want soundproofing or a room with 'dead' acoustics.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  15. Um, no by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

    I happen to enjoy the shriek of my Ferrari, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  16. Any vibrations? by DirtySouthAfrican · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maxwell's demon anyone?

    1. Re:Any vibrations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any vibrations?

      Maxwell's demon anyone?

      PERV!

    2. Re:Any vibrations? by IICV · · Score: 1

      Maxwell's Demon is impossible because it is 100% efficient. This thing is 18% efficient, which is entirely believable.

  17. Whats the real efficiency... by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Compared to normal electrolysis of water?

    1. Re:Whats the real efficiency... by crazybit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In this discovery they use sound waves to get hydrogen (which you can later use to make electricity or move cars). Sound waves are being generated all over nature as a natural left over of different processes. On the other hand electrolysis requires electricity, which has a cost in our modern economy.

      You should measure not only the efficiency, but the total cost of energy generation.

      --
      - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    2. Re:Whats the real efficiency... by doishmere · · Score: 1

      This is electrolysis. Piezoelectric materials produce an electrical current when pressure is exerted on them.

    3. Re:Whats the real efficiency... by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Still there's an innovation factor of harvesting the electricity used to do it from noise. It's still to be seen if this can produce enough hydrogen to power, say, a vehicle, without having to wait days to fill the tank.

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    4. Re:Whats the real efficiency... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Sound waves are being generated all over nature as a natural left over of different processes.

      Sorry, but sound fucking sucks as an energy source. Take an 90 dB noise for instance, which is rather loud. What power does that noise deliver to a square meter of area? About 1 milliwatt.

      It's interesting that they got the efficiency as high as they did, but even if it was 100% efficient, 1 milliwatt per square meter just absolutely blows. It's a waste of time.

    5. Re:Whats the real efficiency... by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

      I should clarify, how does piezoelectric electrolysis compare to grid/battery electrolysis, obvious voltage and current differences.

  18. Sounds to me like ... by hargrand · · Score: 1

    ... the making of a lousy Keanu Reeves movie.

    1. Re:Sounds to me like ... by ardle · · Score: 2, Funny

      "If this bus goes below 150 dB, we're dead".
      I suppose it'd be called "Volume", and the next one "Volume 2".

    2. Re:Sounds to me like ... by hargrand · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking of this one.

  19. Re:Fuck you /. elitists by karlwilson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It seems your wish has been granted.

  20. Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, we have a way to answer the timeless question: "If a tree falls in the forest, with no one around to hear it... Does it make a sound?"

    I always knew it'd be YES, but the new question should be "Does it make hydrogen?" How naturally occuring is this Zinc Oxide crystal?

  21. Piezo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmm, piezo.

  22. What does this mean..? by v4vijayakumar · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Can anyone say bit more clearly like,

    - with ?? kg of this crystal and ?? kg of water one can drive a car for ?? km

    - a car like this would cost ??

    1. Re:What does this mean..? by daveime · · Score: 1

      1
      1
      1
      More than you earn, buddy

      respectively.

    2. Re:What does this mean..? by molecular · · Score: 1

      you forgot time.

      with one gram of crystals, one gram of water, constant noise and enternal time, you can drive a car to the restaurant at the end of the universe and back.

      too bad that, unlike in the movies, there's no sound in space :(

  23. This weeks Green Energy Hype by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So this was the best Slashdot could come up with for this weeks Green Energy Hype of the Week? Guess it was a slow week because this one is lamer than most.

    Ok, ASSuming they can figure out a way to separate the H and O before they just combine again. ASSume this tech actually works outside the lab and can be scaled up. ASSume it performs as advertised when scaled up. 18% conversion efficiency on sound waves? Sound doesn't carry a lot of energy to begin with and they will harvest 18% of it before losses in compressing the H. Oh wow, if we ran this stuff down a mile of busy highway we MIGHT generate enough energy to push one crappy green gocart/car down that highway every day.

    And that is the problem with most alternative energy schemes, they depend on ignorant people who don't know how the world works. There are LOTS of ways to extract energy from nature. The problem is that there aren't many that can compete with the existing sources because they are just so darned good, which was why we standardized on them in the first place. And if we actually do find a new good source, once scaled up it is a veritable certainty that we will discover that it too isn't a free lunch and that it also has a downside somewhere. And the second certainty is that the Greenies will be working to ban it because if it actually works it won't be alternative anymore. Kinda like music, when that great alternative/undergound band signs a contract and releases a hit most of their original fans declare them 'sellouts' and glom onto the newest unheard of band.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by hipp5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So wait, our current energy sources are so good and new ones might have problems so we should never try to innovate?

    2. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 0

      No. He's saying that most just aren't practical.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    3. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we should stop flipping the fuck out every time there's a new idea, and the media needs to stop heralding every new idea as a breakthrough destined to save mankind.

      Our current sources are good. That's why we use them - abundant energy, with many years of refinement in harvesting it. New sources generally suck, and are much less "green" than they're made out to be.

      That doesn't mean we should stop trying, and that's not what he said. He's just expressing doubt (his opinion) that we'll soon have something working, and he's making a well-grounded and realistic argument that even if we do, it will have its own problems and limitations, and not be the free lunch that all of these new technologies are made out to be.

      Anyway, 18% is pretty poor energy conversion, even if the source of the input energy is "free." There's a lot of good concerns this person listed. To add to it, I'd wonder what level of purity of the water is required, and how we'll get this water to the generators. And, maybe more pressingly, how we appropriate this water to such inefficient means of energy generation when water rights and shortages are such a big deal around the world, the US included.

    4. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      So wait, our current energy sources are so good and new ones might have problems so we should never try to innovate?

      No, just don't get over-excited about every new thing, without first looking at the costs and benefits. To use an analogy - if you're walking down the street with your girlfriend, it might not be a good idea to yell "boobies!" and run after every woman you see. Sure, you might get lucky now and then, but 99% of the time you're going to be disappointed.

    5. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is that we could use electricity much more efficiently but we don't because energy is still relatively cheap. Why don't we see zero emmission, low energy cars? Becasue it's BIG business and there is already a heavy investment in OLD technologies (petrol and diesel engines). Also it's really not worth the public getting worried untill energy gets more expensive. How many people worry about the energy their laptop / TV actually uses compared to the functionality?

      Hydrogen is surely the obvious future for CLEAN energy (WATER = H20) and as far as I know if you use an electroliser or fuel cell, rather than thinking of combustion analogies, you will see this is a technology that seems to be obvious but it has been suppressed due to commerical interests (making the most money from what you spend). I guess we'll never see the clean hydrogen economy untill the infrastructures are in place (and the H2 cars are cheaper). As people start to care, so does goverment and then business waits for help with the investment (to encourage the change). Companies won't change if it is going to put them at a commercial dissadvantage!

      Only now do we start to see cards powered by electric motors and fuel cells but these cost way too much (as they are not in mass production). They have just been for publicity. So I guess the car's will change eventually, when they've finished the petrol reserves on the planet and made energy hugely expensive?

      On a green point, electric car's with a ton of batteries are a joke as the batteries are toxic and also the weight casues additional mechanical wear.

    6. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by molecular · · Score: 1

      I don't know what's funny about parent's post. It's just insightfull and sane (in contrast to most of the other posts, what has gotten into the slashdot-crowd?)

      Maybe we could use this to power nanobots inside our blood-streams and then also use the hydrogen to blow open clogged arteries?

    7. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by jwietelmann · · Score: 1

      I think what jmorris42 is trying to say is that his politics prevent him from enjoying science anymore, and it's not fair that the rest of us still get to find these things intriguing (even though they, like every next-big-thing, might not pan out).

      At least that's what I heard...

      I mean, come on, this is an article about how to use zinc oxide crystals and excess noise to create hydrogen. The way he's reacting, it's as if a hippie drum circle invaded his backyard and started shouting about cars that run on hemp. (As a side note, if this happens to you, I recommend a tank of water and zinc oxide crystals so that you can take full advantage of the situation.)

    8. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      Ah, now it makes sense. I guess I missed the part about people flipping the fuck out, or the claim that this breakthrough was destined to save mankind.

      Come to think of it, I still can't find these anywhere, just a story providing a brief overview of this discovery and how it might someday result in some unspecified degree of power generation from noisy sources, along with some discussion and nerd jokes about that story in this thread.

      As for the concerns that jmorris42 listed, they are just as vague and baseless as any claim to the contrary and so are just as pointless, except that he went the extra mile to denigrate those interested in the subject. I'm not saying he's a troll, since that usually also insinuates insincerity and I see nothing to indicate that he is insincere, but I will say that the derogatory tone and arguments based upon broad generalizations were both very trollish.

    9. Re:This weeks Green Energy Hype by ThatOneSDGuy · · Score: 1

      This is interesting as a reply because we have been so often disappointed and wish something would pan out. There is no hype here, and only an incremental step forward, so speculating about applications is foolish, but... This looks like an application in places where vibrations are strongest such as Hydro sources and Natural gas power plants. Think of Niagra Falls using the ground vibrations to generate hydrogen in addition to electricity. Wave energy, small plants near rail yards and so forth come to mind. Our problems with Hydrogen are more complex than cost of generation through electrolysis, but this might be a step.

  24. Ah, Zinc Oxide... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:Ah, Zinc Oxide... by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that zinc oxide is being used in thermochemical engines to produce hydrogen.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
  25. Yada yada yada by Orleron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ....another genuinely cool technology that we'll never see in widespread use.

  26. This gas can't be transported... by Genda · · Score: 3, Informative

    My question is this "If you're producing Hydrogen... aren't you also producing Oxygen at the very same time?" So here you are creating a combustible gas mixture in a stiochiometrically perfect balance to go BOOM-POW!!! The gases are created together, you can't easily separate them. You need to pump this straight into a combustion chamber or fuel cell, because it's ready, willing, and able to off the instant it's created. It cannot be transported anywhere.

    1. Re:This gas can't be transported... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      My question is this "If you're producing Hydrogen... aren't you also producing Oxygen at the very same time?"

      Yes. What you're really getting is so-called Brown's Gas, an oxy-hydrogen mixture. In conventional electrolysis you get the two gases produced at discrete electrodes, so it's easy to keep them physically separate.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:This gas can't be transported... by evilWurst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > The gases are created together, you can't easily separate them.

      H2 quickly rises. O2 slowly sinks (air is ~78% N2, and O2 is slightly heavier than N2).

      So you build your water tank to have a lot of space above its "fill to here" line, and you put a long, thin, vertical tube out the top. Let the process go naturally until you trip a pressure gauge, at which point you bleed pure H2 from a valve at the top and almost-pure O2 from a valve at the bottom. You should get twice as much H2 as O2, of course (2 H20 yields 2 H2 + 1 O2).

      If the system is otherwise airtight and fresh water is added from a higher tank to a point at the bottom of the main tank, you'll eventually suck all the "normal" air out through the O2 bleed, and from then on the O2 bleed will be tainted only by whatever came in already dissolved into the water.

      Both the pure H2 capture tank and the almost-pure O2 capture tank are still dangerous, but at least you can separate them and use them for whatever you want. The H2 for a potential hydrogen economy, the O2 for industrial uses, maybe including things it's currently not used for since there isn't normally a cheap source of pure O2. I know yeast sucks O2 out of the air as it grows (breweries can be deadly to humans if not ventilated), and blast furnaces might benefit from richer air input.

    3. Re:This gas can't be transported... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question is this "If you're producing Hydrogen... aren't you also producing Oxygen at the very same time?" So here you are creating a combustible gas mixture in a stiochiometrically perfect balance to go BOOM-POW!!!

      Sometimes I hear even BOOM-BOOM-POW.

    4. Re:This gas can't be transported... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gasses don't separate the way you describe. If they did, those of us near sea level would be sucking down nitrous oxide. Not a bad way to go, really.

    5. Re:This gas can't be transported... by Mark+J+Tilford · · Score: 1

      IIRC, if you're using direct current, hydrogen and oxygen are produced at opposite ends of the wire. So separating them is automatic.

      --
      -----------
      100% pure freak
    6. Re:This gas can't be transported... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't separate out in the atmosphere because there's too much going on. Vast energy input from the sun, air currents, fire, organic life. Earth isn't big enough for the gases to naturally stratify very much. It supposedly does happen in the less-active pockets of gas giants, though.

      In an airtight box just sitting there? It ought to separate out. Especially when it's only two gases we care about. And mostly it'd just be the H2 rising.

      (note: Googling 'hydrogen oxygen gas stratification' gets a lot of hits...)

      > those of us near sea level would be sucking down nitrous oxide.
      N2O is rare (.3 parts per million, according to wiki) and reactive. It doesn't get a chance to concentrate. There've been cases of towns getting wiped out when nearby volcanic lakes are perturbed and dump a lot of CO2 at once, though; the CO2 is heavy and pools in low places for a while before natural wind disperses it.

  27. Amazing Tech by thePig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is such a beautiful idea.
    Beautiful beautiful idea.
    I will never think of something like this.
    I do not care whether it is possible to generate energy efficiently or not - this is a really really cool tech.

    --
    rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
  28. Here's an Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While this of course wouldn't be effective as a primary generative source, it could be very useful as a secondary income/efficiency improvement. Some current examples similar situations are 1 - Sugar Beet Processors: They use the dried leftovers from the plants to power the plant for processing sugar beets, somewhere in Hawaii they used to generate all of the electricity for the community from the excess power at the sugar beet plant. 2 - Dairy farm Power: Some larger dairies these days actually use the methane generated off of the cow manure to generate power for the milking operation. The way I would see this specific technology being used is in industrial applications. Where you have large loud equipment, such as electrical turbines, car shreaders, metal presses, or anything else loud you would surround it with walls of the crystals and water, this would generate the company some hydrogen which it could either sell or run through a fuel cell and pump back into its operation. And as a nice side effect it would decrease the sound given off by the equipment making for a better working environment. Of course this only works if the crystals can be mass produced very cheaply.

  29. Pardon my ignorance but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone tell me, does an equivalent amount of water split by this process eventually returns as water again? Or in other words... if this process were able to continue forever could it somehow permanently remove most of the water from the surface of the planet?

    1. Re:Pardon my ignorance but... by azalin · · Score: 1

      Burn! Burn! Burn!

      (No this is not flaming, it's a correct answer)

  30. Fuel from sound? Not to be sexist, but.... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 2, Funny

    Women with their "silent-but-deadlies" won't get as good gas mileage as men.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  31. How are they going to collect it? by director_mr · · Score: 1

    18% efficiency at converting Water to Hydrogen and Oxygen through sound doesn't sound very practical, efficient or useful. You would need to be in an environment with a LOT of sound, and that needed hydrogen. I can't think of many places like that.

    1. Re:How are they going to collect it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shuttle launches?

  32. I can see it now... by Naedst · · Score: 1

    In a few years time, you'll go into the Apple store with your iPhone saying that the battery just died. They'll check the water detection sensor and say the phone is dead and it's not under warranty because you let it run out of water.

    So either way, you're still screwed.

  33. Re:The solution to this is obvious... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

        I figured banning cars was the easier one. :)

        No cars would mean no car accidents. It would also mean that if we intended the system to be a fuel for the cars, then it wouldn't be needed.

        If they banned smoking, there would be a lot more upset people. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  34. And is it really 18% or 0.18% by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The air to water transition is a huge impedance change. so most sound will be reflected not transmitted into the water. Second Since they are talking about 18% of the absorbed energy being converted and not 18% of the incident energy, even once it gets into the water most of the incident energy is probably reflected or absorbed in the water itself.

    Unless they have already taken these into account it seems like the conversion rate of air acoustic energy to hydrogen energy must be in the fraction of a percent. Even so free is free, and some forms of vibration like car vibrations might be coupled in without going through the air.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:And is it really 18% or 0.18% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when is the first lawsuit against a Tesla Roadster planned for not producing sufficient car vibrations?

    2. Re:And is it really 18% or 0.18% by AigariusDebian · · Score: 1

      Build a wall of tubes with water as higway sound barriers (near houses). Less noise will get trough and maybe it will get some hydrogen to help power a LED light to illuminate part of the road at night (along with a solar hydrogen generator on top and a fuel cell in a closed loop).

  35. Electricity would be more practical by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

    It sounds like the crystals make electricity which in turn makes the hydrogen. If that's true then it would be more useful, if possible, just to harvest the electricity. It's a lot easier to move electrical power around, especially from a diffuse source, than it is to collect and transport hydrogen. Though the idea still sounds impractical even then.

  36. Spamradio by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Sure it can if you tune it in to Spamradio.com!

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  37. Catalyst? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    can efficiently produce hydrogen without the need for a dirty catalyst like oil.

    Whoever wrote this needs to hand in their geek card for not understanding the word "catalyst".

    If we could, somehow, produce hydrogen in a reaction catalyzed by oil, our energy problems would be solved.

  38. At last! by vk2sky · · Score: 1

    A way to extract energy back out of sugar-crazed, ADHD children.

  39. Re:Fuck you /. elitists by chromas · · Score: 1

    No, I think he misspelled 'googol-dick'; he's probably trying to sell us an enhancement of some sort.

  40. At last: a use for politicians by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    We need to get this installed in the houses of parliament -- get something useful back for our money.

  41. better than wifi-signal-harvesting by molecular · · Score: 1

    This is way better than the wifi-signal-harvesting-idea. At this reate we'll have free energy twice over in like 2 years. World saved. Go on.

  42. The Hindenburg Highway... by Unsub · · Score: 1

    ...is what the first road utilizing the new system ought to be named. "And now to Chopper5 for a look at this morning's commute...Oh, the humanities!"

  43. since any vibration can produce the effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since any vibration can produce the effect, the system could one day be used to generate power from anything that produces noise

    Small children, Internet forums, Congress ...

  44. How does this compare to Hydro plants? by sunking2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As anyone who has been on the Hoover dam tour can attest the generator room is noisy as hell and because of locality to the grid would seemingly be an ideal place. But compared to the whole, how much power could a fuel cell really produce out of it? Is it really worth it?

  45. Volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of how much power we could generate when we turn our amps up to eleven!!

  46. Concerts / Sports by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    So Rock and Metal bands can illuminate their concerts by playing louder? Niiicee
    Also think the soccer / football matches, the louder the fans, the brighter the field.

  47. How much E though, really? by AgentBif · · Score: 1

    So does anyone have any credible estimates on what the acoustic energy density is like of a typical office environment?

    Or maybe, what is the average power output of a typical human voice?

    -b

    --
    Privacy Statement: We value your privacy! It is very valuable. That's why we try to sell it whenever we can.
    1. Re:How much E though, really? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Using this chart i would estimate between 40-60dB. Or about 1^-6, aka a micro watt per square meter.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!