Lonnie Johnson (Almost) Free Energy?

[gfunkusarelius]

Hopefully there isn't a thread for this- I did a search of the forums and turned up nothing on Lonnie Johnson except the mention that he invented the Super Soaker, so i wanted to share an article in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution today that had the suspicious byline:

Lonnie Johnson, 59, the Atlanta man still known as Mr. Squirt Gun, unveils his latest invention that appears to do the impossible: generating electricity with no fuel and no moving parts.


Anyone heard of this? I can't tell if it is straight up BS, poor journalism exaggerating claims, or something legitimate. My baloney detector is pegged.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/10/27/breakthrough.html

[Frinkiak7]

Most electricity is generated using heat to power a mechanical device, such as a piston or a turbine. The JTEC uses heat to force ions through a special membrane. “It’s a totally new way of generating electricity from heat,” Paul Werbos told Popular Mechanics. The JTEC includes two closed hydrogen cells or “stacks” attached to pairs of electrodes. One is a low-temperature stack, the other is high-temperature. Current compresses hydrogen in the low-temperature stack, ionizing the hydrogen and forcing its protons through the membrane to the high-temperature stack, where the hydrogen expands. Current is generated as electrons are freed. The high-temperature end generates more power than the low-temperature end uses —- creating an excess that can cool beer or run TVs and washing machines. Hydrogen is neither burned nor added, and emissions are zero.

BS-meter is pegging something hard. So... the hydrogen is compressed, white being ionized, then having the now-free protons forced through a "membrane", where the ionized hydrogen (I mean, free protons) expands. That means you're left with a cell full of free protons? How does it then magically go back to being hydrogen?

[gfunkusarelius]

yeah, I was quite fond of the "membrane" seeing as how there have been a lot of similar claims, and they always have some sort of "catalyst" that they can't disclose because of X, Y or Z. But, hey, an editor at Popular Mechanics evidently said it is revolutionary.

[GreyICE]

First, both descriptions so far are incorrect. The device runs off temperature differentials. Since every combustion engine and turbine on the planet runs off temperature differentials, they're a very respected source of energy. Moreover, that automatically removes the 'no fuel.' It simply means the fuel source is flexible, especially if modest differentials can be used.

So, check one. Energy source exists, does not violate any thermodynamic laws, and is widely accepted.

Johnson, who projects earnings of $10 billion by 2013, claims a potential 60 percent efficiency rating, which doubles the efficiency of the current leader, the Stirling engine. Our very best turbines have pushed past the 60% efficiency rating. It's amazing, but not impossible.

Check 2: Claims are very unusually high, but not fundamentally impossible.


Most electricity is generated using heat to power a mechanical device, such as a piston or a turbine. The JTEC uses heat to force ions through a special membrane. Plausible. Heat is very good at creating pressure differentials, or pushing things.

The JTEC includes two closed hydrogen cells or “stacks” attached to pairs of electrodes. One is a low-temperature stack, the other is high-temperature. Current compresses hydrogen in the low-temperature stack, ionizing the hydrogen and forcing its protons through the membrane to the high-temperature stack, where the hydrogen expands. Okay, this seems like a variant on a heat pump. I don't quite see how you compress a low-temperature material without turning it into a high temperature one, isothermal compression is a pain in the frikkin neck to pull off IRL, but it is possible.

Current is generated as electrons are freed. The high-temperature end generates more power than the low-temperature end uses —- creating an excess that can cool beer or run TVs and washing machines. Hydrogen is neither burned nor added, and emissions are zero. Once again possible, but inaccurate. The input is heat, so the emissions are whatever you used to create the heat. Assuming solar, zero. Assuming natural gas or fuel oil, non-zero.


Overall: Nothing physically impossible, but at least two distinct breakthroughs. Very impressive, if an actual device instead of a woo woo. OTOH, this man is rich as hell, and has no need to rip anyone off for money, so the most likely explanation if its nonsense is that he thinks he's hit something he actually hasn't.

[Brian-M]

Paired with a parabolic solar array to generate heat, it would create virtually limitless emission-free power.
It's not creating energy, it's harnessing energy that's already there.

Devices that produce electricity from heat-difference with no moving parts already exist. They're called thermopiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopile). This seems to be a more effective device, working on completely different principles, but the idea of generating electricity directly from heat isn't new or revolutionary.

[Antranik]

an update... www dot theatlantic dot com/magazine/archive/2010/11/shooting-for-the-sun/8268/1/

[Michael Mozina]

Using heat to force ions out of a hydrogen cell, the JTEC “is just a stunning insight,” said Jerry Beilinson, deputy editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, which honors innovators in its current issue and sponsors the Breakthrough Awards. “I kind of thought we were finished; I didn’t think there was a new way.”

Heat (temperature difference) seems to the source of energy, so it's not a "free lunch" type of device. I'm with GreyIce.

[CORed]

First, both descriptions so far are incorrect. The device runs off temperature differentials. Since every combustion engine and turbine on the planet runs off temperature differentials, they're a very respected source of energy. Moreover, that automatically removes the 'no fuel.' It simply means the fuel source is flexible, especially if modest differentials can be used.

So, check one. Energy source exists, does not violate any thermodynamic laws, and is widely accepted.
Our very best turbines have pushed past the 60% efficiency rating. It's amazing, but not impossible.

Check 2: Claims are very unusually high, but not fundamentally impossible.


Plausible. Heat is very good at creating pressure differentials, or pushing things.
Okay, this seems like a variant on a heat pump. I don't quite see how you compress a low-temperature material without turning it into a high temperature one, isothermal compression is a pain in the frikkin neck to pull off IRL, but it is possible.
Once again possible, but inaccurate. The input is heat, so the emissions are whatever you used to create the heat. Assuming solar, zero. Assuming natural gas or fuel oil, non-zero.


Overall: Nothing physically impossible, but at least two distinct breakthroughs. Very impressive, if an actual device instead of a woo woo. OTOH, this man is rich as hell, and has no need to rip anyone off for money, so the most likely explanation if its nonsense is that he thinks he's hit something he actually hasn't.

I have to agree. There are no "perpetual motion" "over-unity" or "free energy" claims here. There is a claim of high efficiency. Whether this proves to be a practical device will depend on how well it scales and how much it costs to build compared to alternatives (such as various forms of heat engine). I would be curious if this exceeds Carnot efficiency, which is the limiting efficiency for heat engines (if that is even possible). If the device can work more efficiently on small temperature differences than heat engines, at a reasonable cost, it could indeed be a breakthrough for solar energy.

[TubbaBlubba]

This violates the second law of thermodynamics in a painfully obvious way. Energy cannot be extracted from heat without performing work.


EDIT: I see now that it has a low- and high-temperature chamber. This, then does not violate the law since you need to perform work to arrange them that way.

[JWideman]

What's not clear to me is how that temperature differential is initiated and, more importantly, how it is maintained.
While it isn't totally free energy, adding this to the chain would obviously make current energy sources much more efficient, assuming the above mentioned issues are included in that 60% efficiency figure.

[ben m]

I don't have a very clear picture of this membrane. Does it have *hot* H2 on one side and cold H2 on the other? Or is it just high-pressure on one side and low-pressure on the other?

[Ziggurat]

I would be curious if this exceeds Carnot efficiency, which is the limiting efficiency for heat engines (if that is even possible).

It's not possible. The Carnot cycle is a hard limit. Breaking that barrier would be perpetual motion. In fact, nobody even makes Carnot cycle engines, and for a very good reason: to approach that limit, you need to do everything quasi-statically, meaning slow enough that the system can always be treated as being in equilibrium. That's great for efficiency, but it's garbage for power, since you have to go really slow to keep near equilibrium. So every practical heat engine will need to operate noticeably out of equilibrium in order to get significant power output, meaning that real heat engines never achieve Carnot efficiency.

[Ziggurat]

What's not clear to me is how that temperature differential is initiated and, more importantly, how it is maintained.

For power generation, an obvious candidate (mentioned in the article) is the sun.

While it isn't totally free energy, adding this to the chain would obviously make current energy sources much more efficient, assuming the above mentioned issues are included in that 60% efficiency figure.

The writer of the article clearly doesn't know thermodynamics. The efficiency of ANY heat engine is limited by the temperature differential it operates across (mathematically, the ideal maximum efficiency is 1-Tcold/Thot, where 1 = 100%). Smaller temp differential, lower efficiency. So you can't meaningfully say that Sterling engines have a 30% efficiency, or that this device has a 60% efficiency, unless you also specify the temperature differential. Now, perhaps they mean that the efficiency is 60% of the maximum ideal, and that could be temperature-independent, but if so, then the claim about Sterling engines is wrong, because they can get well above 30% of the ideal efficiency.