Time to send more Bradleys then.
Docus
joined 1 year ago
Same for username
The reason I questioned the literal battery theory / electrolysis is based on this quote from the BBC article The scientists worked out that the metal nodules are able to make oxygen precisely because they act like batteries. I have since found the original research paper (i linked it elsewhere in this post) which suggests the authors did not actually say that and aren’t sure of the exact mechanism. Your ‘voltage potential grabbing polar ends’ is not one on the known methods of splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen (see wikipedia, which all require electricity, light, radiation or extreme heat. None of which seem to apply here, and the paper also does not mention hydrogen being produced. So maybe there isn’t water being split here by these nodules
I like that theory
Taking a test lol no, way too old for that. But while these lumps of metal in sea water may generate some electricity, I can’t see them magically lining up in series like in a 9V battery, and below a certain voltage (1.5) there is no electrolysis - not even a little bit. But I have since found the original article and raw data, and it seems the people that wrote it don’t know either exactly how this oxygen is created.
What seems to be the original study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01480-8#Sec14
TLDR, they aren’t sure where the (small amounts) of oxygen comes from. And while the article is full of numbers, the section on measuring voltage from these lumps does not contain any. The raw data suggests (to me as a non expert) that the voltages measured are way too low for electrolysis of water (which requires >1.5V)
Electrolysis requires an electric current, so energy. What I don’t understand from this article is where that energy is coming from. Magnets have nothing to do with it, they don’t produce energy. Batteries do, and different metals in salt water may act as a battery, but then they get used up in the process.
Electrolysis I get. These never ending ‘batteries’ though ???
Which may result in them opting out of paying into a private pension.
I’m not sure what you are getting at. Apple offer storage and offer to encrypt that storage. You think that should be illegal? What about Apple offering storage and I encrypt stuff myself before storing it? What about a self storage company where I hire a container and put my own padlock on it? Or the self storage company has a duplicate key, but then I store a locked safe in it? And even if you could get Apple to change their ways: what about Amazon cloud storage - a lot of companies and agencies would be very unhappy if Amazon could scan their data. CSAM is a problem. But abandoning all privacy and security is not the solution.
That rule is as rubbish as most headlines though