The man hacking hot water to save the planet

The man hacking hot water to save the planet | Jerry Callahan | Heatworks
Subscribe to Freethink on KZbin ►► freeth.ink/you...
Up next ►► The case for drinking treated wastewater. (Yes, from the toilet.) • You Might Drink Toilet...
“If every home in the United States transitioned to this technology, that would shut down 12 of the largest coal-fired power plants in the U.S.,” Heatworks CEO Jerry Callahan told Freethink.
For more than a century, storage tank water heaters have been the most common method of delivering hot water to homes. These tanks use gas or electricity to keep a reservoir of water constantly hot. When you turn the hot handle of a faucet, cold water enters the storage tank, forcing hot water to travel through a plumping system and to your sink, shower, or dishwasher. It’s an effective but somewhat inefficient system.
What if water heating systems eliminated heating elements altogether? That’s the driving idea behind Heatworks, a technology company that developed a smart tankless water heating system called the Model 3. The goal is to provide homes with hot water as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Read the full story here ►► www.freethink....
This video was created in partnership with Million Stories Media.
◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠
Read more of our stories on water:
‘Liquid Death’ canned water - a thrilling alternative to plastic
►► www.freethink....
The case for drinking treated wastewater. (Yes, from the toilet.)
►►www.freethink....
Autonomous trash-eating boats clean up water pollution ►►www.freethink....
◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠
About Freethink
No politics, no gossip, no cynics. At Freethink, we believe the daily news should inspire people to build a better world. While most media is fueled by toxic politics and negativity, we focus on solutions: the smartest people, the biggest ideas, and the most ground breaking technology shaping our future.
◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠◠
Watch our original series:
► Hard Reset: freeth.ink/you...
► Just Might Work: freeth.ink/you...
► Challengers: freeth.ink/you...
Enjoy Freethink on your favorite platforms:
► Daily editorial features: www.freethink.com​
► Solutions-based stories, straight to your inbox: www.freethink....
► Facebook: / freethinkmedia​
► Instagram: / freethink​
► Twitter: / freethinkmedia​
► Join the Freethink forum: / freethinkforum
MusicBed SyncID: MB01ETXLGWOWSA0

[@freethink]

How do you think we can help speed the transition to green technologies?

[@patricksanders858]

Make it cheap, easy to install and long lasting.

[@ThomasBomb45]

Carbon tax, cap and trade with an aggressive decrease of the cap, government investment in R&D

[@AbhinavRoy1]

Stop making up such buffoonery.

[@TorpisoulYT]

Make the tech available as a kettle. Start small, get consumers hooked, then upgrade their homes heating systems to the same tech they're now used to.

[@The_Cyber_System]

Do you think you could do a series on Seasteading? I think it would really fit with your channel, and there's huge benefits for the environment, as well as to society. I'm part of a number of seasteading projects, and in touch with people from the Atlas Island project, the Seasteading Institute, and there's a number of other projects out there as well. - Jamie

[@matija5ka]

This still uses 100% of electric energy, What about heat pumps, where at least half of energy comes from air or ground? I think heating without heat pump is not the future.

[@MatthewBayard]

Heat pump is the future for heating our water and space heating.

[@littlenyancat5754]

This! Joule heating with a different name is not the future, heat pumps are!

[@IpSyCo]

There are a lot of cold places in the world. Sucking heat from the air or ground isn’t necessarily plausible for those areas.

[@michaelrenper796]

Heat pumps only work efficiently for certain temperature gradients. You need "warm sink". Air is not at the right temperature everywhere and ground based ones not feasible everywhere (think cities). And its not magic, there are losses to consider as well. And heat pumps are expensive and maintenance intensive. And they don't work well for heating small amounts of water. So its fine during the heating season, but outside of heating season direct heating the hot water is more energy efficient. If you throw all this together you find that heat pumps are only a good solutions in SOME areas, for SOME building for SOME part of the year.

[@starmole5000]

Well if the electric energy is produced by renewables it's fine

[@jordancoleman1608]

So much wrong in this video. First off, I’m pretty sure that what they claim shows the water “boiling” instantly (at 1:28) isn’t actually boiling at all, but electrolysis of the water into gasses. That is, they’re separating the water molecules into bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen. Second, as others have said, existing electric heating elements are already 100% efficient in that every joule of electricity becomes a joule of heat in the water. The “ohmic array” they’re talking about can only have, at best, the same 100% efficiency. Indeed, if their method also causes electrolysis as I suspect it does, then some of the electrical energy that goes in will be diverted into splitting the water molecules rather than heating the water, meaning this is potentially LESS efficient than a standard resistive heating element. Oh, and that stoichiometric hydrogen-oxygen mixture that accumulates in the top of the cell is also explosive, so that’s great. Might even be corrosive to your pipes. There is nothing offered here to support their claim that this method uses less energy than a conventional electric tankless water heater. And that’s because their claim is bunk. If you really want to significantly reduce the energy our society consumes for water heating, the solution already exists and has been growing steadily in popularity of late: heat pumps. Heat pumps operate at greater than 100% efficiency because, instead of using the electricity put into them to directly heat the water, they use that energy to collect heat from someplace else (the air around the heat pump, the ground around the house, etc.) and move it into the water. That’s how heat pumps can easy give you better than 3x the heat for the electrical energy you put into them. And heat pumps are based on proven, reliable technology that’s old enough that patents don’t keep any manufacturer who wants to from offering a heat pump product.

[@joels7605]

Exactly this. Resistance heating is 100% efficient, regardless of scale buildup. So they started the video with a lie. Then you have an efficiency penalty due to generation of hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. What a bunch of snake oil.

[@robocowone464]

That is exactly what I thought!!!

[@glabifrons]

This is exactly correct. Thank you for writing it so I didn't have to. :) I grit my teeth when I saw the flood of familiar micro-bubbles coming out between the plates as he was claiming it was proof of instant heat. I played with electrolysis when I was a kid (to collect hydrogen) and the water barely gets warm. I doubt those carbon plates will last long either, since they'll be creating CO2 with the generation of oxygen from the water (if it was fed DC, the lifespan would be measured in minutes, but should last a fair bit longer with AC). They also completely missed the mark with the tankless heaters. The best gain for a tankless heater isn't adding a huge one centrally, it's adding small ones where they're needed. If you have a small heater under your kitchen sink, the water is heated where you need it. You don't have to wait for the water from the central water heater to heat all the piping between it and the kitchen before you get that hot water. Same goes for the shower or tub. You have one small one at each location. Very good point about the heat pump. If it's engineered properly, it can be used to heat your water and cool your house.

[@ogi22]

@@glabifrons Thank you nice people! I'm really happy to find more and more people educated and familiar with some basic physics ideas. It was so wonderful to see many comments pointing out problems and flaws obvious to everyone who payed attention at school physics lessons :)

[@diophantine1598]

It seems like anyone can have a documentary on their pseudoscience nowadays.

[@IncroyablesExperiences]

This is the type of video that reminds me how bad a scientific video can get.

[@JackTalyorD]

Please explain...not being a smart ass... please what do you mean

[@JackTalyorD]

@@skyricq I'm more wondering if it's a improvement. Assuming .....it use less energy per day per unit but draws all its power needed at once over a short period of time. To me that just say more demand during peak periods which in turn leads to higher emsions and pricing for quick start power plants. Something tells me that servicing maintaining your traditional water system would be cheaper and net a similar over all results. But f#@# if I know... What's your opinion

[@_Circus_Clapped_]

valid conclusion, do they even take temp readings?

[@pauleohl]

@@skyricq What we were shown was not electrolysis but simply a different arrangement of the heating element. Electrolysis does not occur when ac power is applied. You need dc to accomplish electrolysis, which is a good thing because the last thing you need in a water heater is hydrogen and oxygen gas.

[@pauleohl]

@@JackTalyorD First thing, the claim that scale reduces efficiency is wrong. Scale does shorten the life of the element because it now operates at a higher temperature than when the water can get directly to the sheath of the heating element, you still produce 3413 BTU of heat for every kilowatt-hour consumed. Second, most of the minerals fall to the bottom of the tank and do not crust up on the sheath of the element.

[@iura_ch]

You start with "1mm of scale reducing the heating efficiency by 50%" (and where does go that supposed 50% loss? ) Then you "solve" that loss with graphite plates. Then FINALLY it turns out the thing you're actually selling is -- retrofitting 100Amps circuits to power tankless water heaters. Only briefly mentioning that the actual advantage of those graphite plates is that you avoid heating anything above the requested water temp. Which is a fair point, except that you don't make it THE point - yet there aren't any other points. What a shameless BS.

[@abnerriverareyes1452]

1mm of scale reduces the capability of the device too function properly by half. So, if a new tank takes 1 minute too heat the water. The 1 year old wire will take 1:30 minutes too do the same thing. IE: 30 extra seconds too achieve what you originally purchased of water being wasted. His plates don't get the build up because they aren't whats heated. The gap between them meaning the water passing through is essentially electrocuted. The fact that you don't understand doesn't make it bs. It just means you have too learn a little more. Or you are directly benefitting from the current tanks so you are just competition or a shill/troll.

[@iura_ch]

@@abnerriverareyes1452 No sir, nothing is wasted in my tank, because every last calorie of heat from the heating coil ends up in my water. Slightly sooner or slightly later, it's all mixed together in the tank. With scale or without. The difference is only that scale causes the electric coil to temporarily overheat, increasing the risk of failure. But that does not have any relation to the heating efficiency of tank water heaters. My argument is that their advertisement is confusing and misleading. I'm not saying that their heaters are bad. Although I am not convinced how they solve the electrode corrosion problem, but that's just one more thing from which they deflect our attention, by all those misleading claims.

[@causeitso]

@Cosmo Genesis thanks for the detailed explanation of the failure modes of electric water heaters. So maybe a longer heating nichrome element could solve this issue by avoid making mineral deposits if it didn't heat above the boiling temperature of water?

[@causeitso]

@Cosmo Genesis it's a balance then. Thanks.

[@PDFx1a]

The product they are talking about is simply an induction heater (NOT the same as "tankless"). Search using that term and you'll find them for sale all over Alibaba, but not Amazon or any other sources in the U.S. I can only assume there's some sort of legal or safety issue preventing them from being sold here. It's a bit of a mystery. I investigated buying the product shown in the video, but the bad reviews for this company are off the charts. They've had a really hard time breaking into the residential market, again, I don't know why. Their history of bad products combined with poor customer service made me go back to a conventional heater.

[@jeffm2787]

I use to spend about $35 a year for hot water. Living in AZ it was just the power to run the pumps to circulate water through the panels to be heated. Had 80 gallons of 160+ F water which was mixed down to 130F. Now I use tankless and keep it maintained to keep up that efficiency. Solar hot water is one of the best IMO. Ohh and I had a drain back system so it had no chance of freezing or overheating.

[@LFTRnow]

I knew of an AZ house that had one, but the copper tubes to heat the water on the outside panel broke (along with the glass cover), and later the water heater which had electric "back-up" heating rusted out. The cost (at the time) to replace that with an electric standard tank heater was about $500, vs $1500 for the 80 gal unit plus several $k more to repair all the rest of it. There was no budget for it, even after the incentives.

[@freethink]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

[@darioadrianz]

@@jeffm2787 you're living in 2030 😳

[@windowsxseven]

@@freethink love the comment cherrypicking 😍😍

[@Ultrapro011]

Most israeli houses use solar hot water and it is so goood never ending hot water in the summer btw there is a design that you don't need pumps for it

[@Tore_Lund]

The argument for this invention is nonsense: Scaling on a heating element does not reduce efficiency! It does however inhibit heat transfer, so the power output is reduced, but 100% of the electricity, though it will take longer, is still used to heat the water!

[@Vanguardkl]

Are you sure?

[@Tore_Lund]

@@Vanguardkl Absolutely, imagine an experiment: 2 identical heating elements, one clean and one covered in half an inch of kettle scale. They are both submerged in identical insulated tanks, each with a thermometer and with the same amount of water. Both heaters are turned on for 10 minutes and the temperature of the tank with the clean heating element will shoot up right away and be noticable hotter after 10 minutes. However leave the experiment for some time, and the heat locked up in the scaled heating element will have dispersed into the water too and both tanks will have risen to the same temperature. No power has been wasted. the heat can only go into the water. What is bad with a scaled heating element, is that it can get pretty hot when covered in scaling, which can destroy it. So a new type of heater like this requires little or no maintenance, which is a great deal, but it is going to use as much energy as any old scaled resistive heater.

[@lopemac]

The main important argument is the speed of heating the water which saves in energy costs and reduces pollution. A bonus is the supposed lack of scale build up which can reduce efficiency depending on the thickness of the scale.

[@Tore_Lund]

@@lopemac Definitely brilliant that this new type of heating element is maintenance free, but you are wrong; Heating the water faster, does not save energy. Ask yourself: Where does the energy used to heat the scaling go? If we presume that the time to heat the water is unimportant, i.e. you rarely open the hot tap over the course of a day, a slower heating actually means that the heat loss through the tank insulation is less as the time spent waiting at full temperature is reduced.

[@lopemac]

@@Tore_Lund I'm not wrong and researchers who study scale build up say that with enough scale build up you will lose efficiency. It's a fact according to research done on water heaters.

[@lloydschell7454]

As someone below pointed out, heat pump water heaters are available everywhere and give you the same sort of savings with a much smaller electricity demand. Installed one myself 4 1/2 years ago with no electrical or plumbing modifications. Does require cleaning an electrostatic screen periodically with a vacuum (about 5 minutes).

[@PDFx1a]

With a heat pump you're using part of the heat from your furnace (ambient heat in the air) to heat your water. So, it just invisibly shifts the expense from one appliance to the other.

[@rkan2]

@@PDFx1a I think sir you need to read a bit more about heat pumps... (or air conditioners for americans...)

[@Waitwhat469]

@@PDFx1a you could have it you an outside unit or even a ground water loop (depending on if outside is colder than normally ~60 F)

[@wormwood6424]

Those things are just another money making mandate for big corporations to screw the little man out of his money.

[@windowsxseven]

@@wormwood6424 take meds schizo

[@AbhinavRoy1]

Energy conservation. Scales shouldn’t matter, they just make the heat transfer slower with 0 additional losses. This guy seems like another Theranos. Bla bla bla

[@canadajim]

Yeah this is a scam. He probably sells healing crystals on the side. Electric heating is 100% efficient by definition. All on demand heaters are exactly 100% efficient by definition.

[@stephenkeebler732]

Better yet, follow proper Periodic Maintenance Guidlines (almost no one follows) by pulling out the Heating Element (quick and easy), cleaning or replacing (cheaply) if need be, and more importantly, drain out the Calcium that builds up on the bottom of the Tank, displacing water capacity and Wa La your good to go...

[@thebrowns5337]

If it takes 1 minute to boil water at x power or 2 minutes to boil water at x power then we see 2x is twice as much as x. What's so hard?

[@AbhinavRoy1]

@@thebrowns5337 Talk to your physics teacher, if there ever was one 😂

[@pierce8308]

I dont get your reasoning. Making the heating process last longer directly implies allowing more time for energy losses. For example, for the SAME amount of input energy, setup and keeping everything else same, A heating process lasting for 1 hr will surely lose more energy than a heating process lasting only for 10 mins (we already assumed "for the same amount of energy" remember ?). Also I find @The Browns point to be a valid scenario, in the case when we supply a continous power, but not same energy. And yes Ive had a physics teacher in school. So please explain properly to me even if I may be wrong.

[@rmar127]

Where I live In Brisbane Australia the temperature inside the roof space will routinely get to 50°C for at least 9 months of the year. When you turn the cold tap 🚰 on, you actually get hot water for the first minute or so. What we need is a Thermostatic device that reroutes this hot water into your hot water tank and doesn’t let it go down the drain whilst you wait for the water to go cold.

[@joraveranius444]

This is snake oil. 1 kWh raises the temperature of a given amount of water by the same amount, no matter what heating element you use. If you want to save energy on hot water, insulate your pipes, use an on-demand/tankless water heater, and heat with natural gas.

[@The4Crawler]

Agree. I retrofitted a gas tankless heater in my house and it costs me about $12/yr. to operate with a gas consumption reduction of over 80% compared to the old tank type heater. I documented the gas consumption in the video below, that annual cost was based on my old gas supplier, so it's higher: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXPTm4CbeLR3fs0 Or I should say, it would cost me that much, but with these California Climate Credit payments, I've not actually paid a gas bill in over 3 years now and have about 4 years credit on the books. I'm still not totally clear on how this program works, but I'm not complaining: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJDaeYimr96Fgs0 Electric tankless was out of the running for me. 1950's house only has 100A service, so would have had to get that upgraded to 200A plus likely wiring upgrades associated with that, probably would have cost 20X the cost of the heater itself. No doubt, tankless is a good way to go for an older house, assuming the installation is not prohibitive. For me, gas was the way to go, old heater was gas, so all the infrastructure for a gas heater was there.

[@calebkrueger4711]

There’s a reason he pretended it was instantly boiling, and didn’t show it actually heating water with a thermometer. It’s just an anode and cathode making hydrogen and oxygen bubbles like a Hoffman Voltameter (circa 1866). They don’t mention heat pump water heaters which are 2-300% efficient in real-world tests. This has mad snake-oil vibes. There are better products that beat this to market by a decade.

[@erikhartwig6366]

first impression, this looks like an HHO generator to me...

[@SilvaDreams]

That is because that is what it is...It's a HHO combined with a standard already 100% efficient heater... So now you have an explosive heater.

[@alexyochum5648]

Thats was the first thing i thought when i saw that

[@fallu6224]

The device would also make lot's of hydroxide ions that could form sodium hydroxide for example

[@gorgonbert]

Heat pumps are the most efficient way to heat water and your home. There needs to be more innovation to make them more affordable.

[@DaniDipp]

How does this compare to induction heating?

[@pseudonym9667]

If this is electrical heat, all heating elements are 100% efficient at converting electrical energy to heat, so how is 50% of the efficiency lost just because of mineral scaling on the element? Improved insulation could improve efficieny; but I fail to see how an upgraded heating element could do the same. This assertion is either poorly explained or wrong.

[@josevera5094]

Both. The main point of this new technology is to heat the water when it is being used. To do this a huge amount of power is needed, so you need a more powerful electric supply. Traditional heaters, store huge amounts of hot water so they don't need to instantly heat it (so it is much less powerful). Both methods use the same amount of energy. However, hot water tanks cool down with time, so some energy is lost. But this is very small amount and can be reduced with better insulation. That's why hot water tanks are not replaced, almost same efficiency but less stress on the electric grid.

[@josevera5094]

50% i believe means that it takes double the time to heat up the water, but energy efficiency still around 100%. Nobody really cares how long it takes to heat up the water as long as it is hot when you take a bath.

[@kasooi]

@@bramza8853 That does not make sense at all. The mineral layer has a higher heat capacity but inevitably gives its heat to the water thus the heating element is still 100% efficient. Unless you are suggesting the mineral deposits create a blackhole that deposits energy into another space-time dimension perhaps?

[@pauleohl]

@@bramza8853 If what you wrote makes sense to you, you need to get a better education.

[@andrewdreasler428]

@@bramza8853 Hold up, hold up, hold up. So the mineral layer "captures" part of the heat from the heating element, that heat has to go somewhere. It can't be "reflected back into the wires" because that means it would have to go back through the heating element, which is already hotter than the mineral layer. The only thing the heat can do is continue to pass on to the water, or stay in the mineral layer, heating that layer up. Once the mineral layer reaches the same temperature of the heating element, then all it can do is transfer any heat it receives into the water. In a real-world case, the mineral layer will always be in a temperature between that of the heating element and the water, just as the surface of an unmineralized heating element would be between the temperature of the heating element core and the water. All the mineralization does is slow down the INITIAL heating, not the maintaining of the temperature. That means, if your water heater is sized too small for your water usage, when one person uses up all the hot water with their shower, it'll take a little longer for the tank to recover for the next person. If you have the right size tank for the househould, then you won't notice a dip in temperature in the last person's shower. In summary, this "ohmic reactor" is nothing but snake oil. My only regret is that I can only give ONE downvote.

[@squidcaps4308]

When you connect to a power grid, the amperage you draw dictates your base price. The more you draw, the more expensive it becomes. At set points the contract you make steps up to another category, 200amps is a cheaper connection than 400amps. Having to upgrade connection to a higher amperage just because you use hot water sporadically.. is not a great idea for the consumer. You may use less electricity but your electricity bill is higher. We should anyway not favor instant heating of water, as it makes large current spikes but instead use reservoirs, aka heater tanks... They are not as efficient but that is not the only meter. We need also stability, the more stable the power consumption is the easier it is to manage production and distribution of electricity. Specially important with wind power, but also applies to pretty much all ways we generate electricity. It is not easy to increase supply fast, or to decrease it. I'm sure there are things we can do in the heater tank design to decrease losses, and then use electrolytic to heat it. Of course, we need to treat the water first to get the ionic concentration to a certain level for it to really work well. It could be better then to use closed to open loop heat exchanger, where the hot side circulates purified water or other liquid in a closed loop.. Increasing pressure on the hot side can be used to raise the temperature to make the heat exchanger temperature gradient steeper, which increases efficiency.

[@petripat5979]

Sure how about making them last as they used to -25 yrs ...better yet even more ..to reduce carbon print ,but no government is not going to get into that ..they rather give a carbon taxe and blame us for it.🙃

[@fredrikangelsen]

Exactly my thoughts. Living in a Nordic country the loss of keeping a boiler ends up heating the rest of the house anyways so not really loss.

[@jamesbrown99991]

Exactly. Having a hot water storage tank could smooth the supply of solar/wind, and is in-effect the cheapest distributed battery system you can get. If you could operate it when electricity is the cheapest, you'd be helping the grid a lot.

[@darioadrianz]

This is exactly what came to mind when he said tankless is better. Yes, bacause it uses less electricity, but no, because it strains the grid

[@Rovsau]

@@darioadrianz I think maybe it can be good if we use Amps to heat water in a slightly smaller tank, but if everybody is going to apply this then we probably need to upgrade the power grid and change those Amp prices to fit consumer needs.

[@stebarg]

0:35 Where does the heat go? I doubt this claim. The efficiency of resistance heating is always 100 percent. Ther's no loss of efficiency. As the video starts with a lie, I will skip the rest.

[@gorkyd7912]

Where does the heat go? Down the drain when you use the hot water. If efficiency of resistance heating is always 100 percent why not use a water heater to heat your entire house? Seriously, explain why I can't just set the water heater's temperature to 800 degrees or whatever it takes to heat the whole house? And if the tank is wrapped in insulation still this shouldn't matter, right? 100% of theoretical electricity turning to heat energy ignores some important factors, like whether that heat energy is doing what its supposed to do.

[@stebarg]

@@gorkyd7912 You have a lot to learn.

[@DaPanda19]

This channel actually gives me hope, and I really appreciate that

[@varginabrown852]

🌱Earth's CO² Cycle makes Earth Green 💚 you Carbon Lifeform!!! 🌍🌎🌏

[@tycooperaow]

SAme!

[@ultimathei]

Well said sir

[@freethink]

That's so awesome to hear, thanks for watching!

[@BobWidlefish]

So we need more power to power a more efficient thing? No thanks. Spiky power loads are a problem.

[@yeetdeets]

Yeah, more efficient insulation for the plain old water storage tanks would be a much better invention all around. It would also improve other areas, such as home heating/cooling, CSP energy storage, space travel and more I'm not thinking of currently.

[@stephenkeebler732]

Periodic Maintenance of cleaning the Heater Element and draining all the Calcium in the bottom of the Tank, which has the highest benefit, and most don't do until it's too late! Like changing the Oil and Filters in the Car...

[@zangarkhan]

I wish they explained how this exactly works and major draw backs. Feel like the graphite will eventually get platted with metals or break down over time. Got some Thernoes fake till you make vibes here. Also for the same or less cost you can put a calcium filters and your the lifespan and efficiency goes up on a tradition electric water heater.

[@sorushflummi411]

If it is just running Electricity through Water, wouldn't it start Electrolysis?

[@BearerOfLightSonOfGod]

Free think has pushed some fake stuff before I'm starting to believe he's just a fan boy like the Tesla fan boys.

[@zangarkhan]

@Cosmo Genesis Don't vaporizers use high frequency piezoelectric ceramic elements? How is this the same??? Wont it be better to just use microwaves to excite water on demand??

[@lordsamich755]

It's very straightforward. 1.) Give them all your money. 2.) They catch a plane to Bermuda.

[@MsSomeonenew]

Freethink you got played on this one, resistive heating is 100% efficient, and the dude is actually selling electrolysis as a "better" solution.

[@djayjp]

Something else that avoids an exposed heating element: inductive heating, like a stove top.

[@bakedbean37]

Isn't the pan sitting on the stove the heating element in this example?

[@LukelayAlt]

Freethink should address the criticism in the comments more, as I see it right now they've only replied to positive comments, and the comments on this particular video seems extra crucial, since this video feels more like an ad of old technology, and seems a bit sus, I'd like to trust and respect Freethink, as I'd love to this this type of media be more in the norm, however criticism is important and this videos seems a bit more on the pseudo side of things. Thank you for coming to my 4 AM Ted-Talk, let's hope any of that made sense cause I'm too tired to read it through.

[@LawrenceCarroll1234]

For 15 years I had a wood fired “water stove” - which is just another way of saying a wood fired boiler system - that heated both my potable hot water and my house. For those 15 years I never had an electric bill over $50.00. And during that time I cut or gathered, transported by electric ATV, and burned a lot of dead wood on my property in my water stove. Naturally that worked great for me living in a heavily forested, rural area. It wouldn’t work too well in a New York City apartment skyscraper . . .

[@nixtoshi]

Might be cheap, but burning wood is about as polluting as burning coal for power. Cheap energy at the expense of the environment, more hurricanes, etc.

[@LawrenceCarroll1234]

@@nixtoshi , actually it is relatively not very polluting. The reason I say this is that most forests regularly have to experience routine ground fires to reduce the amount of flammable needle, leaf, and stick litter. If they do not have these routine burns (which happen periodically even without human intervention from lightning strikes) then these organic fuels build up to such a degree that when there finally is a fire it destroys the whole forest. Then it is bye-bye to the trees, animals, people etc. and the carbon sink that is what a healthy forest eco-system is. Thus the extremely tiny amount of wood that I burned in those 15 years would not amount to even a significant fraction to what would - and does occur - when these regular controls burns are deliberately set every two-three years on my property to safely reduce this organic litter to ash. (& this is done routinely throughout the Southeast US by property owners and - on public lands by the state). The situation you have out in the West and Mid West, as well as in many other parts of the world, are exacerbated by the decades old fire suppression policies that the European civilizations enacted. The native populations used fire to keep the forests healthy, not only in North America, but in what is now Australia. Thus when forest fires are ruthlessly suppressed, you eventually get catastrophic fires that destroy the forest rather than preserving it! It sounds counter intuitive, but the beauty of it becomes obvious once you understand it. Keep that in mind when contemplating the phenomenon of 🔥 fire.

[@sweetfruit7769]

@@LawrenceCarroll1234 wow thanks for the explanation! but if those fires have to occur routinely, then the wood for the stove becomes an additional factor. the more people would burn wood, the more emissions would arise. or did you use the material that would otherwise burn in those routine-safety-fires anyway? the material that was laying down on the ground? you used the flammable needle, leaf and stick litter? you can correct me if misunderstood

[@axelpatrickb.pingol3228]

@@nixtoshi It's the same with wood gasifier systems (or any combustion system in general): it's not that harmful if only a handful is using such, it become harmful if EVERYONE is using it...

[@LawrenceCarroll1234]

@@sweetfruit7769 , yes, that material that I burned in my water stove would have been burned later (potentially) in the recurrent controlled burns. Not all such material gets burned up, of course, just an excess amount, which can vary somewhat based on weather conditions at the time of the burn. There is potential for much more to be used in stoves, or in “smokeless” methods such as methane extraction/combustion. It should be noted that there is a huge untapped potential for extraction of methane from all organic “waste,” such as that which comes from “factory farms” which are infamous for polluting the environment. The pork farms of North Carolina come immediately to mind, though there are many other examples as well.

[@rattatteb]

Don't you collect ions from the water on the electrodes that way? I mean what you're doing there is a (granted, relatively slow) electrolysis. You would need to change those carbon plates every now and then.

[@jamesbrown99991]

You shouldn't get electrode degradation if you are driving them with AC.

[@rattatteb]

@@jamesbrown99991 Oh yeah you're right. I was only thinking DC for some reason..

[@whoracle1986]

Very true indeed, this looks very DIY-able to be honest. 1 dc(or ac) power supply and current control unit and yer halve way there

[@fastechsystems404]

I use a 40 gallon natural gas water heater. It requires no electrical connections and and there are no electronics to burn out. I didn't need to hire an electrician or rewire anything. If the power goes out I still have hot water.

[@fireaza]

Tankless water heaters are the standard here in Japan. They're little boxes on the outside of your house that are powered by gas that hold a small volume of water. When you turn on the hot water, they automatically ignite and start heating the water. It might take a few seconds, but you're only heating the water you need and it doesn't run out. You can also get standalone versions just for hot water at the kitchen sink, if that takes your fancy!

[@MaxkwGisKaas]

It's not about efficiency and saving money, it's about keeping the population of the present world busy and working. How many people keep 12 coal fired plants working? What would they all do if they shut down? Now your thinking.

[@daandupau8013]

Any direct heating method to heat up water (or air) can never be more than 100% electrically efficient. (Like this product). A heat pump on the otherhand can easily get 400 to 500% electrical efficiency So 1 watt electrical power in, gives 5 watts of cooling or heating out. So just install a heatpump based solution.

[@whateverrandomnumber]

Why not use solar water heaters with tanks? Solar energy is free, water serves as energy storage, and when people arrive from work at noon they have enough hot water to shower, do the dishes or whatever they need hot water for. This technology, sucking up 100 amps, would just worsen the "duck curve" problem that California is already facing.

[@myates4652]

Even if it is cheaper to make, and more efficient, companies will not sell it for cheaper. They will sell it for a premium.

[@deadphishcheesespread]

Brilliant. Give him a billion dollars and sell them for $20.00.

[@CJROYALFLUSH]

So if I understand it correctly water waste will be exchanged for an increase of electricity use. Then the question occurs if producing more electricity is better than using less water regarding the environmental costs. My second question is if the electrical grid needs to be upgraded if every household would use this device during peak time. Does someone know? I love the idea and support sustainable innovation. However I am curious about the full potential and scalability of this.

[@JV-pu8kx]

Who powers their tank-less with electricity? Most installations I've seen use gas. Since we switched, it takes longer time for hot water to get to the sink!

[@ebb2421]

Ecuador...no piped gas infrastructure... This product is no breakthrough...

[@dfs7979]

Yep I agree. If you are going to use electricity then a heat pump is the way to go. I have a gas tankless and I had to add a recirculation pump to get instant hot water.

[@SilvaDreams]

In a lot of places because a lot of places have no access to gas

[@prevengeix8551]

Look at how long it takes to heat up a pot for spaghetti. Now look how long it takes us to heat up this quarter cup of water. Shocker it's considerably faster to heat up a much smaller amount. How does it compare when heating a 20 gallon tank?

[@agracian1]

As Jordon's excellent reply says. The amount of energy transferred to the water is the same, scale may just slow the heat transfer process. Apart from the idea of heat pumps, a simple approach of using an insulated kettle should reduce the heat transfer from the kettle to the surrounding air (ie a thermos, particularly when the air temperature is low (eg. in a cold room).)

[@raviteza8]

Resistive heating is simply 100% efficient, no matter scales or no scales. The heat doesnt disappear, in the end the water surrounding it will pick it up.

[@imperpekto12ify]

I will remember this next time! Thank you for sharing this video!

[@ClwnJuNkY]

Peter Davey done it using sound from Magnetic vibrations . Sonic resonance boiler . I got to use it for 1 year straight living at his house in Locksly avenue in Christchurch

[@taylorlightfoot]

Nevermind the fact that states with strict energy codes such as California penalize resistive heating technologies to the point where is is nearly impossible to install a tankless electric water heater and pass your energy mandates. Heat pumps are the way forward for water heating and home heating. Also you're going to have a difficult time running a home off a home battery is you don't use heat pumps for everything.

[@PatrickKQ4HBD]

My experience with on-demand hot water heaters is that if you crack open the hot water tap, you get cold water until you open it at least halfway. Then all of a sudden, you get HOT water! It's either too little or too much. One of these arrays at every faucet and shower head might work well, but who wants $10,000 in water heaters when they can have a single $1,000 unit?

[@dundermiflinpaper]

This is vaporware. All resistive heating is 100% efficient. Not 99%, Not 101%... Exactly 100%. Doesn't matter if your using the water as the resistor or a resistive wire. This product is LESS efficient... as you have to have to manufacture a more complicated product AND install higher current circuits, to do exactly the same task as a piece of wire. Insulation on the heating element (mineral scale) does not effect total efficiency. Insulation does not "remove" heat, it slows it down. As many others have stated... Heat pumps are the "future technology" that already exist, but aren't implemented widescale.

[@MrThib-ov2lh]

Why no mention of Heat pump water heaters? These are way easier to use in existing home wanting to upgrade and are just as efficient as this heater that you are pushing … They also serve to dehumidify and cool a house. I live in a very hot and humid part of the country and have one that is available from the big box stores. They are more expensive, but well worth it in the long run.

[@TwinShards]

0:40 "What if we could heat water, without a heating element." Microwave. just... microwave. Without context of watching the whole video.

[@dmitryplatonov]

This "invention" is decades old. When I was a kid 30 years ago we would hook up two stainless blades to 220V with matchsticks between them as spacers and use that to boil water.

[@kevtacy1]

The other thing is about new technology is whether the company will still be there 5 to 10 years down the road. Will they still support it when repairs are needed

[@murdockscott]

I recently had a hot water tank go bad and needed it replaced, I asked about tankless heaters and was surprised when the technician was pretty adamant about talking me out of that option. I feel like the people out in the field need to be sold on the tech so that they will start recommending it. People needing to get their hot water working again are not likely to shop around or argue, they will just accept what is being recommended most of the time.

[@dmitryplatonov]

You are not loosing heating efficiency because of the scale. Resistive heating is 100% efficient. Heating element can overheat and burn out, but efficiency is still the same.

[@Zorlof]

Electric water heating is cost-prohibitive for the same reason that heating with electricity costs you three times that of natural gas heating. When you draw water from your source it is usually very cold, to reduce your heating costs you simply fill a dummy uninsulated tank (to warm up the water going into your hot water tank). The incoming water is passively warmed before entering your hot water system. Condensation on hot days can be used to generate grey water for gardening or rinsing exterior surfaces by using a solar pump.

[@lowrads3653]

There is a cluster of refineries just down the road from me, all adjoining one another. Half of them have big cooling stacks for dissipating heat from water that they heated, either directly or as waste heat from chemical reactions. They have pipelines to send byproducts to one another, but you'd think they could also send hot water as well, rather than starting from a base temperature. That would probably save more energy than improving the efficiency of every single household in our greater metropolitan area.

[@karlswanson95]

High current was mentioned but how much voltage? Above 1.23 volts water molecules start splitting into hydrogen and oxygen. The homopolar generator is a low-voltage, high-current electric generator.

[@aptorres01]

Great wrk guys thank you

[@JasonFuller]

Exactly why I went with an "on demand" gas powered heater; cost to upgrade electric was way too much, and only makes sense if you are trying to go off grid.

[@googlenutzer3384]

This is so important, it have to be replaced by law to use this technology

[@w34356]

Heat Pump Water Heaters is where its at. That would be more efficient than directly converting Electricity to heat the way he is saying. The lack of details makes it sound more like Snake Oil than anything else. I will have to look into this Ohmic Array Tech...

[@whoracle1986]

That is a neat electrolizer he’s build there, i hope the pure O2 and hydrogen gas the thing creates wont cause any problems

[@KingTut559]

That is actually a cause for concern

[@whoracle1986]

@@KingTut559 i agree, to say the least. one should be weary of a device like this.

[@victoryfirst2878]

How about using Inconel wire and ultra low density surface exposure and will not burn out when run dry. What about that Jerry ????

[@justinjja2]

This isn't even the most efficient form of heating water. A heat pump water heater uses significantly less power than these.

[@justinjja2]

Edit: with the added benefit of actually being practical on solar without a massive array / battery capable 100A

[@luimackjohnson302]

I must thank and commend the CEO of Heatworks Mr. Jerry Gallahan of his superb and simple invention! Well Done! Thank you Freethink in running this story!

[@limestone_xyz]

Who does the design and 3D? That’s awesome!

[@Phil-D83]

Have had a drain water heat recovery system for 13 years under the bathrooms. Works like a charm.

[@akan626]

A water heater with a tank is like the car your grandfather used to repair on his days off while a tankless water heater is like the car you're driving right now. Your grandfather's car had fewer parts and was cheaper and easier to maintain and repair while you have to take YOUR car to the dealer and spend oodles of money to have it repaired and maintained. The question you should be asking is, do you consider your water heater to be a fashion statement like you do your car?

[@dragonsuper6195]

Sad thing is, the wide majority only sees things, short term, there're not willing to make long term investments

[@jeffclarkofclarklesparkle3103]

In Canada, there are gov grants you can apply for when installing energy efficient tech. Big ones! Applications are found at large hardware stores i have heard, that could be different by now, but ANY new renos are worth looking into this with. Large amounts for expensive work actually (this was heresay and 5 years ago, but they were pretty intelligent and trustworthy)

[@MortyMortyMorty]

The fundamental problem is human thinking. An average Joe is not thinking about the long term. This hot water system, solar panels, heat pumps, batteries have a high upfront cost but after 5-ish years they are all worth it, and may even make money for you and are better for the climate!

[@sarcasmo57]

2 words.... Cold showers.

[@justiceo1791]

Does the company have a kettle version? I’d love to buy one.

[@whozz]

0:47 He's John Locke from Lost with a larger jaw

[@namelast6152]

I am glad their ate people out there who see things this way. An I hope to help contribute to this some how.

[@davidlandelle7000]

Not even talking of the process, using electricity from photovoltaic arrays to boil water is insane. Direct thermal sun heating allows this with nearly 100% efficiency whereas photovoltaic is 20%. Also storage of heat is much easier than storage of electricity (just need insulation).

[@yashvashistha6004]

Where does the energy go, if its 50 percent efficient, where is the other 50 going?

[@tycooperaow]

I believe it disapates as heat...

[@Mladjasmilic]

In Serbia, we use waste heat from coal plant to heat water.

[@boathemian7694]

As an electrician it is daunting to old school people to dedicate 100+ amps to just a water heater… they are awesome though.

[@jaspervermaas]

This still consumes more power (close to 4 times) than a good heatpump! But it's less complex (Less expansive) so it makes more sense if you have less to spend!

[@roboco302]

Any proof from a fake account?

[@jamesbrown99991]

Do they even make heat pumps for instant (tankless) water heating?

[@evil_me]

It uses electrolysis..... So it's making an already potential bomb water heater into a worse bomb with a pure stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen!

[@therealchayd]

In other news a revolutionary and groundbreaking transportation technology has just been discovered. Its inventors are calling it "The Wheel".

[@shintsu01]

is it more efficient to heat your radiator water with this or getting a heatpump instead?

[@maseratihottie]

If it requires more electricity what is it actually helping? You heat water faster, don't have to worry about water you don't need being heated, but the planet still suffers. Solar seems the best way. If it takes 100amps for just this water heater to work, it would eventually lead to more electricity being used home to home = more fossils burned

[@jeffreyoneill4082]

One advantage of a tank based mater system is it can act like a battery. so use your excess solar to heat the water for use at night

[@Kobe29261]

The other thing we need to do ASAP is make WC's uncool - incinerating toilets will save gazillions of water! And yes, I use one!

[@ww07ff]

COP 3 Heat Pumps are 3 times more efficient than this device.

[@kmnl926]

Better idea is to use waste heat from air condition system, heat pump, solar heat or solar electric water heating. Store hot water in well insulated hot water tank that comprises a thermal battery. No need for better heating elements at all.

[@ohm711]

This guy: I invent the highest eff water heater ever existed !!! ....Heat pump has left conversation....

[@rmaffei1]

Explain why nobody ever tells the poor homeowner that all those "savings" are going to be spent on costly repairs. A standard 40 gallon gas water heater will run for 8 to 12 years without any maintenance or repairs . Maybe a 30 $ thermocouple or 60$ igniter. Who wants to take the under bet, the control board for this thing is less that 600$. Not to mention installation..

[@MusikCassette]

2 problems: a) heating water with electric power is already the less efficient way. Most homes I know use the heating system to provide hot water. So when you build new, there are already better ways to do it. (by witch I mean better than this one) b) although tankless heaters are more convenient, water tanks are actually a great way to catch and store energy, that otherwise would go to waste.

[@TilmanBaumann]

a) electricity is the only power we can create carbon neutral on a large scale. There is no alternative. b) good point. Indeed heat pumps which might be less power but more efficient than a purely ohmic heater come to mind.

[@MusikCassette]

@@TilmanBaumann right now we don't produce electric power carbon neutral at all. Burning gas produces less co2 than heating with electricity. It is also not exactly true, that it is the only energy we could produce carbon neutral on large scale. The role of electric heading is (for the most part ) not one of saving Co2 emissions, but one of convenience. It is quite nice to have boiling water in a few seconds. Obviously in cases where electric heading is the only option, its a good thing to at least cut down on losses there. I sad for the most part because when you use very efficient but not reliable heat sources it can be a good Idea, to top that of to the desired temperature with electric heating. In a way this is still convenience. But more in the sense of making efficient sources usable.

[@takix2007]

I'd argue electric heating is 100% efficient, since every watt you put into the heating element produces heat. The only better thing would be using a heat pump (electric, too), using spare calories from the air or a heat source.

[@MusikCassette]

@@takix2007 But you already through about halve of the energy away when producing the electricity. The point abut electric energy is that it is very low entropy. That means that produce waste energy in the production. resistive heating just transforms the lesser amount of energy into heat. Heatpumps are obviously way better. They use the lower entropy to get energy from the surroundings. But the upper limit for that is the energy you "wasted" before. A modern burner meanwhile has an efficiency of a little over a 100 %. But obviously there are more CO2 efficient methods on the table f.e. using the waste heat we talked about for heating. Heating requires a lot of energy, but it does not require a high quality of that energy. Look I don't say, there is no place for this method. But I am a little bit concerned about the Idea, of using that for new buildings. Because that way more efficient solutions will not be implemented.

[@takix2007]

@@MusikCassette no I did not throw 50% of the energy away, if the electricity was generated with a dam, a windmill or solar panels. And even if I used a thermal powerplant (coal, gas, fuel, nuclear), the heat generated by the powerplant can be used as residential heating (for neighborhoods close to the powerplant) or for other industrial uses that need some heat source.

[@xSiC84]

I am 100% for tankless heaters, but the cost of retrofitting the system is the killer. If I ever get into a new construction house again , I will make this an option that is done.

[@toast6375]

In Africa there aren’t generally water heaters so someone put a hose all around there roof letting the sun heat it up (lack of water heating makes the ironic side effect of we needed to have cold showers lol)

[@pawnipt]

Just, please, don't recommend more inefficient government to get this transition to take place. If it's worth it people will buy it, period.

[@tbone020ify]

It's all and good but what's the repairability of it. Also how long does it last. I've seen water heaters last 20 years.

[@sparkyprojects]

This is not new technology, it's just an electrode heater, they've been around for many years, they even use electrodes in metal foundries to melt the metal. If you look at wikipedia, there may be a reason why electrode heaters are not common.

[@narayanjeev]

Just get a solar heater. Works incredibly well in areas that get ample sunshine

[@rkan2]

Very few people ever talk about nuclear plants which practically none try to use the waste heat for anything except the fish. Consider half of the energy from atoms just going straight to the sea... That's a lot to waste.

[@Jayeeyee]

So basically, this is applying ultrasonic tech to vibrate the water molecule so that it creates heat.

[@josephturner6440]

Loving your quick videos Freethink! Earned a sub from me 👍👍

[@solastalgia440]

What if i told you... cookies are omnomnomnom

[@airgunningyup]

once i get this , a Nikola truck , and my bloodwork done at Theranos , ill be feeling much better about myself.

[@TribalGlobe]

A black tube with water in the sun heats the water. Use solar. You can even make it yourself. There's various ways to make a very inexpensive thermosiphon solar hot water heater.

[@stevenk5732]

Would have been nice to go into more detail about his water heater technology

[@andrewdreasler428]

Ah, but there's the rub: more detail would have made it obvious that this doesn't work as advertised.

[@sausagefingers714]

its basically an inline electric water heater but with extra steps and higher costs