Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Power Technology

Underwater Chemical Garden Powers a Light Bulb 37

Posted by Soulskill from the two-green-thumbs-up dept.
Zothecula writes: Researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have grown underwater chimney-like structures capable of generating enough electricity to power a light bulb. The team linked several of these chimneys to get the required electricity. Their findings indicate that the seafloor equivalents of these chemical gardens might just have contributed the electricity needed for the Earth's first organisms to develop.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Underwater Chemical Garden Powers a Light Bulb More

Underwater Chemical Garden Powers a Light Bulb

Comments Filter:

  • Light Bulb? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 )

    It powers a single LED very dimly.

    I really suggest the summary needs to be corrected as it's WAY WAY off an horribly misleading.

    • I personally don't believe life originated here, I think it's more likely that more primitive microbes started elsewhere, and when that elsewhere planet was subjected to meteor bombardment, its ejecta seeded life on other planets in its star cluster, including ours.

      Of course, we've long since drifted away from that cluster, and who knows if any sapient life exists in those former neighboring systems.

      Having said all of that, I don't think we'll necessarily find the conditions that started life here.

      • I personally don't believe life originated here, I think it's more likely that more primitive microbes started elsewhere, and when that elsewhere planet was subjected to meteor bombardment, its ejecta seeded life on other planets in its star cluster, including ours.

        Panspermia is one of the hardest ideas for me to wrap my mind around. Life emerges on another planet. Planet is hit by a meteor and ejects the life forms into the vacuum space, where they are subject to massive amounts of radiation. They travel millions (if not billions) of kilometers for millions (if not billions) of years. The ejected chunks also need to not be pulled into any stars they might be passing by or pulverized by other collisions with objects in space. Then they need to land on a planet capable

        • I think you're missing something critical here. At the time we believe life began, Earth wasn't even fully formed. Not only that, but the nearest star to us was within the millions range of miles, meaning that its planets and our planets likely had periods where they were considerably closer to one another than their parent stars.

          Sure, it seems improbable today because of the vast distance other stars are from us, however that wasn't the case several billion years ago.

          Not only that, but we already know that

          • I don't understand something about this particular theory. Life had to start somewhere, right? Why does it make more sense for it to have been formed somewhere else and transported here rather than being home grown? What makes some other planet a more amenable nursery for life?

            Essentially, it seems like if it can start in one place, it can start in many places, including Earth. Moreover, if it starts here, it seems a heck of a lot more likely to *thrive* here. And a not-yet-fully-formed Earth doesn't s

            • I don't understand something about this particular theory. Life had to start somewhere, right? Why does it make more sense for it to have been formed somewhere else and transported here rather than being home grown?

              Somebody did a mathematical model for the rate at which they believe life forms evolve new nucleotide sequences (or rather, they created a few possible ones) and found that it's likely that life began a billion or two years before the time period that we believe that our planet likely began.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by coryhamma ( 842129 )
      Can we please replace ubiquitous terms like "can power a light bulb" with the precise voltage + wattage or amperage that they were able to obtain from their energy source, in addition to the time it was able to sustain this energy output? Maybe also mention the mass and density of the substance providing the energy? If we could get this going in the description/abstract, that would be really great.
  • If you connect this article with this one [slashdot.org] it means the Earth itself could be a giant brain and we're actually parasites.

    • Well... we are parasites.... no question about it...

      • Well... we are parasites.... no question about it...

        Not true, it's more of a symbiotic relationship. We are part of the food web, just like every other creature on the planet. Our body waste (and eventually our own dead bodies) will go on to nourish many bacteria species. We actively plant trees and grow food. It's the same relationship our own gut bacteria have with us.

  • Hot potato? (Score:3)

    by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Friday August 07, 2015 @02:39PM (#50270797)

    So is this Jacques Cousteau's equivalent of a potato?

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close