Told ya so! REUTERS Video: Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan

[Up2Late]

I've been talking about this sort of advance for years now, even though I personally didn't have the engineering skills to make one, I knew someone would soon, and here it is!

And guess who did it first!?!

Detroit? No. NASA? No

Japan? Of course!

Yes, while the "big 3" in Detroit were saying that the best they could do in the next 10 years is to deliver "cutting edge," 1975 technology in the form of the plug in electric car, oh sorry, "Plug in Electric Hybrid," The smart people of Japan and Genepax were in their labs making THE "car of the future" happen.

Man, do we suck or what?

Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan

(01:21) Report

<http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561&videoChannel=74>

Jun. 13 - Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water.

The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.

[Lautremont]

1. I'm sorry, but the water-powered engine was invented in the mid-1970s

by an old man in Manitoba, Canada's Interlake area.

[Up2Late]

2. Not the same technology, this one take the water into this new unit...

...which splits out the Hydrogen and uses the hydrogen in a hydrogen fuel cell to power the electric motors and then recycles the water to use it again for weeks. You just have to add about a quart of water every week to top up the water tank.

Unless that's what this Canadian Water engine (that I've never heard of) is all about. Do you have a link to more info? Do note that, Canada has some very good Hydrogen Fuel Cell companies though.

This is exactly the type of system that I knew could be built if someone smart invested in it and it's going to Kill the American auto industry, because we are so far behind.

[Lautremont]

3. I'm afraid I don't have a link - it was in a book called

"Famous and Fascinating Manitobans." I don't believe it went into much detail about how his system worked.

This Japanese watercar sounds amazing!

[johnaries]

6. It was a fraud.

Every "water-fueled" car was a fraud. There have been quite a few of these claims.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. From the description, it is NOTa "water-fueled" car.

It is an electric-powered car, which uses a H2/H2O redox couple to store energy temporarily. It is using a fuel cell as a storage battery, in which case it really should be *called* a battery. The advantages over other types of battery are not obvious, other than (possibly) less toxic disposal problems, but since the contents are not described, we don't even know that for certain.

Judging from the post/video, the most appropriate description of this car would be a "rechargable electric car". The fact that the battery uses water is at least a showy gimmick, but may be no more than that.

I have to wonder whether this is as efficient as other types of storage batteries. And there is something about the 'device' in that video which makes me suspicious. It looks more like instrumentation cabinetry than a power device -- not that that proves anything.

[papau]

19. Well said - just another "battery" concept

[eppur_se_muova]

126. I stand corrected -- apparently others got more info than I did.

This is an aluminum-fueled car. This is not new. It crops up every few years. Some money is collected from would be investors. The "inventor" drops out of sight. Rinse. Repeat.

[Rosemary2205]

21. Ford and Honda both have a H2 fuel cell on the market

mass marketing is incredibly cost prohibitive however. Edit to add, and impractical because the range is much too short.

[johnaries]

4. Pray tell, what energy source is used to split the H2 from the H2O?

I'm on dial-up and it takes forever to DL youtube vids. But what you describe is not possible, unless there is another energy source or some type of catalyst.

[eppur_se_muova]

7. Drop the 'or' phrase. "Some type of catalyst" will not make up for energy input.

All a catalyst can ever do is speed up a reaction -- it cannot make an unfavorable reaction favorable, or vice versa, only change the rate it which one occurs.

[johnaries]

18. Thank you for the correction.

You are absolutely right.

[HereSince1628]

50. Apparently an aluminum alloy works like a catalyst to split water

Physics isn't my area, and I do understand the basic story of the Laws of thermodynamics. But I remembered having seen a television piece about research at Purdue.

Maybe you know whether this story has been debunked or not.

http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. That's different - the fuel there is aluminium

You put aluminium in, and get aluminium oxide out.

"The waste products are gallium and aluminum oxide, also called alumina.
...
"Right now it costs more than $1 a pound to buy aluminum, and, at that price, you can't deliver a product at the equivalent of $3 per gallon of gasoline," Woodall said.

However, the cost of aluminum could be reduced by recycling it from the alumina using a process called fused salt electrolysis. The aluminum could be produced at competitive prices if the recycling process were carried out with electricity generated by a nuclear power plant or windmills. Because the electricity would not need to be distributed on the power grid, it would be less costly than power produced by plants connected to the grid, and the generators could be located in remote locations, which would be particularly important for a nuclear reactor to ease political and social concerns, Woodall said. "

What that is doing is using aluminium as the way to transport energy from a power plant to the car. You have to replenish the car with aluminium regularly, and remove the alumina. It might be practical, or not - but they clearly know they need large electricity plants to run it.

[HereSince1628]

56. Thanks. The notion of a recylable 'fuel' is a bit odd but

I get the idea that the metal containing material must be returned to a state where it can engage in reactions that will once again evolve hydrogen from water and achieving that state is going to require energy input.

[slackmaster]

114. Your brain is on the right track

TANSTAAFL

[HereSince1628]

53. The reaction of metallic sodium with water also generates hydrogen

and so much heat that the hydrogen spontaneously ignites. I think most of us who took HS Chemistry have personal experience observing that reaction.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. Looks like you were right - they're using metals as fuel

The system, which is capable of generating power with water and air, was first presented June 12, 2008. As reported in our previous article, the system produces hydrogen through a chemical reaction between water and a metal (or a metal compound) on the fuel electrode side (See related article).

Genepax uses a metal or a metal compound that can cause an oxidation reaction with water at room temperature, the company said. Metals that react with water include lithium, sodium, magnesium, potassium and calcium. The main feature of the Water Energy System is that it can be operated for a longer period of time by controlling the reaction of the metal or the metal compound, the company said.

According to Genepax, the metal or the metal compound is supported by a porous body such as zeolite inside the fuel electrode of the membrane electrode assembly (MEA). The products of the hydrogen generation reaction dissolves in water, and the water containing them will be discharged with water inside the system. Upon the completion of the reaction, the generation of hydrogen and power stops.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080616/153301/

So yeah, this is the equivalent of chucking the lump of sodium into water, under controlled conditions. The scam is when the company spokesman claims "no external input is needed, apart from water". That was a straight lie by him, and the company shouldn't be trusted if they're going to lie so brazenly.

[slackmaster]

104. And where does the energy to refine the aluminum come from?

:argh:

[aikoaiko]

123. I'm saving my Coke cans.

Could be the new gas.

[eppur_se_muova]

122. NOOOO!!! Not the aluminum alloy scam again!!

HOW MANY TIMES does this farce have to be repeated?

2Al + 3H2O ---> Al2O3 + 3H2

Aluminum is not a catalyst, it is CONSUMED in the reaction. Only a large input of energy can convert the Al(OH)3 (or Al2O3, after heating). To refuel this car, you have to add more aluminum (AND remove the aluminum oxide "ash") -- the water is NOT a fuel. Water is regenerated when the H2 is burned, so exactly as much water goes out the exhaust pipe as went in the tank.

Every few years, this thing pops its ugly head up again. It has NO advantages over a battery. This is like a battery which must be opened up and have its parts replaced, INSTEAD of being recharged.

[Up2Late]

13. You would have to ask the people who make this new unit to be sure, but if you want my guess...

...I'll give it.

Most likely, you'll need to plug it in for a few minutes (something that would be done at the factory or at the car dealership when you buy it) to start the electrical/hydrogen generation cycle, but after that, the thing recharges and recycles it's self though the electricity that the fuel cell produces.

Like I said, just a guess, but an educated guess. (and the link to this video is to a very small size video at Reuters, so it might not be as bad as waiting for YouTube to load)

[NutmegYankee]

15. That can't happen. (laws of thermodynamics and all)

You make hydrogen with less than 100% efficiency, then you make electricity, about 35-60% efficient, then guess what? You can't make as much hydrogen as before because you have less energy as electricity.

The laws of thermodynamics are a bitch, but you can't break 'em. The car requires more energy than it makes in hydrogen.



There's something real fishy about this.

[Up2Late]

22. You are forgetting about the other generating systems that are probably built into this car...

...like dynamic braking, which, just like on today's hybrid cars from Toyota, generates electricity as they slow the car, same system Electro-diesel locomotives have been using for years, but just on a much smaller scale. Or extra hydrogen storage systems that could be built into the system.

Plus, you don't even know what this new unit they invented actually does or how efficient it is, maybe you should wait before you just dismiss this as impossible, it's still a prototype.

As I recall, nobody believed the Wright Brothers could fly for about 5 years, until they were able to do large scale demonstrations.

The automotive engineers in Japan have been right about so much in the last 50 years, I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt for now.

[NutmegYankee]

27. Sorry, can't invent Perpetual Motion, no matter how smart you are.

The dynamic braking is recapturing some of the energy that was used to make the car go forward rather than waste it all as heat in brake pads. It isn't free, you needed energy to get moving in the first place.


I dismiss it as impossible because it is. Nothing can be 100% or higher efficient. Even two gears meshing in motion loose some energy in frictional heat.

[webDude]

25. Physics laws have been broken, and explained later as to the how

I don't blame you being skeptical, I just ask that you are open.

I don't know if the following breaks the laws of physics or if it is using the present ones in different ways that are not explained, yet. A lot of Aussies appear to be doing this, although this guy is American.

The following video shows a U S Patented system that uses pulsed electricity to use FAR less electric power to split the H2O than the conventional method. This guy was getting it to run a car. I am guessing that the Japanese car uses this to split the H2O and then something like a fuel cell to get electricity to run the car. After that process, you could, indeedy, use the water that results to feed the process again. This is not energy from nothing, it is simply not understood:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22it+runs+on+wat...

This website has a kit to convert your car, it's been around a year or two, it uses the patent mentioned above(the inventor of the patent died):
http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com /

Another car running on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU&feature=rela...

Another video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H9NfqCSs9NI

[NutmegYankee]

29. Far less electricity needed still = energy needs to be added.

It's not being skeptical, it's not being closed minded, it's just knowing the laws of thermodynamics.


Think of it this way: To not need more energy to be added, the entire process would need to lose no heat whatsoever. Even the electricity would need to flow without I squared R loses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

[Up2Late]

36. Very interesting video (the first one), but you know what was most shocking?

Did you see the price of Gasoline back in 1995 that they showed? $1.10 per Gallon!!!

I remember those days. Which one of the guy's is dead? The second one with the Hydrogen generator?

And the first guy with the water heater, hell, he lives about 5 miles south of me, how cool is that?

[eppur_se_muova]

124. This has nothing to do with new laws of physics. This idea has been presented many times before.

It's good for raising some investment money from people who don't understand what's really going on, but somehow it never succeeds.

A few years later, it will pop up again -- another "MIRACLE CAR RUNS ON WATER! OMG!" and attract more investors, who didn't hear about the last case.

At some point, you have to feel the "inventors" know perfectly well this idea only "succeeds" because they are STEALING energy from the aluminum-refining/recycling chain. Aluminum is cheap ONLY because 90% of Al is recycled. If so many people started using these cars that it removed all the recyclable Al from the market, the price of Al would go up ten times.

There's nothing new here. Some of these inventors honestly don't understand why this isn't a good idea. Some of them do. But they all end up living off the investors' money, and then dropping out of sight.

[Oak2004]

130. The laws of thermodynamics are as ironclad as anything in science

If there are realms in which they are not 100% accurate it's at the extremes -- in the very small (quark-ish sized), or the very very large (Big Bang-ish amounts of energy) or the very fast (a hair's breadth away from C), or etc.

None of which occur during the familiar chemical reactions being discussed here,

[Selatius]

16. That's not possible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The other poster got it right.

The external source of energy would likely be from a traditional power grid...powered by fossil fuels, which is not helping the situation with global warming.

[comtec]

57. it uses about a liter of water a week

so obviously thermodynamics is satisfied.

basically as i understand it , they use a small bit of electricity to separate hydrogen and O2 molecules, then burn the hydrogen, and presumably release the O2.

very clean. even if the range is as much as a geo metro, you're still looking at a ZERO emission ZERO input (essentially) vehicle.
The construction process is the dirtiest part of owning this car.

I imagine that if you place solar cells on the roof you'll also be able to gain the light amount of electricity needed to start the reaction as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. No, you would need to continue to use electricity to separate the water

It can't be 'zero input'. That's where thermodynamics comes in. You'd have to run the care entirely on the electricity from the solar panels, or a normal battery in it somewhere.

[comtec]

67. correct, it gets the follow up electricity from the hydrogen

that is separated from the water.
its like a nuclear reaction (but on a vastly smaller scale), where you get more energy out, than you put in from breaking apart the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Well, if you're claiming it is a nuclear reaction

then that would explain where the energy comes from. But, again, this would be an epoch-making discovery - that they'd managed cold fusion and developed it to a practical point. But, if you're claiming you can split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then recombine the hydrogen and oxygen into water, and get back more energy than it took to split them (to power the car too), then you're claiming you have a perpetual motion machine. And they don't exist.

See #65 for their admission of what they're actually doing - oxidising a metal. So the fuel is the sodium, lithium or whatever, that they'd have to keep adding (and they'd have to remove the waste, probably a hyroxide) and recycle it (using energy - more than it gave to the car) back into the pure metal.

[pt22]

96. You are probably urinating into the prevailing advection...the gullibility of some people is

breathtaking, isn't it?
:eyes:

[comtec]

132. Yep yep you're right I surrender

65 wasn't out when I started my first post.

[NutmegYankee]

121. Nuclear power works on E=MC^2.

You loose mass to make the energy. This is not fission.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

97. Seperating out H2O into component elements via

Electricity is expensive, the electricity would be better served actually moving the car.. Please understand that Thermodynamics will be served...

There is either (a) some other chemical reaction with the water itself going on here or (b) some other fuel being used to generate the energy to separate out the water...

The claim that this is powered only by water is fraud..

[SergeyDovlatov]

115. Burning Hydrogen (H + 2O = H20) should release ...

the same amount of energy as it took to break up H2O into hydrogen and oxygen.

You write: "they use a small bit of electricity to separate hydrogen and O2 molecules". The energy consumed to separate them should be equal to the energy released when you combine them.

Thus, directly using "small bit of electricity" to power your car would be even better.

[NutmegYankee]

120. Heat. The heat isn't useful to make the car move.

There is conservation of energy, but heat from resistance in wires and combustion are part of the equation. That heat isn't useful and it's why you loose energy in the conversion.

Even a fuel cell is only 60% efficient.

[Tesha]

54. Magic. (Or electricity.) (NT)

[gristy]

8. WATER IS NOT THE ENERGY SOURCE FOR THIS VEHICLE'S PROPULSION

Sorry, folks.

[sam sarrha]

74. I am surprised at the level of NAY-SAYING, I am willing to wait and see. i am not willing to use you...

ignorance as a soap box to prove myself narrow minded and myopic.. :popcorn: get a life

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. gristy is right, though. See post #65 for the admission by the company president (nt)

[sam sarrha]

76. the water they put in was BLUE...

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. As in ... "blue meanies"? Yellow Submarine?

I really can't see what you're getting at. They said you can put in very impure water - such as blue water, or tea. It doesn't have to be blue water, but that does help it show up on the TV, I'd guess. The point is that the fuel is a metal (eg sodium). The president has admitted that, now.

[gristy]

82. My ignorance. You crack me up.

Basic chemistry tells us that there is no exploitable energy in water. That is a fact. I don't need to read the article to know this. I don't need to wait and see.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

99. Pointing out the law of thermodynamics is *not* naysaying...

its injecting reality into the discussion..

[northzax]

108. yes, indeed

and I am going to stand here and wait to see if this anvil I am about to drop breaks my foot.

or, I can believe in the well defined (on Earth at least) practice of Gravity.

you cannot, I repeat, cannot make energy from nothing. it cannot be done. if it could be done, then everything you ever learned in science class is wrong.

[spag68]

9. water car

Maybe I'm a pessimist, however I need more info on how this thing works. Mainly what is the power source that splits the Hydrogen from the water? Sounds like a scam to me.

[webDude]

20. different electrolyses is FAR more efficient, using pulsed electricity

I don't blame you being skeptical, I just ask that you are open.

The following video shows a U S Patented system that uses pulsed electricity to use FAR less electric power to split the H2O than the conventional method. This guy was getting it to run a car. I am guessing that the Japanese car uses this to split the H2O and then something like a fuel cell to get electricity to run the car. After that process, you could, indeedy, use the water that results to feed the process again. This is not energy from nothing, it is simply not understood:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22it+runs+on+water%22&hl=en&sitesearch=video.google.com#

This website has a kit to convert your car, it's been around a year or two, it uses the patent mentioned above(the inventor of the patent died):
http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/

Another car running on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU&feature=related

Another video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H9NfqCSs9NI

[johnaries]

28. "Brown's Gas"? You ARE kidding, right?

Here, knock yourself out:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GWYA,GWYA:2005-19,GWYA:en&q=brown%27s+gas+debunked

[Speck Tater]

32. Here's the problem.

No matter what process you use, if you convert electricity to hydrogen, and then turn around and convert the hydrogen to electricity, that is a net loser. Both conversion involve loss. Neither conversion can be 100% efficient. So let's be ultra generous and say that both processes are 80% efficient (a figure not even remotely reachable with today's technology). Then for every 100 watts you put in to convert water to hydrogen, you'd get back 100 * 0.80 * 0.80 = 64 watts.

So why in the name heaven would you go through all that nonsense to get back 64% of the energy you put in to start with. A much easier way to achieve the same result would be to run your electric car directly on your electric source, but hang a two-ton anchor off the back bumper to drain off 36% of the energy you put into running the car. A two-ton anchor would be a hell of a lot cheaper way of throwing away 36% of your net usable energy than some fancy double conversion device.

Oil stores in its molecular bonds the accumulated solar energy of millions of years. There is NO substitute for that except for nuclear fusion, which we still haven't made to work. And certainly some razzle-dazzle water-to-hydrogen-to-water conversion process will not replace millions of years of stored solar energy.

[harun]

81. There are many substitutes for oil

They are just more expensive and/or not being produced because we don't have the infrastructure set up yet.

[Speck Tater]

85. There are NO substitutes for oil in the plastics and pharmaceuticals industries

Oil is not just a fuel, it's a feed stock for numerous industries. For example, how will asphalt roads be repaired without asphalt?

[slackmaster]

110. Dude, take a high school physics class

:argh:

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. so perhaps my next car will be a water car

COOL

[LiberalAndProud]

11. It's a good beginning.

One fill-up is good for one hour at 50 mph. It would be great for my in-town commutes, but I don't think I'd take it on any interstate vacations.

[Up2Late]

14. True, but back when the first gasoline powered cars were introduced...

...most people wouldn't have taken those cross country either, but in 10 years, after a little more R&D, I bet you'll be able to do a cross country trip, even across a big county like the U.S. or Canada.

[spag68]

12. Hydro fuel

The nearest thing to free energy is probably Iceland's use of geothermal energy, which they have an unending supply of, to make hydrogen stations for cars and electricity. By the way we have a larger source of "free" energy also, it"s called Yellowstone Park. It's been there for a long time and will be there when we are long gone. Obviously we could do the same thing as Iceland, but "they" have not figured out a way to make us pay for it yet.

[Up2Late]

17. We have an Iceland in the U.S. too, called Hawaii, where I bet they are paying near $6.00 per Gal...

...soon, if not already. Has anyone started generating Geothermal out there yet? And Alaska has a few active volcanoes too, and very high gasoline prices, just sayin'.

[KamaAina]

131. Actually, we're between 4.10 and 4.35 here on O'ahu

that's one of the things about this whole thing that makes me a wee bit suspicious about the runup in prices on the mainland. Nothing is supposed to cost more on the mainland than it does here. And yet around 20 mainland cities are paying more for gas than we are.

Hint: We have two small refineries on the west end of O'ahu. Mainland refineries, I hear, are operating at only about 85 percent of capacity.

[johnaries]

23. I've been toying with the idea

of ocean platforms with windmills and solar panels above and submerged current or hydrothermal turbines below. The platform would use the resulting electricity to turn seawater into hydrogen that could be shipped to shore. Not sure if it's practical, but it sounds good in my head :)

[northzax]

111. shipping hydrogen is the problem

it is quite expensive.

[Radical Activist]

24. Goodness knows we have an endless supply of clean water.

I'm sure using more of it for fuel won't cause any problems down the road...

[shanti]

26. WE, the US

don't, but paraguay does...:shrug:

[Up2Late]

34. As they said in the video, it doen't need to be "clean" water, you can use sea water...

...un-potable water or even Tea. Hell, I bet you could even use human Urine if that's all you had.

[Buns_of_Fire]

41. Human urine? Well, okay, but mind the springs on the fuel door!

And keep in mind that a "fill-up" could probably get you arrested in certain localities! ;-)

[IDemo]

72. Beer trucks will become the new fuel tankers

[timtom]

45. Precisely my first thought.

[Speck Tater]

30. GOD!! I'm sick of the level of scientific illiteracy that allows people to believe such crap!

Whatever it's power source, it is NOT extracting energy from water.

Here's the deal. IF such a technology really existed, the inventor could patent it, and license that patent to any number of manufacturers. Think of the market potential. Do you honestly think that G.E, or Mitsubishi, or any of a number of huge manufacturers wouldn't jump at the chance to build and sell a backyard, water-powered electrical generator for the home market? Or a commercial scale water-powered electric generator for cities and towns? There would billions and billions of dollars of profit in it for them. What greedy capitalist could pass up billions and billions in profit?

So why isn't this water engine being marketed already? Because it doesn't work. Period. But the dreamers and scientifically illiterate still dream of perpetual motion, and when their pet dream never makes it to market they can't quite bring themselves to admit the truth that it simply doesn't work, so they invent conspiracy theories to explain why the "modern miracle" never made it to market.

I suppose it's just like the big stove manufactures bought out the secret to the microwave oven so it never made it to market. Oh wait, that's not how it happened. Or maybe how the wealthy movie studios bought up the secret of TV so it couldn't make it to the market and steal away their ticket sales. Oh, wait. That's not how it happened.

Breakthrough technology that actually works CANNOT be kept off the market. That's the beauty of capitalism.

Such conspiracy theories are all delusion. The average person is raised to believe that "technology" is some kind of magical thing that will always come through with the solution to our problems. But science is about DISCOVERING what the laws and limits of nature are. Technology is about pushing those laws to the limit. But technology is NEVER, and can never be, about breaking those laws.

No modern technological marvel, no matter how surprising, or how advanced, or how revolutionary, has EVER violated the basic laws of physics. Ever. Even the Apollo moon shot DEPENDED on knowing and applying Newtons laws of motion. Newton himself would have understood that perfectly.

And somehow, most people just don't get that. It's a crying shame, and an indictment of our educational system. But this grasping at delusional straws is also a measure of our desperation when faced with
the approaching depletion of petroleum. It's part of the denial phase of grieving the loss of cheap energy.

Whatever this magical car is, it is NOT powered by water. It may use water in part of it's process, but the ultimate power source does NOT comes from water. Not possible No loopholes. A molecule of oil is like a tightly wound spring, it's bonds loaded with potential energy just waiting for the slightest nudge to be released. A water molecule, by comparison, is like a limp, wet piece of tissue paper; all relaxed and without any usable potential energy. And anyone who doesn't get that needs to go take a freshman physics course and get a clue about how the world really works.

[NutmegYankee]

33. I know. People here lack even High School Level Physics knowledge.

The Nuclear power thread was just as bad. Every fucking flower power puff wad thinks they know more than all the engineers and act like we are part of some giant conspiracy when we try to educate them on reality. It's reality! Ideology cannot trump it. That's why America is going to shit in the first place - because the republicans thought they could.

[Radical Activist]

35. Ok, but have you seen Who Killed the Electric Car?

Once in a great while there really is a conspiracy. Cars on the road really were taken away from owners who wanted to keep them. And the oil industry does have a vested interest in maintaining demand for its product. That's capitalism too.

[Speck Tater]

38. Yes, I did. However...

there was nothing "secret" or "revolutionary" about an electric car. Nor does it violate any laws of physics. The reason it was taken off the market is because it was not making enough profit compared to gasoline powered cars.

Given the cheapness of oil at the time those electrics came out, the electric car was not enough better to make any impact on the market. But the technology is well known, and anyone who wants to can make their own electric car, or convert a small gasoline car to electric. In pulling their car from the market they did not hide the technology from the world. The technology itself IS in the market today. Just like I said, technology that works cannot be kept out of the market. Once in the market it needs to compete based on its own merits.

But forget a water-powered car. If there was such a thing as a water powered engine, that engine could be hooked to a stationary electrical generator and put in your garage to power your whole house. Now THAT would have market appeal.

People let their ego get wrapped up in what they drive, so there wasn't a large enough market for the electric car to tempt the auto makers. But there's no ego involved in a simple piece of machinery hidden in your garage that gives you free electricity for life. People would buy that, if it existed.

Yes, there have been corporate conspiracies. But when something is physically impossible, it's not some corporate conspiracy that made it impossible, it was the laws of physics, to which there are NO exceptions. When something DOES work, it will be in the market. Whether some big auto company wants to produce electric cars or not, the TECHNOLOGY IS in the market. Water-fueled engine technology is not, and never will be in the market because it doesn't work, because it can't work.

[Norrin Radd]

44. "not enough better"? I'm sick of the level of stylistic illiteracy that allows people to write such

crap?

Now, do you see how you appear when you make condescending, sweeping statements about your fellow DUers' grasp of knowledge? ;-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Your post would have more impact without the question mark

after 'crap'.

There is a difference between small mistakes that we all make, and a fundamental lack of basic scientific knowledge that allows people to get excited about a 'water-fuel' car.

[Speck Tater]

88. Nobody is well trained in every discipline.

That's not an insult, just a fact.

You would not ask your barber to do brain surgery. Is that an insult to the barber? Of course not.

I'm simply stating that fact that barbers should not do brain surgery, physicists should not do hair styling, and people with no scientific knowledge or training should not be making energy policy, or telling the rest of us what does or doesn't work. They are not trained to know how to do that job correctly.

Not a slam, just a fact.

That's not the problem. The problem is when the barber actually fancies himself qualified to do brain surgery, or the politician fancies himself qualified to make judgments regarding evolution, global warming, sex education, or energy policy, or the average non-scientist fancies himself qualified to say what is or is not physically possible when perpetual motion claims are made.

[gulfcoastliberal]

83. You really think we've discovered everything there is to know about physics?

I don't.

[Speck Tater]

86. No, but...

What we have discovered so far works.
We have not discovered all there is to know about gravity, but if I jump off a building, I will still fall. No matter what new laws are discovered, they will never change that simple fact.

[SergeyDovlatov]

116. "reputable" source on the internet claimed:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/msg/01b5d27d94622692?hl=en&

Some facts about the EV1, the research and development of which
was produced by _my_ division of GM, Hughes Electronics:

General Motors lost two billion dollars on the project, and lost
money on every single EV1 produced. The leases didn't even cover
the costs of servicing them.

The range of 130 miles is bogus. None of them ever achieved that
under normal driving conditions. Running the air conditioning or
heater could halve that range. Even running the headlights
reduced it by 10%.

Minimum recharge time was two hours using special charging
stations that except for fleet use didn't exist. The effective
recharge time, using the equipment that could be installed in a
lessee's garage, was eight hours. Home electrical systems simply
couldn't handle the necessary current draw for "fast" charging.

NiMH batteries that had lasted up to three years in testing were
failing after six months in service. There was no way to keep
them from overheating without doubling the size of the battery
pack. Lead-acid batteries were superior to NiMH in actual daily
use.

Battery replacement was a task performed by skilled technicians
taking the sorts of precautions that electricians do when working
on live circuits, because that's what they were doing -- working
on live circuits. You cannot turn batteries "off." This is the
reason the vehicles were leased, rather than sold. As long as
the terms of the lease prohibited maintenance by other than a
Hughes technician, GM's liability in the event of a screw-up was
much reduced. Technicians can encounter high voltages in hybrid
vehicles. In the EV1, there were _really_ high voltages present.

Lessees were complaining that their electric bills had increased
to the point that they'd rather be using gasoline.

One of the guys I worked with transferred to the EV1 program
after what was by then a division of Raytheon lost the C-130 ATS
contract. He's now back working for us. He has some interesting
stories, none of them good, though he did like the
company-subsidized apartment in Malibu. He said the car was a
dream to drive, if you didn't mind being stranded between
Bakersfield and Barstow on a hot July afternoon when a battery
blew up from the combined heat of the day and the current draw.

[Radical Activist]

118. Toyota lost money selling hybrids for several years.

Now GM is laying off thousands of workers that make gas guzzlers and playing catch up. Pretty short sighted of them.

[SergeyDovlatov]

119. No army can stop an idea whose time has come

With respect to hybrid GM admitted it:

According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek, "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.'

[snooper2]

89. perpetual motion jet ski!

I can just dump the 650 two stroke in my jet ski, put my water machine in the engine bay, and once I got going never have to stop :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



GOBAMA!

[Speck Tater]

92. Here's and even better idea.

Build a car with REALLY BIG wheels in the back, and REALLY TINY wheels in the front, so that it's always going down hill! Just let off the brake and coast down hill to wherever you want to go.

[snooper2]

95. you

are cracking me up :rofl: :rofl:

I was looking for a good picture, but this fits in nicely with the thread anyway :rofl:

[Tesha]

133. "I always like going south. Somehow... it feels like going downhill."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treebeard

[bhikkhu]

31. Without a vetted EROI, its just more snake oil

This is only about the hundredth "water-powered car" that's been trotted out. The problem with this particular cycles is all the energy conversions involved; simple electric is probably still much more efficient, but we don't know without and ERIO, and again its just another sideshow without that. I expect several a week, during the long summer of high gas prices. Perhaps in the fall we will shift to heating our homes for nothing, with magnetic water-engines or whatever sounds good.

[tkmorris]

37. This cannot work

Well, to be completely accurate it COULD work but there would be absolutely no point to it. The energy lost by extracting hydrogen and then converting it to electricity would leave you with less energy than you started with.

Using hydrogen is possible, but what people seem to forget again and again is that you CANNOT get it for free. Anyone who pours water into a device and says that he then breaks it down to extract hydrogen, without discussing where the energy came from to do that is lying to you.

[Speck Tater]

39. The real giveaway is this...

the exhaust is supposedly ... are your ready for this? ... water.

So you pour water in, and get water back out. Where did any net energy come from? I don't care what you do to the water between the time you pour it in and the time it drizzles out, the only thing you can possibly do is LOSE energy along the way.

Now maybe if you had a huge water tank way up on stilts, fifty feet above the roof of the car you could use gravity to push the water through a turbine and then spit out the water at the bottom. But how would you pump the water way up into that tank to begin with? (Not to mention the rollover risk of a top-heavy water tank fifty feet in the air.)

[Up2Late]

87. Your really don' t understand how the modern fuel cell works, do you?

I'm not going to try to explain it, because it's much too simple a process and I would just add to the confusion, but these Flash animations at this links below should be clear to most people:

<http://www.h2fc.com/reframe.php?top=/global/tech.shtml&bot=/technology/fuelcells/general.shtml>

This one is over simplified: <http://www.humboldt.edu/%7Eserc/animation.html>

This one: <http://www.plugpower.com/technology/works.cfm>

and the one below are a little more detailed, click where it says "Fuel Cell Animation how a PEMFC works, market studies - SGL Technologies"
<http://www.h2fc.com/reframe.php?top=/global/tech.shtml&bot=/technology/fuelcells/general.shtml>
(sorry, I can't get a direct link to work, so look for it on the list)

[Speck Tater]

91. Yes, I do understand fuel cells.

They are NOT water in, water out. Better go back and read those links you provided again.

[pt22]

98. It's probably a very good thing you aren't attempting to explain it because

it's pretty clear you have no idea yourself. Sorry.
:shrug:

[slackmaster]

107. Fuel and oxygen go in, energy and by-products like water and CO2 come out

No big mystery.

The issue is always WHERE DOES THE FUEL COME FROM?

[Up2Late]

134. CO2 does NOT come out of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell!?! Where would the Carbon (the C in CO2) come from?

Magic?:wtf:

The elements involved in the process are H (Hydrogen) and O (Oxygen), there is no C (Carbon) in the process.:eyes:

Water is a simple chemical made from two gases -- hydrogen and oxygen. Every molecule of water has two atoms of hydrogen for every atom of oxygen. H2O is the chemical formula for a molecule of water.

The fuel is the Hydrogen (H2) that you get when you apply a small amount of electrical current to two or more electrodes in the water and the electricity comes from the process that happens in the fuel cell!

And once the Hydrogen has passed though the fuel cell, it re-combines with the Oxygen (O2) in the air, which creates water (H2O).

Now what do you do with that water that you just got out of the process? Well you could dump it or you could capture it re-use it again. Duh.

[hokies4ever]

40. Water is a greenhouse gas too you know

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. .

:spray:

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Is there an equivalent of April Fools Day in Japan? This sounds fishy.

And people in Japan tend to be very technically savvy. Maybe this is supposed to be some really obviously lame joke that no one would ever take seriously (except in the US).

When I described it to my electrical engineer husband the first words out of his mouth were mumble mumble "perpetual motion".

The only way I can imagine that this is for real is if this is some very thermal energy inefficient electric battery powered car that needs a butt load of water to cool it down and so they have decided to make a virtue of the necessity of carrying tons of water by calling it "water powered". In other words, it is a water cooled high speed electric car .

Remember those old Vegas that used to overheat?

[Hannah Bell]

43. The basic power generation mechanism of the new system is similar

to that of a normal fuel cell, which uses hydrogen as a fuel. According to Genepax, the main feature of the new system is that it uses the company's membrane electrode assembly (MEA), which contains a material capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction.

Though the company did not reveal the details, it "succeeded in adopting a well-known process to produce hydrogen from water to the MEA," said Hirasawa Kiyoshi, the company's president. This process is allegedly similar to the mechanism that produces hydrogen by a reaction of metal hydride and water. But compared with the existing method, the new process is expected to produce hydrogen from water for longer time, the company said.

With the new process, the cell needs only water and air, eliminating the need for a hydrogen reformer and high-pressure hydrogen tank. Moreover, the MEA requires no special catalysts, and the required amount of rare metals such as platinum is almost the same as that of existing systems, Genepax said.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080613/153276/

[Junkdrawer]

47. The old Consumable Catalyst trick...

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/15/is-genepax-for-real-a-car-that-runs-on-water-highly-unlikely/

[CANDO]

46. How soon to "Peak Water"?

Meet the new oil........water! Wars in the future will be fought over water.

[Vinca]

49. I don't understand half of what has been written on this thread, but . . .

I do know one thing. I've got water. Lots of it. It would make me very happy to run the hose out to my car and fill it up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Wow - that's Reuters' reputation down the drain

A piece on something that claims to break all known laws of physics, reported as if it's just another incremental improvement in car design. No questioning of what the hell they mean, no attempt to get any scientist (or, say, 14 year old) to explain why this would completely invalidate physics, and be more important than the discovery of relativity, quantum physics or radioactivity? No-one to cast a slight bit of doubt on the truthfulness of the company's claims?

:banghead:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

55. you nailed it...

journalism around the world continues to suffer due to the ignorance of their viewers...

sP

[HereSince1628]

58. This piece is for the general public, there may be some truth under it

If the car work on a hydrogen fuel cell and hase an onboard hydrogen generator which as discussed above is possible if generally impractical, then the pieces of the story can be sorted out into things that do make sense.

Just sayin. Most news agencies putting out stuff for the general public do a poor job on underlying science.

[Canuckistanian]

59. "There's a sucker born every minute"

But news agencies shouldn't be hiring them.

[NoFederales]

63. "There's water cars for 8 lb waterheads." An ignorant public fed pap by

ignorant reporting becomes magical thinking unfettered--it is also what North America does best, excellence in education, don't ya know.

NoFederales

[pleah]

60. You might be interested in this.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/newenergyinventionsnewsarticles-20-20

[Xenotime]

62. I don't understand why everyone is so happy about this?!?

Water is already in such a short supply. There are people who are suffering from thirst all over the world. Now, this will take water away from them so the rich can drive thier cars. This is a very bad thing.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

66. but it is supposed to run on ANY water...

not that it will work...

sP

[slackmaster]

106. There is plenty of water in the world, but more importantly...

...Water is not a fuel.

[yurbud]

68. VOTE THIS UP on DIGG too to make the devil mad LINK

http://digg.com/environment/Water_fuel_car_unveiled_in_Japan_VIDEO

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. "make the devil mad"?

You mean it's a prayer-based engine?

[yurbud]

71. No, I meant big oil. I heard the phrase in an Amazing Randi video of a faith healer

and like to use it in inappropriate contexts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. Ah - big oil won't care less about this

Since the company was lying about the inputs being just water and air, their car won't come to anything - no-one will invest in people who lied to the public about the basic concept. See the link in #50 for an honest explanation of the principles behind this, and the associated problems (there's no practical implementation of it, yet). Electric cars will still be better off running on batteries for the moment.

[pt22]

100. Don't forget some people will believe anything. My one-time boss gave a guy 500,000 bucks

to "perfect" his perpetual-motion device back in the early 1980s. He absolutely refused to listen to my advice - was a TRVE BELIEVER. If the guy ever got his machine to work, I missed out on the big news. :eyes:

[Juche]

78. I'm open to the idea

However the concept of where is the energy coming from is a little confusing. If it is both using water for fuel and giving off water as a waste byproduct, where is the chemical energy coming from?

Maybe you have to add alot of a catalyst every 3,000 miles or so and they didn't mention that. I don't know.

[IDemo]

79. The fuel cell 'stack' outputs 300W? That's under one-half horsepower

The Tesla electric car uses around 200 Watt-hours of energy per mile. Something isn't adding up here. I think they are going to have to boost the output of the stack significantly before arriving at a useful vehicle.

[mainegreen]

80. Pfffft. I've got a car that runs on nothing but GRAVITY!!!

No by products at all!

Full disclosure: You must get it to the top of the hill.

[Tesha]

84. Nobody will believe you.

To be believable, you've got to have some "magnets"
involved somewhere. And even better, "Rare earth
magnets". And a couple of "neodymiums" thrown
around in your text will really add sizzle to this!

Tesha

[snooper2]

94. Actually, there is a by-product..

You are using oil and other materials; as the tires interact with the road surface they "wear".


:evilgrin:

[eppur_se_muova]

125. NIce. nt

:thumbsup:

[LeftHander]

90. Bottled water more expensive than gas....nt

[pt22]

93. P.T. Barnum sure had it right.

:eyes:

[Blackhatjack]

101. Same category as "mule powered jet ski" -- It Could Work!!!

The devil is in the details!

[Booster]

102. I don't know it for a fact, but seems to me in the very near future

there will be less water than there is oil so I hope they're looking for something besides water to run cars.

[SergeyDovlatov]

117. Are you thinking of fresh water? or any water?

Ocean levels went up a foot in the last 100 years and it is projected that they will rise another foot in the next hundred years. Plenty of water. Don't you think?

[Booster]

128. Yes, I was thinking of fresh water. I would rather see them make

a car using something else, and start building a whole lot of those plants that change salt water into fresh water. Let's use our heads on this.

[slackmaster]

103. I don't have to read the article to know that the headline is bullshit

Water is not a fuel.

[lame54]

105. What happens to the water? - we kinda need it

[slackmaster]

109. There is plenty of water in the world - Easily enough to support all human needs and then some

The only problem with water is getting it from where the rain falls to where it is needed. That's nothing more than an engineering issue.

There is no shortage of water.

[lame54]

112. That doesn't answer the question

[slackmaster]

113. The water gets split into H2 and O2, which are then combined

Back into water, where it goes into the atmosphere and acts as a greenhouse gas.

:hi:

[lame54]

129. thank you - wasn't sure if it formed back into water

[rniel]

127. If they made a water fueled car in america

I'm sure Dick Cheney himself would show up and strangle the guy in his sleep while all records were destroyed.