Japanese roll out water powered car

[gravenewworld]

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561


I don't have sound so what does the Reuters vid say?

 

[Kurdt]

Nothing much more than the text conveyed. They said it can run for an hour at 80 Km/hr on a litre of water. Nothing about how the 'magic' generator removes the hydrogen from the water though.

 

[gravenewworld]

Nothing much more than the text conveyed. They said it can run for an hour at 80 Km/hr on a litre of water. Nothing about how the 'magic' generator removes the hydrogen from the water though.

Does it say what the products are? You can't create H2 and emit water as a waste product. That would be perpetual motion.

 

[Kurdt]

Nothing about emissions. It just says it removes hydrogen from the water producing electrons. Sounds too good to be true for me.

 

[Dale]

I found http://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/genepax-unveils-a-car-that-generates-electricity-with-only-water-air.html" on the same car. From this sentence:

"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."

I guess that it is actually a metal-hydride powered car. Those are one of the few kinds of chemical compounds that have a lower energy state than water.

NaH + H2O -> NaOH + H2
2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O
overall reaction
2 NaH + O2 -> 2 NaOH

Just an educated guess.

 

[gravenewworld]

I found http://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/genepax-unveils-a-car-that-generates-electricity-with-only-water-air.html" on the same car. From this sentence:

"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."

I guess that it is actually a metal-hydride powered car. Those are one of the few kinds of chemical compounds that have a lower energy state than water.

It says it is similar to metal hydride+water, not that it is powered by such a reaction. I couldn't imagine having to constantly add sodium hydride to you car to keep it running.

 

[Kurdt]

How much energy goes into producing metal hydrides then?

 

[Dale]

It says it is similar to metal hydride+water, not that it is powered by such a reaction.

I understand that is what it said, but the energy has to come from somewhere. The only way to get energy out of water is to react it to produce something that has an even lower energy state.

When they have some "mystery box" you have to read between the lines. They don't describe it much other than the reference to metal hydrides, and they don't even specify the outputs, so you are left to infer. I won't abandon thermodynamics for faith in a company.

I could easily be wrong, but I will keep my money in mutual funds for now.

 

[Dale]

How much energy goes into producing metal hydrides then?

Exactly.

 

[Kurdt]

Sensationalist journalism again I fear.

 

[out of whack]

Sensationalist journalism again I fear.

Yes. I find reports like that a shameful gimmick: "a car that runs on nothing but water" is false. It perpetuates the myth that water can actually generate energy when the energy comes from another source that is not mentioned. The translator says "no external input is needed" probably just to mean "no power cord dragging behind the vehicle". Reuters? Sheesh.

 

[Moonbear]

It says it is similar to metal hydride+water, not that it is powered by such a reaction. I couldn't imagine having to constantly add sodium hydride to you car to keep it running.

Not to mention having something as caustic as sodium hydroxide as the exhausted product. I guess if you have a container to collect it into, you'll never need to buy drain cleaner again.

I'd hate to see what happens when the NaOH dripped onto the roads comes into contact with acid rain. Might not have to worry about ice on the roads in winter though.

 

[Dale]

Yes. I find reports like that a shameful gimmick: "a car that runs on nothing but water" is false. It perpetuates the myth that water can actually generate energy when the energy comes from another source that is not mentioned. The translator says "no external input is needed" probably just to mean "no power cord dragging behind the vehicle". Reuters? Sheesh.

Agreed. The problem is that most journalists, even the ones on a science or technology beat, are really ignorant of basic scientific principles. They don't have the background to even ask the right questions.

 

[NeoDevin]

They claim "no emmissions". Not even that water or hydrogen or oxygen is emmitted. From this I can only assume that they have found a way to convert the entire rest mass of the water into electrical energy.

 

[Dale]

I'd hate to see what happens when the NaOH dripped onto the roads comes into contact with acid rain.

Hey, that's a great idea! Some base-rain to neutralize the acid-rain. Maybe these guys are on to something after all!

 

[Moonbear]

Hey, that's a great idea! Some base-rain to neutralize the acid-rain. Maybe these guys are on to something after all!

In that case, I'd really prefer it if they worked on finding something that produced sodium bicarbonate as a waste product. Then at least if I get indigestion over the rising fuel costs, sucking on a tailpipe would be a less lethal solution to that problem.

 

[russ_watters]

Sensationalist journalism again I fear.

No, just stupid journalism.

 

[RonL]

I found http://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/genepax-unveils-a-car-that-generates-electricity-with-only-water-air.html" on the same car. From this sentence:

"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."

I guess that it is actually a metal-hydride powered car. Those are one of the few kinds of chemical compounds that have a lower energy state than water.

NaH + H2O -> NaOH + H2
2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O
overall reaction
2 NaH + O2 -> 2 NaOH

Just an educated guess.

I know very little about chemical things, but looking at the blue box on the desk, there are 8 maybe 9 cap nuts that suggest more than a casual pressure. An electrical generated plasma, and the fact that water and air can be taken to extremes, hot and cold, to me suggest things in the micro scale and nano speeds. I can't explain what i think so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

Regardless of the article being sensational, if the company says that the car can run at 80kmph for an hour using a liter of water, isn't that good enough? I would say that if the claims are accurate, then this is an effective solution to the oil problem if it can be implemented on a large scale, and the waste products should not be very harmful to the environment, or at the very least, should be managable.

I know you can't really say that without knowing what process they use to derive energy from water, but the engineers who designed and worked on that car must have put a lot of thought into that too. You can't really disregard professional sensibilities can you?

 

[WarPhalange]

Regardless of the article being sensational, if the company says that the car can run at 80kmph for an hour using a liter of water, isn't that good enough?

Good enough for what? I mean, first we need to show that it can do it, then figure out if it does it the way the company claims.

I'd be satisfied with even a 40 mile trip per day. I don't even drive that much on a typical day, and even if I had to buy 2 bottles of Aquafina or whatever to fill it up, I'd be happy.

 

[russ_watters]

Regardless of the article being sensational, if the company says that the car can run at 80kmph for an hour using a liter of water, isn't that good enough? I would say that if the claims are accurate, then this is an effective solution to the oil problem if it can be implemented on a large scale, and the waste products should not be very harmful to the environment, or at the very least, should be managable.

Those who said this was sensational journalism were wrong. What this is is a hoax that the journalists didn't pick up on. We can be quite certain that the claims are not accurate.

I know you can't really say that without knowing what process they use to derive energy from water, but the engineers who designed and worked on that car must have put a lot of thought into that too. You can't really disregard professional sensibilities can you?

Yes we can. What is claimed is a direct violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Any claim of using water as a fuel (with no other source of energy input) is a claim of perpetual motion.

 

[Alfi]

If it's a hoax, it should be easy to debunk.

Send in the Myth Busters. :)

 

[RonL]

Those who said this was sensational journalism were wrong. What this is is a hoax that the journalists didn't pick up on. We can be quite certain that the claims are not accurate. Yes we can. What is claimed is a direct violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Any claim of using water as a fuel (with no other source of energy input) is a claim of perpetual motion.

Russ, I would like to ask a question, based on a statement of an experience in my past.
The incidence was a need to start a diesel engine, due to a poor connection ?? at the battery terminal, the load imposed by the starter resulted in the lead post being completely vaporised, and melted, in some portion of one second.

Now the question is, if a single drop of water (about 1/25 ml) or at least a very small amount of liquid, is moved into a small and very hot chamber and brought into a state of superheated vapor, would any of that vapor produce a combustion if air is someway brought into the mix ?
To me it seems possible that some part of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, might produce energy in excess of what it takes to put the water into superheated conditions.

Any energy system takes a larger amount of energy to put into motion, but to sustain that motion takes far less than the input, somewhere in between starting and stopping there should be some wiggle room.

 

[russ_watters]

If it's a hoax, it should be easy to debunk.

Send in the Myth Busters. :)

It would be easy if they allowed you to actually examine the vehicle. Here's how: keep pouring water in until it stops running. Ie, until the battery that is actually powering the car runs out of juice.

 

[russ_watters]

Now the question is, if a single drop of water (about 1/25 ml) or at least a very small amount of liquid, is moved into a small and very hot chamber and brought into a state of superheated vapor, would any of that vapor produce a combustion if air is someway brought into the mix ?
To me it seems possible that some part of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, might produce energy in excess of what it takes to put the water into superheated conditions.

Any energy system takes a larger amount of energy to put into motion, but to sustain that motion takes far less than the input, somewhere in between starting and stopping there should be some wiggle room.

These reactions are quite well understood. There are no surprises to be had. Any high school level or higher chemistry or thermodynamics book (not to mention the net) has the energies involved in all of these reactions/bonds in tables in the book. It is an important part of the class, figuring out how a reaction happens and if there is a net release or absorption of energy.

For example, superheated water vapor - what could it possibly turn into if "combusted"?? It is already H2O - would it become H2O2? Well, how does that reaction work? Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide#Decomposition

As you can see, the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide is exothermic, which means the formation is endothermic.

What really bothers me about these things is the utter lack of scientific understanding displayed by the media. It isn't like Reuter's is a small company. They can afford to pay a high school kid who just passed chemistry and physics to be their science editor and tell them not to run a a free infomercial for a scam like this. The whole point of these stories is to trick people into investing in these fake companies. It's fraud, and the media is complicit.

 

[Alfi]

It would be easy if they allowed you to actually examine the vehicle. Here's how: keep pouring water in until it stops running. Ie, until the battery that is actually powering the car runs out of juice.

Don't even need to be allowed to inspect the thing.
Just ask to watch the fueling, the test run and the refueling. If it is repeatable, I want one.

 

[Dale]

What really bothers me about these things is the utter lack of scientific understanding displayed by the media.

What really bothers me is that ANYONE who has a high-school diploma could be duped by this. I mean, this is really basic stuff, how is it possible to live in a world so full of science and be functionally ignorant of one of the most fundamental concepts. The media reflects the populace in this case, how sad.

 

[Alfi]

I just don't understand why a company claiming 25 years of research would put out a hoax.

They must have 'something' behind this, or risk closing the company over a fraud case.

 

[out of whack]

I just don't understand why a company claiming 25 years of research would put out a hoax.

They must have 'something' behind this, or risk closing the company over a fraud case.

Claiming 25 years of research is part of the hoax. The company is a sham. I just checked their web page full of "coming soon" sections, copyrighted 2008. First press release: June, this year, about the car. Really, you think a 25-year-old Japanese company would have just discovered the internet this year? There is no "risk" of closing a sham company. And Reuters sucks donkey, from now on I'll only listen to Geraldo.

 

[rootX]

What really bothers me is that ANYONE who has a high-school diploma could be duped by this. I mean, this is really basic stuff, how is it possible to live in a world so full of science and be functionally ignorant of one of the most fundamental concepts. The media reflects the populace in this case, how sad.

I think general population don't need to know how it runs.

If it costs less and is safer than using gas, everyone is happy

 

[Dale]

I think general population don't need to know how it runs.

If it costs less and is safer than using gas, everyone is happy

Then happiness is believing in fairy tales I guess. Why don't you send me $200, Santa Claus and I are good friends and I will put in a good word for you. You don't have to know how it works, but he will bring you whatever you want.

 

[russ_watters]

I just don't understand why a company claiming 25 years of research would put out a hoax.

There is nothing complicated behind hoaxes. People do them for one of two reasons:

1. Fame/notariety.
2. Money.

They must have 'something' behind this, or risk closing the company over a fraud case.

I don't know how things work in Japan, but in the US, people are almost never prosecuted for this type of fraud. People will invest in the company, the company will fail, and that will be the end of it. Companies fail all the time because promising new technologies don't pan out.

 

[russ_watters]

I think general population don't need to know how it runs.

If it costs less and is safer than using gas, everyone is happy

But that's exactly the point: it doesn't. People get bombarded with false/misleading advertising on a daily basis and they need to have a well-calibrated BS detector to adequately deal with it.

 

[rootX]

Then happiness is believing in fairy tales I guess. Why don't you send me $200, Santa Claus and I are good friends and I will put in a good word for you. You don't have to know how it works, but he will bring you whatever you want.

I think that's how the things work.
You can call corporations as Santa Claus
and engineers/researchers as elves.
You can get anything you want, if you
provide enough money.

For, general population or executives nothing is impossible.
It's just engineers/researchers who deal with this mess

But that's exactly the point: it doesn't. People get bombarded with false/misleading advertising on a daily basis and they need to have a well-calibrated BS detector to adequately deal with it.

Yep, you are right.

 

[Alfi]

So

I see a lot of disbelief posts, but not a 'it can't be done, and here's why' post.

Should my BS detector flip flop on them or you guys.
Neither side has convinced me and one side has a physical object to be tested.

I don't buy into their claims with eyes closed, but it would be nice to be able to point out the flaw of the deception.

 

[mgb_phys]

but it would be nice to be able to point out the flaw of the deception.

The flaw in their deception is that they are lying.
If you believe them you might also like to buy a machine I have for predicting lottery numbers.
Buy two and I'll throw in a free bridge, it's in Brooklyn at the moment if you want to inspect it first.

 

[Chi Meson]

So

I see a lot of disbelief posts, but not a 'it can't be done, and here's why' post.

Should my BS detector flip flop on them or you guys.
Neither side has convinced me and one side has a physical object to be tested.

I don't buy into their claims with eyes closed, but it would be nice to be able to point out the flaw of the deception.

Previous posts on this thread have already explained why the claim "Runs on nothing but water" is profoundly doubtable.

Primary points: water is the product of combustion. It's like burning a log in your fireplace, then expecting that the ash can be burnt again (just as hot), to produce more ash.

If the water is reacting with some other compound, then the water is not the fuel, and this "other compound" must be manufactured and sold to actually power the car.

Perhaps a genius has discovered what has been elusive to all scientists everywhere: the "cold fusion reactor"! But they don't run it by the science community. Instead, the first step they take is a news release through Reuters where they must include the line "even tea works."

Look at their website http://www.genepax.co.jp/en/company/ I don't think that's the home of genius.Notice that the company's capital is 43 million yen. That's about $400,000.
I could buy them out right now AND keep my house!
I choose to stay away from this. They will be asking for money really soon.

 

[Alfi]

The flaw in their deception is that they are lying.

What is the lie ? ... please be specific.

Previous posts on this thread have already explained why the claim "Runs on nothing but water" is profoundly doubtable.

Profoundly doubtable is not a counter proof. It's a claim of doubt.
Doubt, a status between belief and disbelief, involves uncertainty or distrust.

Are we uncertain of their claim, or just distrustful?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I just rolled out a water powered car too, and boy are my arms tired.

 

[Alfi]

I just rolled out a water powered car too, and boy are my arms tired.

Didn't drink enough water before the task? :) hehe

 

[Chi Meson]

What is the lie ? ... please be specific.


Profoundly doubtable is not a counter proof. It's a claim of doubt.
Doubt, a status between belief and disbelief, involves uncertainty or distrust.

Are we uncertain of their claim, or just distrustful?

Highly, highly distrustful. But you go right ahead and buy one!

 

[rootX]

Honda on hydrogen!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7456141.stm

 

[out of whack]

Didn't drink enough water before the task? :) hehe

Good point actually. Looking at the caloric content of water gives you an interesting clue on the validity of something that runs on water alone.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Good point actually. Looking at the caloric content of water gives you an interesting clue on the validity of something that runs on water alone.

That's not a good clue. Imagine if I drank a gallon of gasoline.

 

[out of whack]

That's not a good clue. Imagine if I drank a gallon of gasoline.

You wouldn't be concerned about your arms being tired!

 

[Alfi]

Highly, highly distrustful. But you go right ahead and buy one!

I also do not trust the claim as presented. BUT... That is still not a debunk of the claim.

Science is not based on distrust is it?
Just saying it is not so, is not science. Proving it is not so by reasons that are logical might be.

Just being a devils advocate here. :)

 

[out of whack]

Just saying it is not so, is not science. Proving it is not so by reasons that are logical might be.

As I see it, you cannot expect a scientific proof that will debunk a secret device that cannot be examined by neutral parties. Given this, I don't see how anyone here can say something that will satisfy your expectations. All you should expect is common sense which may not be an absolute proof but is still useful since it protects you from charlatans. Then it's up to your own judgment.

 

[WarPhalange]

Just saying it is not so, is not science. Proving it is not so by reasons that are logical might be.

That's not how it works. "It's not so" is the DEFAULT position in science. Anything someone says is crap until they can show the evidence for their claim. This isn't a courtroom.

 

[Chi Meson]

I also do not trust the claim as presented. BUT... That is still not a debunk of the claim.

Science is not based on distrust is it?
Just saying it is not so, is not science. Proving it is not so by reasons that are logical might be.

Just being a devils advocate here. :)

Then you missed all the scientific logic in all the posts up until this one. Chemical possibilities have been discussed, thermodynamics laws have been applied. It is exactly the application of scientific knowledge that leads to the highly dubious nature of the claim.

If you want to be scientific about "trusting" or "accepting" the claim, or even of giving them the "benefit of the doubt," then in your very next post (leave the devil out of this, be scientific ), you should outline the scientific model that explains how usable energy can be extracted from water (or tea). I'll save you time: there isn't one (other than hydrogen fusion, which this car is not).

 

[russ_watters]

So

I see a lot of disbelief posts, but not a 'it can't be done, and here's why' post.

Should my BS detector flip flop on them or you guys.
Neither side has convinced me and one side has a physical object to be tested.

I don't buy into their claims with eyes closed, but it would be nice to be able to point out the flaw of the deception.

People aluded to it earlier, but didn't state it explicitly:

Chemical reactions are symmetrical: they require the same energy input to run the reaction one way as you get back by running the reaction the other way. Therefore, the net energy output available in a water powered car is zero. The chemistry is discussed here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=240385

That's the first law of thermodynamics in action. Conservation of energy.

Now, the car they have there clearly moves. But it cannot be powered by that reaction, even though it is claimed in the video that it is. Therefore, the people who are marketing it are lying. The claim in the article linked earlier:

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.

...that you can separate hydrogen and oxygen with a catalyst to beat conservation of energy, is a relatively common scam/hoax/crackpot belief (there was a recent popular one about burning salt water). Though there is a small chance that they simply don't understand their own product:

...Genepax powered the TV and the lighting equipment with a lead-acid battery charged by using the system.

It is quite possible that they don't even realize their car is just sucking power from the battery. But as I said, you can demonstrate this easily enough by adding water to the tank until the car stops running. After it grinds to a halt, you'll find the battery is dead.