- #1
- 1,104
- 25
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561
I don't have sound so what does the Reuters vid say?
I don't have sound so what does the Reuters vid say?
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.
I found http://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/genepax-unveils-a-car-that-generates-electricity-with-only-water-air.html" [Broken] 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.
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.It says it is similar to metal hydride+water, not that it is powered by such a reaction.
Exactly.How much energy goes into producing metal hydrides then?
Sensationalist journalism again I fear.
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.
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.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.
Hey, that's a great idea! Some base-rain to neutralize the acid-rain. Maybe these guys are on to something after all!I'd hate to see what happens when the NaOH dripped onto the roads comes into contact with acid rain. :uhh:
Hey, that's a great idea! Some base-rain to neutralize the acid-rain. Maybe these guys are on to something after all!
No, just stupid journalism.Sensationalist journalism again I fear.
I found http://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/genepax-unveils-a-car-that-generates-electricity-with-only-water-air.html" [Broken] 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.
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?
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.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.
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.I know you cant 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 cant really disregard professional sensibilities can you?
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.
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.If it's a hoax, it should be easy to debunk.
Send in the Myth Busters. :)
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.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.