Japanese roll out water powered car

[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.

 

[Dale]

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

If you did not see my post 8, neo's post 14, russ' post 25, and chi's post 37 then perhaps you should get your prescription checked (sorry to anyone whose scientific explanation I missed, there were a lot). But here is a detailed explanation for everyone who slept through chemistry.

Any given chemical bond has a certain amount of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_formation_%28data_table%29" ) that is required to create it from its base atoms. This is the amount of energy that can later be released to run a vehicle.

For example, water has a heat of formation of -286 kJ/mol meaning that a lot of energy is produced by reacting hydrogen and oxygen to form water in the first place so there is not much energy left. One of the reasons that there is so much water on the planet is that water has this very low energy state, think of the abundance of water and the scarcity of H2 similar to how you will expect to see more rocks at the bottom of a steep hill than on the top since the bottom is a lower energy state. You can think of a lower energy state being "downhill" from a higher energy state and therefore energy can be extracted e.g. to drive a vehicle.

Gasoline (octane) has an energy around -50 kJ/mol, and carbon dioxide has an energy around -394 kJ/mol. This means that you can get a lot of energy out by burning gasoline (converting it from octane and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water).

Now, when you claim that your fuel is water then you can make products containing hydrogen and oxygen from the water, and nitrogen or more oxygen from the air. Remember water already starts off very low on the energy "hill" (-286 kJ/mol). Hydrogen peroxide is -188 kJ/mol, so that is "uphill" and you lose energy. Hydrogen and oxygen gas are both 0 kJ/mol, so that is even further uphill. Ammonia is -81 kJ/mol, so that is uphill too. Nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen monoxide are even further uphill at 33 and 90 kJ/mol respectively.

There is just literally nowhere downhill from water using only water and air. If they are using something other than water and air (e.g. NaH) then that is the real fuel for the car, not the water.

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.

You will note that they have not allowed their physical object to be tested by an independent third party. That in itself is quite telling.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sooo much faster than you.

 

[Dale]

Hehe, yes, "I'm not worthy!"

 

[gravenewworld]

I got it, they produce massive amounts of sodium hydride in a factory that is completely powered by solar, wind, and water energy.

 

[edward]

I don't know what ever became of this gallium aluminum alloy patent.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.html

It definitely produces hydrogen, but it takes much, much more than just water.

Edit: I see one of the researchers has a patch on his eye. That's not a good sign.

 

[Alfi]

Thank you all for very convincing arguments.
You certainly do raise up when challenged. :)

Global TV in Toronto has been running the tape of that 'test drive' every 30 minuets this morning. As a news item in breaking technology.
There are going to be a lot of people believing in this energy source by days end.
I sent Global an email to ask if anyone there was checking into the possibility the story may be about a fraudulent item. I'll be curious if anyone returns a comment.

 

[Chi Meson]

Thank you all for very convincing arguments.
You certainly do raise up when challenged. :)

Very gracious of you. We have hope for you yet!

 

[Alfi]

If you did not see my post 8, neo's post 14, russ' post 25, and chi's post 37 then perhaps you should get your prescription checked (sorry to anyone whose scientific explanation I missed, there were a lot). But here is a detailed explanation for everyone who slept through chemistry.

I am old ( hehe 52) and I am starting to learn all over again on my own.
One of the first things I have learned or re-learned is to ask questions, and if I still don't understand to ask some more. Sometimes the questions are, So, why do you think you are so right, and is there no room for breakthroughs anymore? It's not that I'm being obstinate, as much as persistent. My apologies for appearing to argue just for the sake of it.
You will note that they have not allowed their physical object to be tested by an independent third party. That in itself is quite telling.

Nice tutorial. Thanks. Clear and without too much requirement for prior knowledge. Thanks for the effort and time. It's been a few years since grade twelve but it's sort of still there.

Also, from just a people point of view, I found it very telling to me that, first, were this to be a true 'new' technology worth developing I am fairly sure I would have seen this in every solid science magazine out there.
Second, if they held back like the Asimo people, they would have called in a big bang news conference and just wowed us, just as Honda did. That was a cool intro to a step up in the field. ( just my opinion. I impress easy )
Reuters just doesn't play. It sounds like a bad bell.

But now it's lose on the net. The local stations are picking it up.

So many people and so much to un-learn. It's wonder we can trust anything.
Thanks for the explanations. the ball is in their court now as they must prove the claim with their physical model.
Then ( and only then) they can become the next world hero's and invisionist's.

 

[Dale]

So, why do you think you are so right, and is there no room for breakthroughs anymore?

Please don't get me wrong. I am an engineer, so my life's work is about creating technological breakthroughs in my field. There is plenty of room for breakthroughs, and technology is advancing at an ever-increasing rate. However, breakthroughs occur by understanding reality and using natural laws to our advantage. Not by ignoring reality in favor of fantasy and wishes. TANSTAAFL

Nice tutorial. Thanks. Clear and without too much requirement for prior knowledge. Thanks for the effort and time. It's been a few years since grade twelve but it's sort of still there.

You are very welcome, I am glad you liked it.

Also, from just a people point of view, I found it very telling to me that, first, were this to be a true 'new' technology worth developing I am fairly sure I would have seen this in every solid science magazine out there.

Yes, that is a good point. The way this would happen if it were a legitimate breakthrough is that they would apply for patent protection first. There is no way they would invite Reuters over without patent protection since that is "public disclosure".

After getting protection they could freely publish all of the details in reputable peer-reviewed journals, allow all sorts of independent testing, and open up the "black box" for everyone to see. It would be in their best interest to do so in order to dispell any doubt and really make money. Getting a patent is not that difficult, I have a few and none represent any amazing breakthrough like this. The fact that they have not protected it and instead are keeping the mechanism secret says to me that there is nothing there to patent.

 

[rohanprabhu]

A much needed article in a world of idiotic believers

People today are so inclined in 'beating the system', they go as far as claiming that the Law of Conservation of Energy is some kind of a Conspiracy theory, without even knowing all the phenomena this law has been able to predict and confirm, and has passed the test of time. To quote house, "you know what's worse than useless? Useless and oblivious" . The price of the information age, i guess.

Water powered cars has been another debate with people saying that the oil companies are holding the truth from us to earn big bucks. In this world of ignorance, and how do i put it, 'rebellious ignorance', this is a much needed article: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1769/68

to quote a part of it:

Until someone puts a box on their driveway and it generates more power than goes into it...everyone who says you can power a car with water is either a fool or trying to take someone else's money.