Water-powered car: real deal or n-th scam?

[ShadowRider77]

I stumbled upon this and tought it was worth mentioning:

WP car demonst.

I had no time to search further details about this particular news, for now...

As far as I can remember, this is not the first time someone tries to use water dissociation to produce hydrogen for fuel cells. What makes it unpractical, if I understand correctly, is that the metal hydrides used for the dissociation are consumed in the process, thus becoming the actual 'fuel' - and, keeping into account the cost for producing the hydrides, the energy balance goes quite negative (please correct me if I didn't get it right - it's been a long time since I studied any electrochem...)

Now, it appears that this company is claiming that their car needs nothing but "any kind of water" to work. So, are they trying to sell BS to public, or what else?

[Count Dooku]

It takes a lot of energy to break the bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen in a water molecule. dG is positive, so the reaction is energy negative. Unless they have a fascinating series of catalysts in that membrane, I call it a scam...

[Twoyboy]

Now, it appears that this company is claiming that their car needs nothing but "any kind of water" to work. So, are they trying to sell BS to public, or what else?

If that's what they're claiming (and, while they're being vague, that's how I understood it), it's BS. You need more energy to crack the water and create the hydrogen than you get back by burning the hydrogen, thanks to the laws of thermodynamics. So they're either:

a) promoting an over-unity machine, or
b) are leaving out the key detail of an expensive additive, like you mentioned.

Now, my chemistry's a bit rusty, but a metal hydride would probably work nicely, but it's probably more expensive than electrolysis of water. So you're better off using electricity to create hydrogen which, whilst less efficient than an electric car, would be more powerful a least.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Where does the material get the energy to break the H20 into Hydrogen and Oxygen?

If it has a battery, then breaking apart the H20 and using a fuel cell to get electricity is redundant.

[Zixinus]

My bullshit detector ran an 8 out of 10. This is BS, especially for that price. When you have an awesome new technology, you patent it and parade it front, right and left, showing off how awesome and clever and smart and innovative and fuckever you are. Not hide it and keep it a secret.

[Ted C]

So, are they trying to sell BS to public, or what else?

It would seem so. If the break-down of water into hydrogen and oxygen is taking place in the vehicle itself, and the only source of energy they claim for that process is hydrogen and oxygen from that break-down, then this system is undoubtedly a fraud of some sort.

Most likely, they're trying to scam venture capitalists for investment money that they can make off with.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Someone's not heard of Stan Meyers, it seems.

[darthbob88]

As long as we're on the subject of water-powered perpetual motion, a member of my family has been sucked in by the Joe cell, a capacitor based on water. The author of that site theorizes that the initial charging you give it will never be discharged, and that you can continue to draw power until the heat death of the universe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is impossible, between the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and the need to physically remove electrons to draw power.

I will give the author credit, though; he believes that the power does not come from "life force" or ZPE, which is better than most perpetual motion device salesmen.

[Zixinus]

The author of that site theorizes that the initial charging you give it will never be discharged, and that you can continue to draw power until the heat death of the universe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is impossible, between the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and the need to physically remove electrons to draw power.

It violates math. Stored charge is electrons. Electricity is flowing electrons. You would need to have a magically infinite source of electrons to make something to do electric work and still have charge.

I am pretty sure it violates more blatant errors then that even.

[Wyrm]

Regarding the Joe Cell webshit, all of the stated examples have obvious places for the energy to come from, so they are not over-unity. The Joe Cell itself will prove no different. It may be something as simple as the flow of water through the Joe Cell.

And if your relative is insistent, point out that if this sucker is appealing to quantum mechanics, then it cannot produce energy from nothing. Quantum mechanics, after all, was formulated with energy conservation in mind.

[Korvan]

Once saw a video that claimed this inventor discovered a means to burn salt water. I forget how it worked, but it involved something like ultrasound, or magnetic fields. Sure enough, the video showed a flask of water burst into flames when his machine was turned on.

They even used the heat to power a small steam engine producing a watt or two of power. The hilarious part is the video showed the power rating of the machine being used to ignite the water, 1500 W.

[Shroom Man 777]

We had the TV news channels go orgasmic about FILIPINO NATIONALISTIC INGENUITY with this feature about this dude who made a car that could run on water. Hah! That was years ago, and now I haven't even heard a peep about it. Maybe Water-Engine-Car-Man drowned

It's bullshit.

[ShadowRider77]

Thanks everyone for the explanations. I wasn't even considering electrolysis for water dissociation, cause one of the few things I remember from my 11-years-old last course of electrochem was that, should you use electrolysis to produce hydrogen and hydrogen for a fuel cell, the energy balance would be quite negative. Also, the guys of Genepax mentioned catalysts...

Anyway, appears it is BS after all. Just, there is something I still quite not understand: why should an already-enstablished company pull out such a cheap trick? I can understand some con artist claiming to have invented the "miracle machine", finding a dozen or so naive morons willing to buy it by paying cash in advance, and finally vanishing with the money, but a company with an history, albeit young? What is their interest in doing so? Publicity or what?

I have no doubt, though, that conspiracy theorists will waste no time in jumping on it, screaming that "water-powered cars exist! They are silencing this because they want us to keep using oil!".

A few years ago, in Italy and around, there were clamors about some kind of 'compressed air powered car' named "Eolo". The idea was that you filled a tank with high-pressure air during the night, by a compressor (8 hours of recharge if I remember well...) and the car used the compressed air to move around. Naturally, there were two obvious problems: first, the energy used by the compressor and the energy dispersion for the whole 'compress-decompress' cycle was much more negative than a normal electric car, and second, quickly decompressing gas caused ice to form all over the engine, quickly crippling it. In fact the prototype, when tested, ran for a few km and then stopped.
The promoters, in that instance, said that 'this is just a prototype, we are working to solve the problem, give us a few weeks'. Naturally, they were never heard about again, and the people who had given them money in advance, with the promise of 'a share of the future incomes' never saw their Euro anymore. So, probably they fall in the 'con artist' case...
Nevertheless, even now conspiracy theorists sometimes mention the "Eolo" as an example of how "the evil oil corporations shut down and bury away anything that could break their monopoly"...

[Kanastrous]

I remember hearing about that compressed-air car. I had been wondering what happened to the story.

[ShadowRider77]

I remember hearing about that compressed-air car. I had been wondering what happened to the story.

If you like, I can go for more details. I remember there was something more, the scammers had rented a hangar and I think they even hired workers. I'm quite sure I can find something quickly. Just let me know if you are interested.

[Singular Intellect]

Hydrogen is explosive, and oxygen is a necessary fuel for fire, so it makes sense that water as H2O would fuel my car perfectly! To think all this time I was swimming in lakes of fuel! *goes to fuel up at a lake*

[Singular Intellect]

I remember hearing about that compressed-air car. I had been wondering what happened to the story.

Here you go.

[Sarevok]

We had the TV news channels go orgasmic about FILIPINO NATIONALISTIC INGENUITY with this feature about this dude who made a car that could run on water. Hah! That was years ago, and now I haven't even heard a peep about it. Maybe Water-Engine-Car-Man drowned

It's bullshit.

Hah ! That's awesome. Do you guys have perpetual motion frauds too ?

[His Divine Shadow]

I feel this might be somewhat relevant to the thread :
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

They've been in development a fucking long time now. I do wonder if it's a hoax or not, the company United Nuclear doesn't feel that trustworthy.

[Kanastrous]

I remember hearing about that compressed-air car. I had been wondering what happened to the story.

Here you go.

Thanks!

[sketerpot]

The real story here is how damn credulous even respectable news sources have been about this. It's a disgrace.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I feel this might be somewhat relevant to the thread :
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

They've been in development a fucking long time now. I do wonder if it's a hoax or not, the company United Nuclear doesn't feel that trustworthy.

I actually get a lot of good supplies from them, though I admit I didn't know they were selling these kits as well. Their industrial magnets are AMAZING.

[Death from the Sea]

so are things that promise the ability to use water to make hydrogen to improve the fuel efficiency of your vehicle BS too?

as seen here

http://www.water-4-fuel.com/

[Ted C]

so are things that promise the ability to use water to make hydrogen to improve the fuel efficiency of your vehicle BS too?

as seen here

http://www.water-4-fuel.com/

I gather that these systems are actually legit. They use electricity from the car battery to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, then feed them into the fuel system, where they improve the efficiency of fuel combustion (rather than replacing it). Supposedly they'll improve your gas mileage significantly -- I hear numbers ranging from 10% to 40%.

One of our local talk radio personalities is testing one of these "HHO" systems, but so far his results are inconclusive.

[Sikon]

As others have pointed out, running a car on water alone would certainly be a scam; one can't burn water. The hydrogen in H2O has already reacted and combined with oxygen; there's not a chemical reaction between water and air releasing further energy.

http://www.water-4-fuel.com/

That's a scam too. It takes electricity from the car's battery and uses it to electrolyze water, producing a tiny amount of hydrogen which maybe gets burned afterwards.

There can be no net energy gain directly. Such is implied by conservation of energy, after all, considering that the electricity in the car's battery is generated from the energy of combustion in its engine.

Actually, there's a lot of inefficiencies, starting with the average car engine not being more than on the order of 25% efficient at converting thermal power from combustion to mechanical power going in part to its alternator.

A vehicle with the kit installed would run consuming gasoline mostly like normal, since it appears to run at such a trivial rate than its added net loss isn't very noticeable. I can imagine some buyers misleading themselves into incorrectly thinking it accomplished an increase in miles per gallon, due to the placebo effect, but there's no actual point to it.

I gather that these systems are actually legit. They use electricity from the car battery to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, then feed them into the fuel system, where they improve the efficiency of fuel combustion (rather than replacing it). Supposedly they'll improve your gas mileage significantly -- I hear numbers ranging from 10% to 40%.

One of our local talk radio personalities is testing one of these "HHO" systems, but so far his results are inconclusive.

Even with them pretending that such has indirect effects on the combustion efficiency of gasoline combustion beyond the (net loss) energy release directly from burning the hydrogen itself, the company's product is still utterly bogus.

There's multiple reasons to be confident of that, but a simple illustration is the implications of the claim that "1 quart/1 Litre of water (see photo) may last for MONTHS of driving." The corresponding few ppm or less of extra hydrogen gas isn't going to matter. There's nothing that special about a trace amount of added hydrogen to the gasoline-fuel mixture. (Actually, H2 is one of the chemical species which becomes present at least at the ppm level or more during burning of the hydrocarbon fuel in the combustion chamber anyway).

The system just wastes some electricity generated by the car's engine. It's too small to much hurt gas mileage, but there's no way it works as claimed.

Talk radio personalities are notoriously unreliable; no doubt, he doesn't have a degree in engineering.

--------

I feel this might be somewhat relevant to the thread :
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

They've been in development a fucking long time now. I do wonder if it's a hoax or not, the company United Nuclear doesn't feel that trustworthy.

In contrast, that is technically possible, since it is running a vehicle on actual fuel: stored hydrogen previously produced by electricity at one's house.

Although I don't know much about that particular company one way or another, they show a converted vehicle with tanks of metal hydride storing hydrogen in the back.

It could store a substantial amount of hydrogen, and the basic principle that a regular vehicle can be converted to run on hydrogen is true if someone puts enough money and time into it. (Hydrogen fuel cells have greater efficiency than an internal combustion engine running on hydrogen, but fuel cells are not necessary to use hydrogen). It's a little like converting a gasoline engine to run on natural gas.

Such has been done before.

However, that is more potentially appealing to some hobbyists than likely to be practical from a financial perspective.

There would be a lot of startup expense just to save a relatively small amount of gas money per month. There's no pre-existing convenient hydrogen distribution infrastructure like gas stations, so there would be however many thousands of dollars expense for setting up equipment to produce the hydrogen at one's home, in addition to the cost of converting the vehicle (which reasonably includes labor, as time is money), among other issues.