Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevie667
OK 
As a psychologist, my field is always screaming 'we are teh science 2!' so its very easy to see it there, but the stubborn refusal to believe anything untill it has been beaten to death is science in a nutshell. It is very unaccepting of anything revolutionary due to the mentallity that is engrained into people involved with it. |
I think it is a good thing that 'science' (as if it were some big evil empire) is against things that are 'revolutionary'--if by 'revolutionary, you mean 'in direct contradiction to basic energy calculations that a midly adept first year university chemistry students can do.'
Even disallowing 'over unity' violating the laws of thermodynamics, this kind of this still runs into reality
- It takes a known, well-documented, easily-calculatable amount of energy to break the covalent bonds and crack water into hydrogen and oxygen.
- Hydrogen and oxygen release a known, well-documented, easily-calculatable finite amount of energy when burned.
- The known, well-documented, easily-calculatable amount of energy for 2 is less than for 1.
The ONLY way a car could 'run on water' is if it was using water as an extremely inefficient means of power production by breaking it down with another source of stored energy. This is probably less than 20% as efficient as just using that stored energy to drive an electric motor.