Hain

There is a video embedded in the Reuters article.
I am just going to throw the laws of thermodynamics at this. First Law, you can't destroy or create energy (or mass, but that is in relativistic laws), only transform it from one form to another. Also, you can't have perfect transmission of energy from one form to another. There will always losses due to the fact that we do not live in Donald Duck's Mathmagicland. As such, a system will always be losing energy into heat (generating entropy) and this energy cannot be consumed again without again incurring losses. The only way to split the water is with electricity or chemicals. The electricity required would be better used to power the car and any chemical used would use itself up. Even funnier is there is no proof anywhere to be found about this system. The company's site is coming soon to a language you speak, so there is again nothing to be found.

Unless they are working with some very unstable and/or exotic compounds that I, and the rest of the world, have never heard of, I call bullshit.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Reese

I'd have to agree with you. Really, Unless they have a slab of uranium in that generator, I doubt that car is going anywhere using nothing but water as fuel.

Even large scale Hydrogen production stations aren't very efficient. All they can really do is convert energy from sources that can't directly power vehicles like wind, Solar and Landfill gasses. What is powering this generator that converts the water into hydrogen anyways? Why not just use the generator to power the car and screw converting the water...

__________________
“It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

QuasiMondo

Seeing the kind of backlash that has been kicked up with Ethanol (no food for fuel, etc.), does it really make sense to use clean water as a fuel?

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

stevie667

Having watched a documentary recently about this style of energy generation, its very plausable to me.

(for those interested it is called 'runs of water' by Equinox, though it is a few years old).

The systems used to generate the energy are not based around traditional scientific theories, but rather appear to be going beyond what we already consider possible. For instance one guy was generated several thousand percent more energy (from Hydrogen) through electrolysis by running a rapidly (i.e. tens of thousands of cycles a second) alternating current through water at a low voltage. The science behind it was completly mystifying but he got a patent nonetheless. Tesla said that some of his biggest tesla coils had an output greater than the input he was giving them.
I believe the term zero point energy was being discussed, but i can't remember in what context.

To all those that say 'oh this is absoloutly impossible, your a crackpot, get off my lawn!' if we went back one hundred years and said you could create power from splitting the atom you'd be laughed at, if you went back another hundred you'd be laughed at for saying you could run a car on an internal combustion engine.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Hain

I find it unreasonable that somehow these manufacturers have tapped into ZPE, also known as vacuum fluctuations, as a means of powering a car. If they did, there would have been far more news about such a discovery, then passing it off the car that runs on water.

I watched some of the equinox videos on "overunity" and again I have doubts. Even if these inventions were to exist, there are scores of MIT and CalTech grad students that do nothing more than watch MythBusters, read things like this, and then go to prove that it does not work. If any such device did work, I am quite sure the oil companies could not have silenced all the discoveries.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

QuasiMondo

Or they could buy the patents and make a killing in licensing fees.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

deportes

We are limited by what we know. If a car now gives you 20 mpg, you attach a HHO cell to the electric system of the car, the cell dissasociates water by electrolisis and you put mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas back into the air intake of the car, if your gpm now is 25 or 30 then all the overunity discussions are interesting but irrelevant.
I do not have to go to the gas pump as often. IMHO

stevie667

Its not always the oil companies, its science going 'hmmm...your different than what we are now...therefore you are wrong!' because thats something modern science does exceptionally well. Discoveries about all kinds of neat things happen all the time, but if you have no-one to listen to you, no-one to back you and no-one to sell to (because they think your wrong without paying attention) then its damned hard to go anywhere with something.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

MSD

"Zero-point energy" is a scientific term that has been co-opted by pseudo-science. No mechanical device can harness zero-point energy in a compact device. Overunity is another term for perpetual motion.
Conservation of mass and energy prevent this from being possible. You cannot get more energy out of such a reaction than you put into it.
That's also not how modern science works. If something disproves current thinking, everyone who does not have a stake in preserving the status quo stands to benefit from proving it right.

Sion

also, you must keep in mind the way the scientific method works:

science is looking for provable, predictable, and most especially, repeatable results. until you can demonstrate such results, science is naturally and appropriately going to say "bullshit"


oh, and "a liter of water will keep the car running at a speed of 80 kilometers for around an hour" which sounds even more impossible than the basic premise of running on water

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

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. But thats a philosophical argument which is for another thread.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

telekinetic

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

1. It takes a known, well-documented, easily-calculatable amount of energy to break the covalent bonds and crack water into hydrogen and oxygen.
   
2. Hydrogen and oxygen release a known, well-documented, easily-calculatable finite amount of energy when burned.
   
3. 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.

__________________
twisted no more

stevie667

I'm not trying to say that its not a good idea to be skeptical, i'm saying that there are inventions (they've got the patents to prove it) which do seem to provide 'over unity'.

What my argument in this thread (and my other one) is that there is no real inclination to even consider that something new may work because it goes against traditional science. I know many physists who will say that we don't know everything about physics, perhaps we have stumbled onto something brand new that does go against 'normal' science, but yet still works?

To me, the high frequencies (electrical or mechanical) involved with the 'over unity' would suggest that there is something beyond 'traditional' physics happening. I am very inclined to believe the work of Tesla when he said he discovered evidence over unity effects.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Sion

the key word there is "seem".

__________________
He's the best, of course, of all the worst.
Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz

I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

pig

I'm tracking down scientific evidence for this phenomenon, which seems to be grounded in a "new" state of matter around the H-H-O molecule. This work has been published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, for anyone who has access to something like SciFinder Scholar or WebofScience. I am more interested, personally, in peer-reviewed scientific journals that cover this work. My first inclination, based on admittedly only a small amount of literature work, is to be skeptical. The reason is that if I had discovered something that could be so potentially revolutionary, I would immediately file for provisional patent, and then once protected, I would publish the data. Some data has been published, in 2006, on this HHO concept. Unfortunately, this is published in the IJHE, which is not a particularly high-level scientific journal. I would expect something like this to come out in Science, or Nature, or perhaps even Phys. Rev. B. That this was published in the IJHE, in an article that seems to be poorly written, is surprising to me at first glance.

I almost posted earlier on this topic, but want(ed) to look into it further. The basic concept of creating a H2/O2 feed to the engine which would essentially fatten up the supply is something which might have some credibility. My concerns, initially, would be:

Assuming that this effect is real, what are the cycle life concerns for
1. battery life.
2. alternator life.
3. engine timing
4. engine components such as seals, valves, and combustion?

In essence, would a co-feed of H2 and O2 have a long-term detrimental affect on the overall performance of the engine?

Then we move on to efficiency of the concept, and the laws of thermodynamics. You never get something for free - so despite the claim that the alternator could recharge the battery by the co-feed process, I think there would have to be a negative affect - you have to get the extra energy for electrolysis from somewhere, and electrolysis isn't a particularly efficient operation.

Still looking into this, but wanted to throw out a few thoughts.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Seaver

You were duped by a pseudo-scientist.

Never in the history of science has a reaction taken place with 100% efficiency. In short, mix Hydrogen and Oxygen in a perfect 2:1 ratio and you will still have O2 and H2 molecules... there is no way around it.

So, first you convert H2O into H2^2 and O2. You then "burn" the hydrogen/oxygen in either a true combustion or cells taking the electrons through a motor. The water is then put back together, through this, releasing only water.

At 100% efficiency in said method (impossible already), you could only do this in a machine that does no work. This means that this machine could only separate/combine the two without losing power in the equation by doing absolutely nothing... and this reaction is already losing power because no 100% reaction.

Then you must factor in the resistance of the road, air, power to accelerate/ continue, heat generated by said motor, power for the lights/radio/etc........

You can see that even if it was possible to have 100% efficiency this would still be complete shit because there would be more power spent than power put into the equation. In essence he is telling you that he can lift you up in a balloon which is leaking hot air faster than it is put in. You can see it won't work. There MUST be a different power source involved which would separate the water molecules, at which the water is only a method of conveyance and is not a power source itself.

In said engine, the water would be more like the transmission than the gasoline. It does nothing itself, it only transfers power inputted into it.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

pig

Oh - yeah seaver et al: the idea of a car that runs on nothing but water is one that i'll dismiss out of hand. laws of thermodynamics and so forth - just for clarity, i was responding the idea of using an "HHO" cell to boost gas efficiency. Water is about 75% of the Earth (and us little peoples) for a reason - it's incredibly stable. You sure as hell can't split it, even with the best catalysts known to man, and get electric output by recombining it. The best you could do is break even...and as they say, you can't even break even.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

I'm not sure why people aren't just using what I call the Willravel method:
Solar panels power electrolysis (or a battery if it's cloudy), separating hydrogen and oxygen from water, which are each funneled into a Wankel (rotary) combustion chamber.

Baraka_Guru

Generally, this is promising. Unfortunately, solar panels are nowhere near as efficient as necessary to produce the power required for such a process. At least not on a car.

And I think that even with battery power, the cost of producing hydrogen from water is greater than the energy it ultimately produces, so there would be a net loss of energy. Why not just go straight electric?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Hmmm, not on the car. Probably at home. Solar panels at home separate hydrogen and oxygen from water into tanks, which you can fill up with.
The batteries pollute quite badly and you have a limited range (for now).

Speed_Gibson

my first thought on that thread title was the Steven Hyde character from 'That 70's Show'

__________________
Started talking to yourself I see.
Yes, it's the only way I can be certain of an intelligent conversation.

Black Adder

Baraka_Guru

Yes, now I see! This would be good. You could also use hydro to fill your hydrogen tanks during off-peak hours, at night for example. I understand California has a rather elaborate hydroelectric system.

Agreed.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

The only thing I'd be concerned about is having highly combustible elements in the home. Maybe have them in a garage or require them to be away from the house, and also require very thick tanks.

And I can't imagine it'd be too difficult to do the same thing at filling stations, they have the same getup as is in a home, only larger, for those who might be away from home when they need to fuel up.

Yes *struts*, about 15% of all our electricity comes from renewable hydroelectric. The only downside is that damming can do damage to the immediate environment. 13% of our power comes from nuclear. 1.5% of our power comes from wind, too. Solar only accounts for about .2%. We still have quite a ways to go, but 30% of our energy coming from non-fossil fuels is a good start.

MSD

Why rotary? As much of a fan as I am, I have to admit they're notorious for low compression and low thermal efficiency.

Seaver

True, I think the RX-8 is a very innovative and cool car. However they're only good when the engine is almost redlining. Very low efficiency/torque at low RPM.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

Several reasons:
1) They're tough as nails now. While rotary automobile engines have in the past been susceptible to gasket issues, they're now less likely to die than piston engines.
2) Weight. Rotary engines are a lot less heavy than comparable piston engines, which is good because a rotary taking the explosion needed here would need to be a lot tougher, which leads me to...
3) O2/H2 explosion. This would mean a lot more power and a lot more heat than a piston engine can take. This means that the rotor would need to be iron. Better an iron rotor than iron piston heads.

Martian

The biggest problem with hydrogen is still storage. Like gasoline, hydrogen is highly combustible (more so, actually). Unlike gasoline, hydrogen is a gas at room temperature. Thus, while gasoline in a car fire doesn't amount to a whole lot, hydrogen in a car fire could easily amount to bigass explosions. Even a small leak in the tank plus an open flame could make for one unhappy motorist.

Until a feasible method can be devised to store hydrogen onboard the vehicle in a nonvolatile form, it will remain completely impractical for private use regardless of how it's sourced.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

pig

martian: i started out with a technical post in response to your post, but decided against it. it's what i do for a living, and i probably shouldn't say too much.

if hydrogen comes to the transportation market, it won't be in gaseous form.

risk mitigation strategies are a major part of the case for deployment...that's probably all i want to say at the present time.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Nimetic

Will all this power locked up in water - isn't anybody else worried about the ocean exploding?

Baraka_Guru

It's already exploding....with life!

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Martian

That's a given. As I said, hydrogen in gas form is far too volatile. I would imagine the most effective means would be to store it in a hydride of some sort and produce elemental hydrogen as needed through means of a catalyst. Perhaps something with palladium? I don't know, I'm not particularly well versed in this stuff.

My point was more that the running a hydrogen production system out of your garage to drive a hydrogen powered car with no concern given to these issues is a really bad idea. Action movie explosion kind of bad.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame