Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Jolly- Joliver on 24/03/2011 22:50:17
-
H2O Car - Water Powered Car
-
H2O Car - Water Powered Car
It's not a new thoery it's up and working, the japanese were about to start mass producing it.
-
I think you need to learn some basic physics.
This is a scam and Reuters should be ashamed of themselves for putting this tripe out!
-
And with a little googling
Quote
Genepax Water Energy System
In June 2008, Japanese company Genepax unveiled a car which it claims runs on only water and air, and many news outlets dubbed the vehicle a "water-fuel car". The company says it "cannot [reveal] the core part of this invention,” yet, but it has disclosed that the system uses an onboard energy generator (a "membrane electrode assembly") to extract the hydrogen using a "mechanism which is similar to the method in which hydrogen is produced by a reaction of metal hydride and water". The hydrogen is then used to generate energy to run the car. This has led to speculation that the metal hydride is consumed in the process and is the ultimate source of the car's energy, making the car a hydride-fuelled "hydrogen on demand" vehicle, rather than water-fuelled as claimed. On the company's website the energy source is explained only with the words "Chemical reaction". The science and technology magazine Popular Mechanics has described Genepax's claims as "Rubbish." The vehicle that Genepax demonstrated to the press in 2008 was a REVAi electric car, manufactured in India and sold in the UK as the G-Wiz.
In early 2009, Genepax announced they were closing their website, citing large development costs.
in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics. Oooh Donuts, I like Donuts
in the spirit of recycling this post is entirely re-used
-
And with a little googling
Quote
Genepax Water Energy System
In June 2008, Japanese company Genepax unveiled a car which it claims runs on only water and air, and many news outlets dubbed the vehicle a "water-fuel car". The company says it "cannot [reveal] the core part of this invention,” yet, but it has disclosed that the system uses an onboard energy generator (a "membrane electrode assembly") to extract the hydrogen using a "mechanism which is similar to the method in which hydrogen is produced by a reaction of metal hydride and water". The hydrogen is then used to generate energy to run the car. This has led to speculation that the metal hydride is consumed in the process and is the ultimate source of the car's energy, making the car a hydride-fuelled "hydrogen on demand" vehicle, rather than water-fuelled as claimed. On the company's website the energy source is explained only with the words "Chemical reaction". The science and technology magazine Popular Mechanics has described Genepax's claims as "Rubbish." The vehicle that Genepax demonstrated to the press in 2008 was a REVAi electric car, manufactured in India and sold in the UK as the G-Wiz.
In early 2009, Genepax announced they were closing their website, citing large development costs.
in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics. Oooh Donuts, I like Donuts
in the spirit of recycling this post is entirely re-used
Fine so it, takes water then converts the hydrogen.
I see nothing in what you posted to say we could not use that car, it works. Just because the company seeks to keep the design to itself, it might not be run on water(exactly) there might be a chemical process, better then using petrol.
By the way other people have invented water powered engins.
-
Calling it a "water powered engine" is like calling a combustion engine a "carbon monoxide powered engine". Water is the exhaust, not the fuel. To split the water into hydrogen and oxygen in the first place requires energy, more energy than you will ever get out of it. So hydrogen is a way to store energy, but it is not a plentiful source of energy in the way oil is. You still need to get the energy from somewhere.
If we could do that it would be great, but the problem is not the development of the car, but the development of the energy sources.
-
I see nothing in what you posted to say we could not use that car, it works. Just because the company seeks to keep the design to itself, it might not be run on water(exactly) there might be a chemical process, better then using petrol.
You don't seem to have understood what people are trying to explain to you..
it is not possible to power a car using water, because there is no energy to be got out of water. It is possible to power a car using hydrogen, combining it with oxygen to form water, this is equivalent to using petrol and combining it with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water... but the point about hydrogen is that it has to be made. We can't just dig it up, or collect it from the air.. making hydrogen from water requires large amounts of electricity, just as electricity is required to charge a battery and for the same reasons.
In order to make hydrogen for a hydrogen powered car, we need a source of electricity. This might be a coal or oil or natural gas fired power station (equivalent to buring the petrol directly in the car, tho' perhaps a little more efficient), or it might be wind power, wave power, geothermal or hydroelectric, or it might be a nuclear power station. But it has to be something like that. Energy doesn't come from no-where, however much we might like it to.
-
I see nothing in what you posted to say we could not use that car, it works. Just because the company seeks to keep the design to itself, it might not be run on water(exactly) there might be a chemical process, better then using petrol.
You don't seem to have understood what people are trying to explain to you..
it is not possible to power a car using water, because there is no energy to be got out of water. It is possible to power a car using hydrogen, combining it with oxygen to form water, this is equivalent to using petrol and combining it with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water... but the point about hydrogen is that it has to be made. We can't just dig it up, or collect it from the air.. making hydrogen from water requires large amounts of electricity, just as electricity is required to charge a battery and for the same reasons.
In order to make hydrogen for a hydrogen powered car, we need a source of electricity. This might be a coal or oil or natural gas fired power station (equivalent to buring the petrol directly in the car, tho' perhaps a little more efficient), or it might be wind power, wave power, geothermal or hydroelectric, or it might be a nuclear power station. But it has to be something like that. Energy doesn't come from no-where, however much we might like it to.
Energy just is and energy is in everything. You missed Solar :-)
Thanks for the reply
-
Wiybit - this is a science forum, we understand and accept the laws of thermodynamics, there is no such thing as a free lunch! We burn oil and coal, but that is a one-shot deal, geology, biology, and time has put a huge amount of energy in which we take out. Water, on the other hand, doesn't have a simpler, less energetic form that we can exploit. When we burn hydrocarbons we are utilising the energy inherent in complex molecules and discharging simpler molecules; this same idea just doesn't work with water. There are no water powered cars - there is no water-powered anything, even hydroelectric power merely uses water as a convenient store of energy accrued by other means
-
Wiybit - this is a science forum, we understand and accept the laws of thermodynamics, there is no such thing as a free lunch! We burn oil and coal, but that is a one-shot deal, geology, biology, and time has put a huge amount of energy in which we take out. Water, on the other hand, doesn't have a simpler, less energetic form that we can exploit. When we burn hydrocarbons we are utilising the energy inherent in complex molecules and discharging simpler molecules; this same idea just doesn't work with water. There are no water powered cars - there is no water-powered anything, even hydroelectric power merely uses water as a convenient store of energy accrued by other means
Digging up oil is a free lunch really isnt it? We have put no effort into making it, we just extract. Energies of the future are going to have to be a bit more time consuming. We can make oil today thou.
-
Digging up oil is a free lunch really isnt it? We have put no effort into making it, we just extract. Energies of the future are going to have to be a bit more time consuming. We can make oil today thou.
Digging up oil is not quite a free lunch - but as damn close as we are likely to get (even barring the environmental concerns). And no we cannot make oil today - well not without spending more energy than we get out. There is no method for creating energy - that just doesn't work. The best we can do is exploit energy that has been accrued from other sources (ie the sun) over time. As a rule of thumb energy on the earth is directly from the sun or geothermal, can be traced back to accrued solar energy, or is nuclear. It's a stark reality that are running through the stockpiles of energy rich materials very quickly, and we cannot survive on direct solar or geothermal - the exploitation of the energy release by nuclear fission or fusion is the only viable alternative.
-
Digging up oil is a free lunch really isnt it? We have put no effort into making it, we just extract. Energies of the future are going to have to be a bit more time consuming. We can make oil today thou.
Digging up oil is not quite a free lunch - but as damn close as we are likely to get (even barring the environmental concerns). And no we cannot make oil today - well not without spending more energy than we get out. There is no method for creating energy - that just doesn't work. The best we can do is exploit energy that has been accrued from other sources (ie the sun) over time. As a rule of thumb energy on the earth is directly from the sun or geothermal, can be traced back to accrued solar energy, or is nuclear. It's a stark reality that are running through the stockpiles of energy rich materials very quickly, and we cannot survive on direct solar or geothermal - the exploitation of the energy release by nuclear fission or fusion is the only viable alternative.
Algaae to oil.
You can also make natural gas and diesel.
Bio diesel from Algie.
more info on Algae
-
Wiybit,
You really must pay attention to what other posters say before you launch yet another barrage of Youtube links, otherwise we will assume you are just trolling.
I'm sure Matt is fully aware of biofuels. Biofuels are just another form of capturing solar energy. As it seems you are more interested in proving you are right than actually learning anything, I'll be surprised if Matt even bothers replying to your post.
-
Wiybit,
You really must pay attention to what other posters say before you launch yet another barrage of Youtube links, otherwise we will assume you are just trolling.
I'm sure Matt is fully aware of biofuels. Biofuels are just another form of capturing solar energy. As it seems you are more interested in proving you are right than actually learning anything, I'll be surprised if Matt even bothers replying to your post.
Geezer it was a direct reply to his post, he stated that we cannot make oil, We can. There is a plant in America today and I am still looking for the reference, That produces oil, gas(and the gas is then used to power the plant) and diesel, from algae or ecoil, I cannot remember which as I said I am still looking for it. But the plant has been running for a while.
Oil from algae can be produced.
Nothing to do with proving myself right, he made a statement that other claim false I was referenceing that, I'm sure Matt, doesn't think he knows it all, I know I don't. There are lots of areas of research going on I doubt anyone knows all of them.
-
This is what he actually said.
"And no we cannot make oil today - well not without spending more energy than we get out."
He did not say we cannot make oil. Like I said, please try to pay more attention.
-
This is what he actually said.
"And no we cannot make oil today - well not without spending more energy than we get out."
He did not say we cannot make oil. Like I said, please try to pay more attention.
Again if that plant in America is using the natural gas produced to power the plant I'm not sure that is the case, but point taken. I'm still looking for the reference, I should have saved it when I saw it.
-
Again if that plant in America is using the natural gas produced to power the plant I'm not sure that is the case, but point taken. I'm still looking for the reference, I should have saved it when I saw it.
It makes no difference. You cannot expect to produce a fuel with a greater energy potential than the energy you put into making the fuel. The energy input might be a fossil energy source, or a renewable energy source like solar energy. Anybody that claims otherwise does not know what they are talking about, or they are trying to cheat other people out of a lot of money.
Scientists and engineers are not complete idiots. If there was a way to get something for nothing, they would have figured it out.
If you want to believe that Youtube is a credible source of scientific information, that's up to you, but I'd suggest you would do a lot better to bone up on thermodynamics as this would allow you to filter out a lot of the crackpot nonsense that's floating around on the Web.
-
Again if that plant in America is using the natural gas produced to power the plant I'm not sure that is the case, but point taken. I'm still looking for the reference, I should have saved it when I saw it.
It makes no difference. You cannot expect to produce a fuel with a greater energy potential than the energy you put into making the fuel. The energy input might be a fossil energy source, or a renewable energy source like solar energy. Anybody that claims otherwise does not know what they are talking about, or they are trying to cheat other people out of a lot of money.
Scientists and engineers are not complete idiots. If there was a way to get something for nothing, they would have figured it out.
If you want to believe that Youtube is a credible source of scientific information, that's up to you, but I'd suggest you would do a lot better to bone up on thermodynamics as this would allow you to filter out a lot of the crackpot nonsense that's floating around on the Web.
I see you point.
But, the system I am refering to produces from Algie, Gas, Oil and Diesel, all at the same time, they then seperate naturally- the oil sits at the bottom, the gas rises to the top and the diesel sits in the middle, their weights natural seperate them, the factory in question then uses the gas produced to power the plant, possibly in addision to another gas energy source, yet that reality reduces the gas energy input.
The oil and diesel are the product produced, and the gas get used in production.
-
Again if that plant in America is using the natural gas produced to power the plant I'm not sure that is the case, but point taken. I'm still looking for the reference, I should have saved it when I saw it.
It makes no difference. You cannot expect to produce a fuel with a greater energy potential than the energy you put into making the fuel. The energy input might be a fossil energy source, or a renewable energy source like solar energy. Anybody that claims otherwise does not know what they are talking about, or they are trying to cheat other people out of a lot of money.
Scientists and engineers are not complete idiots. If there was a way to get something for nothing, they would have figured it out.
If you want to believe that Youtube is a credible source of scientific information, that's up to you, but I'd suggest you would do a lot better to bone up on thermodynamics as this would allow you to filter out a lot of the crackpot nonsense that's floating around on the Web.
I see you point.
But, the system I am refering to produces from Algie, Gas, Oil and Diesel, all at the same time, they then seperate naturally- the oil sits at the bottom, the gas rises to the top and the diesel sits in the middle, their weights natural seperate them, the factory in question then uses the gas produced to power the plant, possibly in addision to another gas energy source, yet that reality reduces the gas energy input.
The oil and diesel are the product produced, and the gas get used in production.
Yes, but if it works, it's converting solar energy into fuel. The algae collets the solar energy. There is nothing wrong with the system, but it's important to understand that the system is collecting solar energy rather than getting something for nothing.
-
To echo what Geezer said, no system can provide us with more energy than went into it. Ever. This is a non-negotiable law of physics, though lots of scam artists will sell you miracle products that claim otherwise.
Humans, however, can get more energy out of a system than they put into it, simply because things aside from humans can put energy into a system. Algae is an example, where much of the energy is coming from the sun. Fossil fuels are another, where the work was done by ancient plants and animals, and we get to use it without putting more in. Solar panels are yet another, where the sun provides the energy, not humans or human-made fuels. All of these actually give us less energy than originally went into the algae/dinosaurs/solar panels, but they're convenient for us humans to use, since we're just harvesting energy that something else has stored for us.
-
Again if that plant in America is using the natural gas produced to power the plant I'm not sure that is the case, but point taken. I'm still looking for the reference, I should have saved it when I saw it.
It makes no difference. You cannot expect to produce a fuel with a greater energy potential than the energy you put into making the fuel. The energy input might be a fossil energy source, or a renewable energy source like solar energy. Anybody that claims otherwise does not know what they are talking about, or they are trying to cheat other people out of a lot of money.
Scientists and engineers are not complete idiots. If there was a way to get something for nothing, they would have figured it out.
If you want to believe that Youtube is a credible source of scientific information, that's up to you, but I'd suggest you would do a lot better to bone up on thermodynamics as this would allow you to filter out a lot of the crackpot nonsense that's floating around on the Web.
I see you point.
But, the system I am referring to produces from Algae, Gas, Oil and Diesel, all at the same time, they then separate naturally- the oil sits at the bottom, the gas rises to the top and the diesel sits in the middle, their weights natural separate them, the factory in question then uses the gas produced to power the plant, possibly in addition to another gas energy source, yet that reality reduces the gas energy input.
The oil and diesel are the product produced, and the gas get used in production.
Yes, but if it works, it's converting solar energy into fuel. The algae collets the solar energy. There is nothing wrong with the system, but it's important to understand that the system is collecting solar energy rather than getting something for nothing.
I wasn't suggesting something for nothing.
To echo what Geezer said, no system can provide us with more energy than went into it. Ever.
Oil does doesn't it? In that the energy we put in, to refining and drilling is less than what we get out. Other processes have of course assisted that, time and decomposition of matter etc, the difference being that we are gaining energy from a process we have played no part in.
But that is also part of the problem we have had it easy, and it's time to see that we need to produce a sustainable energy, fighting over that resource plus all the other things that go on because of it, does increase it's cost ultimately, and sadly those in charge of that resource fight to keep their position.
I do not know if it is true but apparently prohibition was introduced in America, because FORD of ford motor cars was using alcohol to run his engines, he struggled on during prohibition but eventually gave up using alcohol under pressure, A year later after ford converted to gas prohibition ended. Some claim that the only reason Prohibition came in was to stop Ford using Alcohol, it's also true that the Big oil company of the day I think it was standard oil(dont quote me) was broken up as a result apparently and become Exxon and mobile. which re-merged a few years back to become Exon-mobile.
I'm not sure how true that is, but it is certainly clear that Big oil does not want to let go of it's position, and sadly that decision by big oil just holds progress back.
This is a non-negotiable law of physics, though lots of scam artists will sell you miracle products that claim otherwise.
Humans, however, can get more energy out of a system than they put into it, simply because things aside from humans can put energy into a system. Algae is an example, where much of the energy is coming from the sun. Fossil fuels are another, where the work was done by ancient plants and animals, and we get to use it without putting more in. Solar panels are yet another, where the sun provides the energy, not humans or human-made fuels. All of these actually give us less energy than originally went into the algae/dinosaurs/solar panels, but they're convenient for us humans to use, since we're just harvesting energy that something else has stored for us.
I agree completely thanks for the responce.
-
To echo what Geezer said, no system can provide us with more energy than went into it. Ever.
Oil does doesn't it? In that the energy we put in, to refining and drilling is less than what we get out. Other processes have of course assisted that, time and decomposition of matter etc, the difference being that we are gaining energy from a process we have played no part in.
No, it does not. The energy that went into oil did so millions of years ago. We get out less than went in at that time. Your last sentence there is absolutely right, though. We are gaining from energy that was put in millions of years ago. It might seem a very subtle difference between accessing energy that was stored by processes we played no part in (oil, for example) and accessing energy that we actively worked to store somewhere (batteries, for example), but it's critically important to understand that difference if you want to talk about the science behind different forms of energy.
-
To echo what Geezer said, no system can provide us with more energy than went into it. Ever.
Oil does doesn't it? In that the energy we put in, to refining and drilling is less than what we get out. Other processes have of course assisted that, time and decomposition of matter etc, the difference being that we are gaining energy from a process we have played no part in.
No, it does not. The energy that went into oil did so millions of years ago. We get out less than went in at that time. Your last sentence there is absolutely right, though. We are gaining from energy that was put in millions of years ago. It might seem a very subtle difference between accessing energy that was stored by processes we played no part in (oil, for example) and accessing energy that we actively worked to store somewhere (batteries, for example), but it's critically important to understand that difference if you want to talk about the science behind different forms of energy.
looking at it in that manner, looking at all the energy that went into making the oil in the ground, and all the energy that goes into making other fuels are they not actually more equal?
-
looking at it in that manner, looking at all the energy that went into making the oil in the ground, and all the energy that goes into making other fuels are they not actually more equal?
In crude oil, nature has distilled an incredible dense energy-source for us.
Remember crude oil is millions of years of locked-up ancient sunshine that we are currently exploiting in next to no time, trying to make our own version at a much accelerated rate (there's no more solar energy available now than back then & a hell lot less time to harvest it!).
Plus, of course, it takes only around a couple of decades to empty an oil field! So to say the rate of consumption outstrips production is a rather underwhelming way of putting it!
Our efforts to develop bio-fuels have the potential to offer similar energy densities, but there are plenty of problems associated with making them on anything like a scale needed to offset the current fossil derivatives - Again, this is more or less down to timescale.
-
You could potentially make a water powered car....
As long as you also had lots of Calcium Carbide. [8D]
-
"I wasn't suggesting something for nothing."
Yes you were.
Specifically, you were suggesting a water powered car.
What you need to do is learn enough physics be able to understand, at least broadly, what you are talking about.
Otherwise you will keep on making statements like that and, at best, look like an idiot.
-
"I wasn't suggesting something for nothing."
Yes you were.
Specifically, you were suggesting a water powered car.
What you need to do is learn enough physics be able to understand, at least broadly, what you are talking about.
Otherwise you will keep on making statements like that and, at best, look like an idiot.
Hey you place a system in a car that uses something to take out hydrogen from water then use it as a sourse of power.
Most would say as they fill up with water "it's a water fueled car" So what ever, your assuming! That I am saying something I'm not! again you run ahead with the big brain you have, Sorry I am so dense in comparrison.
You'll have to excuse any harseness I have not slept for nearly two days now. Peace and love.
-
You could potentially make a water powered car....
As long as you also had lots of Calcium Carbide. [8D]
What's carbide?
-
Hey you place a system in a car that uses something to take out hydrogen from water then use it as a sourse of power.
Most would say as they fill up with water "it's a water fueled car" So what ever, your assuming! That I am saying something I'm not! again you run ahead with the big brain you have, Sorry I am so dense in comparrison.
'Most' (or at least, many) people may say that - true! That doesn't make it right!
In any case, even by your logic, a second 'fuel' would have to be added to crack the water on-board whilst driving - this could be electricity (from a battery) or a chemical to react with the water (as CliffordK was alluding to) - that would be used up with the water.
But for scientists, the water would correctly be thought of as a reactant not a fuel.
You could potentially make a water powered car....
As long as you also had lots of Calcium Carbide. [8D]
What's carbide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide#Production_of_acetylene
[Of course, Clifford would be the first to agree that it is still wrong to say the car is 'water-powered' in this way.]
If you read how a Carbide lamp (originally used in the earliest car headlight) can burn with a very hot flame it is easy to see how an engine could utilise this.
You'll have to excuse any harseness I have not slept for nearly two days now. Peace and love.
Hope you've managed to get some sleep now! And for the additional reason that what people here are trying to explain to you will have a much better chance of becoming clear [:)]
-
Hey you place a system in a car that uses something to take out hydrogen from water then use it as a sourse of power.
Most would say as they fill up with water "it's a water fueled car" So what ever, your assuming! That I am saying something I'm not! again you run ahead with the big brain you have, Sorry I am so dense in comparrison.
'Most' (or at least, many) people may say that - true! That doesn't make it right!
In any case, even by your logic, a second 'fuel' would have to be added to crack the water on-board whilst driving - this could be electricity (from a battery) or a chemical to react with the water (as CliffordK was alluding to) - that would be used up with the water.
But for scientists, the water would correctly be thought of as a reactant not a fuel.
Yeah I know part of the issue has been mis-communication.
You could potentially make a water powered car....
As long as you also had lots of Calcium Carbide. [8D]
What's carbide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbide#Production_of_acetylene
[Of course, Clifford would be the first to agree that it is still wrong to say the car is 'water-powered' in this way.]
If you read how a Carbide lamp (originally used in the earliest car headlight) can burn with a very hot flame it is easy to see how an engine could utilise this.
You'll have to excuse any harseness I have not slept for nearly two days now. Peace and love.
Hope you've managed to get some sleep now! And for the additional reason that what people here are trying to explain to you will have a much better chance of becoming clear [:)]
Yeah I colapsed and slept I do not know how many hours actually, daltons finally did me in [:)]
Thanks for the reply.