Genepax Water Car: Too Good to be True? Yeah

The thing ihate about water powered cars and anything like fuel cells that need water is that its replacing one thing thats becoming scarce with another.

Why replace oil with water? Isnt most of the US having heat waves and water drying up ?

So why use water then for fuel?

majortom1981, the water used in fuel cells isn't disappearing. It is coming out of the tailpipe.

Basically, you take water, split it in two (hydrogen and oxygen), and then the fuel cell recombines it back into water. Nothing lost.

Maybe these ideas are great adjuncts, and will assist the user to get a positive gain in mpg.

Maybe I'll just wait for a little more :(
Stumbled!

nhick

Actually, water that comes out of tailpipes is essentially lost IMHO, much in the same way that water than you use to water your garden is also lost, into the ground or through evaporation. While it does go back into the environment, it doesn't necessarily return to the same area in the form of precipitation or find its way into underground reservoirs. In areas with water shortages, using water as fuel can be a problem, unless we can start running cars on urine.

Thank you Michael. This car has been making the rounds on a number of sites I read, and this is the first time someone has reminded us that the laws of thermodynamics still hold true -- and that this car is not truly water powered, and couldn't possibly be

Having said that, it's too bad that TreeHugger didn't catch this earlier. . .

whisky,

But if it was actually possible to use water as fuel - and I don't think it's possible - who says we'd import water from far away? and who says we'd have to use potable water? filtered gray water, or water straight from a nearby lake/river might do. And if demand is too high, maybe desalination plants running on solar/wind could be build..

In that sci-fi scenario, many ways could be found to mitigate that problem, which would be a much smaller problem than the one we have now with fossil fuels.

Great post, I'm emailing it to my uncle who's sure he's going to drive a water car any day now..

This is what happens when our schools focus on teaching self esteem instead of science.

Thank you for posting this clarification. It really depresses me to see so many people duped by these false claims of perpetual motion. It's a sad state of our educational system that students don't graduate with even the simplest science concepts like the law of thermodynamics.

That said, one intriguing thought occurred to me. The company, while intentionally misleading the public, has hinted at the REAL source of power: most likely metal hydride. It's an energy source where the energy is stored in the oxidation potential of the metal itself. And of course that energy potential must be manufactured somewhere, most likely using electricity as a source.

Now here's an interesting scenario. One of the biggest drawbacks to hydrogen fueled cars is the low energy density of hydrogen and the storage problems. Hydrogen cars are simply tricky, inefficient batteries, since they only store energy provided from another source.

But what is the energy density of metal hydrides? Especially in comparison to gasoline? If the spent hydride fuel could be efficiently recycled in a factory to store more energy, then this system might become essentially, a very efficient battery system, using electricity as the true energy source. The water is simply a reactant compound in the process that can be recycled in the car.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this metal reaction and the manufacture of hydrides to know if the conversion process is even efficient.

Any chemical experts out there??

I am very familiar with the laws of thermodynamics, but I find your attitude of dismissing it entirely is rather unscientific. If a car is driving around that claims to run on water, shouldn't we at least study it more closely before declaring it a fake? Honda is producing a car right now that runs on hydrogen (using a fuel cell). The hydrogen can be produced from water using solar energy to power the electrolysis. It is in a sense a water powered car.

John S, fuel cell cars run on hydrogen, not on water. You can get hydrogen *from* water, but you need to input more energy than you get as output.

This car claims to be running on water, and as the last paragraph of this article says, they'll need to come up with very convincing evidence before we can believe them.

Why has no made that great intellectual leap between the folly of these technology and the disadvantages of a hydrogen economy (i.e. neither actually do anything to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels). Unless the vast amounts of energy required to split water come from renewable sources but seeing as we have yet to shift all our domestic consumption to renewable energy...

"It is in a sense a water powered car."

Not in any sense that matters. The "power" is most certainly not coming from the water.

Kent- metal hydrides have long been used as a way to store hydrogen for use in fuel cell cars. They have advantages and disadvantages compared to other hydrogen storage methods. Probably more disadvantages on the whole. Google can tell you more.

its a fuel cell, plain and simple. The "water-powered" is a marketing gimmick. actually, its got a new idea on how to extract the hydrogen from the oxygen, so that's significant, but if you reported it as anything other than a novel fuel cell, then shame on you Treehugger....

"but if you reported it as anything other than a novel fuel cell, then shame on you Treehugger"

The company itself is not saying what it is, but their claims are very very very very very very dubious that it *only* takes water to make it go.

> The way it's usually done is with metal hydrides. These react with water to produce hydrogen, which is then used to power the car. But since these hydrides will deplete with time, they need to be replaced and so they are actually the fuel, not the water. And you can be sure that more energy will go into producing them than will be taken out, making them an energy carrier, just like a battery.

Good explanation.

I'd just like to buy an AC Reva / G-Wiz in the US with the same ~ 50 MPH top speed as what tey sell in the UK. Looking at the headline above and its reference to water.....well, if the batteries need topped up, I'll add distilled water :)

I just want to know why they're pouring Tidy-bowl toilet water into their water powered car. I mean seriously. Why is it blue?!?

About water being scarce ... here are a few suggestions that may make those who would otherwise oppose H2O powered cars:

1. Use the water from sewage treatment plants for these vehicles. It's a win-win for both parties, the local wastewater treatment plant would no longer be worried about dumping their water into the environment, cars would use it and convert it into clean air.

2. Desalinized water ... desalinized water is not drinkable water, and it's made from water that is on the earth abundantly - saltwater! The byproduct of this is sea salt and clean air.

I'm sure there are other ideas, these just come to mind. Time to make a difference ... let's get some cars that run on H2O!

This company has been very transparent so far. They're holding press releases and anyone can go there and meet with them in person to talk to them in person about it.

No point speculating from the armchair on how their technology "probably" works.

They don't claim to be a perpetual motion machine. They claim to not use fossil fuels and to not produce any carbon emissions. If they use a battery to achieve this, fine! They haven't lied or overstated their case.

I think the backlash they're getting is probably the one unfortunate side effect of taking the news public like this rather than going privately behind the scenes to find an investor. But they've done what they have to do. I have my own thoughts on why they took the news public in this way.

Come on people; why are you convinced that water is a fuel?

Repeat after me: WATER IS NOT A FUEL.
THERE IS NO CHEMICAL POTENTIAL ENERGY IN WATER.
H2O is VERY HAPPY BEING H2O and it will take a lot of energy to convince it otherwise.

You cannot burn water. It is already a product of combustion.

In chemical terms, water is a dead battery. You could, if you used energy, "charge" the dead battery by cracking it into H2 and O2, but the laws of thermodynamics dictate that the H2 and O2 will necessarily have LESS energy than what you used to make it. When you use it to power a car, you take another efficiency hit. The water is just a rechargeable battery in this system, and right now it is actually worse, for a lot of reasons, than existing batteries.

Stop wasting time on 'what ifs' because every time someone says that water is a fuel, they are lying to you or being intellectually dishonest.

As this article says, something with potential energy is electrolyzing or otherwise cracking the water and then that gas is being used in a fuel cell or an engine, but then that becomes the energy source, not the water...

water 4 gas cars has been around 50 years or more ,the only people trying to suppress this is you and big oil

water 4 gas cars has been around 50 years or more ,the only people trying to suppress this is you and big oil

What about HHO? A liquid fuel additive comprised of the same ratio of Oxygen and Hydrogen found in water? Still a liquid and a promising way to increase fuel mileage.

BOYCUTT ALL CARS THAT ARE LESS THAN 100 MPG

Do you want to see a quick resolution to the energy crisis?

The public should boycott from purchasing any vehicle that is less than 100 mpg.

That is surely to grab the automobile industry attention worldwide to produce an energy efficient car that does 100 mpg or better on alternative energy – the vehicle must be pollution free.

“The ‘big three’ is not the ‘big three’ anymore,” Iacocca told National Public Radio, referring to the falling sales of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. “[They] didn’t adapt quickly enough to the energy problem in this country [and were] not ready with the right kind of cars.”

Any big corporation that is too bureaucratic and cumbersome to quickly react to changing market conditions is doomed to failure.

In today’s fast moving market conditions and technology – you must be innovative, utilize the cutting edge of technology and produce a quality and economical product.

The public has a short memory, all they care is what have you done for me lately.

In life we must always live in hope.

You know, I've been spending quite a bit of time trying to find anybody online who's tried one of these water/gas hybrid conversion kits, who's complaining that it doesn't work. There ought to be SOMEBODY out there willing to say they were duped and wanted their money back.

I can't find 'em!

I'm seeing so MANY ads out now for the DIY instruction manuals, that I kept digging and digging for the truth, and you know where I found it?

The US Patent office!

At least two US inventors have earned patents from the USPTO by finding ways to extract energy from water without using more energy to extract it than they get out of it.

Here are links to those patents:
Stanley Meyer
Dennis Klein

I think what's going on here is Round Earth vs Flat Earth time. Even if it works splendidly, some people just cannot see it, much less believe it, since it does not fit the conventional science of the day.

Well, it seems to me there is some kind of leveraging process going on here to separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen with only a little energy. Genepax is claiming some kind of membrane. I think the online conversion kits are using a resonance.

Every molecule, every living cell, has a resonance frequency at which it will disintegrate. I had thought, after all my reading on Rife.de that it would be the pharmaceutical companies that would fall first. But instead it's going to be big oil.

So I'm having a party over at my blog, and you're all invited! Crank up your speakers and dance!!

Using urine, as was said, is not a fantasy. We can, and many counties do, recycle wastewater, purifying it until it is cleaner than the water that came out of the aquifers and was sent into the municipal supply in the first place. This will certainly ease pressure on water supplies, at least water for residential use.

But yes, if we are going to continue to need more water for agriculture and industry we will have to move to large-scale desalination. And we will need lots of green energy to do it.

The saddest thing about media attention to "water powered cars" is that they perpetuate a total scam where good well meaning people invest in seeming promising technology with media coverage.

Being scammed on future technology is one problem, having Grannie scammed out of her retirement savings is quite another.

These schemes and scams need debunked every time.

To those who believe its possible:
What is water? H and O2 (sorry for the lack of subscript). Hydrogen and Oxygen make for a wonderful reaction when ignited, we know that from the space shuttle main rockets. Now ask yourself, how do you split water into the two seperate elements? With another source of energy. Are we assuming that once stared it creates more energy from H2 and O2 reactions? Now, prove me wrong, but so far, no one has ever created a perpetual motion machine correct? Now, if we are to assume this car runs off water alone, once started, this would power the world with its infinite source of power.

Yeah, its that silly. Those who have said its a simple fuel cell are more likely correct than those who blindly believe you can power anything with just water.

The human body is the most efficient energy converter I can think of, and we still aren't any where near 100% fuel => work conversion.

Prove me wrong with these stats, as these are fly by the seat of my pants college physics and chemistry understandings.

Seems like a lot of steps are wasted in converting water to work, more so than conventional ICE's.

The metal hydride is an energy storage medium, as are hydrogen tanks on a regular fuel-cell car. The question is, what is the energy density of these media and how efficient is the whole process of making the hydrides or making the hydrogen and then running the car on the hydrogen. How does this compare to other battery technologies?

I've been upset for years with the way the media has been covering hydrogen fuel-cell cars. They almost always treat the hydrogen as a primary fuel ( the Universe is mostly made out of hydrogen!) rather than as an energy storage medium, thereby confusing people completely as to what this technology is about.

Frankly, the entire energy debate in this country is on the same level. Until people understand what a primary and secondary energy source is , we won't get far.

As to those worrying about wasting water as a "fuel", I hope you are joking. The per capita water consumption in the USA is over 1,200 gallons a day - most of this is used for agriculture and manufacturing. A few gallons to "fuel" a car are inconsequential.

okay I give credit to the guy for trying to find an alternative but the alternative is not sufficient enough to subsitute gas in cars-what needs to be eliminated are those gas guzzlers (ex Hummers, obviously) and promote more bicycling :)

THANK YOU, for trying to debunk this myth. I have been trying to fight this scam, and the recent Air Car scam (to be manufactured by a company in India who is probably just trying to boost their stocks temporarily) for some time on my blog linked in my contact info above, also referencing thermodynamics and the perpetual motion machine myths.

To those that worry about wasting water, you are missing the point: This water technology is not possible - period!

As for authentic hydrogen car technology, the idea is different. Instead of "manufacturing" the fuel inside your own vehicle like the water car people want you to think is possible, the hydrogen car uses H2 and O2 separated elsewhere - ideally at the source of an abundant, green energy supply such as a wind farm.

The water created by the recombination of (2) H2 = (1) O2 will either evaporate or remain locally in the ground, but that's fine in a drought area because it recharges the micro-weather cycle (to a very minute amount.)

Part of the drought problem is caused by the destruction of micro-weather patterns, i.e., the re-evaporation of water locally only to precipitate in a nearby area in repeating cycles. When you flush the toilet, you short-circuit the micro-climate and send water down the freeway full-speed into the ocean, instead of it soaking into the ground or evaporating, and thus doing some more community service on the way to the ocean.

In the end, the point is - stop desperately searching for the quick solution to a long-term problem. We simply need to conserve more energy and live within our means. We are far too materialistic as a society.

This is probably not going to change people like Jeff. Infact I don't even know if what I'm talking about is 100% correct because my PhD isn't in Chemistry. But according to this site http://brownsgas.wordpress.com/ and the given references, there seem to be wee respected individuals that have been nominated for the Nobel prize in both Chemistry and Physics, that think there is more to this than what Jeff says. Don't stop by reading that site, go to google and type in that guy's name and his gas etc and see what you get. People also need to be open minded, just because you were taught something in school, doesn't mean it is necessarily 100% correct, science evolves.

Some may say:
School is essentially for fools; if the individual remains close minded about possibilities and truths arising in time that debunk their traditional teachings and knowledge of past theories, histories and truths.

With all the debates about our energy sources and their evolving technologies, no matter what extreme you're on, we can and should all agree that change is in need and is also inevitable, it is our only Constant.

For all those that disagree with the 'water powered energy' theory and experiments- do yourself and people a favour by researching why it is claimed to work and study the science behind it.

For all those that oppose the ideas of those that find Water, as our fuel resource, as folly- take a chance and research into the science behind this, why would water powered machinery not work or work effieciently?

If this occurs we can all get a better idea of each extreme and be ready to move foward to a new understanding; and drop our egos inorder to adapt to our ever changing consciouness. A lot of folk out there flap their mouths about their opions which they only received through another mouth with no research or data to back it up, or minimal amounts. A poser some can say. Hey, be true to yourself and do more than 'the talk'.

Loved reading all the entries on this page..
keep expanding those minds people, that's all we can do, no matter what situation we're in...

and it's true...all cells and molecules have energy (it has been measured time and time again) and anything is possible if that exists...

Why do so many people insist on ignoring basic science?

Because it's hard. Because it takes effort to study. Because it's so easy to feel good about yourself and give lectures to real scientists and engineers about being "open-minded", even an English Lit major can elevate himself [in his own mind, and to the applause of many other ignorant fools who want to pretend to be smart] above a PhD (well not just "A" Phd, but ALL people over the centuries in the hard sciences who slaved for years in laboratories while the English Lit major was getting high and banging granola chicks)

Trust us engineers and scientists. Or just trust common sense. YOU CAN'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

WATER IS NOT a fuel. You can never egt out more than you put in. There's no such thing as an inexhaustible energy source, which is exactly what this "water-powered" car would be.
Con men are everywhere, but if con men claim to be environmentalists, they tend to get lots of non-critical help from the media. Pathetic.

Turnabout is fair play. How about you non-science types start writing novels with only 1 letter. Why constrain yourself to 26 like everyone else? Because that's what you were taught in school, right? Don't be so closed minded! Clearly all English Lit majors are slaves to tradition. I'm so glad that I'm better at creative writing than every poet who ever lived, because I have an "open mind" and don't need to use 26 letters.

A. Aaaaaa, aaA, "AAAAaaaa" Aaaa,aaa, aaaaaaa. Aa a. Aaaaa aaa aaaa aaa aaaaaaaa aaa a aaaaaa!

Now give me my Nobel Prize in Literature.

BTW, ANYONE can get a US patent for anything, and plenty of perpetual motion machines NONE OF WHICH WORK, are patented. The US patent office just wants the application fees. Some kook wants to send in a perpetual miton design? Tthey'll happily take the $150 and rubber stamp it. How low they have fallen.

What's the problem with calling it a water powered car ?

Why there is little objection on people calling our conventional automobiles as "Gasoline powered car" ?

The reason i'm questioning this is our precious gasoline was originally refined from crude oil ( energy was expended ), the crude oil was extracted from the oil rig ( again energy is expended ). war has been fought to secure or steal oil field from another nation ( energy and life are expended ). We should have callled our conventional car a "human-blood + oil rig powered car" as that is the original source of energy expended to powers our car. Muahahaha

Kenneth, you missed the point.

It's true that energy is used to extract and refine oil, but at the end of the process, you still get more energy than you put in.

With metal hydrides, none of the energy comes from water. It comes from the production of the hydrides, and there you get less out of it than you put in, hence the problem.

What's the problem with calling it a water powered car ?

Why there is little objection on people calling our conventional automobiles as "Gasoline powered car" ?

The reason i'm questioning this is our precious gasoline was originally refined from crude oil ( energy was expended ), the crude oil was extracted from the oil rig ( again energy is expended ). war has been fought to secure or steal oil field from another nation ( energy and life are expended ). We should have callled our conventional car a "human-blood + oil rig powered car" as that is the original source of energy expended to powers our car. Muahahaha

"BTW, ANYONE can get a US patent for anything, and plenty of perpetual motion machines NONE OF WHICH WORK, are patented. The US patent office just wants the application fees. Some kook wants to send in a perpetual miton design? Tthey'll happily take the $150 and rubber stamp it. How low they have fallen."

I have a coworker who holds a patent on something that doesn't work!!! I'm the one that discovered it, and pointed it out to him. He did determine a way for it to work with minor modifications, and did refile a new patent to protect the intellectual property, but it goes to show that you can indeed patent something that doesn't work (even if it wasn't on purpose)

That said, I got bored one day and did design a car that runs solely on water.

A large "roof" that funnels rain water into a water tank up high on a tower. Once full, a valve could be opened using the stored potential energy to turn a impeller which in turn is geared down to drive the rear wheels.

Not practical, but I thought it would be a fun thing to show off. Maybe I'll have to build it and get some VC money thrown my way....

:)

A recent TV segment here (Australia) showed a small engine mechanic who separated water into hydrogen and oxygen electrically (from a generator on his engine) and injected the hydrogen directly into the intake plenum thereby obtaining about a 30% increase in mileage. The TV folks believed it - they did a mileage test with his old Ford. It's not the same, but the mechanic said he was using about a liter of water a week in normal driving. He said all the info needed to do what he did (obtain hydrogen from water electrically) was readily available online.

T-rex who comments on the standard site in NZ pointed this post out to me.

As it happened, when this news appeared my husband started the first test run with his "hydrogen on demand" booster cell. No alloy is involved and it uses 10 amps from the car battery to give us a 40% reduction in fossil fuel use. So yes, you still need energy but it costs a hell of a lot less then 40% of a tank of gas. We hope to get it as far as 80% because this is still not a fully maximised cell. We would be over the moon with a 60% though.

For JC and Level3, When you are reduced to dishing out ridicule as your argument, by default you have conceded that argument. So thanks!

So no, the US Patent and Trademark office does not issue patents on perpetual motion machines. You should have checked before you posted.

And I've been through the process. You go through a stringent process of explaining and diagramming your device, stepping through the legaleez to explain every little detail about it, and not only that, why it is different from everything else out there. It's not some kind of game. If the USPTO is so frivolous and easy, you go plunk down your money and get one. (And it's more like $10,000-$20,000, not $150).

Now although you both have already conceded, I would really like either of you to puleeze go find me anybody out there who has installed one of these water/gas hybrid kits who claims he was duped and scammed and that it doesn't work. Gawhead! Clickbank alone is selling thousands of these things!

You might enjoy this story on the Elbert County Colorado Sheriff's Department test driving them over thousands of miles.

Why all the brain scientists in the world don't come up with a water-fueled car solution? Because they don't have the brains. Just cocky attitude and lousy engineering. So, don't underestimate the guy who did it. If it wasn't for real, then why he already has a company to market it? Is it because he is a fraud or because he wants to lose money?

Regards, from a self-tought engineer that invented the KISS principle.

The world is 2/3 water! No brainer!

So don't shoot me, because this is a bit out of my area of expertise...but what about Artificial Photosynthesis?

I highly doubt this Japanese company has accomplished that in a working vehicle, but according to this article, some progress has already been made in this area.

Solar energy is for all practical purposes, free energy. We just need to figure out how to harness it more effectively.

C'mon people do you really think there is something as complicated as metal hydrides and fuel cells in there? I doubt it. My suspicion is that there are simply a few batteries hidden around the car and in the big white box that power the car. The water is just for show.

"If it wasn't for real, then why he already has a company to market it? Is it because he is a fraud or because he wants to lose money?"

It's because he's dead.

A failure of our educational system has occurred. Please report to the nearest high school and turn in your diploma. Thank you.

At first I thought this was too good to be true myself but what if you split the hydrogen from the oxygen and then burn the hydrogen with oxygen from the atmosphere and burn the atmosphere with the oxygen that you split out of the water and in fact that is how these fuel cells operate.

See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/pdfs/fuel_cells.pdf

Geez you people are idiots. Water is a viable source of energy--look at a globe sometime. Pull your heads out of your butts and do something to promote alternate fules instead of thowing stones at something you don't understand. Yes, this could very well be a hoax, but water does contain 2 parts of a very high energy atom and is very abumndant. Retards!

Water can not be the only fuel and the only exhaust as claimed by Genepax!

Why ever refill the water tank? why not just route the exhaust back into the water tank and run it until the rest of the car wears out? Is it suddenly too obvious that this is an impossible perpetual motion machine?

HHO is not the answer. If Genepax was invoking HHO in the system, they would still have to explain where the energy came from to break the H2O into HHO. They may be equivalent in the number and type of atoms, but they are not equivalent in terms of potential chemical energy.

'resonance frequencies' or similar are not the answer. Where does the energy come from to make the H2O resonate with sufficient force to break it apart?

Catalysts are not the answer. Catalysts are not consumed, if they are, they have a different name - FUEL. catalysts affect chemical reaction rates, they don't remove evade the energy requirements of thermodynamics.

If water contained all this extra energy that can be tapped into so easily, all the water arond us would be a dangerous, unstable bomb waiting to go off ... yet somehow there's still oceans of it lying around very happy to be water, being very stable.

Oil, natural gas, coal, ... these are all unstable chemicals that react (sometimes quite violently) when not kept away from oxygen (such as deep underground where we find it). For example - Oil well fires, natural gas explosions, coal mine fires. water is alreadly fully burnt. It can't react further with Oxygen to release any more energy ... It's ash! it's stable!

What's different about the exhaust water compared to the input water? The next time you shower is that water nice stable safe exhausted water, or is it going to blow up! ... you know the answer, it's not that hard.

The problem with this topic is that so many people just don't realize that we are able to imagine and believe things that just aren't possible or real. We think illusions are ghosts, that professional wrestling isn't scripted and choreographed, that some guy who's mother claimed she was a virgin somehow died and then un-died a few days later.

Put away your wishful thinking, learn to be skeptical and require proof. Keep fantasy where it belongs, as entertainment and inspiration, but not as fact until tested and proven.

Kenneth Kron - Where does the energy come from to split the hydrogen from the oxygen? How could you think that this energy is less that the energy you receive by combining hydrogen and oxygen?

Duanne - idiot? retard? pardon me? the potential chemical energy contained in H2 is released when H2 is combined with oxygen to form water. The supposed energy you speak of does not exist. Look at a globe? - what, to see hydro power dams? The potential gravitational energy of water at a higher elevation being converted into electrical energy as it drops down through a generator?

I guess I am an idiot, a retard! So help me. Please explain how Genepax is harnessing these powers which simply do not exist in the water that is sitting in the tank of Genepax's car.

Stop and think about this as it happens every day we are alive. We inhale air, consume food and drink water. Among the other things that happen with in our body, we produce a low voltage electrical current that runs our body. The water is return to the environment as urine. So this car is not possible?

will, I'm sorry to be the one to say this, but you definitely fail at science.

If purely chemical reactions are involved, water will
clearly not work as a fuel. Conservation of energy
dictates that it will take as much energy to split H2O
as will be evolved when the hydrogen burns. (And
since losses always happen, energy will actually
be lost in the form of heat.)

Water (or heavy water) could be used in a cold fusion
process without violating conservation of energy. Cold
fusion may upset old schoolers because it seems to
violate the reaction conditions of "hot fusion," but it
doesn't create energy from nothing. When Pons &
Fleischman were "kicked out" of the U.S, they went
to work in other countries that had more open minds
about LENR and many reproducible experiments have
been performed since that time, many in Japan.

Since genemax doesn't say anything about cold
fusion, I think someone is lying to us!

Don't EVER discount ANYTHING without being able to personally attest to your own accuracy 100%. Spouting nonsense like the law of this and that doesn't qualify. These "laws" have a strange way of being broken over time and of course there are TONS of laws that are yet to be discovered. Do you all think we are at the pinnacle of understanding this universe? Please...

I'll not discount water as a source of fuel. No one can be definitive about that. Given current understanding and technology that would be moronic.

New techniques can be developed to ease the energy cost of the extraction. More efficient use of the resulting H energy by the vehicle as well. Not long ago a fellow accidentally discovered that he could ignite salt water when the water was subject to radio waves. There are so many weird things that can crop up.

No need to argue about what it's called. Is it water powered or is it metal powered or hydrogen powered. Who cares? Technically your "gas" powered car is actually solar powered. That gas came from oil which is long since decayed plant or otherwise organic material which was originally "charged" by the sun.

Lastly, for those who keep barking that perpetual motion machine stuff: As as far we can tell YOU LIVE INSIDE ONE! To the best of our understanding everything is energy which can not be created or destroyed but can only change form.

We're are barely scratching at the surface folks. As the guy somewhere up above said, if you want to be involved spend the time to educate yourself deeply in the subjects but I think more importantly: keep an open mind.

Will ... think about the food, water and air you consume. The food is the fuel, it literally gets burnt by your body with the oxygen you've inhaled. Water is a solvent, it's great at carrying away waste products (the stuff that makes urine different than pure water). Why would you foolishly think that it's the water that is powering you rather than the food? ... You've basicly said "hey look at me, I'm an ignorant fool! I consume food, water, and air, but I think the power that keeps me alive comes from the water!"

Cold Fusion fanatics ... Yes, Cold fusion may be real, but it's never been demonstrated in any significant way ... let alone by producing 300W of power! The Genepax device supposedly splits water and produces hydrogen which is used in a fuel cell which generates electricity to drive the car. Cold Fusion does not produce hydrogen, it produces heat. the car is not driven by a steam engine ... cold fusion ain't the answer here.

Suzanne ... Why would Genepax be doing this if it was a fraud? Do we really have to spell it out for you? It's an investment scam. They want people to invest money that will supposedly go into research and development. Really the money will be going into their pockets and the impossible product will remain impossible.

Mark ... Artificial Photosynthesis? ... Why when natural photosynthesis works so well? There are companies testing agae systems for creating biofuels some of which could be used in a fuel cell. Now tell me, how could the Genepax car be using any form of photo synthesis when the device is a small sealed box that does not let sunlight in? If they use artificial lights, where does the power come from for the lights ... and don't say the damn battery because something has to power the battery.

Bernoulii .... Don't you people think at all about what you see? Where does the energy come from to charge the battery that is used to split water in the system you describe? .... from burning regular fossil fuel in the engine. The hydrogen burned won't produce enough energy to replace the charge in the battery. It's not 40% more efficient ... It's not even 0% more efficient ... It's actually costing you energy because electrolysis is very inefficient. the 40% was a lie to fool you into investing in their fake product.

JC ... your water powered car is great! ... but it would be more efficient if you left the water tower off the car, had the water pour through a generator that is plugged in to charge batteries in your car. You may have heard of this, its the common plugin electric car, and electricity generated from hydro dams. Either way, it's not what Genepax is claiming to be doing.

Chuck ... you are correct, you don't know what you are talking about. brown's gas is also called HHO. It takes energy to get water into the HHO state, it isn't free, you get less energy out by burning it than you spent to make it, so brown's gas is no different than any of the other crackpot ideas, there's energy to drive the car.

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

"Don't EVER discount ANYTHING without being able to personally attest to your own accuracy 100%. Spouting nonsense like the law of this and that doesn't qualify. These "laws" have a strange way of being broken over time and of course there are TONS of laws that are yet to be discovered. Do you all think we are at the pinnacle of understanding this universe? Please..."

As the article says: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

So without any evidence, yeah, feel free to not believe it until you get that evidence, just like you can feel free not to believe in fairies.

GO ALL ELECTRIC THE ONLY WAY

"Why replace oil with water? Isnt most of the US having heat waves and water drying up ? "

Wow are you serious? The only way Earth will lose water is if we shoot it out in space. Even used water is vaporized back into the air and recycled back as moisture or rain. Water > Oil.

Not to mention Earth has 100 Billion gallons of oil and 10 Thousand times more water than oil.

The air car is not a myth. Tata bought the air car company which was started in France, it did not invent the technology. They are a pretty big company, too big to risk losing business by faking something to rise their stocks. The water car is not a myth either. Like mentioned in a previous comment there are 2 patents on the technology and it's been reported that the US government also has a contract to get a H20 to hydrogen hummer made. The amount of water used in these technologies is small. The problem with water is that we don't store water correctly or use it responsibly. There is no reason why water cars cannot run on recycled or rain water.

In theory, the car could run for ever once enough water is inserted intot he fuel cell. The MEA breaks down water in to hydrogen and oxygen then recombines it again. nothing is lost, we have reached the conservation of energy! I think it will revolutionize the world.

Brooke... Yes, the air car from Tata is real, but it is essentially an Air Battery. Air is pumped into a highly compressed tank. The compressed air is used to drive the cylinders in specialized motor. This is essentially the same way steam engines work, but using compressed air instead of steam. The reality of Tata does not make Genepax real. You can't compress liquid water. Genepax's car does not operate the way Tata's engine operates. The air is not really the fuel, it's not consumed. it's not chemicly changed. The fuel is the high pressure of the compressed air. Why didn't you consider where the energy comes from to compress the air? Did you think that's free? Due to the heat released while compressing the air, it takes more energy to compress the air than the Tata car gets back through driving. The benefit of Tata's car is that the car itself is zero emission, and that large centralized air compression stations can be run more efficiently than thousands of gas / diesel car engines.

Juno ... have you read ANY of the comments above yours? Where does the energy come from to split the water into hydrogen in the MEA? It's not free! Catalysts don't work that way. If you have to refill the MEA with catalyst then that is the fuel, not water. This alone totally invalidates Genepax's claims.

Anonymous ... Actually earth is loosing water. Water in the upper atmosphere gets split apart into hydogen and oxygen by ultraviolet rays from the sun (which are mostly blocked by the atmostphere at sea level). Earth's gravity is not quite strong enough to prevent some of the hydrogen escaping into space. It's a small effect, but it may be why Mars (smaller planet, less gravity, thinner atmosphere) is so dry today.

other Anonymous ... No evidence has every been found that the Law of Thermodynamics can be broken. NO EVIDENCE AT ALL in hundreds of years of scientific work. If you could knock down the law of thermodynamics, you would be the most famous scientist of our time ... but you can't. Genepax won't let their claims be independantly verified. They won't patent their device because patents would reveal how their system actually works, which would reveal that it doesn't actually work. Genepax can't let big car manufacturers build for them without patents to protect their supposed technology. Car manufactureres won't invest money in Genepax without patents to protect their investment. Nothing will come of Genepax except for fool private investors getting scammed out of their money.

Johnandrews52 ... Have you read any of the comments above? HHO / Brown's gas, Water4Gas ... IS A SCAM OUT TO STEAL YOUR MONEY. It takes energy to get water into the HHO state, Where does the energy come from? Water4Gas says it comes from your battery, but your engine has to recharge your battery. The energy released by burning HHO / Brown's Gas is LESS than the energy required to recharge your battery. HHO actually costs you money by requiring that you burn MORE gasoline / diesel than you otherwise would to keep the battery charged. The claims made on Water4Gas's (and other similar websites) is UTTERLY FALSE. Water4Gas even admits through their privacy statement that their testimonial letters from customers have been written for them by a private company, and that they don't guarantee ANY claims made on their website!!!! You would have to be one sad sad fool to send them any of your money.

u guys

honda is selling a car that runs ONLY on water so what makes u think that they have not put months of research making sure that this works or not

duh.

Honda does have some dignity u know

water cars do not come out like clockwork everytime fuel prices go up. the "water" car has been around for at least a half a decade. tens of thousands of people around the world have converted at a price of $200 to $1200. The hydroxy that is produced by splitting water pizeo-electrically (using less electricity than your car's radio) when combusted turns into steam which cleans the car and makes it last longer, makes it more reliable with less repairs AND the exhaust is WATER. Best of all, NO infrastructure is needed. A half a liter of water will last you anywhere from 2 to 3 weeks. SO, GET OVER IT PEOPLE. The technology is here now, it won't take 10 years the way the media and naysayers keep parroting. The only problem is greed and a lack of will.

Hi,
who is saying that the process is powered by
Metal-Hydrids ?

The process works due to a new chemical redux
process simular to the Linnard Griffin Airgen Corporation.

In the Genepax unit there is a Platin based catalysator to
split Water into H3O+ ions and a Ruthenium based catalysator
to split oxygeninto ions.
The rest is a normal fuel cell.Pretty standard.

"Stop and think about this as it happens every day we are alive. We inhale air, consume food and drink water. Among the other things that happen with in our body, we produce a low voltage electrical current that runs our body. The water is return to the environment as urine. So this car is not possible?"

Officially the saddest thing I have read today. Maybe all week.

It is not a water powered car. It is an electric car. Water is simply a part of the battery. We don't call conventional battery powered cars "acid" powered cars simply because the batteries use battery acid. The water is a reactant and that releases energy, but water is not the fuel...it's a component of it. Calling it a water powered car makes the public think that there's no waste, when in fact we need to remember that the metal in the unit that is most likely reacting with the water will be exhausted at some point. There's the real fuel.

Lots of speculation on how this thing works. I don't understand it, but here is an explanation of how it is supposed to work:

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. With the new process, the cell needs only water and air, eliminating the need for a hydrogen reformer and high-pressure hydrogen tank. Moreover, the MEA requires no special catalysts, and the required amount of rare metals such as platinum is almost the same as that of existing systems. It is expected to have a longer life because catalyst degradation (poisoning) caused by CO does not occur on the fuel electrode side.

The water energy system 1 has a cell in which a fuel electrode 3 and an oxygen electrode 4 are faced with each other through a catalyst 2 same as a general fuel cell. The fuel electrode 3 is formed by carrying platinum on a sintered body of fine powder of zeolite, coral sand, and carbon black, the oxygen electrode 4 is formed by carrying ruthenium on the sintered body of fine powder of zeolite and carbon black. Electric power is generated under normal temperature by supplying pure water 5 to the fuel electrode 3 and air to the oxygen electrode 4.

Enjoy,
JamesT

I don't understand all the screaming. It actually takes very little energy to crack the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen (I can do it with a grocery store battery). Given enough energy, such as a battery or even solar energy, you can create a car that runs on water (the only problem is trying to release enough energy to make the process sustainable). Instead of arguing semantics about whether or not the car runs on only water and how this violates the laws of thermodynamics, try to look at the possibilities here.

A chemical reaction with sodium borohydride will separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, allowing them to be recombined, with a resulting release in energy (either through combustion or through the more complex fuel cell). Yes, I know this means the car doesn't run on "only water": I don't care. The chemicals required for making sodium borohydride are all common on Earth, so scarcity shouldn't be a problem. Questions I do have are: 1. what would be the costs of producing the chemical, both in terms of money and energy, and 2. Can the byproduct of this reaction be recycled?

Where the energy comes from is negotiable. The energy required to make this chemical can come from solar power, geothermal, wind, waterfall, making it both a renewable and clean alternative to petrol.

Sure I can make a water driven car, and it even coms in 2 models:

1) A standard "allways hooked on watergrid" model.
2) A super model with a 250 gal water reservoir on top - for those short off-grid driving you have allways dreamt about (please note that even though it looks better the reservoir and water turbine can't switch places).

-Eivind

Suraky, it astounds me how many people are stupid enough to subscribe to this pseudoscience.

To me it seems like the car is breaking the first law of themodynamics. which is hightly unlikely.

Really? Indeed. Before I reply, let me quote one of the comments here:
"Repeat after me: WATER IS NOT A FUEL.
THERE IS NO CHEMICAL POTENTIAL ENERGY IN WATER.
H2O is VERY HAPPY BEING H2O and it will take a lot of energy to convince it otherwise".

I won't waste my time trying to "convince" you or anyone else any different. You keep paying 4 bucks at the pump. I'll keep using my technology (not really mine at all) that is netting me about 2 bucks a gallon "at the pump", so to speak.

1.Water (Distilled only)
2.KOH (Potassium Hydroxide)
3. Reactor generating 3.8 LPM Hydroxy (2 parts hydrogen, one oxygen) @24-26 amps
4. take control by "adding" voltage to the o2 sensor

But hey, water cant be used as a fuel, huh?

When we live our lives thinking inside the box, we will never learn to think outside the box, and logic dictakes you will get more of the same. Such is life. Just because Einstein said it, doesn't necessarily make it the end all, (unless we limit ourselves by that mentality).

Peace

Really? Indeed. Before I reply, let me quote one of the comments here:
"Repeat after me: WATER IS NOT A FUEL.
THERE IS NO CHEMICAL POTENTIAL ENERGY IN WATER.
H2O is VERY HAPPY BEING H2O and it will take a lot of energy to convince it otherwise".

I won't waste my time trying to "convince" you or anyone else any different. You keep paying 4 bucks at the pump. I'll keep using my technology (not really mine at all) that is netting me about 2 bucks a gallon "at the pump", so to speak.

1.Water (Distilled only)
2.KOH (Potassium Hydroxide)
3. Reactor generating 3.8 LPM Hydroxy (2 parts hydrogen, one oxygen) @24-26 amps
4. take control by "adding" voltage to the o2 sensor

But hey, water cant be used as a fuel, huh?

When we live our lives thinking inside the box, we will never learn to think outside the box, and logic dictakes you will get more of the same. Such is life. Just because Einstein said it, doesn't necessarily make it the end all, (unless we limit ourselves by that mentality).

Peace

If you think that water does not burn, then you'd be absolutely correct. If you think the components of water can burn, then you would be correct as you need heat, oxygen and a fuel for combustion. Basically the water molecule can be separated into two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Couple the fuel of hydrogen with the agent of oxygen and heat provided by the spark and voila you have combustion. This molecule separating is not new technology as hydro electrolysis has been around for some 100+ years or more. Just charge a car battery and the electrolysis process gives off hydrogen. That's why the mechanic says: "Don't smoke around a charging car battery!"

Once the water, H2O water molecule, is separated the available components are called HHO. This is not new either. This technology is even currently being used in various ways. The one that demonstrates the separation, combustion and recombination cycle well is the HHO Welder. ( i.e. Aquygen and others.) Yes, the current (amperage) requirements to separate the water molecule has historically been high until more recent developments in electronic circuits. Sister circuits are now available that put a high voltage circuit alongside a storage circuit. This allows a charge to be built up in the secondary storage circuit that is released as a high current pulse while the input circuit current is very low. It is like a hall effect device that does not directly connect to the circuit like current (amperage) probes used in electronic sensing equipment.

Hydrogen burning cars are available, hydrogen cells are available, water splitting technology is available. All that remains is bringing the lower energy water molecule splitting technology into the unbelieving automotive mass market - a market largely committed to a fossel fuel paradigm. To do that, minds, and financial commitments will have to change. And like any new paradigm, the shift takes time. The quartz watch was invented by the world leaders in watch making in the 1960's - the Swiss. But the Swiss thought the idea so foolish that they didn't even patent it. Later, a little known company named Seiko bought the idea and the rest is history. The Quartz watch now dominates the world market where the Swiss watch is in single digits. When the shift happens, everyone thinks it came out of nowhere when in reality, it was right under our noses the whole time.

"Let us expect greatness from one another." JC

Forgive my lack of scientific knowledge for I am only a liberal arts major. However, what science I have studied has taught me that in a closed environment matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is intuitively, as well as mathematically proven, right? I mean it is called the LAW of conservation of matter and energy. So then would someone explain how following what I believe is the M/String theory, scientists have used atom smashers and proven that in a closed environment a gravitron is lost?

As far as my common sense allows me to imagine, I would say that we don't have all the answers yet. Because if you look at it on a larger scale, aka the universe, in a closed system there should be zero loss of energy. Meaning everything we do merely changes the form. So when people say that a fuel process is only 10% efficient, aren't they really saying that we only have the potential to use 10%, but theoretically the energy is there to become perpetual motion?

I ask these questions because some of the comments I have read, and I have read all of them, seem so sure that it is impossible to harness all of the energy in a fuel system. I do agree that it does violate common sense to get more output than input, but shouldn't there be theoretically a way to reach 100% efficiency and if so, eventually a way to harness it? I just think some of you more scientifically educated people think a little more about the potential of our current advances and stop being so pessimistic.

Hi Rich,

I suggest you go read up on entropy. It should answer many of your questions.

That's good! However, we should make highly concern of how and what kind of hydrogen we use in the future. Now, there is a so call "Black Hydrogen", which the hydrogen power come from oil, use oil/coal to produce hydrogen!! but not wind power or some kind of eco-power! U.S. Government invest billion of dollars in develop the technology of "Black Hydrogen"!!

That's good! However, we should make highly concern of how and what kind of hydrogen we use in the future. Now, there is a so call "Black Hydrogen", which the hydrogen power come from oil, use oil/coal to produce hydrogen!! but not wind power or some kind of eco-power! U.S. Government invest billion of dollars in develop the technology of "Black Hydrogen"!!

Someone should forward these comments to Dr Ben Goldacre - I bet he could find enough material to start a study on "General Misconseptions of Basic Highschool Science Among Circles of Humanities Graduates and Liberal Arts Majors"

And I bet he has an article on the "water powered car" written already...

i will be do thanks for GENEPAX maker or mader .i wish and hope at will be true. and i think at will come good for arab people. so after the when at come true the arab will know that who was we. and we done when the godgive us money. thanks i think all of you understand .i am from afghanistan i am living in kuwait. kuwait is also one of the arabic country. and i will be do thank to this car maker. and i wish after the truth of the tecnolgy i will go back to my home land.

Is this about a fuel cell or a conversion kit? They are 2 different products, both in design, usage, & cost. The conversion kits still require the use of gas but boost the mileage with water usage.
How many of you have tried either method before commenting?
Just because science tells you something doesn't make it true.
Do you believe in evolution, the big bang theory, or a supreme being. All are being taught as the "real thing." But which one is actually true? Do any of us really know? Remember the 'planet Pluto?'
Many things that we have been taught have been proven false.
Until anyone who has actually used either of these products, comments either positively or negatively, and people are willing to listen to their results they should not comment on Speculation.

Is this about a fuel cell or a conversion kit? They are 2 different products, both in design, usage, & cost. The conversion kits still require the use of gas but boost the mileage with water usage.
How many of you have tried either method before commenting?
Just because science tells you something doesn't make it true.
Do you believe in evolution, the big bang theory, or a supreme being. All are being taught as the "real thing." But which one is actually true? Do any of us really know? Remember the 'planet Pluto?'
Many things that we have been taught have been proven false.
Until anyone who has actually used either of these products, comments either positively or negatively, and people are willing to listen to their results they should not comment on Speculation.

Okay... if this car works, and if the waste dissipates as vapor, this could solve many of our environmental, economic and foreign policy problems.....

1. No more dependance on foreign oil. This will give us the added benefit of bringing our soldiers home (it was all about the oil, after all)

2. Tremendous reduction in air pollution. Southern California skies will have a damp haze instead of a brown haze

3. The rising ocean levels, due to polar ice melt (due to global warming) can be leveled off by our consumption of this source of water. Thus saving some low-lying coastal regions from their predicted demise.

4. The desalination plants can be powered by Solar, Wind, or even Water (hey! why not?).

5. We could capture rain water in our own backyards, (or scoop if from our swimming pools, or pour it from our bottled water stash in the fridge) for those "Oops, I forgot to go to the H2O statiion last night!" moments.

6. My Evian stock will double in value! (I'm setting up my sell order right now!)

Almost sounds too good to be true.

well considering you are a journalist and they are japanese scientists and engineers, i dont think you have any room to claim their invention as a false one considering, YOU ARE A JOURNALIST.....try doing something admirable and stick to writing about trees.

Don't mean to be picky but it's the Second Law that is violated. Not the first....
;-)

Barbara H says.. Okay, if this car works......Good, a little humor that I can recognize...I hope a LOT of the previous comments have been intended as humor and I was too dense to recognize it...otherwise we've been hearing from a lot of deluded people ...TANSTAFL..(there ain't no such thing as a free lunch)... Dan B

"well considering you are a journalist and they are japanese scientists and engineers, i dont think you have any room to claim their invention as a false one considering, YOU ARE A JOURNALIST"

Sorry, but you FAIL at critical thinking.

Appeal to authority. Ad hominem.

Besides, the article only says that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You think these japanese are the first people to claim to have a car powered solely by water? Where are all those cars? Nobody ever got the design out in the open? Please..

Well everyone is missing the main point here..

The real question in this great debate is "not" weither or not the water is a actual fuel source but would the cost of using hydrogen gas or metals used in conjunction with water cheaper to the end consumer on mile/$$ equation then using earth polluting fossil fuels , which the cost is growing at a enormous rate.

And the about the "GENEPAX" , if it does infact use metals and water to create a chemical reaction. Again I ask what the mile/$$ equation would be..

I wish they would come up with something that is environmentally friendly! But, I was really hopeful towards those cars, looks like another down-fall for man. People have been talking about the Hybrids, but it still runs on fossil fuel. Personally, I believe in the "Pedal cars". But, they wouldn't get you on time to every event that you are expected to come to.

This is my first visit to this website. As an engineer I am stunned by the number of people who are willing to believe in government and big oil stopping production of high efficiency vehicles.

The only thing which is more amazing is the amount of ignorance (lack of knowledge) about energy in general.

Splitting and recombining H20 cannot and will not "Create" energy. Fusion, fission and atomic level processes can remove the massive hidden energy in all materials, but outside of atomic mass conversion this process cannot work.

Many of the people here say we need open minds but are so willing to believe fossil fuels are destroying the planet they are willing to sacrifice our lifestyles and prosperity. This is where the conspiracy lies but it is not a complicated under the table conspiracy like somehow we're stealing oil from the world market, everything is laid out right in the data for anyone to find.

There are even posters here who are worried that if we use water to power cars we will run out of water so we need to use sewer water. Despite the fact that the company claimed to split and then recombine water. Despite the fact that many of the same people are worried about their cities drowning in water.

This kind of dim witted thinking makes me want to scream. Why are you allowed to vote!!!!!

I am sorry for the harsh review but many of you including some PhD's here need some relevant education before you are qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

There is enough atomic energy in a single Kilogram (2.2 lbs) of any material dirt, wood to power everything humans do for over an hour if we could figure out how to use it. Maybe we'll run out of kilograms.

If you want to solve our current energy needs the plan is obvious.

1 Exploit everything we can from fossil fuels. Dig em and burn em as cleanly as we can. It is all we have.
2 Invest heavily in nuclear energy research, power plants and battery storage technologies. this is the only technology with the energy content to replace fossil fuels. All the solar energy on the planet cannot replace our fossil fuel needs. Wind, biofuel and a dozen other technologies are only solar in disguise.
3 Stop worrying about the global warming disaster that the climate modelers are projecting. The same guys can't tell you the weather in three weeks, how can they project 100 years. I'll answer this for you myself ..... Poorly!

Ok, my rant is done. I hope at least one person listens.

I once believed in the "Water4Gas" solution. There are numerous websites to promote it and numerous websites to debunk it.

http://www.phact.org/e/hafc.htm

The above site is one of them on the debunking side. I see a lot of people asking if it works or not. Put your own money up and then report back to all of us. I do not believe it works but hope it does. I do believe if it was a viable alternative it would be on the front page of every newspaper/magazine/blog in existance. It would be on every Granola box ever made. Sorry I couldn't resist.

There is a local car repair shop in my hometown that ran a front page ad to promote the Hydrogen Assist Fuel Cell (HAFC?) I told the owner I would put up 2x the cost of the install (his price was $1800 to $2000 per vehicle) for him to keep if he proved that the retrofit would work. So far he hasn't taken me up on the offer but then again he has only started the retrofits within the last month. I asked him to call me when he was ready.

I could really use a device like this if it works. I drive a huge motorhome when I go on vacation and put on ~20,000 to 25,000 miles per year attending to my clients needs.

If anyone has results - positive or negative with one of these devices please speak up.

Hu said that!

You guys have it all wrong.. Well not all of you.

Have you not heard of Herman Anderson and his hydrogen fueled car that made the hydrogen from using ionized deuterium?

Using ionized deuterium( ionized salt water) and pulsed x-rays to produce hydrogen gas is very effective and produces mass amounts of hydrogen at double the density.

I want Adam and Jamie to test some "Water Cars"

It would be nice to se some tests on the the ones
which use "HHO via Electroysis" and some others
which use the "Water explosion principle"

check out these folk already doing it

www.water4gas.com (Nothing to do with me)

http://www.geocities.com/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html (Nothing to do with me either)

John

okay let's remember all the people that told the wright brothers that flying was impossible, to bell that the phone was impossible, to einstein to edison and so on , nothing is impossible just because no one has done it before

Rich,

You bring up a good point. Can any system truly reach 100% efficiency. Theoretically, the answer is yes. But in the reality of this universe, there are limits as Newton's Law states that things in motion tend to stay in motion and things at rest tend to stay at rest until and outside force acts upon it. For example: Considering all things equal, an aeroplane could theoretically maintain a specific velocity without power once that velocity was reached IF drag (an opposing force) on the wing did not increase in relation to velocity. Obviously there are other forces involved, but this illustrates that the energy input equals the energy output but that some of that energy is not consumed in the desired manner. I.e. We would want 100% of our thrust to be turned into forward motion. But in reality, alot of it is spent overcoming gravity, drag, etc.

In a HHO system, the components of water are recombined during combustion resulting in water being exhausted. In a 100% HHO combustion engine, some of the combustion matter includes contaminants such as oil from the piston wall, carbon from dust from the intake, etc. The efficiency will be less than 100%, for the desired outcome, but it will still be significantly more economical and cleaner than current fossil fuel sytems.

The Japanese have historicall been Paradigm Pioneers in that, they did not invent the core technology, but rather, were free to recognize the core technology and invest time in developing and bringing it to the open market place. i.e. Quartz Watch, Microwave ovens, CD's, VHS, Total Quality, etc. Settlers wait for enough data to make a low risk decision on a particular technology or idea. Pioneers recognize the opportunity in the wilderness and make prints in the snow where none seemingly were before, that others may follow. The current oil crunch is just the circumstantial enviromment that history records as the impetus for men to think great thoughts, thoughts that have ultimately changed the way we live. (i.e. Why is Japan so efficient with the use of materials? They live on an island where all resources are scarce, especially space. Waste = Wasted Space.)

Remember, just because a new paradigm seems to be emerging, we should still fully utilize the previous until the new replaces the old. i.e. Improve current engine designs, Open the oil fields, allow new oil production plants, build hydro-electric facilities, etc. We should do these things until the new paradigm is in place and naturally and generally relegates the old to retirement. i.e. We still have bicycles. Engine driven bicycles are not better than bicycles, they just serve a different purpose using different resources.

"Let us expect greatness from one another." Jeeperscats

Hydrogen Powered Car Science Kits!
http://astore.amazon.com/leaderslegacynet-20/104-8889591-8276702?%5Fencoding=UTF8&node=125

Hi Gang,

Check out the link above. There are several table top hydrogen powered car science kits available to actually demonstrate this technology that was first discovered around 1836. (Yes, the technology is that old. Remember, Paradigms take time to shift and quicker when there is a need. ...there now appears to be a need.)

Enjoy!
JeepersCats

In response to "That Guy says: "

We must remember that separating a molecule and combustion are two entirely different processes. It is not an apples to apples comparison. It is not correct to say that the energy to split a molecule is the same as the combustion of the components of that molecule. Molecule separation and Combustion are two entirely different processes.

It would be like saying that the fuel used to cut down a tree with a small chain saw is equal to burning that wood to heat a house. If that were true, then one could heat their house for a month with the small tank of gasline/oil mixture in the chain saw tank. Rather, the energy stored in the wood is what we burn, which by the way, is a gas that is emitted when heated. i.e. combustion is not actually the wood itself but the gas from the wood.

"okay let's remember all the people that told the wright brothers that flying was impossible, to bell that the phone was impossible, to einstein to edison and so on , nothing is impossible just because no one has done it before "

Nice logic.

As they say, to be Galileo, you don't just need to be persecuted, you also need to be right. Now when these water car people actually show evidence that they are right, fine. But until them, the burden of proof is on them, not on us.

My grandfather was a mechanic in Los Angeles after he came back from WWII during the 1950's. He told me that a guy pulled up to his station and asked for a pail of water. Watching him pop open his hood, my grandfather said he ran over to tell him not to unscrew the radiator cap, but it was too late. To his surprise, he said the man wasn't actually pouring the water into his radiator, but into his engine. The man told him that he invented an engine that ran on water, and that pretty soon it would revolutionize everything. My grandfather said he had never seen an engine like it before - or since.

Of course, I asked the obvious question of "what happened?" He said that the oil companies probably paid the guy off and locked the plans up for safe keeping - similar to the article.

Now, in 2008, am I spreading false hope by telling this on Treehugger the way my grandfather told me? I know that I am telling the truth, and I don't see any reason why a grandfather would lie to his grandson. So, maybe the guy was just playing a prank on him? I don't think so, because he was stranger. Is it possible my grandfather had illusions of grandeur? No - exaggerating stories was not something he ever did. He was a straight-forward, honest man. He did die of Parkinson's Disease, but I wouldn't think this is symptomatic, because everything else he talked about was verifiable and commonly known facts (such as his experiences at Iwo Jima and Guam).

I don't have an explanation or any other details, but I'd like to think it's true. How amazing it would be - don't you think? Maybe a better question to ask is why not - instead of how?

I have extraordinary evidence from first hand accounts of a guy that I trust. I'm sorry I can't offer anything more to you.

For all the naysayers out there who like to throw thermodynamics around like a smartie pants: Isn't the universe going towards entropy? Why would breaking a water molecule into it's components be against entropy? Who said the earth was flat?

"For all the naysayers out there who like to throw thermodynamics around like a smartie pants: Isn't the universe going towards entropy? Why would breaking a water molecule into it's components be against entropy? Who said the earth was flat? "

You don't understand thermodynamics or entropy.

Well im not a scientist and i aint no expert but electro-magnetics and radio frequencies have something to do with this, apparently.

We've all heard scientists going on about this splitting of water being caused by electrolysis, but actually, has anyone looked into the particular Radio Frequency from an RF Generator that can split hydrogen and oxygen from water with way less energy than electrolysis?

This same technique is used to kill parasites, bacteria and lots of other crap from the body using electro-magnetics. Look up blood electrification, i have tried it myself and its working on my own conditions. Look up blood electrification.
www.electrobiotics.com

I think there's a lot that main stream science still needs to learn about electro-magnetics.

The reason why you cannot create energy out of nothing, such as by pulling water apart and then letting it reunite, is not because that's what is taught in school. It's not because some great scientist declared it to be true. It's because time and time again it has been shown to be true. Time and time again people claim to have built perpetual motion machines and they are always wrong. The laws of thermodynamics can be easily tested by anyone in their own home. No one has ever been able to disprove them (on a macro scale), and they always agree with the results of experiments. On top of that, they make sense.

Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Why couldn't it just be eternal night? Because experience time and time again has shown it to be true. You cannot think otherwise, you would go crazy.

No one is saying this guy should be prevented from trying to promote his stupid water-powered car. I am simply saying we shouldn't waste our time with him unless he can prove what he claims in a controlled experiment which can be repeated. People make crazy claims all the time (e.g. Bush with Saddam & 9-11 and the WMDs), if you simply believe them unskeptically you're bound to run into trouble.

after a little digging i found a japanese site with a refference to the Japanese Patent office.

http://www.fcpat-japan.com/

In the left colum you will find under chapter 74 the story about Genepax, including the way the converter should work.

The moment it will work, a lot of oil exporting countrys will suffer from mayor economic setbacks.

I am disappointed by this article on a green site like this... :(

Hydrogen can easily be made from renewable energy electricity producing sources such as solar, wind, hydro or geothermal, etc.

Now burn it in a car or home and you get; WATER...

What does it take to make hydrogen? WATER...

You take water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen.. You burn hydrogen and it combines back with the same oxygen and then turns back into water... What could be more renewable than that?

This article is hopefully based on ignorance, rather than on a conspiracy to keep hydrogen fuel out of the media.

There are homes and cars running on hydrogen today.. They exist, contrary to this authors ignorant opinion.

Eric, please don't condescend like that. You obviously don't know what you are talking about; it's not the water that matters, but the energy. Where does it come from? Not from water, but from the renewables you mentioned. So the car is not powered by water, but rather by solar/wind/whatever.

The people concerned about using energy to make brown's gas are missing the point. If the energy source is hybrid membranes and it is less expensive than using oil and isnt polluting who cares? I would rather make a few extra Alternators the be subject to OPEC and greedy Wall Street speculators.
The EPA ON ITS OWN SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS. IF ITS A HOAX TELL US IF ITS NOT MANDATE ITS USE IN EVERY CAR RIGHT NOW.

How come no one mentioned that you must add baking soda to the water?
I heard some of them say that is a must
You fill it with DISTILLED WATER and a little bit of BAKING SODA. The device gets vacuum and electricity (12 Volts) from the engine, and produces HHO gas
I see how that might work but everyone sees it just as water
Who can tell me if this is true and if it will work
You are just adding it to your car for increased milage
So it is not running just off water alone.
There has been gas stations in the past that have added water to their gas.Some got busted for that but the cars still ran on it.

My academic training in engineering tends to make me look at such claims with great caution; you might call it skepticism. I like to think of it as "healthy" to do so. Take your pick of terms.

I tried to set aside my thoughts that it might be another set of dubious claims and dug deeper. Hours later...

First, let's see if we can agree that such a system would at the very minimum, need to:
A) create enough energy to maintain electrolysis (or whatever other process converts the fuel from water),
B) generate additional energy to propel the vehicle (with load),
C) overcome mechanical inefficiencies inherent in all known machines (which may reach more than 50%), and
D) provide for enough reserve energy to power the radio, lights and wipers.
Assuming you need a battery to start the process, then the process presumably produces enough electricity to ALSO recharge the battery.

Second, this would mean we are, in fact, invalidating the existing "laws of thermodynamics" wherein it is believed impossible for a system to produce more energy than is put into it, among other things. This would mean that the long-sought perpetual motion machine that has heretofore never been found has always been possible. And a complicated bugger, too. Could these "laws" be incorrect? Sure. Hundreds of years of experimental data and day-to-day experience have then just been eclipsed. Maybe. There is, as yet, no verified proof, but just a vehicle SAID to have been powered by water and only water. Just like if I said my computer model shows that the entire ice cap called Antarctica will melt by 2055, and cause sea levels to rise by 12.8 feet. We'll have to wait to see that to see the actual proof. Do we take action now? Depends on if you believe what my model says...

Third: Yes, there have been other such systems patented, and other similar claims made. It seems an incredible coincidence that most such stories always seem to end with the assertion that the inventor was offered millions to billions of dollars by an Arab Shiek or other "Big Oil" (or automaker) representative, turned it down, and then either "died under suspicious circumstances" or has been "harrassed" by the government. Possible? Sure. Unlikely? Perhaps.

Other claims: Stanley Meyer -- system apparenlty never made available for independent verification, and he was found guilty of fraud in 1996. Died in 1998. We'll never know about that one, I guess. But after a decade with a known patent and it's still not available??? Same holds true for systems purported to exist prior to that day. And I'm not calling anyone's grandfather a liar. It's not in me to do so.

Klein? He says his prototype 1994 Ford Escort can travel exclusively on water, though he currently has it rigged to run as a water and gasoline hybrid. Why NOT run it on only water? Perfect opportunity to show it works and spend less money on gas, too. He could really thumb his nose at "The Man." Relatively recent press suggests he says it's really more like an additive. But he USED TO SAY a car could just run on ... water. Sorry, again I smell a rat. Proved? No, neither way.

I've looked at the genpax website. No details. Protecting trade secrets? Fine. But they say it's based on "a well-known process to produce hydrogen from water..." There aren't many of those and as far as I know they all require energy input. Even nuclear fusion.

Eric says: "Hydrogen can easily be made from renewable energy electricity producing sources such as solar, wind, hydro or geothermal, etc." This is true. But remember this is a car that supposedly runs on water where "No external input is needed". No external input to me means ... nothing, nada, nyet.

But, if you DID use solar or wind, where would you put the solar panel? What do you do at night? Besides, the panel (using today's technology) would likely be larger than the entire surface area of the car, including its windows! Use wind? What wind? From the movement of the car? Cool idea. Except high school physics shows that for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. Which means that the wind would also push against the car and slow it down (due to friction/wind resistance).

Perhaps genepax was just over-eager and put out its news release way too soon for the public. We may have to wait and see.

Conversion instructions area available on the web (for $39.95 and up). No guarantee seen for how (or if) well it will work, however. Expenses for such conversions are supposed to be relatively inexpensive. See: http://runcaronwater.weebly.com/. With such information available for cheap, more believers in such systems should make the conversions and then publicize the results. That's a benefit of the power of the web. Big Oil, automakers united and OPEC would not be able to keep it quiet forever ... if it's all true.

Just one favor. Please show it off and let it be independently verified.

By the way, I get no funding from "Big Oil". In fact, my consulting clientele over the years has included just about every special interest group known to mankind, including government. Does not include politicians and the mainstream media, however. My opinions are my own.

Final thought. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car#cite_note-Times-0
I generally don't rely on it for much, especially techical details, but this Wikipedia article seems to be an unusual post, though a little skimpy on some details.

No one is claiming here that the vehicle is running on energy from water. The important point is that they are able to generate hydrogen from water and use it to fuel the vehicle. This is the holy grail of the hydrogen fulled economy we are seeking.

Carrying one kilo of zinc, aluminium or watever is much easier than carrying equivalent amount of hydrogen. The transport and storage of hydrogen is the real problem in the hydrogen economy.

The conversion of energy may be less efficient but if the energy is from solar or from other renewable source and if the techique is cheaper then answer to our fuel problems lies somewhere on this approach. This is a whole new area of research.

Howdy folks-

I cannot believe the amount of insulting comments and name-calling happening here. The New Inquisition of Fundamentalist Materialists is alive and well I see.

Science is about knowledge and creating models of how the Universe *appears* to work. When new models come along that work better, the old ones need to be discarded. Certainly, the new models need to be tested thoroughly, but shouting them down is not testing.

Engineers take Science and produce sellable products. This is where the profit motive takes over and pollutes real science. I am thinking now of Ayn Rand's "Anthem," where a committee shoots down the invention of candles because of the threat to torch makers.

I also saw "TANSTAAFL" here. The first time I encountered that term was in a Robert Heinlein short story, which then brings to mind another of his short stories titled "Breakages, Ltd" where an inventor develops a high efficiency solar panel and faces harassment by companies to whom his invention is an economic threat. To dismiss "conspiracy theories" out of hand seems to me to be the social science equivalent of denying the Law of Gravity. Of course conspiracies happen. Everywhere! Most of them are harmless, but... it's simply human nature, and our history books are full them, both good and bad.

What would happen to the stock markets and the world economy if something like "zero point energy" turned out to be real? What would happen to the diamond market if we found a 50 kiloton diamond in the asteroid belt? "Free Market Economics" requires the scarcities of a closed system to work. Who is ready to let go of the current economic model for something truly new?

Remember, if your head is in the sand, what is exposed?

for those who keep banging on about the laws of thermodynamics...they really should look into the latest research in physics and quantum theory in relation to latent energy. using old style laws that don't always hold true just doesn't wash anymore. Newtons laws or even relativity don't apply at quantum level and there is sometimes a lot more going on that cannot be explained using blinkered vision!

for those who keep banging on about the laws of thermodynamics...they really should look into the latest research in physics and quantum theory in relation to latent energy. using old style laws that don't always hold true just doesn't wash anymore. Newtons laws or even relativity don't apply at quantum level and there is sometimes a lot more going on that cannot be explained using blinkered vision!

jj, cite your sources please.

John: "Science is about knowledge and creating models of how the Universe *appears* to work. When new models come along that work better, the old ones need to be discarded."

Except there is no new model here, and no more evidence or reason to believe in anything that could be described as a "water powered car" than in a magical flying carpet. Do you believe I have a magical flying carpet, given, for sake of argument, I say I do?

John: "Science is about knowledge and creating models of how the Universe *appears* to work. When new models come along that work better, the old ones need to be discarded."

Except there is no new model here, and no more evidence or reason to believe in anything that could be described as a "water powered car" than in a magical flying carpet. Do you believe I have a magical flying carpet, given, for sake of argument, I say I do?

kdv: "No one is claiming here that the vehicle is running on energy from water."

From the genepax web site:
"The system uses no fossil fuel or non-fossil energy in the process of producing electricity and heat from water."

Brian Clark: "My grandfather was a mechanic in Los Angeles after he came back from WWII during the 1950's. He told me that a guy pulled up to his station and asked for a pail of water. Watching him pop open his hood, my grandfather said he ran over to tell him not to unscrew the radiator cap, but it was too late. To his surprise, he said the man wasn't actually pouring the water into his radiator, but into his engine. The man told him that he invented an engine that ran on water, and that pretty soon it would revolutionize everything. My grandfather said he had never seen an engine like it before - or since."

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this story, and long before there was an internet, always pretty much exactly like you told it.

At SCIPIO we understand that water and a gallium arsenide alloy react to release hydrogen & oxygen. Yeah, you can run a tiny vehicle from that. But, the spent gallium arsenide alloy from an environmental perspective makes strip mining look like backyard gardening. Even if it was "do-able" on an industrial scale, would you want your children, or maybe grandchildren to be born with (or spontaneously sprouting) an extra arm out their back from the environmental contamination?

Ethanol is no good either. If memory serves, part of the exhaust of an ethanol powered engine are from the aldehyde group. (acetalaldehyde, formaldehyde etc.). Go ahead, universalize THAT maxim.

SCIPIO Biofuels has 2 distinctly different designs for sealed photobioreactors for different applications. We also have (as far as we know) the only size selective continuous algae harvester there is.

We've designed biodiesel and bio-jet fuel manufacturing plants and have a few aces up our sleeve. Some of these aces can even be applied to the ponds, troughs and pools people think they can use them to grow industrial quantities of algae within a reasonable space. At SCIPIO Biofuels, we beg to differ.

Because algae production is "water intensive", we at SCIPIO took a full year to create (as far as we know) the first, comprehensive system for the bioremediation of eutrophic water bodies to be paired if possible with our biofuel manufacturing facilities. Think of all the people who live near eutrophic lakes all over the world. If we had our way, fresh water for most people thirsty today would no longer be an issue.

We're ready to take the next step, but can't. I've been shouting all of this from the mountain tops for a few years now. In my experience the only people who actually care about what we have to offer, is us. We at SCIPIO would however, very much like to change that.

All SCIPIO Biofuels needs is an investor with foresight that extends past the tips of their shoes.

Anybody?

hey people

inventions are made from past fiction

so lets wait and see who knows the water car

may run on our roads one day

Did anyone forget what is the spirit behind invention? Things that are impossible now may be possible in the future. Just look at our history. Who would have believed 20 years ago that we could store gigabytes of data in a tiny little plastic/metal micro SD chip? I would say not many. Or how about Nuclear energy? Would anyone believe that this can be done 100 years ago?

Don't dismiss ideas because it looks impossible now, you never know what the future holds. And it is people with the courage to dream that makes the world we have today.

From my school days, I remembered that electrolysis splits the water to oxygen and hydrogen. Initially, it is slow but if you add Copper sulphate as a catalyst, the process is sped up. Now, did everyone forget that with the help of catalysts it is possible to speed up chemical reactions.

What if a new catalyst is developed or discovered that would greatly sped up the conversion process that it just might be possible for this to work?

Now, we need electricity to split water. We use batteries to do that, which uses chemical reactions but it gets recharged while cars are in motion. However, if you say that is not enough, then has anyone though about using solar energy and store them in batteries? I know that there research into this already.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

So, dream on.....those who say it can't be done, don't live in the past. It may not happen now but it just might be possible in the future, so never say never. Afterall, everyone thought the world was flat eons ago.

Give hope a chance.

THE EARTH IS FLAT

"Just look at our history. Who would have believed 20 years ago that we could store gigabytes of data in a tiny little plastic/metal micro SD chip? I would say not many. Or how about Nuclear energy? Would anyone believe that this can be done 100 years ago?"

um...yes,actually...Graham's law on processor power was promulgated up in the early 60's, and Einstien's E=MC2 was published in 1905.

Sorry. MOORE'S Law. I am an idiot. Maybe I should drive one of these.

Basic thermodynamic law is often chanted by physists and scientists who'd rather nothing rock their status in their ever shrinking world of peer review societies and the like. Michael, while correct in remaining skeptical ought not fall for this dogma much less re-gurgitate it !

While the BTL can be readily accepted as true for our level of understanding of time-space reality, even at our level, there exist phenomenae which seem to contradict it. Namely, the energy we expend to get oil & gas out of the ground is still less than that which we derive once we've refined it.

Hydrogen from H2O derives a flamable gas which might well be gained as well with less power than is produced with its combustion. Might not the limitless power which created the universe's masses of hydrogen gas and then merged it with water be viewed as the original energy from which we scientists are now trying to tap?

I offer that yes, we might well find a method of separating hydrogen from oxygen (water) which seemingly gives us what appears to be free energy, but really derives from the very power which formed the universe itself.

Sean T. O'Neill

"Basic thermodynamic law is often chanted by physists and scientists who'd
rather nothing rock their status in their ever shrinking world of peer
review societies and the like. Michael, while correct in remaining
skeptical ought not fall for this dogma much less re-gurgitate it !"

If you know something the rest of us don't, go ahead, the Nobel prize is 10 million, I think.

Everyone who thinks hydrogen powered cars are essentially running on water are completely wrong. They emit water as hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce it. Saying it runs on water just because hydrogen is in it, is like saying cars run on carbon dioxide because it has carbon in it.

"If you know something the rest of us don't, go ahead, the Nobel prize is 10 million, I think."

haHA!!!LOL!11!!ow

Reading some posts in this thread sadden me a great deal. Some no doubt intelligent people who rather proudly consider themselves scientists, or so I deduce from their haughty demeanours, have done themselves and their erstwhile faculties, if indeed there was ever a faculty, no credit whatsoever in trashing opinions or comments from their peers.

If in their pompousness, some sense was spoken, it might be forgivable, but in the main, the merest suggestion that some precious scientific law might have been broken, has resulted in a disgusting regurgitation of some principle or other and a Victorian Governess-esque telling off ensues.

Let us always remember the following:

1) Humans have marveled at their own intelligence for thousands of years for no logical reason other than vanity.
2) Throughout the ages, humans have considered the veracity their fashionable beliefs to be inviolate. Blind belief in “the first law of thermodynamics” is no more intelligent than the Ancient Egyptians blind belief in reincarnation.
3) All beliefs and theories eventually become obsolete and grow out of fashion.
4) There is no logic at all in calling humans' technological achievements impressive in anyway, or indeed the result of any exceptional intelligence – Other than vanity. It is pleasing for humans to consider themselves intelligent.
5) Humans’ technological achievements are merely the achievements of a species who went through their first industrial revolution 200 years ago, discovered nuclear fission 70 years ago and invented the laptop computer with 2GB of processing power 5 years ago.
6) Imagine a civilization that had reached these thresholds 2,200, 2,070 and 2,005 years ago? In other words, they have had micro chip technology for over 2,000 years, compared to our 30. Can you imagine this society regurgitating “the first law of thermodynamics”? How about a civilisation that had reached these milestones 200,000 years ago? How about 2 million years ago? Etc etc…
7) This universe was created, so they say, 13 billion years ago. Humans have had access to computers for 70 years or 20 years, depending on what you call a computer, and we think we know anything at all?
8) Just to further illustrate my point, the current popular thinking that the age of the universe is 13 billion years old is almost certainly wrong, and indeed the rather simplistic explanation why there is a start date for the universe, and indeed the rather simplistic description of the universe….
9) Why is it wrong? Quite simply, because we don’t know what we are talking about. We are a technological barbarian, an ordinary species on paragraph 1 of our technological journey of many chapters and volumes lasting many many millennia. The age of 13 billion years will be revised in a few years time. And then revised again. And again. And again… Just as the fashionable definition of the universe will constantly change as long as humans exist.
10) Why do we persist with spouting such rubbish? Because we are humans and this is what we do. It is what we have always done, since before we dreamed up the reason for building Stonehenge. We have always spouted rubbish and we have always spouted it with conviction.

So all you budding scientists, always remember this at all times always, especially when you are awake, and even more so when you engage brain.

Jules

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

"Blind belief in “the first law of thermodynamics” is no more intelligent than the Ancient Egyptians blind belief in reincarnation."

Um, not exactly. The Egyptians had no evidence at all that they would be reincarnated, it was just a religious belief.

Scientists on the other hand have a framework of theories and very strong evidence proving the laws of thermodynamics. It is easy to construct experiments which test it, and scientists have instruments which can measure the results of these experiments with incredible levels of accuracy and precision.

These experiments conclusively prove the laws of thermodynamics. If they didn't, scientists would be more than happy to revise their theories, knowing that promotions, fame and respect would follow such a discovery.

If you think that a belief based on no evidence at all is the same as a belief based on overwhelmingly conclusive experimental data then I'm not sure anyone will be capable of reasoning you out of such a view, because your view has nothing to do with reasoning.

Julian,

A law of physics CANNOT be broken. That's the point. Because the "runs on water" concept violates the laws of physics, it CANNOT work, and those who say it CAN, are...well...not credible.

If you break the laws of mankind, you might be a James Dean rebel, but if you break the laws of physics, you definitely...don't exist?

the first law of thermodynamics assumes a closed system. where in the observable universe do we see closed systems. everything is interconnected.

Its people like rob that limit human kind from our true potential and its people like rob who would stone and laugh at people for thinking the earth was not flat....

The real answer to all of this is as of right now it looks like a technology that would completely change the way people live around the world and if and when this technology gets released no one will really believe it until they can actually buy one.

To say that law created by man cant be broken is like saying the sun revolves around the earth,,, the earth is flat... give me a break look at the nuclear bomb and how much energy is put in and released.

In all honesty I think guys like rob are morons

While hydrogen does require a mundane source of hyrides it is not as inneficient as gasoline ... this article talk as if taking a tungsten rod to drive your car for 5000 km is a hefty sum of money compared to drilling oil in iraq , boarding it in super carrier all the way to america , reprocess it inside a giant refenery that require insane ammount of polution to boil down petroluum into it's sub product ...

Hydrogen on the other hand is quite simpler ... get a mine drill mineral heat them to 3400f then it pretty much ends here since the other requirement wich is water can be found anywhere ...

The only problem boils down to wether or not burning hydrogen actually reduce water level wich is completely false since no matter how much hydrogen you produce it will always regenerate itself in a water form ...There is actually one thing that is good with burning hydrogen and that is polution , by dividing hydrogen from oxygen you create more oxygen cell thus reducing greatly the air quality in cities such as bankgok or london whom have so low oxygen that it create asthma trouble for people with weak system.

I can "burn water" with a device that costs less than $20 from parts bought at Home Depot and Stop & Shop, and you can as well. I don't understand why people don't believe this, especially "scientifically" minded people, but whatever. I don't care, I care about learning about chemistry now and I like fire and I'll be really excited if I can get better mileage and lower emissions by burning "water" with gasoline or diesel. Plus it supposedly cleans the carbon deposits out of the combustion chamber. The electrical input is about 10 amps at 12 volts, like having the headlights turned on. It's not perpetual motion, it's simply gas created by simple electrolysis. If you don't believe it, try it, don't debunk it without trying it first. I'm trying to debunk it but haven't so far and I'll try further. If debunked, I'll let you know. If I get better mileage I'll let you know, but I do know that my knowledge of chemistry is expanding. I didn't expect this kind of neg reaction from a blog on Treehugger!

G-d, the maundering persists.

To reiterate:

-Burning hydrogen released by hydrolysis requires more energy than it provides. You have to carry around a battery to perform the hydrolysis, you have to buy electricity to charge the battery, and you have to carry around the useles oxygen component in the water, which is by far the larger mass component. Far more efficient would be a plain electric car running off the battery, except that that's way expensive too.

-The laws of physics are not laws of man. They are laws discovered by man, who also discovered they have never been violated.

-

Whatever, I'm going to try it anyway, 10 amps is 10 amps and you only need about 2 Volts DC to convert water to HHO gas. The cost of my Smack Booster should be under $100, the plans are at waterpoweredcar.com. It's suppose to put our 1.7 liters of hydroxy a minute and it hooks up to the car battery via the oil pressure switch. If you are considering trying this read up on it. I'll see if it increases the mileage of my '82 diesel Jetta which already gets 45 mpg on diesel (or veg oil) - veg oil will pollute much less. Hydroxy supposedly will clean out the carbon deposits of the combustion chambers and hopefully fuel the car as well decreasing the use of diesel or gasoline per mile. It's suppose to be like adding 120 octane as well and decrease emissions alot. Hmm. Is it worth trying? I could spend $100 in a weekend drinking beer at some bar, or I could try this. Plus, my Jetta does not have automatic lights in the daytime. Using the booster is like driving with your lights on, it uses that much electricity. Hey, if I'm wrong I will know it when I try it. I guess you people have all tried this but for some reason you are not letting us know your data. again, whatever...

rob, G-d, the laws of physics prove to me that you have tried this.
You should post a Youtube of your findings to prove it doesn't work. I have yet to see it, all the Youtubes show it does work to some extent. The hydrogen booster can use the amount of electricity that headlights use, my car is such that I can turn the lights off in the daytime, so I could theoretically use that power for the booster. Even if it didn't increase "mileage", (let me reiterate) the prospect of cleaning out the combustion chambers is good enough incentiive for me to try building this device (especially when it costs under $100) and there is the claim that emissions are much lower that will be interesting to verify. This issue is such an Enigma! All you "scientists" with degrees seem to refute this experiment because of "the laws of physics", so you will never try it. O.k., real scientific, I'm going to try it mostly because it is fun and I'm learning about the building blocks of chemistry. Just because you have a degree from someplace like Yale....look at our President, although was his major Cheerleading? But you need to know how to spell ever with cheerleading!

I have loved reading the arguments for and against water powered cars. I guess there were similar arguments with powered flight,submarines, scuba gear. Not all tings are as they appear even if science says so Lets just hope it (water power) happens one day. Who wold have thought spliting atoms would ceate so much energy? Obviously someone
cheers
pep

In fact it's not water (H2O), it's H2O2 ! You can see on the photo that the "water" they put is blue, that's the colour of H2O2 ! I wrote an article about it on my website : http://www.shinbun.info (30-08-08 Sciences), in French for those who can speak French.

hi,there

i hope this site may be help many people.....Has anyone tried another water for gas kit?

i think many people don't have to try something to understand that it works.
I've seen facts on the news and all over the Internet, that running a car on water IS possible. Even that I haven't
tried doing it, it doesn't mean that it's impossible.

this is not spam but i want many people to see other choice.Has anyone tried the kit? like water4gas,runyourcaronwater etc.
Is it really a scam? if you don't satisfy you can asked for refund..no more pain

You can truly get better mileage....

thank you very much for visit my site

that thing the journos claim to be water, probably has something added to it. Or possibly like Stephane sez, it heavy water.

and who sez the water is lost to the environ?? what? you never heard of an ancient concept called condensation?? if water is coming out of the engine as 'exhaust' and it's in vapour form, its won't be a terribly difficult job of collecting it, processing it and reusing it. unless it is toxic for some reason. there are ways around things like that.

and somebody sez that the water cars are unreal and scams... yeah. thats what they said about the plane X no. of years ago and hey look!! whats that thing in the sky? superman? no it's wonder woman! no It's the green lantern!! NO IT'S AN AIRPLANE!!!

It's very real all right. It ain't a scam. If scientists can stop a ray of light in a lab, If they can recreate the earths original atmosphere b4 life, then they sure as hell can invent a water car. Like all new tech it's just having a little difficulty starting up. once they perfect the process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, you'll be one of the first running to the showrooms to book it...

While I don't yet have an opperaing vehicle I do have the HHO generator working very well. The problems that I have run into are freezing in the winter and boiling while running but the results are explosive. So for the time its just a toy. But from what I have seen so far it will be a reality soon.

Hydro cars are obviously a reality.
The claim is that the generator does the seperation.
What powers the generator.?

Good for them and the critics are the reason this technology has been repressed for over 50 years.

I have never encountered such irredeemable snake oil. I am almost thankful to treehugger that they keep us aware of this stuff. With the Blade, the Sahara forestry project and this, we have a complete menagerie of buncombe and snookery. HL Mencken would be proud.

I have started reading Pielou's ENERGY OF NATURE, all about how scarce energy is in natural systems. Anyone who thinks that energy comes easily or without an investment of work has obviously been lulled into complacency by our temporary (and rapidly vanishing) 20th century prosperity, or is trying to make a fast buck.

Michael - You say producing metal hydrides uses more energy than will be saved by the water car, but you don't support your claim with numbers. To my understanding, a small amount of the catalyst is needed and is pretty cheap. So where's all the energy consumption? How much energy is required to make the metal hydrides and how much energy does the car save? What is the basis of your claim? The car maker gave more information about their claim than you gave about yours.

Dave - the catalyst is not the source of the energy, merely the conduit for it.

Having experimented with electrolysis myself, I'm eager to see what kind of potential this process actually has (through further experimentation).

There's an idiom that I think I hear every day-

"Don't knock it till you try it!"

And for about 50-100 dollars and a lathe (not necessary, but it helps) you can build a small "fuel cell" too. I haven't used it for anything other than blowing up balloons and making them explode, but I am curious.

I can understand the hydrogen/gas hybrid. It might be necessary to run the car on gas just before turning it off it order to prevent any water/fluid buildup in the cylinders that might cause it to rust...

An automobile can run on hydrogen if fed directly into the carburetor or intake. If you can produce enough hydrogen through electrolysis (with a standard 12v battery at 1.5 amps) than why not try it out on a lawn mower (experiment number 2).

Hm. Has anyone looked into the advantages of biodiesel? Or the fact that any diesel automobile can run on minimally processed cooking oil?

To all you people with degrees!! Build yourself a water fuel cell, do some experimenting and then tell me you can't run a car on it!! I would truly like to hear that!!
The fact is you can run a car on it my friend..
We have all been lied to even in our text books..its just a sad form of taxation!! that was put upon everyone many years ago by some very smart people who were thinking far ahead of me and you!! now thats the facts!! in other words they can't tax rain my friend!!

i really dont like those cars becaues wat if the car explodes!!!!

at least we are making progress and taking small steps in the direction of making fuel more efficient.
-rich

This little article din't really disprove anything. I have faith that a water car can be produced, even if this does turn out to be a bogus invention.

.... quite a hot topic!

Looks like this technology isn't going to be thrust upon us like tomorrows ipod.
The growing number of successful backyard "HHO" conversions (improving milage etc) will hopefully force the motor industry to release this technology, re-badged and stock holder friendly!