This is baloney. You cannot use water for an energy source. I'll put it to you this way, the energy needed to do this step: "extracting hydrogen from water" will always be greater than or equal to the energy released in this step: "The generator then releases electrons to power the car." The only way to extract energy from water is if you run a chemical reaction that is energetically favored - like dumping pure sodium into water, but in that case it is the sodium that is the energy source, again not the water.

The only way hydrogen from water will ever be a viable energy source is if we were somehow able to perfect fusion that only used ordinary hydrogen as an input like the sun. Otherwise hydrogen is an energy storage technique, not a source. And if you have an energy source capable of cracking water that you're carrying around, why not just devote that energy source directly to your transportation needs instead of wasting a step on hydrogen production?

This makes me wonder what ever happened to that guy a few years back who was saying he had a design for a car that ran on water and his life was in danger from big oil. You'd think in such an alt fuel friendly climate he would have gotten an demo out there. =)

But seriously, when it comes to regenerative breaking, I'm thinking an H20 splitting system is currently the best way to make sure you put all of that electrical surge to good use. The more amps you generate, the more H2 and O2 you make. I'm guessing it's not like batteries that can only capture power at a pretty slow clip.

Channel some lightning into the system and split all those bonds at once! Heh heh. I'm sure there's a chemical catalyst to reduce the energy requirement to split the molecules, but if you're breaking hard, maybe you're making enough power to just do plain, old, unassisted electrolysis. I can see a system that use the catalyst for lower amps and switches over for high amps.

Water is not fuel. If it's using hydrogen created via hydrolysis, there's energy going in somewhere-- and that's not just coming from water. This sort of "breakthrough" is bad for "green" technology-- it creates false hope by making impossible claims.

This is certainly a path breaking technology which Genepax plans to get patented. Imagine having your car being run even on rain water !!!! No more fear of car running out of fuel on a long trip even when the weather is bad and this certainly makes a lot of sense with the changing weather patterns.

The way Genepax are presenting this is extremely misleading, go and check out the wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genepax

Water is not an energy source, simply a hydrogen carrier. The fuel source is the electrode within the system.

The genepax system is nothing more than an inefficient battery. They are playing on the public ignorance around oxidation reactions and fuel cells.

ya this is just a perpetual motion scam with not a hope of actually being true. you just can't violate the first law of thermodynamics

Much as I might like to believe this, unfortunately you cannot create energy from water without putting energy into it...as stated before you can't beat the first law of thermodynamics. Also....there is already enough problems concerning water availability. I don' think we need to sacrifice another resource in progressively short supply in order to keep perpetuating the automotive cycle. Instead of investing in this, put your money into mass transit, buy a bike, or just walk. People managed to make it long before cars came around, and we'll manage after they're gone.

@BlackGriffen, this is not baloney, it's efficiency is however questionable, a group of elementary school physics students in my country, built a model car that ran on water using, what is I'm guessing, in essence, the same principle as this.

The technology behind this kind of engines has been around for years, since the eighties at least. Its a shame that we are only now starting to use it because of what's going on in the world.

@joe, it has nothing to do with perpetual motion, for one thing because...well, it simply doesn't ... it extracts hydrogen from the water to use as propellant, when the water runs out, the hydrogen runs out, the engine stops, not particularly perpetual

I'm not sure, but the car looks remarkably like an old electric car from the states, wonder if they used their chassis... probably could've gotten it dirt cheap since GM dumped thousands of them back in the day...

@BlackGriffen, this is not baloney, it's efficiency is however questionable, a group of elementary school physics students in my country, built a model car that ran on water using, what is I'm guessing, in essence, the same principle as this.

The technology behind this kind of engines has been around for years, since the eighties at least. Its a shame that we are only now starting to use it because of what's going on in the world.

@joe, it has nothing to do with perpetual motion, for one thing because...well, it simply doesn't ... it extracts hydrogen from the water to use as propellant, when the water runs out, the hydrogen runs out, the engine stops, not particularly perpetual

I'm not sure, but the car looks remarkably like an old electric car from the states, wonder if they used their chassis... probably could've gotten it dirt cheap since GM dumped thousands of them back in the day...

Yeah, the only way hydrogen from electrolysis would be viable is if you had some kind of renewable power source to power an electrolysis machine. For example, I could put PV panels in my backyard to power the electrolysis reaction, and even though I'm putting more energy in (sunlight) than I'm getting out (energy in hydrogen), the solar energy is basically free (minus the cost of equipment).

Solar systems that can supply that much energy are not small enough to fit on a car, so unless fusion is perfected as another poster said, there will never be a car you can fill up with water and drive down the road.

Another engineer to be sure no one believes this. All the above comments about violations of physical laws, and equal or more energy needed to split the water as you will get from the H2 are true. Hydrogen is not an energy source and water is most certainly not. Gas and diesel burn, H2 burns, water doesn't, because it's already in a low energy state.

If you read the article it states that they are using some sort of new membrane that separates the hydrogen from the oxygen how exactly this works I don't know but I believe that is part of what they are looking to patent.
As for the comment to not use cars and use mass transit. you know I would normally agree with that but the reality is that to a lot of people that is just not a feasible answer. I work 50 miles from my home. There is not public transit from where I live to where I work. I know the state doesn't have the money to build a mass transit system from where I live to where I work and even if they did I would not want them to build it. I live in a green and lush little town far far way from any major city. I would not want to live near my job as the area is only a step above a ghetto.
I do what I can to be more eco friendly. I buy locally as much as possible I support my community. I drive a car that is rated for 21 MPG however I get 27 MPG. I did that by changing my driving style and that does not include driving 55. I haven't even changed the air pressure in my tires yet. Why not drive a Prius right? Well 2 reasons. first I can't afford one I'm not. Second I look at the car as a joke. It's a half-assed step in the evolution that is coming. In a commute like mine I would practically never run in electric mode.
I believe that the electric car will be the future how that car gets it's energy is the problem. Wither it's Hydrogen, water, wind, solar or something else it doesn't matter. what matters is that it's not oil or nuclear or anything else that continues to poison our planet. What matters is that there is a community like this with people who care and want to make a change . It is happening and in large part it is because of sites like this that are helping to finally bring the message to the masses. I have begun to see it around me on a daily basis and I hope it will continue.

Igor: I think you misunderstood the point about the perpetual motion device. What they claim is you put H2O in, the machine uses 'magic' to turn this into H+ and oxygen, or HHO, or whatever they say, and these things are burned in a typical combustion reaction. You may recall that the only theoretical products of a combustion reaction are CO2 and H2O. The idea is that you take the H2O from the reaction and start over, making more H+, etc. Thus, since the reaction can allegedly be powered (at least in part) by the products of the same reaction, it is a sort of perpetual motion device.

Of course, this is ludicrous, and the idea of an H2O powered car is detrimental to the green scene. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, imperfect engine efficiency, and the stability of H2O all make this car impossible. As I said in my above post, you could generate H2 using renewable resources, but if you ask me, using one renewable energy to generate another "renewable" energy is kind of dumb.

Hydraulic recovery of breaking energy looks better to me:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6549294.html

Supposedly hydraulic (take that name generically, I don't think it always means liquid phase, or water, but any freely flowing particles) systems can take up the braking energy quickly. They can also discharge the energy quickly, meaning that you can launch as hard as you brake. That latter benefit is why most silly people get bigger engines than they need (usually not for towing or cargo), so that fixes that very human part of our problem.

Maybe the future will be 'pressure-punk'--pipes and pressure tanks and condensers everywhere?

@Alex Well, my apologies then, suits me right for being so ignorant, I should have gone and read their statement on it and not just this article. I simply figured they did the logical thing, and that it wasn't, as it seems, an iteration of the 'Joe cell' thing.

Btw, would you really get carbon dioxide in a pure oxygen+hydrogen burn ? I thought it just you know....makes water vapor =)

My apologies once again to those I've criticized.

Is this a joke?

Finally, here's a company who's making a commitment to mass produce electric vehicles! Check out this website: http://bgelectriccars.com/

JUST IMAGINE FOR A MOMENT THAT THIS IS TRUE-JUST FOR A MOMENT.HOW WOULD THE U.S. GOBVERNMENT .OIL AND CAR INDUSTRY FEEL ABOUT THIS JAPANESE INVENTION WICH WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD AND HENCE WORLD MARKETS PERMANENTLY-NOT TO MENTION MIDDLE EASTERN ECONOMIES.HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE OUT OF WORK,WHICH POLITICAL CANDIDATES WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE ALL THEIR ENERGY RHETORIC?HOW WOULD THE WORLD ECONOMY CHANGE AND HOW MANY WOULD SERIOUSLY BE AFFECTED NEGATIVELY?HAS ANYONE HEARD OF PRESTON THOMAS TUCKER AND HIS STORY ? SO ALL CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE NOT UNFOUNDED.I WOULDNT BE SURPRISED IF THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE HERE POSTING ON BEHAVE OF THEIR OIL CONNECTED BOSSES.

the whole "run your car on water", is *obviously* OVERSTATED. What it should/COULD read, is Run your car with a water/hho SUPPLEMENT.. As MANY i KNOW, including myself, have built one of these "generic hho generators" (glass jar, spiral SS wire, electrodes, hoses, wires, water & yes, Baking Soda (although i heard that a Citric Acid would work better, I have not tried that yet:)

In results, I (as with MANY, if not EVERYONE who has built one of these from "the internet", passionately, meaning "they tinkered/tuned, and LEARNED as much as they could to get it to work "its best".... HAS HAD at LEAST "GOOD" resluts. . . IN MILES PER GALLON.. also, noted, is that the mixture of HHO into the engine has made significant changes to the Engines performance.

Seriously folks, its NOT "RUNING" on water whatsoever.
all it's doing is using the Electrolysis to be able to ADD the Hydrogen into the ENgines Intake...

What? still don't get it?
What exactly does "octane boost" do? you add it to your gas tank, it makes THE ALREADY GASOLINE SIMPLY **BURN MORE EFFICIENTLY**, but this dosen't cost 5+ bucks a bottle/tank. It only costs about $10-$15 to make with Wal-mart, and Home Depot parts.

You can make them pretty fancy for more, of course.
youtube and/or google "hho generators", "Smackboosters" etc..

it WORKS as a supplement to gasoline.

it DOES increase your MPG, mine went from 17mpg, to 22mpg, (on a 6 Cyl.) and that is just with TWO "cells"/jars, i am currently making a "6-Cell", and looking at enjoying even more (28?) GETTING MORE FOR MY "HARD EARNED" MONEY when I fill the pockets of the already rich by paying these (ridiculous) gasoline prices

Cheers,
and all I would *hope* is that ANYONE looking into this,
just try it, BUILD one, its CHEAP, my 10 year old can do it

If you don't like it, take it out.
Keep it for a "science project, or demonstration of electrolysis / HHO... seriously folks... DONT pay 2-3-7 hundred for a prebuilt one (at least try your own first)

just to prove, "no sales involved here", just FACTS from my own experiences.. I will leave absolutely NO "web address" for a HOW TO, or WHERE.. just google it.

Don't read to much into these "claims", its mostly just "misrepresented" TITLES.. read, try, THEN JUDGE.

Thanks!

I bought Ozzie's book,made a HHO Jar as instructed,(VERY EASY AND LOW COST) and have been using it since Feb. My mileage increased 50%,my exhaust is cleaner, and I have MORE POWER!!! These units will reduce oil imports,pollution. My website is:hhomanwater4gas.com and$$$ back if not happy These units work on diesel engines also Have a good one and check out my video if you want more info Later,G.M.B.