A Question for 'Water Car' True Believers

Wow. People will swallow anything.

Sometimes I want to spend infinite amounts of frustrating time trying to educate people.

Sometimes I just want to throw up my hands and get mega-rich by simply taking advantage of their extremely predictable behavior patterns.

Water cars are the like the Yeti. A bunch of people always claim they have seen it, or talked to someone who's so sure about it. Yet it never gets caught.

Truly a mythical creature!

I have my new 2006 chevy colbalt running on water/hygrogen made by four peices of steel plates seperated by zip ties with a positive and negative hooked to the battery=making hydrogen gas! it's that simple I love people who seem to have time to doubt but can't watch the thousands of youtube video's show other people doing this!

Teresa, you are getting less energy out of it than you put in. That's not using water as fuel, that's using gasoline to turn a generator which recharges a battery which produces hydrogen out of water. Very different.

The thing about these mythical water cars is that water is just as limited as gasoline. How the hell is it any better if the cars did actually exist? I'd rather preserve our water resources for drinking than wasting it on cars for people too damn lazy to walk anywhere.

Since we're talking about cars anyway: people are going to have to accept that cars are just going to become extremely limited in the future and stop wasting resources on coming up with alternative fuels and futuristic car shapes with fancy interiors. They all use brand new materials to actually build the car so it's still wasting non-renewable resources. Car companies aren't even thinking about recycling old car frames/exteriors/interiors for these new technologies. Biofuel is the only resource that's renewable and can be used in a lot of cars (old and new) already but we can't produce enough for every single person to have their own car. I'd rather use the rest of our gasoline and other resources on airplanes and trains/buses to travel the world rather than transporting one person to the mall.

"The thing about these mythical water cars is that water is just as limited as gasoline. How the hell is it any better if the cars did actually exist? I'd rather preserve our water resources for drinking than wasting it on cars for people too damn lazy to walk anywhere."

That's wrong on a few levels.

Those who claim to have water cars also claim that water is coming out of the exhaust, so it's not like water is destroyed and disappears.

Also, water certainly isn't "limited like gasoline". Most of the Earth's surface is covered in water, many miles deep in many oceans. If that's a limit, that's not a very big one.

But all of that doesn't matter much because water is not a fuel.

you can bet that the scammers / spammers will post their fake claims in the comments, with a link to their website, like they did for the survey.
Maybe some of us should buy their junk, prove that it doesn't work, and sue them? Would that work?

Only two things that are possible for a "water" car.

- hydraulics, but then water is not the best method - lookup the "air car"

- Brown gas, H202, or OxyHydrogen, can be made from water and huge amounts of electricity.

Brown gas created from the electrical grid at home with water, even if 5x (guess) more energy required than for making hydrogen, would still be cheaper than gasoline.

Also Brown gas burns cleanly, creating water vapor.

From Wiki:
The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it. (See Electrolysis of water:Efficiency).

So the point is, is the production of gasoline, versus Brown's Gas, if the same production cost, minus the pollution, a "water" car is possible.

However, imagine requiring 220v, 30 amps, and an overnight plug-in, just to get 40+ miles.

How much does it cost to run your drying machine non-stop for five hours?

Here in Quebec, where "peak" KW/H is 15.5 cents, it can work.

Also Brown's Gas, being a complex molecule, is easier to store than Hydrogen.

The "gizmo" Teresa posted about (most likely a shill) has been debunked, even on MythBusters (TM), if anything it will make your gas mileage worse.

Sheesh :: Hydrogen or H2O2 is the fuel, not water.

Water is just a catalyst with electricity as a energy source.

If water was the fuel, the car would *not* have to be plugged in.

"Sheesh :: Hydrogen or H2O2 is the fuel, not water."

WRONG.

Hydrogen or H2O2 or whatever is NOT a fuel or energy source, it is an energy carrier, just like a battery.

You just use that to carry energy from somewhere else (coal plant?), and that's not at all what the makers of 'water cars' are claiming, and that doesn't solve any problem.

I will drive my hydrogen car because when I walk or run places, it raises my heart rate, and I don't want to run out of heartbeats, or I'll die.

GO ELECTRIC WITH SOLAR AND YOU ARE DONE

WRONG???

That's like saying Gasoline is not a fuel, an energy carrier for unrefined crude petroleum.

Semantics...the production (refinement) of gasoline also requires coal-fired electricity.

If the total cost to mine crude, transport it to a refinery, make gasoline w/help of electricity, then transported again to a distribution point, equals X amount of energy.
That creates Y pollution.

Brown's Gas is being made at the source of consumption, within the car. The amount of electricity is most likely 10x more than that used to make gasoline.
However w/o the annoying pollution of burning gasoline.

So I think that a car using Brown's Gas, will have X - (value) less than gasoline.
And will create Y - (value) of pollution (only electricity)

Then factor that solar panels & wind power can help make Brown's Gas "greener" in it's local production. You can't do that with crude oil in your garage / car.

What's difficult, as I am not a chemist, is to crunch the numbers with today's gas prices factored in.

Also, would using LiOn batteries, instead of Brown's Gas, be a better use of electricity? Certainly, as we already have EV and Hybrid cars being sold commercially.

I do think a H2O2 powered vehicle a better concept than a fuel cell vehicle, as it can be more easily be used in a conventional car with an ICE.

I think the differentiating trait between fuel and energy storage to some is consumption. Water is turned into hydrogen and oxygen. Then the hydrogen is joined to oxygen to get energy back out. From that system, no energy is gained from water or Hydrogen, so within that system it isn't an energy source. Of course, if you take the car to be the system in question, it definitely IS the energy source.

This argument could be made on a longer scale to show that fossil fuels are also just energy carriers for solar energy from long ago. And that solar energy comes from fusion of hydrogen in the sun. But the hydrogen could be argued to be an energy carrier from the big bang. It is all relative to the system being discussed, really.

Even if you have to refine oil into gasoline and transport it, when you burn it, you get more energy out than you put in (that's solar energy from long ago, but in practice for every day purposes it can be considered a fuel).

If you get hydrogen out of water, you don't get more energy out of burning/using it than you put it in the first place, and you have to produce that energy using some other way.

That's the difference between a fuel and an energy carrier.

I have a car that runs of fairy dust and good thoughts. It's just as plausible as violating the laws of physics in order for a car to run on water.

I wonder if the people who believe in the water car also consume things like oxygenated water and use magnet therapy? (hint, you can't add more oxygen to water because it wouldn't be water and blood isn't ferrous so magnets don't work on us, it's sad if someone didn't know that).

For those of us who may have forgotten, energy is ALWAYS conserved, except in a sense for quantum fluctuations which can't be observed directly.
So, in a certain sense, the only "source" of energy that has ever existed would be whatever created the universe in the first place. Even then, there are doubts if you look at the ideas physicists throw around.

Every medium from which we extract energy is, then, an energy carrier. Oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are energy carriers created by natural processes. Wind is an energy carrier created by energy from the sun. Light from the sun is an energy carrier powered by fusion.

By using wind, solar, nuclear, fossil fuels or any other energy form we can chemically convert water or myriad other compounds into different, high-energy compounds that act as energy carriers in their own right, though as always when we consume those carriers we get back less than we put in. Examples include hydrogen (H2), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hydride (H-), methanol (CH3OH), ethanol, and more other (less simple) options than I can count.

There may in fact exist a compound with less energy than water, such that you could convert water into that compound and end up with energy. If so, no chemist has ever observed it. But there is absolutely NO way to use water as the ONLY energy source, extract energy from it, and end up with water as the exhaust.

And I'm sorry freakymysty, but you are mistaken as well. There is vastly more renewable clean energy here on the Earth than there ever was of fossil fuel energy. Despite the inefficiency inherent in producing synthetic fuels or in charging batteries, it is in principle quite easy to get enough energy to produce enough pollution-free (example: converting water to hydrogen and back) fuel to allow everyone to drive a car. Would it be better to have us all use rail, bikes, and feet, and then buses and planes when needed? Of course, this is more efficient and so should usually be the cheaper option. Indeed, it already is, which is why only in wealthy countries are private cars the norm. Even if we all embrace density and move to places where there are enough people to make building mass transit economically appropriate, there will still be fuel of some sort needed for ships, trucks, buses, planes, spacecraft, and other portable applications. Not that in my opinion a nuclear reactor or a battery could be counted as fuel.

As for what you claim is a shortage of material resources, don't jump to conclusions like that. Except in nuclear reactions, matter is conserved just like energy. There is absolutely no form of matter that cannot in principle be recycled. At the point at which it becomes more economical to mine our dumps than our mountains, we will do so. Governments can speed the road to such a situation with appropriate policies, scientists can help by doing the right research, and businesses can help with well-planned designs. But it can be done, whether you wish to believe it or not. matter is a renewable resource. In order to renew it, you just need energy. And there is plenty of renewable energy around if we'd each stop tiptoeing around the need to access it.

I don't need a hydrogen car because I ride a unicorn to work.

Here is your proof: http://www.discoverthis.com/fuelcelcaran.html

A child's toy kit that can be had for ~$100 which runs on plain water and a small solar cell only. No batteries, no combustion, and no batteries/electricity (save for that produced by the solar panel)

Dominic, that toy runs on solar energy, not on water.

Water is used to store that solar energy, via electrolysis which produces hydrogen which can be used by the fuel cell.

water is NOT the fuel. It is the 'battery'.

Remove the external energy source that is the solar panel and see how well it works.

Maybe the car should say aluminum powered (with Gallium to prevent the built-up of protective layer of oxide?). You are making aluminum rust in the process. Naming it water powered car is just asking for skeptics to shoot it down. Making new aluminum from alumina (aluminum rust) still takes energy and it's probably not that efficient. Do a search on Google...

2Al + 3H2O -> Al2O3 + 3H2 - to generate the hydrogen

It shouldn't be a surprise that people fall for this. Roughly 20 years ago we began dismantling the science curriculum in our public schools. Now 20 years later, people don't even have a vague semi-understanding of the most basic scientific principle. That's what happens when you make feeling(s) more important that thinking.

In another 15 years or so we will begin to see the consequences that come about from turning our schools into standardized test preparation centers. I predict we will have a bunch of young people completely incapable of independent critical thought on any subject.

This car may be useful as a touchstone. It helps us find out which people still believe in perpetual motion, and we know which people to avoid hiring.

For those advocating water electrolysis to produce a gas that is then burned in an engine; what range is acceptable for your car?

Even using hydrogen stored at very high pressures; 350 bar (5000 psi) or even 700 bar (10,000 psi) the current generation of fuel cell vehicles have a

If you are burning gas in an IC engine, the range will be less; burning gas in an engine is just going to be less eficient.

So, would electrolyzed water, compressed in an expensive compressor and then burned in an engine really end up being "green"? You are potentially avoiding oil, but your system is going to be a lot less efficient than an all-electric car using batteries, and your range is probably going to be about the same, or even worse.

I dont see how this car can possibly be fueled by hydrogen converted from water since the size of the electrolyzer needed to do so "on demand" would be as large if not larger than the car shown. Of course for all we know the whole gimic of this car is you fill the car with water and plug it in while you wait all night for the small on board electrolyzer to produce enough hydrogen to maybe drive 10 miles.

Did any of you folks out there spouting off about physics and such take the time to consider that maybe those people promoting water-powered cars are just doing it for laughs? Maybe, just maybe, they're not really stupid....maybe the stupid ones are those who spend hours upon hours railing on the internet about how absurd the concept is, when all the time it was just a joke?

Anyone ever receive the spam e-mail about the dangers of dihydrogen oxide? Yeah, everybody knows it's water....they're just trying to be funny. Lighten up, "geniuses".

Mad Marcus, you have way too much faith in humanity.

Trust me, there's maybe 1% of people who are jokers who play it straight. Even the media is constantly going on about these, and they (should) have fact checkers.

The real question here is not whether this car exists or not... but why would treehugger post such a story a month ago and then now retract it through this particular post.

In a sense, TH is telling us reader not to believe whatever they put in here because they do not control the quality and veracity of the stories' content.

Thank you for clearing that out and finally letting me know I am waisting my time on your site.

--
MGR: If you follow the link at the beginning of this post, you'll notice that the story from a month ago that is mentioned is actually about how the Genepax almost very certainly *isn't* a water fueled car.

Why not?

Splitting water (hydrolysis) into combustible gas is within the laws of physics.

Are the laws of physics not enough extraordinary evidence for such special explanations?

"Splitting water (hydrolysis) into combustible gas is within the laws of physics.

Are the laws of physics not enough extraordinary evidence for such special explanations?"

That wouldn't make water the *fuel*, just the energy carrier. Nobody says that using water as a carrier (via hydrogen) isn't possible. It's the water as a *fuel* crowd that doesn't get it.

I think this entire thing is actually Japanese performance art/practical joke. Like their famous leaf-spring shoes. There is a very subtle culture of practical jokes in Japan that Americans might find difficult to get.

Please, please, please educate yourself or you risk discrediting the very real environmental issues facing human civilization & life on this planet. Go to wikipedia and read a bit each day.

H2O2 is Hydrogen Peroxide and can be used as a monopropellent rocket fuel. It was used in stuff like the classic jet pack & satellites until it was replaced with hydrazine. It requires energy to produce & so do the palladium catalyst screens.

HHO, Oxyhydrogen, Brown's Gas, Joe Cell output, etc are all just Hydrogen & Oxygen gas mixed together. This is fine for welding but you can't compress it much without it detonating like a diesel. That means you can't store much compressed for a vehicle and it would be a risk in any accident. It also means your hauling around a bunch of Oxygen when the atmosphere is already full of it.

You're all mad.

Okay, a water car, it could work. You just need enough water to pour down over a bucketwheel that turns the tires. A mobile waterwheel. Wonder how far that could go, and if you had cellular internet, Zephyrhills could deliver 5gall jugs and pick up your empties. Of course, I am sure it would be far easier to figure out how to replenish the oil we are removing from the earth than it would be to figure out a water car... I think we should focus on a Steam Car, Solar Energy could be concentrated on a tank of water that could then boil and the steam could move the vehicle. I mean Steam Locomotives could pull heavy loads, and we are miniaturizing just about everything else. So why not a steam engine... besides, you could plug it into your home to reduce your hot water costs...
Sorry, just wanted to ramble a bit.

theres probley no such things as "water powered cars" or most likly it would have been the hottest thing around! my dad the other day was explaining to me how its almost impossibe (never say never)! the pistons go down and the gasoline blows up and pushes it back up and so on and so on. or somthing simuliar to that i cant exactly remeber. but still no such things!

Many posts in here are too stupid too be true. Please educate some physic before you start believing in something. Peope with replies such as try it before you say it, got me thinking why would i want to try something that with my whole heart Ive already known that it's not true. This is called being smart, but donating money the scam is not!

compressed air cars exist in europe...let's make them available in america

To believe in the conspiracy against water powered cars you'd need to believe that despite their animosity in other fields, even America's worst enemies are willing to join in.

North Korea is a country so starved of electricity that they can't afford to provide electricity to their capital 24 hours a day, and much of the rest of the country gets no electricity at all.

They have no oil, anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism is a key element of being a patriotic North Korean, the national religion is called "Juche", which means "independence" and "self sufficiency".

"Juche" is about self-sufficiency at any cost, they would typically rather let their people starve to death than accept foreign aid, even though the country has very little arable land and has suffered many crop failures due to mismanagement and natural disasters.

But for some reason they ARE willing to play ball with Big Oil, refusing to build devices whose designs have been freely available on the internet for years.

Now that I pose the riddle of the North Koreans, how do the true believers respond to that?

Big Oil plays a different kind of game. Rather than keep a vital patent off the market, they manipulate the legislation so that energy is underpriced. I can think of many bad things Big Oil has done, but suppressing the water-powered car ain't one of them.

I didnt hear any comments about this Van from Japan. I dont think its doing the same thing. But it says it runs on water as well.

According to its makers. This van runs on just water. It seems alot more reasonable then the Genepax car.

The video I posted even has an animation showing how the engine works. Pretty impressive. I thought more impressive then the Genepax. They had to apply to be able to run this Van. It seems that they were approve

This van runs on compressed Hydrogen. It says in the video. I thnk you could probably put all that gear in the van. Probably enough room to put enough batteries in it so that you could use that power to make hydrogen gas from water with a machine that looks similar to this one that is running a small lawnmower.

Here is the video. You see for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sOwmzcETCY&NR=1

I do have the website for the van that runs on water. Watch the video. Its pretty interesting.

http://www.haw-system.jp/English/indexE.html

I look forward to hearing how people respond to this Van that runs on just water also. If you cant find the vidieo of this Van also from Japan that runs on just water. Here it is listed below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HivxQN_G8tA&feature=related

It would be a sad thing if this Van was just thrown into the same scrap heap that people are throwing the Genepax car in. I think they are somewhat different.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/15/water-powered-clock-is-here-to-save-the-environment/