Car that runs on water invented.

[tcG]

I'm not claiming a water-fueled car would be a perpetual motion machine.

In fact, I'm claiming that it wouldn't be, and therefore wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. The people who say it violates the second law are the ones who must defend the notion that a water-fueled car would be a perpetual motion machine, and therefore impossible.

 

[JCH13]

I'm not claiming a water-fueled car would be a perpetual motion machine.

In fact, I'm claiming that it wouldn't be, and therefore wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. The people who say it violates the second law are the ones who must defend the notion that a water-fueled car would be a perpetual motion machine, and therefore impossible.

Forget perpetual motion machines. Look only at the chemical reactions used in a "water powered" car:

2*H20 [water] -> 2*H2+O2 [oxygen and hydrogen]-> 2*H2O [water]

There is no difference between the starting state and ending state of the fuel, thus there is no way to get work out of it. The minimum amount of energy needed to turn H20 into oxygen and hydrogen exactly cancels out the ideal amount of energy that may be extracted from the combustion reaction of oxygen and hydrogen. See this wiki article and work out the math. You'll see that it would ideally net 0 energy, and because there are efficiency losses in each reaction the process will consume energy, not produce it. This is math students do as a sophomore in high school, so no more pleading ignorance on the subject.

 

[Howard]

That's inconsistent, because being a perpetual motion machine and violating the second law of thermodynamics are one in the same thing.

I'm leaving this right now before my head explodes.

 

[tcG]

I'm leaving this right now before my head explodes.

The second law declares that perpetual motion machines (of a certain type) are impossible.

Uhhh...

 

[jagec]

I'm not claiming a water-fueled car would be a perpetual motion machine.

In fact, I'm claiming that it wouldn't be, and therefore wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. The people who say it violates the second law are the ones who must defend the notion that a water-fueled car would be a perpetual motion machine, and therefore impossible.

A water-powered car that operated by electrolysis followed by combustion of hydrogen and oxygen would be both a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, AND a perpetual motion machine because you could capture the water that resulted from the combustion and recycle it forever.

The only way that a "water-powered car" would ever work (unless you consider steam power to count!) would be if you could somehow convert the water, or its component atoms, directly to energy via some sort of annihilation device. Since the end state of this system is different than the starting state (you can't just recycle the water, since it's gone), it doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics. The most practical implementation thereof would be a fusion reactor that split water, discarded the oxygen, and reacted the hydrogen. Currently such a device isn't technologically feasible even on the large scale, much less at the level of an individual car.

But the device described in the article makes no claims to fusion, just the old, ridiculous claim that you can get more energy out of a reversible system than you put into it.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Biochemist chiming in here, and while not exactly my field, it looks like you guys have done a great job of sorting this out. The absolute best case scenario here is that this guy developed a better enzyme for water hydrolysis and then is using either/or/both of these gasses in a fuel cell (or perhaps even ICE, but that just seems silly), perhaps something like this http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v4/n5/full/nchem.1301.html . Only ruthenium is exceedingly rare, prohibitively expensive and just not suitable for use on a large scale.

 

[JTsyo]

In the Middle East region isn't oil easier to find than water?

 

[zoiks]

In the Middle East region isn't oil easier to find than water?

Except that this isn't the Middle East.

 

[Jeff7]

Perhaps the hydrogen is separated in a way that requires less energy than is released burning it.

Lift up a bucket of water.
Pour it over a waterwheel.
The maximum amount of energy that can be extracted from that water is the amount used to lift it up to that height.
This "way" that you speak of is like saying "Lift the bucket differently, such that it requires less energy."
You can't do it. The fastest and most efficient method is a straight line, moving directly away from the center of gravity that's attracting the water.

It's going to take a certain minimum amount of input to move that mass of water X distance away from the center of gravity of the massive body you are near. It doesn't matter if it's pumped, lifted, evaporated...it makes no difference. You're still moving a mass a certain distance within a gravity field. The most you can extract from that lifted mass via the waterwheel is the input energy required to lift that mass in the first place.
There are different ways of doing it, yes. Lifting it by driving it far away at a 0.001° incline, and then back along another similar incline, so that you can lift it a total of 10ft: This is indeed an effective way of lifting the bucket of water. But it's not efficient. Or you could use a rope and pulley to move it. That's more efficient.

But either way, you're storing potential energy = mass * gravitational acceleration * height. The mass and gravitational acceleration are constant. Note that the height is just height; it doesn't care how it got there. Drive it, lift it, evaporate it, pump it: It's still the same height, it's still the same energy.


Same thing applies to the bond formed between the two hydrogen atoms and the one oxygen atom: Breaking that bond requires X units of energy. It doesn't matter how it's done. But the most you can ever hope to get from re-forming that bond is going to be those same X units of energy that were needed to break the bond.
Conservation of energy.

That's why "perpetual motion" machine has been mentioned so many times in this thread:
- Use 0.99X units of energy to break hydrogen/oxygen bond.
- Get 1.00X units of energy back.
- Do this a whole lot of times.
- Energy is coming from nowhere.
- Universe no like, Universe no permit.

Physics works. It doesn't really care what anyone thinks it should do. It's going to do what it does, whether you like it or not.

 

[Red Squirrel]

In the Middle East region isn't oil easier to find than water?

Haha never thought of that. You'd think they'd be trying to find a way to convert oil into water.

And since when is Pakistan not the middle east? Either way, it's freaking hot and dry there.

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

Haha never thought of that. You'd think they'd be trying to find a way to convert oil into water.

And since when is Pakistan not the middle east? Either way, it's freaking hot and dry there.

convert oil into water: sounds genius.

Is india the middle east? Because Pakistan and india were once the same country.



So, has there been any proof against these claims yet?

 

[Ferzerp]

So, has there been any proof against these claims yet?

Umm, hello... Just look at the entire body of knowledge regarding physics and chemistry.

You're totally mistaken where the burden of proof lies here. If I say I can fly by flapping my arms, I can't say "prove I can't" and be taken seriously...

 

[Doppel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fueled_car

That link directly from wiki's perpetual motion machine link, speaking about the oft-repeated fraudster claims, water powered cars being at the top of the list.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

This is why we keep having discussions about things already relegated to quackery science, because some people are not aware that they are quackery science, so buy into the lie. And the cycle repeats.

 

[FuzzyDunlop]

Umm, hello... Just look at the entire body of knowledge regarding physics and chemistry.

You're totally mistaken where the burden of proof lies here. If I say I can fly by flapping my arms, I can't say "prove I can't" and be taken seriously...

true that.

 

[Red Squirrel]

What lot of people do not understand about water/hydrogen is you still need energy to produce said hydrogen. Where the concept is viable is that you can use existing energy such as your house's electrical service to generate the hydrogen (aka recharge the car) then you use electrolysis to STORE energy, not make it. But as soon as people hear electrolysis they think it's magic and make all these claims about "it runs on water". Same with hydrogen fuel cells, they do not generate power, they store it.

The big question is, can these store more energy than a battery can, using the same weight/space? If yes, then they are great, if not, then time to move on.

 

[Phanuel]

The big question is, can these store more energy than a battery can, using the same weight/space? If yes, then they are great, if not, then time to move on.

Well, the other side of that question is, "if the weight/space tradeoff isn't too bad, can we recharge them far more quickly than a battery?"

This is the real potential advantage to any other storage medium, refueling it. If hydrogen fuel cells can have 80% of the range of electric cars within the same weight package but can be refueled in the same amount of time taken to refuel a standard gasoline powered car, would that be a bad thing?