Car that runs on water invented.

[soccerballtux]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/w...-run-car-thrills-pakistan.html?_r=1&ref=world

Boast of Water-Run Car Thrills Pakistan

The assertion — based on the premise that he had discovered a way to easily split the oxygen and hydrogen atoms in water molecules with almost no energy — would, if proven, represent a stunning breakthrough for physics and a near-magical solution to Pakistan’s desperate power crisis.

“By the grace of Allah, I have managed to make a formula that converts less voltage into more energy,” the professed inventor, Agha Waqar Ahmad, said in a telephone interview. “This invention will solve our country’s energy crisis and provide jobs to hundreds of thousands of people.”

Federal ministers lauded Mr. Ahmad and his vehicle, sometimes at cabinet meetings. The stand-in minister for religious affairs, Khursheed Shah, appeared on television with him and took a ride in his small Suzuki rental, which was hooked up to a contraption that Mr. Ahmad described as a “water kit.” Respected talk show hosts suggested he should get state financing and protection.

The country’s most famous scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan — revered inside Pakistan as the father of the country’s nuclear weapons program and reviled elsewhere as a notorious figure in the international nuclear black market — gave it his imprimatur, too. “I have investigated the matter, and there is no fraud involved,” he told Hamid Mir, a popular television journalist, during a recent broadcast that sealed Mr. Ahmad’s celebrity.



Clearly this is entirely possible. After all, we really don't know how electricity works.

technically it would be possible, maybe.
The trick is in applying a non-DC waveform for electrolysis at a fundamental/phonon frequency of water molecules. By using a hi-frequency and hi-bandwidth (square wave) voltage signal the reactive power harmonics being transmitted at the edges of the square wave (the highest bandwidth part) might help us out.

I haven't seen anyone do research papers on this.

I have, however, seen an army-funded study in the 80s that showed that if you could ensure the water molecules were always in contact with the surface being used for electrolysis, AND you have 0% energy lost to heat (how you would do that with electrolysis IDK) then it's actually possible to free the Hydrogens and Oxygens using X amount of energy (in electricity), but when burning the 2H2 + 02 back together getting 1.2X energy out in the form of heat. It was an "ideal" equation where there are no energy losses but 20% is certainly a margin to work with....
I can post this later.

 

[soccerballtux]

There are other things that work to suppress alternative energy technology as well. The scientific research itself isn't as unbiased as people think it is. Most of the money from energy research comes from the companies making all the money off the status quo, or the government.

Yeah the fact that we're getting engines with 300HP that can get 34MPG highway now (2012 Charger) makes me go hmmmmm thinking back about everyone (including myself) saying "no that's not possible!!!". I'll be interested to see how much higher they can get it for that 54mpg by 2025 thing, and what BMW comes up with (their cars still not doing very well MPGs wise afaik)

 

[Ferzerp]

I have, however, seen an army-funded study in the 80s that showed that if you could ensure the water molecules were always in contact with the surface being used for electrolysis, AND you have 0% energy lost to heat (how you would do that IDK) then it's actually possible to free the Hydrogens and Oxygens using X amount of energy (in electricity), but when burning the 2H2 + 02 back together getting 1.2X energy out in the form of heat.

No. Just no. Any time you get a result like this, there are 3 options (in order of decreasing likelihood)

1) you're lying.
2) you're stupid and made a mistake in calculation
3) you're stupid and didn't really have a closed system/are reacting and depleting some component of your system that you didn't realize you were/etc.

The laws of thermodynamics aren't just suggestions.


edit: Also, this should never have been moved from OT to the garage... Wow.

 

[tcG]

^ I don't think anyone claims that the laws of thermodynamics are broken by a water-powered car.

 

[soccerballtux]

No. Just no. Any time you get a result like this, there are 3 options (in order of decreasing likelihood)

1) you're lying.
2) you're stupid and made a mistake in calculation
3) you're stupid and didn't really have a closed system/are reacting and depleting some component of your system that you didn't realize you were/etc.

The laws of thermodynamics aren't just suggestions.


edit: Also, this should never have been moved from OT to the garage... Wow.

Meh. I will post it tomorrow don't have it here, you can pick apart the thermodynamics equation.

 

[z1ggy]

I forgot the name of the exact make and model, but their is a patent out with some guy's company..Ron something or other...They have this "box" that basically ups the MPG of their car by doing the electrolysis on water and is apparently pretty efficient. It's kind of like a hybrid, where the car runs mainly on gas but is supplemented by this system, too.

Edit: OK I found it..Not really the same as what I thought. But check it out anyway.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/24/ronn-motors-scorpion-450-horses-40-miles-to-the-gallon/

 

[Ferzerp]

Meh. I will post it tomorrow don't have it here, you can pick apart the thermodynamics equation.

There is no point.

Splitting water requires an input of energy. Burning Hydrogen releases that energy. The absolute best you could hope to do is break even.

This is a universal.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Water powered car, wow new concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Motor_Carriage_Company

 

[tcG]

There is no point.

Splitting water requires an input of energy. Burning Hydrogen releases that energy. The absolute best you could hope to do is break even.

This is a universal.

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

 

[tcG]

There are plenty of videos on Youtube of people like Stanley Meyer who claim to have made a water-powered car. In the bottom 3 videos the technical details are explained. I don't think it's prima facie impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hfASfkBnIc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SlO274XKG0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ZlIQicFfo

 

[Ferzerp]

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

Not possible. That violates a fundamental law of nature.

Basically, you can look at anyone who ever suggests such a thing and dismiss them as someone who doesn't understand what they're talking about with 100.000% certainty.

 

[JCH13]

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

If that were true then we would all have infinitely renewable energy, with no fuel input and zero emissions. Pretty sure that violates a law or two of thermodynamics.

 

[tcG]

There is no law of physics that necessitates that the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen be greater than or equal to the energy released by hydrogen combustion. If there is such a law, please point to it. What there is, is a precedent of such a feat never having been done, at least not one done that is recognized by the mainstream scientific/engineering community. That is a very different thing from there being a law of physics that makes it impossible.

In any case, I don't think the operation of the alleged water-powered cars is as simple as separating hydrogen from oxygen and then burning the hydrogen.

 

[Ferzerp]

There is no law of physics that necessitates that the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen be greater than or equal to the energy released by hydrogen combustion.

In any case, I don't think the operation of the alleged water-powered cars is as simple as separating hydrogen from oxygen and then burning the hydrogen.

Sorry, but you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[tcG]

You're right that I have no real expertise in this area. You'll also notice that I haven't made any claims. I'm just asking you to back up YOUR claim. You have said 3 times now that there being more energy produced by combustion of a given amount of hydrogen than by the energy required to get the hydrogen for such combustion, is a physical impossibility, barred by a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF NATURE. What is this law, and how is it violated?

 

[Childs]

The laws of thermodynamics are not set in stone. It is based on observation, and in time they could be changed if we observe something else and our understanding improves. I think some people with these types of claims are seeing something, but they dont fully understand it.

Energy Catalizer (ecat) was said to violate the 2nd law, but it seems to be gaining traction. To dismiss something out of hand because it violates the second law is short sighted.

 

[JCH13]

There is no law of physics that necessitates that the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen be greater than or equal to the energy released by hydrogen combustion. If there is such a law, please point to it. What there is, is a precedent of such a feat never having been done, at least not one done that is recognized by the mainstream scientific/engineering community. That is a very different thing from there being a law of physics that makes it impossible.

In any case, I don't think the operation of the alleged water-powered cars is as simple as separating hydrogen from oxygen and then burning the hydrogen.

You're right that I have no real expertise in this area. You'll also notice that I haven't made any claims. I'm just asking you to back up YOUR claim. You have said 3 times now that there being more energy produced by combustion of a given amount of hydrogen than by the energy required to get the hydrogen for such combustion, is a physical impossibility, barred by a FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF NATURE. What is this law, and how is it violated?

R u teh srsly?

Second law of thermodynamics. Put simply: energy in = energy out + efficiency losses. Every system has efficiency losses. It's impossible to extract energy (i.e. work) from a system where the fuel (presumably cool water) has less energy than the combustion product (i.e. steam). This would mean that energy is spontaneously being created by said process, which is impossible. "Energy in" would be greater than "energy out" not to mention the efficiency losses of an internal combustion engine, which are generally around the 70% range.

This guy would be claiming to be creating over three times the energy from this magical water engine as he's putting into it.

Edit: the basic principal of the ECAT doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, going from 2*H2O->2*H2+O2->2*H20 and getting energy out does.

 

[WelshBloke]

...

If I spend $20 to create a new $10 bill for you to spend, would you consider that a new and brilliantly sustainable source of money?

TBH if someone else was spending the $20 and I was getting the $10 I'd be happy with the deal.

 

[tcG]

Fair enough... at this point, I don't know enough to really argue with you.

Doesn't the fact that you have to constantly add water to it make it not perpetual motion?

It doesn't seem to me that input energy would have to be less than output energy, if you count the input energy as what is required to separate the hydrogen, PLUS the potential energy of the water itself. The advantage of the water-powered car isn't that it produces more energy than it requires, but that the fuel it uses is so cheap and abundant.

 

[Howard]

Fair enough... at this point, I don't know enough to really argue with you.

Doesn't the fact that you have to constantly add water to it make it not perpetual motion?

Perpetual motion would be useless for this application unless perpetual energy was also being provided - which it also is not.

And yes, you are too far in over your head for this discussion.

 

[JCH13]

Fair enough... at this point, I don't know enough to really argue with you.

Doesn't the fact that you have to constantly add water to it make it not perpetual motion?

This hoax has nothing to do with perpetual motion and everything to do with using a combustion product as the combustion fuel and getting energy out.

 

[tcG]

If perpetual energy is provided, then it's not a perpetual motion machine at all. It's just a regular machine that you keep running in the conventional manner.

The reason I brought up perpetual motion is because according to the Wikipedia article on the most famous water-powered car, Stanley Meyer's, if working as described, would work as a perpetual motion device.

If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine.[2]

We both seem to agree that this is incorrect.

 

[Howard]

If perpetual energy is provided, then it's not a perpetual motion machine at all. It's just a regular machine that you keep running in the conventional manner.

Are you under the impression that a perpetual motion machine can do real work?

 

[tcG]

Honestly, I don't know. The appropriate answer is probably "hell no".

I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion, though, since nobody in this thread seems to think that a water-powered car, even if legitimate, would be a perpetual motion machine.

I guess I'll lay my cards on the table. Everybody here agrees that a working water-powered car wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine. Yet some posters are saying that a working water-powered car would violate the second law of thermodynamics. That's inconsistent, because being a perpetual motion machine and violating the second law of thermodynamics are one in the same thing.

 

[JCH13]

If perpetual energy is provided, then it's not a perpetual motion machine at all. It's just a regular machine that you keep running in the conventional manner.

The reason I brought up perpetual motion is because according to the Wikipedia article on the most famous water-powered car, Stanley Meyer's, if working as described, would work as a perpetual motion device.



We both seem to agree that this is incorrect.

The way that a water car could be interpreted as a perpetual motion machine is if the vehicle collected it's exhaust (water vapor) and electrolyzed it again. This would represent a closed system that would output energy indefinitely. This behavior has never been observed.