The Car That Runs on Water [debunked]
Eric Gisin
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSSP7366720080613 [appalling junk]
http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/genepax_water_energy_system_ma.php
June 16, 2008, 05:00:01 | Steven Novella
This story keeps coming back, and it is likes we will continue to see it into the future. The car
that runs on water has become almost a technological icon - like the hover car or the cure for
cancer. Except we will never see it because it simply is not possible.
Here is the latest iteration of this scam/pseudoscience. Japanese company Genepax claims that is
has a car that runs on water. Reuters reports:
"The car will continue to run as long as you have a bottle of water to top up from time to time,"
Genepax CEO Kiyoshi Hirasawa told local broadcaster TV Tokyo.
"It does not require you to build up an infrastructure to recharge your batteries, which is
usually the case for most electric cars," he added.
The Reuters article was pretty light on details. It was also light on skepticism (i.e basic
journalism). It failed to inform readers that such claims have been made numerous times before and
that the scientific consensus is that such claims violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Cryptogon reports that on June 12th the company held a press conference, adding:
The basic power generation mechanism of the new system is similar to that of a normal fuel cell,
which uses hydrogen as a fuel. According to Genepax, 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.
Though the company did not reveal the details, it "succeeded in adopting a well-known process to
produce hydrogen from water to the MEA," said Hirasawa Kiyoshi, the company's president. This
process is allegedly similar to the mechanism that produces hydrogen by a reaction of metal hydride
and water. But compared with the existing method, the new process is expected to produce hydrogen
from water for longer time, the company said.
Here is the problem - it takes energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. When you then burn
the hydrogen by recombining it with oxygen you generate some of that energy back. But the laws of
thermodynamic say that the energy you get back must be less than the energy you put in. You simply
cannot get energy out of this process.
Those who have claimed to have done so in the past fall into one of two broad categories: Either
they were deceiving themselves through sloppy science or they were scam artists. In the former case
the energy inputs and outputs were not measured accurately, or a source of energy input was missed,
leading to the false conclusion that energy output exceeds input. In the latter case con artists
are simply looking for investors for a product they know will never work. I do not know which
category Genepax falls into.
The company claims that it is their membrane technology that allows for the splitting of hydrogen
off water. But this does not explain where the energy is coming from. The word "catalyst" is thrown
around a lot - but a catalyst just allows a reaction to run more quickly, it does not allow a
reaction to go from a low energy state (water) to a higher energy state (hydrogen and oxygen). The
company also says that the reaction is driven by a chemical reaction. It is possible for a chemical
reaction to provide energy to split water - but then the fuel is the chemicals undergoing the
reaction. What chemical might these be? How much is needed to fuel the car? Whey aren't these
chemicals already used as fuels? Since the company claims the car need only water and outputs only
water it is unlikely they are fueling the car with large amounts of substances from which they are
getting chemical energy. This is a good way to confuse the scientifically challenged, however.
What is most amusing about this story, other than the utter failure of the mainstream media to
report it adequately, are some of the comments in the online article. Here are some gems:
For those who do not believe this ('academic' people especially). get ready to be imperially
f@cked when oil hits $200 a barrel. all I hear from them are moans that 'it cannot be done' while
they offer no other solutions'. Fact is, you do not even know how many truths are kept away from
you by the oil cartels. maybe a breakthrough was already created 20 years ago.
-----------
All this talk about a hoax is a little silly. Do you not think the reporters from Reuters didn't
at least check this thing out. I am sure they made sure that the person put water in the tank to
make it run. And for thermodynamics it is mostly garbage. Do the galaxies spin based on
thermodynamics.
-----------
A scam? So what.. If I can get down the road with this cheaper than I can with oil it has a
market. We are looking at $ per mile and availability of fuel. The "real" fuel here may be in the
form of a metallic reaction bar or other type of catylist but who really cares?
These were the basic types of gullible comments. Some talked about the "big oil" conspiracy to
suppress any such technology, while others simply stated that we need an alternative to gasoline
(as if needed it made it so). One commenter made a type of argument from authority - that the press
reporting can be trusted (how naive). But the most simplistic idiocy came from those who said
something to the effect - who cares if it's a scam, as long as it works. Huh?
It was good to see a fair percentage of commenters who understood the physics and that such claims
must be fraudulent. One commenter said it very well - "when will people learn that water is not
fuel." Exactly.
Reading the comments of such articles always gives me the sensation (at the risk of creating a
false dichotomy) that people fall into two basic groups: those who understand science and basically
trust the institutions of science, and those whose thinking is hopelessly muddled by conspiracy
thinking, pseudoscientific ideology, and/or scientific illiteracy. Perhaps the internet, with its
exquisite catering to niche markets, is exacerbating this divide - making skeptics into better
skeptics while simultaneously feeding the conspiracy mongers and lunatic fringe. If true it will be
interesting to see where this gets us.
One thing is for sure - wherever that is we won't be getting there in a water-powered car.
Don Lancaster
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/morenrgf.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
daestrom
> Eric Gisin wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/morenrgf.pdf
Do you have to post the *entire* message over again just to SPAM us with
your web site tripe??
daestrom
Don Lancaster
>
> daestrom
>
It is a thankless task, but someone has got to do it.
hhc...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Hey, Daestom, I really for one appecitate Don's infomative website
links, simply because they provide more factual and technological
information than a a newgroup is capable of providing I supect
everyone and everyone of posting on profit websites based upon pure
financial motive goals, but Don Lancaser post the wealth of
information free to all visitors, He does not require you to sign in
and post your email address that he could sell to a mailing list
suppier, or so far as I can tell have any amy suspicous motivations.
Evidently, he doesn't sell his mailing list to any magazine
publishers.
Sorry to you defamers of Don Lancaster, but in my impression, he is
the last remaining "Boy Scout" on the Internet. I've never seen him
post anyhing but scientific fact, which seems to distress some posters
who would rather believe in scientific fantasy, but thankfully Don
does not collapse to these pressures.
I don't know if Don holds a degree in Science or Engineering, but to
his credit, he should. Better than most science or engineering
instructors, Don has had and and still has an abiliy to make the most
obtuse subject seem obvious.
Harrry C.
daestrom
While Don's writings are useful, if you actually *read* the threads and then
*read* the link he posts, you'll notice there are not many times they are
about the same topic (unless you consider 'energy in general' to be the same
topic).
Take for example this thread. The OP is about some random news release of a
car 'running' on water. Don replies to the post by quoting the entire
news-release and related nonsense, and adds at the very end a link to his
"Some More Energy Fundamentals I" page.
On Don's page we find discussion of 'dimes equal kilowatts', exergy, a
discussion of amortization of costs including some discussion of PV costs
versus payback, economies of scale, and some links for his other web pages.
All this information is at least 'interesting' (although I disagree with his
'energy==money==energy' analysis somewhat).
But, where exactly in Don's posted link does he discuss hydrogen
electrolysis, fuel-cell technology, or identifying scams such as 'water as
fuel'?? No where. Someone that hasn't caught on to Don's little trick
might click the link and hope to see some intelligent discussion about the
topic found in the thread. Maybe some thoughtful analysis of the topic at
hand, or some such. Sorry, you'll be disappointed. He uses the 'one link
fits all' model. One link, to one page should fit any discussion about any
energy issue.
So why does he post a link to that page?? My only guess is a shameless plug
to get 'eyeballs' to his web site. And *that* is what I object to (along
with quoting the entire tripe just to say, "Oh, Oh, come read my page,
please, please"). It's not 'on point' to the discussion, it's just a plea
for 'eyeballs'. As if to say, "I can't be bothered discussing *this* issue,
if you read my writings, 'all will become clear' and you'll understand
everything."
You can worship Don for his altruistic posting of knowledge if you want.
But don't ask him to explain what he means by the 'fully burden costs of PV'
or what sorts of 'externalized costs' he includes in his analysis, as I have
several times. His reply is invariably, "I'll send you my hourly rate if
you would like and we can negotiate a contract." He's not really interested
in intelligent dialog about issues, he just wants you to click his link, add
one to his 'eyeball' count and tell others to come visit his sight as well.
Why? Only Don knows for sure.
daestrom
Don Lancaster
DB
Now, that was funny...
Bill Ward
He also has a slightly acerbic sense of humor.
Don Lancaster
Joe
news:X5SdnbhXKdJ_E8vV...@posted.uniservecommunications...
> http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=315 [Steven Novella's blog]
> http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSSP7366720080613
> [appalling junk]
> http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/genepax_water_energy_system_ma.php
>
> June 16, 2008, 05:00:01 | Steven Novella
>
> This story keeps coming back, and it is likes we will continue to see it
> into the future.
Snip....
>
> ...One thing is for sure - wherever that is we won't be getting there in a
> water-powered car.
>
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
URL for Full Design Plans for Stan Meyers Water Fuel Cell: (for you REALLY
SMART guys)
http://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf
Don Lancaster
>
>
> URL for Full Design Plans for Stan Meyers Water Fuel Cell: (for you REALLY
> SMART guys)
> http://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf
>
>
Sorry, but that is for the really dumb guys.
The "not even wrong" epsilon minus wannabees, remedial junior division
hopefuls.
The really smart guys go to http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf instead.
Thermodynamic first principles involving exergy flat out GUARANTEE that
electrolysis from high value sources (such as grid, wind, pv, or
alternator) for bulk hydrogen energy flat out ain't gonna happen.
A thorough analysis of the Meyer electrocity can be found at
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu08.asp#05-22-08
Joe
news:6c7p54F...@mid.individual.net...
But he got it patented.
Don Lancaster
Virtually ALL patents are utter failures.
Not one in 500 ever shows a net positive cash flow.
Winners are in the marketplace.
Losers are in the patent repository.
Also, if you bothered to read the patent, you would find it is just a
horribly complex and uselessly inefficient electrolysis scheme.
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
Bill Ward
But at other times can have a corrosive effect on basic communication.
m II
>> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
>
> But he got it patented.
>
>
http://righttocreate.blogspot.com/2006/04/ridiculous-patent-infinite-data.html
mike
--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.
george
> Virtually ALL patents are utter failures.
> Not one in 500 ever shows a net positive cash flow.
>
> Winners are in the marketplace.
> Losers are in the patent repository.
>
> Also, if you bothered to read the patent, you would find it is just a
> horribly complex and uselessly inefficient electrolysis scheme.
>
That one would require very large batteries to even be inefficient.
Just go electric and be done with it
Screen Ranger
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:5ba7cb19-ee05-4e03...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Yup Exactly for now it's a good choice.... If we can find lighter
battery that can yield higher current, that should solve Fuel
Problem.
Yevgen Barsukov
> http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=315[Steven Novella's blog]http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSSP7366720080613[appalling junk]http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/genepax_water_energy_system_ma.php
>
Of cause the source of energy is a metal (or a metal-hydride), which
is the fuel.
Here are some more explanations coming from Japanese being pressed by
a more
competent correspondent:
I am amazed by the proliferation of the original story through mass
media,
without any mention of actual fuel (e.g metal, sodium borohidride
etc).
Also no mention of how long can the car go on one load of that fuel,
where to get the fuel and what is its price.
I mean, come on, they should institute a physics test for these who
want
to report stories about energy... Or to report stories, period.
Regards,
Evgenij
Don Lancaster
One of the lab rats I went to school with used sodium borohydride to
almost completely blow Callery, Pennsylvania off the map in 1958.
All he did was wash a beaker that was not quite empty.
Interest in the chemical has declined markedly since.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Eeyore
Screen Ranger wrote:
> Yup Exactly for now it's a good choice.... If we can find lighter
> battery that can yield higher current, that should solve Fuel
> Problem.
An 'over-unity BATTERY' ?
MORON squared.
Graham
Yevgen Barsukov
> Yevgen Barsukov wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 10:51 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=315[Steven Novella's blog]http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSSP7366720080613[appalling junk]http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/genepax_water_energy_system_ma.php
>
> > Of cause the source of energy is a metal (or a metal-hydride), which
> > is the fuel.
> > Here are some more explanations coming from Japanese being pressed by
> > a more
> > competent correspondent:
>
>
> > I am amazed by the proliferation of the original story through mass
> > media,
> > without any mention of actual fuel (e.g metal, sodium borohidride
> > etc).
> > where to get the fuel and what is its price.
> > I mean, come on, they should institute a physics test for these who
> > want
> > to report stories about energy... Or to report stories, period.
>
> > Regards,
> > Evgenij
>
> One of the lab rats I went to school with used sodium borohydride to
> almost completely blow Callery, Pennsylvania off the map in 1958.
>
> All he did was wash a beaker that was not quite empty.
>
> Interest in the chemical has declined markedly since.
>
It is still one of the popular hydrogen generating materials used
in mobile fuel-cells. For example a company
Millennium Inc
http://www.millenniumcell.com/fw/main/home-177.html
has released to mass production a portable 1kW electric generator
that
uses NaBH4 canisters for producing hydrogen. For some reason
reputable companies resist temptation to call it a "water fueled
generator".
Fuel Cell promotion organizations even applied to FDA to approve
NaBH4 cartridges for use in aircrafts (amoung other materials).
So it looks like it is considered reasonably safe as long as
it stays of of contact with water,
and when used, contact is tightly controlled.
Of cause, anything that has to do with hydrogen is dangerous.
I myself had almost blew up my kitchen in 8th grade when experimenting
with
hydrogen production from Al-wire in presence of CuSO4 and NaCl
solution as a catalyst. It is a very dramatic reaction, which
you would not expect from seemingly stable aluminum.
(Btw another nice "water" car - take aluminum tank, and add
water with a little pinch of CuSO4 and salt :-)
But if you consider alternative storage options (greatly compressed
hydrogen is other
popular one) NaBH4 sounds very harmless.
Regards,
Yevgen
Edward Green
> This story keeps coming back, and it is likes we will continue to see it into the future. The car
> that runs on water ...
If anybody believes this for a nanosecond it's (1) evidence of the
failure of science education (2) exactly what they deserve. Let them
buy the crap.
<...>