Sunday, April 15, 2007

I wonder if Joe's heard about the water powered car

Someone sent me this video and I can hardly believe it. This car actually runs on water. They also have a web site, Water Powered Car. I checked it out on and I can't find anything that says it's a hoax. The video is of a news report. Joe, do you think the Big 3 could manufacture this or it could be mass produced here in Michigan? I've forwarded the information to Governor Granholm for further investigation. Not to worry, Republicans wouldn't run with a good idea if it hit them upside the head.


Chet said...

I think you've gone off a deep end here.

First, if it was as easy as this guy's cell, it would have been done already (and if not by us, the Japanese, or someone else). But if that's not convincing to you, let's look at two other points. The physics of the energy cycle here require that the guy has invented either the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine (or "free energy device") or its not true. Combustibles, like gas, produce a positive energy because nature over millions of years did work to change material into an efficiently burnable liquid or solid (coal). Water however, is the opposite. It requires energy to break it into two combustibles - H2 and O. More energy to break it than is obtained from burning it (recombining it to water). So water can be a fine source of combustibles (since it is the most abundant material on earth), but the energy it releases is like a battery - you have to put energy into it at first to get most of the energy out of it later. So water as a energy SOURCE would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Burning hydrogen produces a net plus in energy, splitting water into that and burning it requires a net energy input.

That said, one could imagine a system of water use that is closed and perfectly "green". You get your electricity from solar, wind, and other sources (almost necessarily nuclear, since the cost of creating enough solar and wind devices would be quadrillions of dollars), use that energy to break the water apart, and transport cells of hydrogen where-ever they are needed locally (which might be more efficient than transporting electricity by wire, and certainly a convenience for transportation use). The water cycle is much like the energy cycle of a battery. The ideal source of hydrogen would be hydrogen by itself that isn't trapped in water, since burning it (adding oxygen) would result in net pluses of energy. Unfortunately (or very fortunately), we don't live on Jupiter or the surface of the sun, and the energy costs of moving it from there to here ... So, from a physics perspective, like perpetual motion machines, this seems too good to be true.

Third, the website you linked says this:

Know that no terrorists took down our twin towers, bombs did!

These guys believe that the WTC was a government conspiracy. Do you believe that? I think its evidence these folks are off-kilter and evidence against their credibility on anything.

I hope I'm wrong and they're right and they've invented the modern perpetual motion machine, but I'm not banking on it and indeed, would bet against it.

Bruce Fealk said...

Chet, I've been doing my homework, and even though I'm no engineer, it did seem plausible when I posted it and I haven't found anything to say it's not true. I have found another inventor in the Philipines that has been driving such a vehicle for 4 years after 30 years of work on the device.