This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Can a car truly run on water?

edited December 2006 in Everything Else
So I was on Digg reading the news and I saw this http://easygrowhouseplants.blogspot.com/2006/12/inventor-of-water-powered-car-murdered.html
I would like to know if there are any proof that a car can truly runs on water.
«1

Comments

  • No. Study Newton's Laws.
  • This Wikipedia article gives a hint about the nature of the claims in the video. The word "fraud" appears several times.
  • There was a rumor that someone figured it out and then sold the technology for millions of dollars to Chevron. But that's only a rumor =P
  • The idea is based on the fact that water contains Oxygen and Hydrogen, two elements that can be burned in their gas states.

    The examples I have seen tend to involve using an electric current to break the water into it's base elements and then burn the resulting gasses.
  • The idea is based on the fact that water contains Oxygen and Hydrogen, two elements that can be burned in their gas states.

    The examples I have seen tend to involve using an electric current to break the water into it's base elements and then burn the resulting gasses.
    This is true. However, you spend more power breaking the water apart than you get by burning the resulting gas.
  • The Physics for Future Presidents podcast has some great discussion of alternative energy. To make a long story short, the professor doesn't think that hydrogen is going to become mainstream. It has much less the potency of gasoline, with much more onerous storage requirements. Not to mention, currently it takes a ton of energy to "make" hydrogen.
  • Yes, Hydrogen is a problem in so many ways.

    So is Ethanol as it has a much lower amount of energy within it as opposed to gasoline. It also takes a shit-ton of land to make it from corn. Sugar cane based ethanol is better but we can't grow it so well in the USA...

    The most cost-effective (not efficient) source is probably nuclear. Though it is not efficient in any sense of the word is does pack a large amount of energy and as technology improves the "waste" can be used as fuel again as it still contains a shit-ton of energy that we can't get to.
  • edited December 2006
    I'm channeling Steven Hyde here. There's this car that runs on water, man, and the government doesn't want you to know.

    Seriously, though, I have always had a hard time buying into the energy crisis predictions. Human history -- especially in America -- is marked by periodic technological jumps concurrent with demand. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. When oil becomes so scarce that it's cost-benefit ratio declines under the point of profitability, we'll see another energy source emerge immediately. My cynical self says that such a technology probably already exists, if not physically then at least as an idea protected by patent, and is being held by a gas company against the day that the oil market dips.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • Patents only last twenty years. If such tech is out there it is protected as a "trade secret" not a patent.
  • The only question is whether oil will gradually or sharply become scarce. In the case of the former, we'll adapt as always. In the case of the latter, there will likely be an unavoidable short-term crisis. Most of our food production and transportation relies heavily on oil, and the system would take time to switch to something else. In the meantime, the spice isn't flowing.
  • Patents only last twenty years. If such tech is out there it is protected as a "trade secret" not a patent.
    Not to mention that fact that patents are typically available to the public to look at.
  • edited December 2006
    The Physics for Future Presidents podcast has some interesting discussion on energy. Apparently, the United States can meet its oil needs for 200 years by liquefying coal. The reason we haven't tapped this is because it's about $70 per barrel. That's too risky a venture since the price of oil could drop tomorrow. I've actually seen an old plant that was built during the 1970s oil crisis (outside of Parachute, Colorado). It's pretty wild. An abandoned plant just sitting there in the middle of nowhere.

    There is also a ton of oil left to tap. Again, the problem is that it's in places that make it expensive to extract. When we say we're running out of oil, we are actually saying that we are running out of cheap oil. To be sure, there is plenty more oil to be had.

    I agree - nuclear is the future. It's amazing just how safe modern reactors are. It's also greenhouse friendly. Yes, there is waste, but that problem is outweighed by the benefits.

    Unfortunately, the Soviets and Hollywood have made the United States public afraid to develop nuclear energy. The Chernobyl reactor was a flawed piece of junk that bares no resemblance to anything used today (or anything used in non-communist countries back then). The "China Syndrome" was a bunch of Hollywood crap.

    Two rants:
    1) Battery technology. It has lagged for years. As our devices get more complicated, and need more power, our battery technology hasn't kept up.
    2) Global Warming. I am so sick of people saying something like this: "Wow, this winter is really warm. Look what global warming is doing to us." As if one winter is an appropriate statistical sample. I have no doubts that the earth is warming. We are, after all, coming out of an ice age. I also suspect that we aren't helping matters with our pollutants. I"m not, however, certain as to the extent of our impact.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • 1) Battery technology has been left behind because it wouldn't be profitable to make long-lasting batteries. There is a cap on how much people are willing to pay for such an item -- so the lifespans are kept short. This is why an energy-efficient lightbulb selling for $30 that will last 7 years and use 30% less electricity is simply not as popular as a $.79 lightbulb that will last six months and hoovers electricity.

    2) Global warming - What amazes me about this topic is that environmentalists seem to think that the Earth's climate is supposed to stay static forever. The glaciers should never melt. Greenland should never lose mass. Sea levels should never rise.

    Yet, in the history of the world, this cycle of ice age to tropical age has been repeated dozens of times. The same rings true for preservationism -- environmentalists assume that all endangered species deserve to be protected forever. But looking at evolution, we know that species that can't adapt don't survive. That's natural selection.

    The argument is that man is an "unnatural" interference on the natural order. I contend that humans are just another part of the ecosystem. Nobody gets mad at a cheetah for over-hunting and wiping out some food source on the savannah. Nobody can fault locusts for swarming every few years. It's all part of the circle of life (insert Lion King music here).

    But we fault people for some unknown reason. We think that we're above the environment, that we're not a part of it. Our emissions are "unnatural." Our garbage is "unnatural." Our terraforming is "unnatural." But we're just another land mammal adapting our environment to our needs.

    I'm not abdicating any responsibility to preserve our resources, here, you know. I'm just saying that we are part of the Earth's macrosystem, not above it, and that there is no logical imperative to keep the world in a static state until the end of time. Change is OK.
  • Pangea ftw.
  • Change is OK, but I prefer twenty dollar bills.
  • Okay... to take this totally meta...

    The "environmental" platform that drives me nuts is organic food. It is not nearly as simple an issue as most people think it is.

    The food is much more likely to make you sick, and doesn't contain fewer carcinogens. It doesn't even have any clear nutritional benefits. Research has also shown that the natural pesticides in organic plants (chosen due to their insect resistance) produce greater carcinogens than in non-organic plants. The difference in non-organic plants is that any pesticides can be washed off. You can't wash off the natural pesticides contained in organic plants.

    Lastly, the farming imprint for organic operations is much larger than for non-organic methods - taking much more land out of its natural state.

    I don't have a grudge against those who choose to eat organic food. I just can't stand the holier-than-though hippies that think that they are doing something so pure and perfect. The simple truth is that most of the hippy lifestyle is about image... and that's all. They are conformists in their non-conformity.
  • I could not agree with Jason more.

    My bet on the alternative fuel front for cars is the gradual shift to full electrics. We'll be seeing plug in hybrids soon. You'll run your car on it's batteries for the first 30 miles and then the gas generator will kick in. You'll get used to plugging it in at night. Eventually, you'll be able to plug it in and charge it in minutes. You'll go further on batteries and only need the generator in an emergency. This will decrease our dependence on oil for gas for our cars. We'll still need oil for a lot of other stuff though.
  • This will decrease our dependence on oil for gas for our cars.
    The only problem is that the electricity is likely to come from fossil fuels. That's why I'd like to see nuclear technology developed alongside hybrid technology.
  • The only problem is that the electricity is likely to come from fossil fuels. That's why I'd like to see nuclear technology developed alongside hybrid technology.
    I agree, but electric cars will probably still cause less pollution in total since a big power plant can potentially clean the exhaust better and cheaper than you can do in a car. There exist good technology to remove almost all the CO2 from fossil power plants. It is expensive to build such systems, and I guess the most difficult part is to elect brave politicians who dare to put a large tax on CO2 to promote cleaning the gases.

    Another benefit from electric cars is that there already is an environmental friendly infrastructure for transporting electricity. We don't have to use fuel to transport fuel. I read somewhere that for every gallon of fuel we buy, two gallons have already been used on producing and transporting it. I don't know if the number is correct, but there are obviously environmental benefits from transporting the energy as electricity.

    I'm a bit concerned about more nuclear power plants. My neighbour country Sweden had two very serious accidents in separate plants this summer. However, there are new and safer nuclear technologies on the drawing board.
  • You do realize that transporting electricity is very inefficient. If I send you some eletricity over a wire, not all of it makes it to the other side. If you burn gas in your car, you will end up using more of the energy in the fuel than if you burn that same gas far away and send the resulting electricity over a wire.
  • Ohms... It's the LAW!
  • That's what happens when I discuss with clever people on the Internet after consuming several beers: I'm caught red handed as a shit talker. You are right, of course: Power lines are not very efficient.

    Still, I stand by the claim that transportation of gas is a pollution problem by itself. I'm guessing here, but the loss of gas in transportation may perhaps be at approximately the same scale as the loss of watts over the power line.
  • edited January 2007
    Still, I stand by the claim that transportation of gas is a pollution problem by itself.
    I can see an issue with gas leeching from the lines and spillage, but when handled safely I would think the overall loss of power from the spilling of gas would be way smaller than that of power loss in transmission lines.
    I'm guessing here, but the loss of gas in transportation may perhaps be at approximately the same scale as the loss of watts over the power line.
    Now, in the loss of gasoline, I can think of only a few ways that there would be loss of power (after refining of course). One of the few things that would cause a loss in transport is the handling of the gas itself. Some major losses could be spillage, fire, leaks around seals of tanker trucks and other storage containers, and related to spillage capsize and tanker accidents. Now seeing that tanker accidents being rare and that they usually only carry crude oil before it is refined that is ruled out here. On the topic of spillage, we would have to consider every load and unload of gas from tanker and storage container. The gasoline is moved from storage to transport through lines designed to keep the gasoline and the vapor from escaping. Now again we have to believe that these are keep up to date and are well maintained. The only loss that could occur is user error in the effect of not tightening the hose or the hose being not completely empty when removed. This would really only be the only loss of gas during transport excluding accidents.

    Electricity transport, on the other hand, is always losing voltage from the lines. That is the reason there are substations along the way to keep the power boosted to the correct levels. Seeing as there is constant transport of electricity in huge amounts which would I say dwarf the transport of gas losses.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • The loss comes from the gas that is used to run the trucks to get the gas to the stations.
  • Cramit got it right, I was talking about normal use of gas during transport. Both trucks and cargo ships use enormous amounts of fuel to transport oil and gas.

    If we are to convert to electrically powered vehicles, it will be desirable to produce the power locally in the densely populated areas. That's a good argument for building nuclear plants based on thorium, as they can not melt down like traditional reactors can, and can therefor safely be placed almost anywhere. Thorium technology is a hot topic in Norway these days. Wikipedia is not as positive, but the information there might not be completely up to date with the new advances in thorium technology.

    The future of nuclear power looks good in other ways as well.

    (I'm sober now.)
  • Yeah nuclear power wins strait out and with the idea of the multistage reactors that can even use the waste fuel the reactors that are not converted would be a fuel supplier for the ones that are.
  • If I send you some eletricity over a wire, not all of it makes it to the other side.
    Not if it's a superconductor! I can just head down to the physics store to get some! Anyone need some point masses or frictionless wheels while I'm there?
  • Even a superconductor provides some amount of resistance.

    There is nothing in the known universe that has a negative resistance... Well, except for drunk blonde girls, but that's a different matter!
  • Nuclear fission is the best kind energy yet, but if scientist can make a nuclear a FUSSION reactor we wouldn't have to worry about energy for a long time. And for transporting electricity, why don't you make the wires with superconductors. I'm just kid so please don't rant on me...
  • Nuclear fission is the best kind energy yet, but if scientist can make a nuclear aFUSSIONreactor we wouldn't have to worry about energy for a long time. And for transporting electricity, why don't you make the wires with superconductors. I'm just kid so please don't rant on me...
    This isn't meant to be a rant, but educational.

    Yes, fusion (with one 'S') is potentially cool, but not yet available.

    Materials that can superconduct do so only under certain conditions. Usually, these conditions require them to be cooled to nearly absolute 0. So-called "high-temperature superconductors" can superconduct up to a balmy -130 degrees Celsius (or thereabouts). Performing that cooling, of course, requires a significant amount of energy itself, so using them for long-distance energy transport isn't anywhere near possible.

    A room-temperature superconductor would be exceptionally spiffy for all sorts of reasons, but it's another case where we've got a long way to go.
Sign In or Register to comment.