Jump to content

Talk:Water-fuelled car/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

disassociating water molecules

Hello. i have a few points (1) with two different metals, in electrolysis, it is possible by way of design, to either produce Oxyhydrogen (HHO) or pure Hydrogen and Oxygen (hoffman apparatus). (2) With a resonating anode and cathode and a pulse width modulation circuit (where the current is halved (by switching the power supply on and off with a circuit (similar to how a fluorescent tube operates-it flickers constantly but faster than the human eye can register(and its not percieved as flickering )))) total production of gases may be the same but with less use of power. The NON-Resonating anode and cathode take ONE ZAP OF CURRENT and at the correctly 'tuned' frequency they will resonate, producing gases until they return to a non-resonating state. thereby power is ON for one second and gas production occurs for five seconds. THIS IS FIVE SECONDS THAT POWER IS NOT BEING USED AND ENERGY (USED) EQUATIONS ARE NOT SO EASY TO DISMISS. (the anode and cathode vibrate similar to a Church bell- BONNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG) for an example, equation of power to a resonating electrolysis cell:: Total Hydrogen produced (10 AMPS FOR ONE HOUR) = 10 Amp Hours Versus A CONSTANT NON MODULATING POWER SUPPLY AND NON RESONATING CELL TOTAL Hydrogen produced (10 AMPS for six hours) = 60 Amp Hours you get my point right?? (3) The advent of efficient systems that recycle and squeeze every drop of energy from 'spent' exhaust gases to GAIN power and/or by diluting the combustable (hydrogen) gases to lower engine temperatures make certain theorys of IMPOSSIBLE WATER FUEL CAR quite obviously lacking (of a genuine understanding of Exhaust Gas Recirculation for a start) (4) For an example of (the most argued) miss quote or Misconception (of all time)when standing in a petrol/fuel filling station with a pump nozzle in your hand you would be sure to either be putting petrol/ diesel/ LPG/ Biomethane / Biodiesel in your Vehicle. And similarly Stan Meyers would be pumping water into his 'fuel' tank. ('runs on water' is thereby coined and put into public awareness) No matter, apparently to the debate on the 'percieved' feasibilities of any of the processes that were employed (points 1,2,3) (not mentioning ionizing the air) normal theoretical approach to the ENTIRE (water-car) system, and disregarding the ENTIRE system as a scam , completely misses the point on a couple of parallels.. you dont judge a sports team's performance by discounting one player (no matter how well that player interacts and influences another) What im pointing out is, that you may as well discount and disprove ELECTROLYSIS, RESONANCE, IONIZATION and each of their processes' characteristics to stand in the same spot. I have just added a picture drawing to Hydrogen as a supplemental fuel (hydrogen on demand) to allow these particular processes to be individualised and thereby emphasising the different results from quite similar chemical reactions.NeiallsWheel (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

In addition to being total nonsense, this violates the WP:NOTFORUM policy. Please try to stay on topic.Prebys (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that my completely accurate picture of the blatent differences of Hydrogen On Demand ,has been taken down and the term Hydrogen On Demand removed from the HYDROGEN AS A SUPPLEMENTAL FUEL section. (so another article on WIKIPEDIA is inaccurate as well then??? WHAT is Hydrogen ON Demand??? if you type that in the search bar you get redirected to this page and the description of it, is again LACKING. SO are you all saying that hydrogen as a supplemental fuel IS DEFINITIVELY NOT HYDROGEN ON DEMAND? how utterly ridiculous) What is the problem with showing the different methods, so that 'a complete novice' can quickly understand the practices involved and the result of each SEPARATE process?? What are you referring to as 'total nonsense' ??? the drawing??? part (1) (2) (3) (4) or my summary? which part in your eyes is INACCURATE?188.29.94.88 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

There are two possibilities here:
  1. Hydrogen on demand somehow does not entail making hydrogen from water within the car. If that's the case then it doesn't belong in this article because we're talking about cars that are claimed to be "powered by water" - not cars that (for example) have a tank of hydrogen gas in the trunk.
  2. Hydrogen on demand is produced by disassociation of water inside the car. The only systems that we're aware of that do this, use electrolysis...which we carefully explain. The whole "resonance" argument (which is bullshit BTW) is immaterial - whatever means you use to electrolyse water falls into this category.
I don't know whether you're talking about (1) or (2) - but I think the article explains the current state of scientific knowledge (as opposed to evil thieving scamming).
SteveBaker (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the current page (######these statements are wrong######and need adjusting to clarify FACTS not mysterious concepts. since when (and where is the link to this rubbish???) does a hydrogen cell create water???by merging with oxygen???? UTTER RUBBISH and 'separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then######recombine them to release energy######### UTTER RUBBISH AGAIN) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car A water-fuelled car is not any the following: • Water injection which is a method for cooling the combustion chambers of engines by adding water to the incoming fuel-air mixture, allowing for greater compression ratios and reduced engine knocking (detonation). The hydrogen car, although it often incorporates some of the same elements. To fuel a hydrogen car from water, electricity is used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis. The resulting hydrogen is then either burned in the car's engine #########or merged with oxygen to create water via a fuel cell.######### The car ultimately receives its energy from electricity that may come from the power grid, with the hydrogen acting as an energy carrier. Extracting energy from water: According to the currently accepted laws of physics, there is no way to extract chemical energy from water alone. Most proposed water fuelled cars rely on some form of electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then######recombine them to release energy#########; however, because the energy required to separate the elements will always be at least as great as the energy released, this cannot be used to produce net energy.[6][7]188.29.94.88 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

So you're saying that there are systems out there that produce hydrogen (by whatever means) and recover energy from it WITHOUT combining it with oxygen? What chemical reaction is generating the energy and what are the products of that reaction? I can't imagine such a system...maybe you carry sulphur in the car and react that with the hydrogen...but that idea just stinks. But if you know of some novel system that doesn't react hydrogen with oxygen to extract the energy and generate water as the byproduct, then please point us to a reference so that we can read about it. (No, please don't explain it - just give us a reliable source that we can go and read for ourselves) SteveBaker (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh - and as for what a fuel cell does. You asked "does a hydrogen cell create water???by merging with oxygen???? UTTER RUBBISH"...well, no, it's not utter rubbish. Please read the very first sentence in our fuel cell article (which is backed by a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines):
"A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent."
The second sentence says: "Hydrogen is the most common fuel...". So, a hydrogen fuel cell converts the chemical energy from hydrogen into electricity by combining it with oxygen...either directly or by using an oxydizing agent...and when you combine hydrogen with oxygen, you get (drum roll, please) good old fashioned H2O...hydrogen hydroxide...or "water" to you and me. So yes, a hydrogen fuel cell does create water and it does so by merging it with oxygen. Fact, not "UTTER RUBBISH"...and fact that's backed by a reliable source. You need to climb down from your high horse and start giving reliable source references for the claims you make - failing that, you're comments will likely be removed from this talk page on grounds of WP:NOTFORUM, as User:Prebys has already intimated. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

this is an excerpt from wikipedia which could easily be describing Resonating anode and cathodes within an electrolysis cell the likes of which will never be allowed space on wikipedia.I wonder if you would care to find the page that the following excerpt is from. 'by controlling the flow of the cavitation the power is harnessed and non-destructive. Controlled cavitation can be used to enhance chemical reactions or propagate certain unexpected reactions because free radicals are generated in the process due to disassociation of vapours trapped in the cavitating bubbles[citation needed].'188.29.94.88 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

Well, we all know how to use the search box. Hydrodynamic cavitation can indeed promote a difficult chemical pathway - but it can't magically produce energy where there is none. If you have useful amounts of energy stored in a molecule then you can sometimes use cavitation to promote some unusual reaction that will release it. But sadly, that doesn't help here. There is no energy left to extract from water - so there is no conceivable reaction that will release energy from water. That's the key to why absolutely all claims for water fuelled cars are guaranteed to be utterly bogus. If there were some complicated means by which cavitation/resonance could be used to dissociate water, then the energy required to start and maintain that cavitation/resonance would exceed the energy produced from the products of dissociation (hydrogen and oxygen). That's right there in the laws of thermodynamics - the most fundamental underpinnings of all of science. We don't need to understand the details of the claimed reaction - we know without further examination that it's bullshit. If you're claiming that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong then almost all of physics and chemistry is wrong - and to make that claim in our article is going to require the mother of all reliable sources! SteveBaker (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have useful amounts of energy stored in a molecule then you can sometimes use cavitation to promote some unusual reaction that will release it.But sadly, that doesn't help here. Thanks for your quick reply, but you need to look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resonance Ultrasonic cavitation has been used by the Oil industry for years http://www.quantum-vortex.com/science.shtml and is explained here... Investigation of Cavitation-Induced Hydrocarbon Cracking (DOE) And i will be putting a link to this on the relevant pages,HYDROGEN, PLASMA, and CAVITATION etc. and your second of Two possiblities 'Hydrogen on demand is produced by disassociation of water inside the car. The only systems that we're aware of that do this, use electrolysis...which we carefully explain.' BUT you dont carefully explain really. That is what my picture (that was removed) WAS explaining. THREE different methods of electrolysis and by the way NONE of them Resonant or Resonating. (why was it removed) There is NOT a page on here to CAREFULLY explain Hydrogen ON demand and as i said before this current page is the REdirect. This is what the picture Substantiated and further explanation of this is necessary. (on an intellectual level) .but I think the article explains the current state of scientific knowledge well obviously not. Furthermore The 'cannot use water' arguement i have tryed to explain here (the term runs on water is misleading NOT some crazy notion- OF course it used electrolysis to create hydrogen or Oxyhydrogen) (4) For an example of (the most argued) miss quote or Misconception (of all time)when standing in a petrol/fuel filling station with a pump nozzle in your hand you would be sure to either be putting petrol/ diesel/ LPG/ Biomethane / Biodiesel in your Vehicle. And similarly Stan Meyers would be pumping water into his 'fuel' tank. ('runs on water' is thereby coined and put into public awareness) Hydrogen on Demand can either produce PURE HYDROGEN or OXY-HYDROGEN and a picture speaks a thousand words.Why was it removed??188.28.255.212 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

One reason to remove the image is that it's wrong. Electrolysis doesn't produce O, it produces O2. Another good reason is that it's too far off topic as this isn't the hydrogen on demand page. Rklawton (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There is NO Hydrogen on Demand page, and as i have previously stated during a search you get REdirected to THIS PAGE. i didnt realise that a more comprehensive explanation is somehow irrelevant especially when you get REdirected to this page , Prompted to seek answers HERE and denied a true explanation of the various ways. I have taken on board your correction and have edited my drawing and will re-upload it. My proposed page edit is highlighted in bold (below) and will include edited picture. Hydrogen as a supplement Main article: Hydrogen fuel enhancement ..In addition to claims of cars that run exclusively on water, there have also been claims that burning hydrogen or oxyhydrogen in addition to petrol or diesel fuel increases mileage. Whether such Hydrogen On Demand systems actually improve emissions or fuel efficiency is debated.[35]Thanks for your help188.29.211.236 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

Uploading your own tutorial drawings is WP:OR, so they would be deleted even if they were correct, which they're not. I'm afraid that ALLCAPS, boldface and #####affected#####use####of#####hashtags#### don't carry a lot of weight in scientific or technical arguments, so at this point, this has strayed pretty far from anything useful.Prebys (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Highlighting or emphasing particulars of any text is standard practice its a shame that WE cannot highlight or change a text colour to show matters in question. It has already been pointed out to me that there was a mistake on the drawing. it has been amended and reuploaded. As i have said in the comment previous to yours Prebys. NeiallsWheel (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

I have put in bold the text im questioning in THIS article (obviously its not the main article but it slightly misses a clear and concise quick explanation) Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell Main article: Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell[11]

Stanley Meyer claimed that he ran a dune buggy on water instead of petrol. He replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" to spray a fine mist of water into the engine cylinders, which he claimed were subjected to an electrical resonance. The "fuel cell" would split the water mist into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapour in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy. Meyer's claims were never independently verified, and in an Ohio court in 1996 he was found guilty of fraud.[1] He died of an aneurysm in 1998, although conspiracy theories persist in which it is claimed that he was poisoned.[12]

the main article shows a true account... The water was subjected to an electrical resonance that dissociated it into its basic atomic make-up. The water fuel cell would split the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapor in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy.[3]

the engine cylinders WERE NOT subjected to electrical resonance. Heres my proposed edit of THIS page. Stanley Meyer claimed that he ran a dune buggy on water instead of petrol. He replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" to spray a fine mist of water into the engine cylinders. The "fuel cell" was claimed to be subjected to an electrical resonance, and would split the water mist into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapour in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy. Meyer's claims were never independently verified, and in an Ohio court in 1996 he was found guilty of fraud.[1] He died of an aneurysm in 1998, although conspiracy theories persist in which it is claimed that he was poisoned.[12] NeiallsWheel (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

I don't know anything about water-fuelled cars (other than that they don't and can't exist), but that last sentence you suggest does not belong in the article, as it is not related to this topic and it gives a clear fringe view undue attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop inserting that figure unless you can find a WP:RS for "HHO" (hint: you can't).Prebys (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Prebys, the term HHO is already mentioned in the article (highlighted below in BOLD). You could say its a slang phrasing but its also mentioned in the article link(36) after it Hydrogen as a supplement Main article: Hydrogen fuel enhancement In addition to claims of cars that run exclusively on water, there have also been claims that burning hydrogen or oxyhydrogen in addition to petrol or diesel fuel increases mileage. Whether such Hydrogen On Demand systems actually improve emissions or fuel efficiency is debated.[35] A number of websites exist promoting the use of oxyhydrogen (which they often refer to as "HHO"), selling plans for do-it-yourself electrolysers or entire kits with the promise of large improvements in fuel efficiency. According to a spokesman for the American Automobile Association, "All of these devices look like they could probably work for you, but let me tell you they don't."[36]NeiallsWheel (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel And Also Prebys, Its also mentioned under Fringe Science and FRAUD on the OxyHydrogen page, and (on another note)there is not even a 'see also' Oxyhydrogen on the Hydrogen page. Try typing HHO into wikipedia and you are shown..... HHO gas, a synonym for oxyhydrogen used in fringe science and fraud. So its not like HHO is non-existant in this encyclopedia. Here is a link to a study where Browns Gas and HHO are named as the same..

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:hwV5oGWBjRwJ:www.marzindustries.com/uploads/7/8/1/8/7818255/univ_of_idaho_hydrogen_diesel_study.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShRKJ1ViEZarkdw54m-acYzoZ7RS0qg3ibwTXBAH8WUIBeQP5ySqiva-80UXhMTgP4CeHNf2Y-iXpH-aZDogrXHTX5boojROWc0g3MWEn57qTmqZShnvMxgIkVaNjDnBgM37fws&sig=AHIEtbQHLL7uPVFRP0rKqrUZw9lMfQlRwQ

Is this not enough to satisfy? It is hard trying to contribute and being battered from every angle. The drawing is informative as Hydrogen on Demand has been illiterately thrown into the same basket so to speak, and any real distinction of either hho production or pure hydrogen(and oxygen)production is left to the imagination. Hydrogen as a supplement (on this page) is absolutely and irrefutably referring to Hydrogen On Demand. And a drawing including previously used phrases (on this page),that fully articulates something can only be wrong and removed if what??? here is SteveBaker's reply  :# Hydrogen on demand is produced by disassociation of water inside the car. The only systems that we're aware of that do this, use electrolysis...which we carefully explain. The whole "resonance" argument (which is bullshit BTW) is immaterial - whatever means you use to electrolyse water falls into this category. I have explained three differing processes and results here is Rklawtons reply One reason to remove the image is that it's wrong. Electrolysis doesn't produce O, it produces O2. Another good reason is that it's too far off topic as this isn't the hydrogen on demand page. Rklawton (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC) there is no Hydrogen ON demand page (the picture has been edited to O2 and not O) and SteveBaker's comment says to me exactly what the term hydrogen On Demand denotes, and that it should be included here ON THIS PAGE as it is referred to (as a supplemental fuel) here is Qwyrxian's reply :I don't know anything about water-fuelled cars (other than that they don't and can't exist), but that last sentence you suggest does not belong in the article, as it is not related to this topic and it gives a clear fringe view undue attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC) I have highlighted the 'original text' and shown that the quick explanation on this page is misleading. You dont need to know anything about Hydrogen cars but it would help if you looked at the grammatical (and misleading)error IN THIS ARTICLE before you say its off-topic. here is Prebys's replyPlease stop inserting that figure unless you can find a WP:RS for "HHO" (hint: you can't).Prebys (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC) the term HHO is already used on this page and others (see full explanation above) so why do i need to RE-reference the term?NeiallsWheel (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_waterHigh-temperature electrolysis Main article: High-temperature electrolysis>High-temperature electrolysis (also HTE or steam electrolysis) is a method currently being investigated for water electrolysis with a heat engine. High temperature electrolysis is more efficient than traditional room-temperature electrolysis because some of the energy is supplied as heat, which is cheaper than electricity, and because the electrolysis reaction is more efficient at higher temperatures.[7][8] This is an example of Hydrogen On Demand and shown accurately in my picture and well referenced BUT NOT PERCIEVED BY SOME AS RELEVANT. to explain a little further a Heat engine on a car has around a 700 degree temperature exhaust which, will produce high temperature electrolysis, namely Oxyhydrogen/HHO. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1533/wint.2005.3531 an article that clearly states the separate forms of electrolysis producing either Oxyhydrogen or Hydrogen and Oxygen My drawing outlines these three FUNDAMENTAL differences and has a rightful place in any article pertaining to have 'hydrogen as a supplement' in its titleNeiallsWheel (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel The following article will even the field in the current debate/ thinking about SCAMS involving HHO /Hydroxy/ Oxyhydrogen /Browns Gas http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319910013595NeiallsWheel (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

Behavior of NeiallsWheel

@User:NeiallsWheel: Please understand that you are convincing nobody with these protracted rants. Not a single person has rushed to your defense or agreed with any of your positions - to the contrary - 100% of respondents think you're talking complete bullshit. This is what we call "consensus" - we have it and you do not. Furthermore (and much more importantly) - you have failed to provide a single reliable source of any kind for your assertions - and since they run completely contrary to mainstream scientific evidence, that's a very serious problem for your point of view.

When you are editing an article like this one, solid mainstream scientific references are everything. No references - no lasting edits. Period.

It follows that not one single word or diagram that you put into this (or any other) article to advance your position will remain there for longer than it takes for one of the responsible editors here to revert it - and if you persist in trying to put unsupported claims into the article, you will eventually be cited for "disruptive editing" - which will likely result in your account being blocked from editing.

So, I beg you - please stop posting these long diatribes - they are a waste of everyone's time - and pretty soon we're going to start reverting them too.

If/when you have something new to add to the article that you can back up with scientific papers from reliable sources - then we'll happily support you to the hilt - but without that, you do not stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting any of this nonsense into Wikipedia.

Yes - I know you don't like this - I know you think it's unfair - I know you think we're all conspiring against you - I know you believe fully in what you're saying. But there are thousands of people like you trying to get things into the encyclopedia that are not a part of the scientific mainstream - and Wikipedia flat out doesn't allow that kind of thing. We have strong policies and guidelines that are set up precisely to exclude the kind of content that you are trying to add. So all I can suggest is that you try writing about this for a different online encyclopedia such as http://peswiki.com - which specializes in having 'alternative viewpoints'. Wikipedia simply isn't like that.

Meanwhile, further discussion of your ideas (without reliable sources) cannot result in improvement to this article. That makes your posts "off topic" - and I will revert further efforts to discuss your ideas about electrolysis unless/until you come up with some reliable sources to back them up.

Geddit? No more posting this stuff here. Kapeesh?

SteveBaker (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr SteveBaker, i got a reality check on my drawing?what i mean is i could write a thousand words and ( perform a three word edit QUICKLY DELETED )which gets 'rewarded' with a one line response (half of that being the user name/time/details etc..)which is neither educational, or helpful. And some of the replys are more akin to a well rehearsed snub than an actual legitimate response to a question. But saying that I do actually find your comments insightful and helpful and NOT one dimensional, Mr Steve Baker, and this shows that you have a genuine approach to this(and have actually read what i have said). I do not have a need to write for peswiki, i fully understand their 'alternative view' but i have made some points on accuracy of text already here on several pages where (having built my own high temperature electrolysis =exhaust heat device)i feel certain information is kept away from articles, that the light is turned off on these 'strange dark arts in the corner' these are forms of electrolysis for feck sake not some voodoo vernacular. i did WRONGLY start with attempting to explain Resonance/ stan meyers to see how it would be recieved and i never once tryed to edit it in. this i can see was a mistake . Also I addressed people here as a whole and not individually ANOTHER MISTAKE. This seems to have got a lot of backs up, and the backlash is that simple well explained edits are being zapped or deemed off topic and any arguement that i make to prove that they are on topic gets completely ignored (skipped past without explanation) and then reliable sources are then obsessed to be the determining factor, which in turn gets unmentioned/unremarked upon and now deemed as UN-Mainstream.. Wikipedia should not really entail some diluted form, being the only reference available for most people, and omitting pre-existing sources of work/practices/methods OR i could say not showing their family tree /Relationships sort of compounds that problem. these are my only points of interest: <a>I search Hydrogen On Demand and get redirected to The water fuelled car. hydrogen as a supplement now mentions Hydrogen On Demand. Hurrah.thankyou. I search water fuelled car and HHO is mentioned <c>I search Oxyhydrogen and Browns Gas is stated categorically as mythical and HHO is mentioned. <d>I search HHO and oxyhydrogen is mentioned <e>I search Hydroxy gas and oxyhydrogen is mentioned <f>There are some holes across different pages relating to these (nicknames) being one and the same (HHO, Oxyhydrogen, Browns Gas, Hydroxy). <g>There is a short error in Stan Meyers description (this article) engine cylinders do not resonate (my edit was deleted . there is an obvious error)(m <h>There are different methods of Hydrogen On Demand not explained anywhere on Wikipedia. (My Drawing expanded 3 points in the only logical (page)place possible) the Electrolysis of water page has a drawing with no references .( was told i need references for my drawing) <j> that drawing or the explanation does not mention separating gases and indeed is more likely to produce Oxyhydrogen. <k> I think the essence of some replys to me have been bogged down somewhat, due to the rambling nature cf my writings which in turn has led me into a place where quite honestly i STILL havent got a clue what was wrong with my own drawing 'HydrogenOnDemand2' <l> what is wrong with this reference article? (reliable source) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319910013595 PLease do not think that this is a rant, its set out neatly, has very specific questions and no swear words whatsoever. Bullshit is not helpful to anyone so if you could be specific then maybe we can move on. NeiallsWheel (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)NeiallsWheel

NeiallsWheel's Reply to Prebys

Prebys was this was your edit?(below) please compare this page with the Main Article(further below) and you will see that they actually dont correspond. 

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

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell 

Main article: Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell
Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell[11]

Stanley Meyer claimed that he ran a dune buggy on water instead of petrol. He replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" to spray a fine mist of water into the engine cylinders, which he claimed were subjected to an electrical resonance. The "fuel cell" would split the water mist into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapour in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy. Meyer's claims were never independently verified, and in an Ohio court in 1996 he was found guilty of fraud.[1] He died of an aneurysm in 1998, although conspiracy theories persist in which it is claimed that he was poisoned.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell Media coverage The water fuel cell[5] In a news report on an Ohio TV station, Meyer demonstrated a dune buggy which he claimed was powered by his water fuel cell. He estimated that only 22 US gallons (83 liters) of water were required to travel from Los Angeles to New York.[8] Furthermore, Meyer claimed to have replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" which introduced a hydrogen/oxygen mixture into the engine cylinders. The water was subjected to an electrical resonance that dissociated it into its basic atomic make-up. The water fuel cell would split the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapor in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy.[3]

please make these two statements correspond. the main article does not make the (false)statement that, Mr Stanley Meyers claimed engine cylinders resonated. Its poorly worded and could easily take a decent edit. Neither the injectors Or the engine Cyclinders resonated, the fuel cell itself was where the water was resonated. thanksNeiallsWheel (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Neiallswheel

I didn't make that edit (unless I reinstated it by undoing something else). The line about the injectors is clearly wrong, so go ahead and change it, just don't keep trying to stick that ridiculous figure in while you're at it.Prebys (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NeiallsWheel that there is a small problem here - although I disagree with the source of that problem - and I'm not sure that we can easily fix it. The problem is that both versions are simultaneously "correct" and somewhat "incorrect". The difficulty is that Meyers' himself claimed different things at different times. There are certainly records of him claiming to have replaced the spark plugs with injectors that sprayed water into the cylinders...he'd sometimes say that the water had been 'activated' using his electronic resonance - and at other times he'd claim that there was some electrical process going on inside the cylinder. There are yet other records of him claiming that the "fuel cell" (a bad choice of words) split water into hydrogen and oxygen using resonance and that the car burned hydrogen and oxygen in a conventional manner (in which case, you'd still need to have spark plugs to ignite the mixture).
It's totally unclear which version he claimed to be "true" - and since he was clearly a fraud, we know that neither version was actually true - and he was well aware of the fact that he was lying. I think the best bet here is to change both articles to some more general statement. Maybe something like: "Meyers made various claims for his water-fuelled buggy - including that his 'fuel cell' could split water into hydrogen and oxygen using electrical resonance and that he had replaced the spark plugs in the vehicle with 'water injectors'."...but the man changed his story with virtually every interview and demonstration he gave. He was frequently self-contradictory even within a single interview - but his interviewers were always more interested in "Wow! A water fuelled car!" for a two minute slot on the 6-o-clock news than they were about investigating how it could possibly work. So he was never really held to his claims until the court case revealed that he was defrauding investors with a bunch of hooey - and at that point, his claims became moot.
It's really tough to attribute a single "claim" to someone who is lying in order to defraud investors and saying whatever it takes to impress the media. Had his invention been real, there would be a clear statement of how it worked - but it wasn't, so there isn't!
I'm not sure how we 'fix' this obvious inconsistency - it's not enough to simply remove one of his random claims and replace it with another that happens to sound more coherent. We really need to rewrite both versions to explain the vagueness and time-varying nature of Meyer's explanations.
SteveBaker (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. I had forgotten about Meyers' other claims. Since the other article is specifically about the fuel cell, it's probably OK leave that as it is (although adding something about Meyers' contradictory claims might be appropriate). Looking a bit at the "water fuel injection" system, it's never entirely clear whether Meyers claimed it would allow a car to run on water or just improve gas mileage (of course it did neither). It also never clear what qualifies as a WP:RS in the kook world; that is, does something like Peswiki qualify as a WP:RS to establish a claim by Meyers?Prebys (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Interestingly, if you go here, they are kind enough to (obliviously) put the totally inconsistent explanations side by side for us. The news report on the left clearly says that the car relies on a "fuel cell" to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, while Meyer's own video talks about replacing the spark plugs with "water splitters". I think a lot of these people are sincerely self-deluded, but in Meyer's case, there's no question he was a straight up con man. It's amazing how many people are dumb enough to fall for this stuff.Prebys (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - I like your change, and I agree that the article about the fuel cell is OK. I doubt this will satisfy User talk:NeiallsWheel - but I'm going to mark this one "Answered". SteveBaker (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that there were no dates on the Meyer section. I found one article with a picture that claimed to be Meyer and his dune buggy in 1980, so I put it in, but there must be a better reference somewhere.Prebys (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

Agha Waqar has also been accused of fraud and his claimed technology has been termed as rubbish by former minister of science and technology and famous educationist and highly respected scientist Dr. Atta ur Rehman on grounds that it violates 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics. Farooqn a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's rubbish, but do you have a reference? By the way, this now has its own (horribly written) page: Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car. We should probably link to it, except I'm going to nominate it for deletion this evening.Prebys (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it Agha Waqar or Dr. Ghulam Sarwar who invented the kit? Shahrukh syed (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Is this an acceptable source? http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4271579?click=main_sr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.116.137 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


I just really wanted to add that Hyde always talks about water powered cars under references in pop culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.181.223 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience isn't even mentioned here

Resolved

Amazingly, the pseudoscientific nature of this subject isn't even mentioned in this article. Not a single time. How can that be? There must be RS which clearly label this as pseudoscience. We can't label it as such without RS. That would be OR.. Please find them and create such content here. Then add it to Category:Pseudoscience. When that is done, it can be restored to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Until that is done, I have removed it from that list. Let's get this right. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked through this article and every section that is not a description of a car describes in detail how this is impossible re: "The claims for these devices have been found to be incorrect and some were found to be tied to investment frauds", "violate the first and/or second law of thermodynamics", "there is no way to extract chemical energy from water alone", "this cannot be used to produce net energy". This article was categorized as Pseudophysics but a house keeping move in its history put it under Water-fuelled cars which is a sub-category of Perpetual motion which is a sub-category of Pseudophysics. <---that is a problem because it made its categorization a little more "squishy" re it could be called "Scientific speculation, Energy sources, Fringe physics, Hypothetical technology depending how you weasel your way through the category tree.
The article needs to be more focused. What is missing in this article is any codified claim as to how this is supposed to work, it needs that up front.
Article should go:
LEAD:Summary of claim, Summary of criticism
CLAIM section, with car descriptions sub category
CRITICISM section
....remainder of the article.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
We are agreed (our editorial opinion, which cannot substitute for RS) that Water-fuelled cars are BS and pseudoscience. I think that's abundantly clear. So why don't we have RS which explicitly use the word pseudoscience about it? We should fix that. If we don't do that, we are not allowed to place this article in Category:Pseudoscience. That would be OR and placing our editorial opinion above RS.
A few words about your other comments, which are off-topic in this thread. (1) The WP:Lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, and must not contain any content or ref/source which is not already in the body of the article. The claims and criticisms should be mentioned. (See my essay.) (2) We frown on criticism sections and try to avoid them. When possible we spread it throughout the article. Occasionally a criticism section can be justified when the other approaches are not possible or not feasible. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have changed my mind, thanks to the good arguments presented by Fountains of Bryn Mawr in a significant discussion about this matter elsewhere. That discussion is important for anyone with this article on their watchlist and should be used for future reference if necessary:

Therefore I think we can mark this thread as resolved. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Proposed changes to "Chemical energy content of water" section

In the spirit of making articles more concise, I propose significantly trimming this section. While correct, it strays off topic into a largely un-cited chemistry lecture, including a discussion on Fluorine reactions, which play no part in any water fuel claims I'm aware of. It says nothing at all about ordinary electrolysis, which is the basis of 90%+ of the claims. If I don't hear any strong objections, I plan to reduce the existing content to a trimmed down version of the last paragraph, and to add a sentence or two about electrolysis.Prebys (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If you can boil it down to the fact that water is at a low energy state, is indeed the result of combustion, and requires significant energy to turn it back into high energy components, I think that will suffice. Rklawton (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a shot at it and also changed the title of the section. Feel free to tinker with it.Prebys (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It is all very well arguing that though fluorine (or of course sodium or calcium) could consume water, the reaction producing energy that could drive an engine, such reactions are not relevant to the discussion, but if that argument is to be put forward, then the persons sustaining it should refrain from sloppy verbiage such as "Water is fully oxidized hydrogen. Hydrogen itself is a high-energy, flammable substance, but its useful energy is released when water is formed—water will not burn." I do not expect non-physical-chemists and non-applied-mathematicians to follow thermodynamic arguments, and I ignore their own arguments that we cannot simply demand that they accept the "laws" of thermodynamics as given, but for us smugly to invoke those laws to beg the question is no advertisement for sound science, or for one's grasp of sound science, let alone didactics. JonRichfield (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes but...!

I know, I know, but the wording in places makes me uncomfortable. For a start, you can't run a car on petrol or methane alone, nor in fact hydrogen (not counting by compressing it and letting it run a turbine etc.) Those are things that generally are used as component fuels, used in a mix with complementary fuels such as oxygen. So why pick unfairly on water? One could in principle use water in suitable mix. A car of suitable design could run on a mix of water and fluorine or an active metal. Or water and carbon at high temperature. Or on very, very hot water etc. Or even water that creates a vacuum by evaporating through a semipermeable membrane or imbibition into a hygroscopic substance. Yes, I realise that such designs have little commercial attraction, but it might be worth rewording the article to put things into a more puristic perspective. If no one else feels like doing it, I wouldn't mind having a go. JonRichfield (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It all boils down to the definition of the word "fuel". Wiktionary defines fuel as "Substance consumed to provide energy through combustion, or through chemical or nuclear reaction."
In the case of running a vehicle on hot water (like maybe a steam engine or a sterling engine), the water isn't chemically changed in the process - it's not "consumed" - so we call it a "working fluid" because the energy comes from elsewhere. So (to pick a silly example) a car powered by a little waterwheel that's fed from a tank of water on the roof is gravity powered not water powered. The water is merely an intermediary way to make gravity drive the wheels. It would be like calling my car a "steel powered car" because a rotating steel shaft carries power from the engine to drive the wheels.
In the case of a gasoline + oxygen reaction, we choose arbitrarily to call the gasoline the "fuel" - and that's because the energy is in the gasoline molecule. If you ran an engine on a chemical reaction between (say) sodium metal and water - you'd still say that the sodium was the fuel, not the water - although the distinction is a bit fuzzier.
Regardless of that, we don't have any claims for a "water fuelled car" in which the water reacts with some other chemical - so this is something of a moot point. However, if someone is ever crazy enough to create as sodium-metal-fuelled car - and they try to call it a "water fuelled car" - then we'll be sure to write about it. But trying to make this distinction right now simply blurs the lines.
The message of this article has to be that water fuelled cars (in the conventional meanings of "water", "fuel" and "car") is impossible - which is true. Muddying it with unimportant distinctions to cover entirely hypothetical cases isn't productive for an encyclopedia article. SteveBaker (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, no big deal of course. I guess we can wait till someone makes an issue of it. JonRichfield (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone put this message in my user talk page:

– Regarding Water-Fuelled: According to this usage (http://grammarist.com/spelling/fuel/) and if most of the 'water-fueled' engines are American or of American origin, I would suggest using one 'l' in fueled instead of two. Fuelled looks strange and not how most Americans would spell it; I believe most Web usage is with one 'l'. Peace. Bwisok (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Comment lacking two "ll" is wrong to me. And on the article, it lists a Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Filipino, in addition to Americans. All in all, this would be a WP:ENGVAR issue, which MOS:TIES is more significant? The original version of the article [1] used British English. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Globally relevant article with plenty of countries putting money into this technology so I don't believe MOS:TIES applies. Per ENGVAR we should stick with the style of English used in the first non-stub version and in this case that's British English. Jenks24 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Something this article lacks.

Why is it that whenever some wannabe inventor comes up with a supposed source of free energy, they immediately and unfailingly rush to claim that you can power a car with it? You'd think that getting the patent done and a demonstration machine that runs (for example) a generator to make electicity - or just spins a wheel on a bench-top demonstration would be vastly easier than getting it all to work in the confines of a car. Yet almost always this is the claim that's made.

I feel that there is some deeper truth to be understood from the phenomenon of water-fuelled cars - and that this article should somehow address it.

Trouble is that I can't imagine how to find references for this. It's clearly true...but that's not enough to allow us to write about it.

Any ideas? SteveBaker (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Every eejit owns a car. Many of them have changed spark plugs. Few eejits have been inside a power station, or have spun up a gas turbine. Therefore when they invent something / unmask the gas company conspiracy against gyroscopic water fuel, it's the familiar car in which they visualise it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I never really thought about this Steve. Andy has a point. But you know, the guys who do come up with such stuff tend not to be the most analytic of intellects and for them what matters is to see it in its final, concrete form. A benchtop toy/model doesn't blow up their skirts in the same way. Don't sneer; I read somewhere that when the inventor of computer tomography first demonstrated a model using i.a. a turntable and a cubic subject to a Physics Society for gosh sakes, one of the members present blew up and screamed at him for wasting their time on a toy! The eejits are everywhere in all guises, even as physicists! Get used to it! :) JonRichfield (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The difference is: tomography works. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This is true Andy, but my point was that I was shocked that a member of a physics society could react that way to a working demonstration of a creative principle, whether of tomography or anything else. I like to think that I slowly am becoming less shockable, but now and then I have to re-think... :) JonRichfield (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I always wonder about how much those sorts of low-detail anecdotes grow in the telling. Things like "member of a physics society" are so delightfully vague, and imply a level of shadowy intrigue that just doesn't exist. I mean, the American Physical Society has something like 50,000 members; becoming a member – as near as I can tell – requires only filling out a form and sending the APS a cheque.
Was there really screaming and blowing up, or is that just dramatic license? The word "toy", as well, may not be as objectionable as it looks. Physics regularly uses terms like toy model and toy problem to describe simplified or illustrative systems. I can also imagine some frustration on the part of someone seeing a presentation of this device at a scientific meeting—"Okay, so you can calculate some resolution numbers and so forth using your test object. But why didn't you show us a single complex, real object? A human skull? A dead hamster? A weld joint with a bubble in it? Something that might so much as hint at a real-world application?"
And, of course, there's the ratio of false negatives to false positives to consider. "My new imaging modality will revolutionize medicine—look, it works on aluminum cubes!" is something the medical physicist probably hears as often as the biologist hears "My new drug will revolutionize cancer therapy—look, it kills HeLa cells!" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Having read this as an at least second-hand remark from a source that I never documented, at least a decade ago, I refuse to speculate on its accuracy and context. The point that had struck me, even as the moral of a putative fable, is the tendency of many people, expert, inpert, or simply pretentious, to shout down or belittle anyone trying to introduce ideas or objects new or unfamiliar, or to lose their cool as soon as they are confronted with anything intellectually unfamiliar in their personal comfort zone. This applies both to people who are superficial exponents in established fields that they never could have advanced from scratch themselves, and to fringe followers who get challenged by facts and logic from someone who doesn't fall for their fluff because s/he really understands the field. If the demo had failed for an Al cube, that would have been failure indeed, either for the theory or the workmanship, but having worked for the cube, the presentation fundamentally deserved at least evaluation in principle, though not necessarily an immediate scramble for shares in a company. If the story is close enough to historical truth, the objector cannot possibly have understood the introductory talk or the significance of the demonstration. JonRichfield (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a good question. I argued some time ago to move this article to "Energy from water", which is really the more fundamental issue (if you could really get energy from water, you would do plenty of other things besides run cars). However, as you say, they almost always start out by running a car. The very few cases that don't have been listed under History of perpetual motion machines - which is arguably where this whole topic belongs, anyway. KaturianKaturian 19:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hasn't the Navy, in fact, already successfully prototyped a method of creating fuel from sea water? (http://rt.com/usa/navy-fuel-conversion-ship-197/)? Sea water contains carbon, making this possible. 97% of the world's water is sea water. Could the article perhaps be clarified to state that we are referring only to the 3% of water that is fresh water?

70.174.135.194 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The sea water article is extremely misleading. The process uses energy (probably from an onboard nuclear power plant) to produce hydrocarbons from seawater that could potentially be used as fuel in planes and such. It might be a useful technology, but it's not a source of energy. You cannot produce energy from fresh water or sea water. KaturianKaturian 17:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, you can't produce energy from fresh water, sea water, or anything else, only change its state (1st Law of Thermodynamics), correct? There's a picture of the machine they're using here: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept It doesn't appear to rely on nuclear power. But your point, which I take, is that they have a machine which uses energy to make fuel from seawater, as opposed to having the ship run on seawater itself. So it's not a sea water-fuelled ship. But it's a ship that uses fuel that was derived from seawater. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.135.194 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, you see that big cable connected to the machine at the lower left? That's called an "electrical power cable". *That* supplies the energy needed to extract fuel from seawater. On a carrier at sea, that electricity will be coming from the onboard nuclear power plant (it wouldn't make *any* sense otherwise). The point is that you have to put in more energy than you'll get out, so this is not "using seawater as fuel", any more than separating water into Hydrogen and Oxygen and then burning them is "using water as fuel", because - again - you're putting in more energy than you're getting out.KaturianKaturian 16:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that "Sea Water" isn't just water. You could certainly (for example) filter plankton and other small plants and animals out of the sea water and use that as a fuel (after all, that's how some whales get their energy). That's very different from saying that they are extracting energy from H2O. You can also extract heavy water from the sea and use that as a fuel. There are many possibilities for what the Navy are doing that would genuinely entail extracting the energy from the ocean. However, it seems unlikely that this is what they are doing here. Almost certainly they are ADDING energy to the sea water and using the resulting chemical products to insert into some kind of chemical reaction that results in the production of a useful fuel. The most obvious and simple way would be to simply electrolyze the water and use the resulting hydrogen gas as a fuel. However, since they have lots of equipment that currently runs on hydrocarbon fuels - which may or may not (probably not) be convertible to run on hydrogen - you could see the attraction of making (say) methane or something by reacting various components from the seawater together.
But it's not "Energy From Water!!!" - it's "Using electrical energy to drive chemical reactions that produce useful products using all of the 'stuff' in sea-water as the feedstock"...which is a less exciting headline - but is for sure what's really going on here. 16:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
We can do a very rough number-crunch to get some idea of the feasibility of this. The article says that they take dissolved CO2 from the ocean - and combine that with water to make hydrocarbons. There are about 4x1019 grams of dissolved carbon in the world's oceans and 1.3x1024 grams of water. So carbon is present at about one part per 30,000 (by mass) in seawater. Since hydrocarbons are mostly carbon (by mass) - that probably means that you'd need to process about 30,000 gallons of seawater to make one gallon of fuel. The article claims that this process will result in fuel costing between $3 and $6 per gallon. I guess if your electricity is free (onboard nuclear reactor) and you have a considerable excess of it - then maybe this is possible...but the idea of processing 50 tons of seawater to make one gallon of fuel suggests that it's unlikely to be able to create fuel fast enough to satisfy the needs of a ship at sea. I think it's a stupid idea! SteveBaker (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Another case of the press not even asking the most basic scientific questions. I remember a news item a few years ago when they made a big deal out a a guy who could make saltwater burst into flames - by dumping *massive* amounts of RF power into it. The newscaster showed a picture of the flaming saltwater sitting between two large antennas with enormous feeder cables clearly visible, and said something about "energy from seawater". Argggghhhh! Any reporter who's going to be covering science should at the very least understand the concept of conservation of energy - or at least know to ask someone else about it.KaturianKaturian 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You're probably thinking of either Rustum Roy or John Kanzius. Roy was a reasonably respectable scientist until he retired and started to go off into crazy-idea-land. He was an active proponent of Homeopathy (and when it was decried in a national newspaper, he accused them of "homeophobia"! ...um...yeah). Kanzius was a 'self taught' inventor, etc...he used high powered radio waves to split water into brown's gas (hydrogen + oxygen) which was then burned. Using salt water makes that easier - and the sodium makes for impressively pretty flames. He claimed everything from cancer cures to free energy for this device...but as you say, the amount of power that went into the radio transmitter was considerable. SteveBaker (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It was Kanzius. The story was really about his "cancer cure". Discovering a "new source of energy" was just a unexpected side benefit. His idea was to use RF to dump heat into gold or Carbon nanotubes. "All he had to do" was get those things to bind to cancer cells - which he described as if it were some sort of minor detail. The reporter, of course, accepted it all without asking a single decent question. I was ready to throw a plate at the TV by the end of the segment.KaturianKaturian 23:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Would water be viable even if the idea works?

Even if one or more of these schemes to power vehicles with water prove viable or one will in the future, has there been any thought as to if the basic premise itself is viable; i.e., is it practical to substitute water for gasoline as a fuel? Isn’t water in short supply--at least fresh water--as it is or can the water be sea water?

If sea water could be used, it might actually be a solution to climate change concerns that sea water will rise due to global warming making such an invention invaluable to those concerned about the issue as it would kill the metaphorical two birds with one stone (greatly reducing carbon emissions while directly lowering sea levels in the process!)) I don’t know, which is why I’m asking. Perhaps these concerns might be addressed in the article by knowledgeable people. Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Extracting energy from water section seems very explicit that this whole idea is completely non-viable regardless of any practical considerations such as material supply. DMacks (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but why even the quest if the proposed fuel is not available in marketable quantities? I sure hope that governments wouldn’t allow millions of people worldwide to die of thirst so others can power their cars.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Not all of these nonsense ideas claim to require fresh water. A possible lack of available fresh water isn't what makes this a ridiculous waste of time and money:) But to play devil's-advocate, the product of burning the HHO or whatever is exactly as much water as was originally supplied, so one could just re-capture it and not really "use it up". After the first fill-up, only have to keep supplying additional small amounts to overcome evaporation or leaks, not on an on-going basis. But to play even more, just put this car on a treadmill to generate electricity that drives a desalination plant, so not only does it power its own fuel extraction, it also provides electricity and/or drinking water for the a community. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I’m uncertain if you’re speaking tongue-in-cheek, but, ah, if only it worked! It almost sounds close to the fabled perpetual motion machines that even rip-off “market your invention” outfits won’t touch! Thanks!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I am being completely serious, taking at face value the claim of the devices themselves. I think you are starting to recognize the plausibility of the idea regardless of practical details. In point of fact, a water-fueled care would exactly be a perpetual motion machine. DMacks (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@HistoryBuff14: your question is akin to, "I know unicorns do not exist, but if they did would it be possible to domesticate them?" Attempting to respond with a hypothetical answer requires too many assumptions to be meaningful. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn’t say that. The fact that so many have tried to invent this and have invested so much time and money in it implies that they think success would be valuable just like success inventing a perpetual motion machine would be. My question was simply: “Why do they assume it would have value?”HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of the idiots who make this claim use similar miles-per-gallon numbers for their water to what a gasoline car gets. The world isn't lacking in water - there is 1,350,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of the stuff in the oceans alone. We have less than one trillionth of that in oil reserves. If we could magically get free energy from water (which we most certainly CANNOT!) we could use it to convert sea water into "fuel" for our cars...no problem.
But this misses the point (as do 100% of water-fuelled-car nuts). If you had a machine to extract energy from water - you won't only use it to power cars. You'd use it for making electricity and a bazillion other things. But even that misses the point. A water fuelled car would be a perpetual motion machine - and a discovery of one of those would overturn the laws of thermodynamics. With a way to bypass the laws of thermodynamics, we'd have no problem finding yet easier ways to make energy for ourselves. The whole idea that this is about cars is crazy...it's not even about water. If some crackpot claims to have found a way to bypass the laws of thermodynamics - then making a car that uses no net energy and consumes no fuel at all should be a breeze. SteveBaker (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
To clarify StevenBaker's point a bit, the vast majority of the "Energy from Water" schemes involve splitting water into Hydrogen and Oxygen through "magically efficient electrolysis", then burning them, which again makes water. As many have pointed out, that makes it a perpetual motion machine, but it also means you'd never run out of water because it could be run in a completely closed loop (OK, maybe the recapture wouldn't be perfect and you'd have to add a teaspoon once in a while, but you get the idea). Again, though, I want to make it 100% clear that this is a 100% hypothetical comment about 100% bogus claims. Your comments are, however, valid about other free energy schemes. For example, there was a lot of excitement about "Hafnium reactors" (see Hafnium controversy) a few years ago. It turned out to be nonsense, but even if it hadn't been, Hafnium is crazy rare and expensive, so it would never have been a practical power source anyway.KaturianKaturian 16:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of HHO

Whilst the laws of thermodynamics apply to HHO production as with any other system, a point misunderstood by many is that HHO isnt intended to be a direct fuel replacement on a 1:1 energy basis, but to serve as a combustion accelerant for the existing fuel. Internal combustion engines are inefficient with a proportion of partially burned fuel passing to the exhaust system where the catalytic converter oxidizes it to the final combustion products CO2 and water with the concomitant release of further heat. i.e. heat energy from the fuel is being wasted. HHO on demand is produced in relatively small quantities and the electrolytic process creates a parasitic load on the engine. Due to inefficiencies in electrolysis if HHO was to be used a a fuel replacement it would not be energy efficient. However only small amounts are required to improve combustion efficiency of the fossil fuel and it does not replace it. The hydrogen atoms being so small diffuse extremely fast in the combustion chamber and serve to allow more uniform combustion of the fossil fuel and a faster flame front, resulting in more energy being utilised and less wasted. In some respects it can be considered to be like using a volatile liquid fuel to assist the combustion of solid fuels like BBQ coals. As only a small amount of HHO is required, small currents are required to produce the HHO which in turn releases more energy from the fossil fuel, offsetting any parasitic load effects. If the electrolytic current is set too high the parasitic load required for electrolysis will exceed the gains derived from the improved fossil fuel combustion, so the electrolysis current needs to be adjusted and controlled accordingly. The effects of HHO on fossil fuel combustion have been investigated by numerous researchers who reported improvements in fuel economy, power, torque and emissions. < [1] S. Bari And M.M. Esmaeil, “Effect Of H2/O2 Addition In Increasing The Thermal Efficiency Of A Diesel Engine”, Fuel 89:378-383 (2010). [2] Ali Can Yilmaz, Et Al., “Effect Of Hydroxy (Hho) Gas Addition On Performance And Exhaust Emissions In Compression Ignited Engines” Int J Hydrogen Energy (2010), Doi:10.1016/J.Ijhydene.2010.07.040 [3] B.Ramanjaneyulua, S. Lakshmi Narayan Reddy, G. Narasa, Et Al. “Performance Analysis On 4-S Si Engine Fueled With Hho Gas And Lpg Enriched Gasoline” International Journal Of Engineering Research & Technology (Ijert) Vol. 2 Issue 8, August – 2013 [4] Sa’ed A. Musmar, Ammar A. Al-Rousan. “Effect Of Hho Gas On Combustion Emissions In Gasoline Engines” Journal Homepage: Www.Elsevier.Com /Locate /Fuel Fuel 90 (2011) 3066–3070 [5] G.Ajay Kumar G.Venkateswara Rao. “Performance Characteristics Of Oxy Hydrogen Gas On Two Stroke Petrol Engine” International Journal Of Engineering Trends And Technology (Ijett) – Volume 6 Number 7-Dec 2013 [6] Murat Kosar, Bulent Ozdalyan, M. Bahattin Celiki Et Al. “ The Usage Of Hydrogen For Improving Emissions And Fuel Consumption In A Small Gasoline Engine” 31, 2, 101-108, 2011 J. Of Thermal Science And Technology ©2011 [7] Prem Kartik Kumar, Selvi Rajaram, Annamalai Kandasamy, And Pradeepkumar. “Effectiveness Of Oxygen Enriched Hydrogen-Hho Gasaddition On Direct Injection Diesel Engine Performance, Emission And Combustion Characteristics” Thermal Science: Year 2014, Vol. 18, No. 1, Pp. 259-268. > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.86.16 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC) 81.97.86.16 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC) E Pierce

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

Iranian Scientist Designs Engine Powered Entirely By Water Imagine being able to fill up your car's tank with water from the hose. Well that's exactly what Iranian scientist Alaeddin Qassemi claims to have done. He unveiled his new invention, an engine that he claims is powered entirely by water. According to the inventor, the car can run on 15 gallons of water and is able to travel up to 560 miles in 10 hours with his engine. The power is generated after H2O is split into hydrogen and oxygen which react chemically to produce energy. Qassemi claims the car's engine only produces water vapour, causing next to zero air pollution and that a liter of water in his engine can generate some 96 megajoules of energy while a liter of gasoline produces only 29 megajoules. Qassemi, who is a member of Iran's National Elites Foundation (INEF), noted that his invention has been internationally registered. [1] Tahershp (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.aol.co.uk/video/iranian-scientist-designs-engine-powered-entirely-by-water--583c6c787ca5763d6eaf7814/

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2017

Sujit panda (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Parsottam Pipaliya 2010 A 49-year-old Parsottam Pipaliya a local engineer from surat india claim to invent water fuel car on 2010 and he has submitted a patent for this technology . Here is the link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/Local-engineer-patents-new-technology-for-engine-efficiency/articleshow/7174499.cms

Not done: source linked says nothing about water. Cannolis (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Category

There is a phrase: "He died of an aneurysm in 1998, although conspiracy theories claim that he was poisoned." It refers to a different page Free energy suppression, not to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water-fuelled_car/Archive_5&oldid=1253052508"