Talk:Water-fuelled car

"According to the currently accepted laws of physics, there is no way to extract chemical energy from water alone." False.

Technically the quoted sentence is true, but it's misleading. First of all, I would have written "chemistry" rather than "physics" but that's just a quibble.

More importantly, you can't get energy from coal or kerosene "alone" either. You have to react them with oxygen (or something).

Once you allow for reactions, you have to acknowledge that you can get energy from water by reacting it with, say, fluorine, or even just by mixing it with a strong acid. Concentrated strong acid will actually boil when mixed with pure water.

So the quoted sentence from the article becomes, "According to currently-accepted laws of physics, there is no way to extract chemical energy from water by burning it--that is, by reacting it with oxygen."

I personally would have a sentence in the article like, "Water is actually a form of ash, the ash created by burning hydrogen. As with other forms of ash from completed combustion, all the chemical energy that can be extracted by reaction with oxygen has already been realized, and by definition it can't be burned any more." Longer, but I think the non-scientist might "get" the concept that ash has already been burned and you can't burn it any farther.

Thoughts? IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty strange description of water, which is a simple compound of hydrogen and oxygen, which can be separated by electrolysis to form an explosive mixture. Obviously it would be difficult to electrolyze enough of this gas mixture to drive a car fast enough to drive the car as you would by burning gasoline. So it would seem to be the perfect fuel, but the 'bang per buck' resulting isn't a patch on hydrocarbons. 115.77.150.203 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)v00n

The point is that it will always take more energy to electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen than you can get back by burning them, because physics. KaturianKaturian 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

water cars

Water cars are better for the enviroment then any other car because the are not harming the nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.9.31.15 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Except for the fact that they don't actually work, they're great. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020

The removal of any claims that water powered vehicles are impossible or part of any conspiracy theory. They are not, hydrogen combustion engines have existed for years, made by companies like BMW.

Any combustion engine can use an alternator/magneto to recover energy that can be used to electrolyse water, producing hyrogen to run the engine on. It does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics, water is a fuel, it contain hydrogen, and unless it is claimed to be more than 100% efficient there is no possible element of the laws of thermodynamics that is being challenged. Infact thermodynamics says that the potential energy in water cannot be ignored, where would it have disapeared to?

These false claims about energy recovering systems like water-hydrogen-water engines are themselves conspiracy theories invented by oil industry propaganda groups.

Please do not allow this factual encyclopeadia become a tool for establishment disinformation and the suppression of science and progress.92.28.108.127 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a hope. Because of "an alternator/magneto to recover energy that can be used to electrolyse water, producing hyrogen to run the engine on." being utter rubbish. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

There's a trailing period after a link in the See More section: "List of water fuel inventions." 2604:3D09:647F:D400:709B:606B:A8AA:D95 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

{{done} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Under the paragraph that describes Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, the last sentence reads: "He died of an aneurysm in 1998, although conspiracy theories claim that he was poisoned.". A footnote to this sentence links to what is presumably an article that backs this assertion up (Titled "Burning water and other myths"); unfortunately an attempt to visit the article yields only the front-page of the nature site (www.nature.com). I believe therefore that this sentence should be removed as failing an adequate reference, there is no basis for such a statement. Alternately, and if the original author is available to do so, the reference link should be updated such that it properly links to the underlying article content. Merowig (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't delete information simply because the link doesn't work anymore; see WP:LINKROT. In this case, you should've looked to see if the article was simply moved to a different URL. In this case, a Google search of the title immediately gives you the new URL. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

So is BMW either lying or committing investor fraud?

Because they are claiming that water-fuelled cars are the future. Either this article is completely wrong or, as usual, Wikipedia is just being pedantic and straw manning the hell out of this by for some reason focusing only on vehicles that claim to be 100% hydrogen powered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:14:3B06:C589:CA0B:E7D0:603A (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Water and hydrogen are two different things. You can fuel a car with hydrogen but not with water.

Also, this page is for improving the article. It is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is quite clear as to what is and isn't a "water-fuelled" car, and certainly no reputable car dealer is advertising one. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what changes you re proposing to the article.KaturianKaturian 21:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC) KaturianKaturian 21:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)