Talk:Water-fuelled car

Please add new comments to the BOTTOM of the page.

Copyright infringement

I though I should post this here before sending it out to info@thefinancialdaily.com, info@manhattandatainc.com and others; --CyclePat (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention: To the owner/registrant of "The Financial Daily International" (DATANET) and the website provider Network Solutions, LLC.

This is a notice Copyright Infringement. "The Financial Daily International", is in violations of U.S. and international copyright agreements. The webpage titled "Technology behind water-fuelled vehicles By: Syed Abul Abbas Naqvi - Articles Detail" (http://thefinancialdaily.com/Articles/ViewArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=2810) violates the terms and agreements set out for the use of Wikipedia content. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights)

The editors of the Wikipedia article "Water Fuelled Car" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car) which use the alias SteveBaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SteveBaker), CyclePat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CyclePat) and Presby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Presby), are in the view that their written materials have been illegally republished by the Financial Daily's website. Their decision may be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water-fuelled_car/Archive_1#Does_this_look_familiar_to_anyone.3F

The editors are legally entitled to seek compensatory damages. Expect to hear from their lawyers. This violation must be immediately corrected to conform to the terms of agreement stipulated in the use of Wikipedia's GFDL material and international copyright laws to prevent any further legal actions.

You may rectify this problem by either removing the content or "in the second case, if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy."

---

Take note that on August 1st 2008, editor, SteveBaker advised you of this infringement.

A copy of this message is being sent to the "current internet website registrar" via their online feedback form located at url http://bpmforms.networksolutions.com/customer-feedback.html. According to WHOIS search results, (http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=thefinancialdaily.com) The Financial Daily's Website registrar is :

Network Solutions, LLC 13861 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 300 HERNDON, VA 20171, US

The server is also listed as Worldnic.com (which redirects to the afformentioned Network Solutions, LCC's website). The server's IP 216.25.127.86 is hosted in the UNITED STATES-GEORGIA-ATLANTA.(http://whois.domaintools.com/thefinancialdaily.com) and subject to United States law.

WHOIS records shows that Datanet is the registrant of the Financial Daily's" website. (http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=thefinancialdaily.com)

According to the Financial Daily's website, the company is located in Pakistan. Here is a satellite image of the business' address http://wikimapia.org/#lat=24.829605&lon=67.073875&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2&show=/2271833/DataNet_Pvt._Ltd. However there is a MDI Datanet in the United States. A copy of this notice has been sent to the registrant MDI Datanet (info@manhattandatainc.com). (http://www.manhattandatainc.com/communication/contact.asp).

Another copy has been sent to the author of the infringing material, via Mr Syed Abul Abbas Naqvi's facebook entry.(http://es.facebook.com/people/Syed_Abul_Abbas_Naqvi/1306816030)

Discussion/comments

• Y DoneBetter to include the official copyright page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights instead of a redirect to it? OTOH, you could use one of the prewritten form letters for this situation (although the personal touch is always nice:). DMacks (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm... maybe is 3 days after the first notice a little bit short to shut a part of the internet off. Mion (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently the only contact with the web site was a "rude email" sent sometime on Friday. It's now only Monday. Have the esteemed editors here considered going the route of 'polite request and education' rather than 'over-the-top ridiculous legal threat'? I've made more detailed remarks in the concurrent thread at AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Woaahh there! The suggestion above is WAY over the top. We don't have to invent a way to do this - there is a specific Wikipedia process to follow. I'm the one that sent the "rude email" - but term is more of a shorthand term for the sake of humor than a literal description of what I sent. The Wikipedia policy about this contains a set of suggested letters to send: Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. Specifically, I sent Letter aimed at a specific violation. If I don't get a reply in a few days (our policy says to wait a week), I'll proceed with the next step in our official Non-compliance process. We don't have to expend great energy here - the steps are clearly laid out - and I'm following them. SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's why I posted it here prior to sending it out. I failled to see where it said we should wait 1 week. And the only information I noticed was at the WP:copyrights, whereas it indicates we (the editors) are responsible. Specifically it states "for permission to use it outside these terms, one must contact all the volunteer authors of the text or illustration in question." It also says "To this end, the text contained in Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia contributors and licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)." Which to me means the editors can do what they want to enforce their copyright. Thanks to you for the link to Non-compliance process, I too now believe we should work together and follow the steps highlighted within the process. I also now see what some Wikipedians are doing regarding non-compliance to the GFDL licence from external websites and I'm glad to see there is a type of support mecanism here on wikipedia. --CyclePat (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the second step in the Non-compliance process - which is as follows:

1. Send a standard GFDL violation letter to the site owner. You can use a whois lookup to get contact info if it is not otherwise available. (I did this on August 1st or so)
2. One week (or more) later, send a follow-up reminder. (I did this on August 9th)
3. Three weeks (or more) later, send a final warning, noting that continued infringement will result in a DMCA takedown notice being sent to their ISP. (This will be sometime in early September)
4. Two weeks (or more) later, send a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP, enumerating articles that infringe your copyright. Note separately that the site also violates the copyrights of others. To find the appropriate address, first search the ISP's website. To find the ISP, you can: enter the domain name in the DNS search at http://dnsstuff.com, then click the IP. First search the ISP's site for a legal address. If that doesn't work, try to look them up at http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/ . If they're not in the directory, send the notice to the abuse address. Note that sites are not legally required to accept DMCA notices. If they don't the only recourse is legal action.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could removed the RfC. I look into doing this properly. Thank you every for you comments. Sorry for any drama. --CyclePat (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Having received no response to my first email after a week - I've sent a follow-up/reminder per our process. The next step is to wait three more weeks and then try again. SteveBaker (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve, do you know if they at least read your email? (Read receipt?) On your talk page you indicated you used the contact information available from their website.[2] That information appears to be similar to the WHOIS information listed for the website owner. The only problem, I'm not sure if the email is the same. Furthermore, there is an American firm called Datatech which is related to this firm. They should too, be notified. To ensure proper documentation was sent, I'm willing to send a letter via registered mail to both. This will provide us with an assurance from Canada Post that the letters were properly delivered to the right address, which appears to be Datatech. --CyclePat (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who leave "read receipts" turned on in their email client!! If you do - turn it off immediately! That's just an open invitation for spammers and malware. They just love to find out which of their library of tricks got you to actually read their mail rather than delete it without even looking at it. Since most people turn it off - requesting a "read receipt" is generally just a waste of time. Anyway - I haven't heard back from them...but we're supposed to allow three weeks and it's only been 10 days so far. SteveBaker (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe

According to a Sri Lanka Daily News report Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe is powering a car by water, using a low amount of electricity. The car, traveled from Christ King College, Pannipitiya, Thushara, to Anuradhapura and back on three liters of water. Thushara claims energy is produced by the splitting water into dihydrogen and dioxygen using applied current then burning it in the engine (converting the dihydrogen and dioxygen back to water vapor). Thushara claims the technology has existed for 60 years and that the generator could be fixed to any petrol or diesel vehicle with suitable adjustments.

Thushara explained the attributed technology to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka at Temple Trees Wednesday, 15 July 2008 Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka extended the Government’s fullest support to his efforts to introduce the water-powered car to the Sri Lankan market including facilities to convert fuel-powered engines to water-powered ones.

Gdewilde (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why have you dumped the body of a new article here? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and pared down the purposed article section and think in a leaner form its worth adding. This is a prime example of a water fuelled car.--OMCV (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It was a suggestion to merge this material in. What confused me was the existence of this new article: Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe, which should probably be deleted in favour of merging into this article. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I added an adapted version of the above article to this page and support redirecting Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe to water-fuelled car.--OMCV (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Google maps, the distance driven on 3 liters of water was close to 200 miles. The trouble with that is that even if you could convert all three liters of water to hydrogen without using any electricity at all, you get 0.33 kg of hydrogen. That's basic chemistry. That much hydrogen has the equivalent energy content of 1kg of gasoline - which is about a tenth of a gallon. He's not claiming anything special about the car or it's engine - so how is he able to claim to drive 200 miles on the energy equivalent of a tenth of gallon of gasoline? That's 2,000 miles per gallon! This is basic science - we need to find a way to say this in the article. SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The third reference ([[3]) is illuminating. It says that diesel powered cars need to run on 50% diesel and 50% water - and he explains that the gasoline vehicle also still needs to have the gasoline tank, fuel pump, etc need to be left connected up and to have some gasoline in the tank. This makes it an awful lot easier for him to fake the demos and run entirely on gasoline or diesel. SteveBaker (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehh its just another person who thinks mixing water (ie. water injection) or hydrogen with fuel is "running the car on water". What a shame. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What's particularly sad/annoying about this case is that the scammer has managed to get the personal attention of the head of the Sri Lankan government. They clearly have no understanding as to what's going on - so they are likely to treat this as a matter of national pride and hand this sleeze-bag a pile of cash, land and prestige. He'll probably be able to sponge off of the government for years before they finally get sick of sinking money into a project that'll always claim to be just on the brink of making a full commercial version and turning a profit. <sigh> SteveBaker (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Scam?? And I thought you had discovered youtube and the pulse width modulators? I specially like the one Charles Garrett put together. lemme upload the picture for you.... 1 moment... --Gdewilde (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the aforementioned sources are quite reliable and can be used within this article. --CyclePat (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Four of the more relevant ones already used in the article. Gdewilde wrote the section it just got trimmed down here and then trimmed down some more when it was put in.--OMCV (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

thougts?

I'd like to tag the article with this, anyone got a better way to do it or have thoughts? Perpetual motion machines are prime meat for the million dollar challenge...

File:Money-bags.jpg

This ability or phenomenon is eligible for a prize of over one million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation Million Dollar Challenge, if it can be demonstrated in a controlled environment.

Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very encyclopeadic. I don't think that template belongs on ANY articles! SteveBaker (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on how to get that message across? Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What message are you trying to get across? WP works on explicit statements, not hints and indirect messages. DMacks (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely oppose the use of this template, but if James Randi Educational Foundation does have a $1M prize specifically for demonstration of a real water-powered car, then this fact might be worth mentioning somewhere in the text of the article, especially since the prize is (presumably) unclaimed. Yilloslime (t) 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not directly for water powered cars, but more generally for any paranormal 'thing', and perpetual motion machines are mentioned specifically as eligible. http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/158/97/ Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that thought was spelled thought and not thougt... That template is too much like advertising and shouldn't be used anywhere. swaq 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thinq you might be right...

The One Million Dollar Paranormal challlenge: This ability or phenomenon is eligible for a prize of over one million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation Million Dollar Challenge, if it can be demonstrated in a controlled environment.
Any one know if you can send a parameter to a template? Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you though about including this in a Trivia section within the article. Sort of like; Did you know? And change the wording to something like: In 2008, the (association) launched a (whatever contest) to try and prove the functionality of Meyer's fuel cell. (Mind you, I don't know if this is totally correct). --CyclePat (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the talk page, without a template, is probably sufficient b.t.w. But I do appreciate the information, and a template can be quite handy. So, maybe you should keep the template but only use it on the talk page section... make an appropriate section... called "potential awards" or some appropriate section (and don't forget to make an automatic category for the template). What I mean by that is... instead of calling it "thoughts"[sic], call it "Awards". And finally, make sure it's not a permanent template, in the sense that it will not remain at the top of a talk page and will be archived. --CyclePat (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s.: The only reason I think a template should remain is if the awards specifically mentions the subject matter. Otherwise it doesn't really belong. --CyclePat (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Overdesign of car, Using "Spare" energy from spinning the alternator in a car

In fact, whenever the engine runs, it is constantly hooked up to the generator/alternator to produce electricity for the car, this is an overdesign by automakers. Water-fuel technology ingeniously uses the spare energy to undergo electrolysis, that is why you have higher mileage.

HHO creation and burning in cars is about using the untapped electrical energy created by the alternator, which goes wasted. The alternator spins 100% of the time, it's capacity is from 60amps to 115amps or more. To run a normal vehicles 20 amps is plenty. What happens to the remaining production.... it is unused. So converting it to HHO and burning it is just making the engine more efficent. You could argue that a better alternator system could perclude the need for an HHO system.

The evidence that HHO systems enhance fuel mileage is known. You are missing the point in your article, this is all about using wasted amperage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.101.7 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Jeez - you've been reading the scammer's propaganda over on Water4Fuel.com and elsewhere haven't you! Sadly, (and like nearly all free energy proponents) they don't understand the most basic of principles which they so excitedly propound.

When an alternator spins with nothing to drive (electrically), it needs much less force to rotate it since you are only overcoming the friction in its bearings. When you put a load onto it (such as the battery charger or a hydrolysis unit) it becomes much harder to turn - because you are causing a current to flow. So it saps more power from the cars engine. Hence it's not "wasting energy" when it's not driving anything...except for it's internal friction - which is wasted no matter what. The idea that energy is being generated by the alternator and somehow falling off the end of the wires or something is frankly silly!

If you don't believe me, do an experiment. Find a really small DC electric motor from an old toy or something. An electric motor is essentially identical to an alternator and will suffice to prove a point. Spin the motor with your fingers - then connect a flashlight bulb across the motors terminals and spin the motor again so the bulb lights up. You'll clearly be able to feel how much harder the motor ("generator") is to turn when it's doing work compared to when it's spinning freely. If you don't feel the difference immediately - connect up more flashlight bulbs in parallel and you'll eventually be convinced.

That point being made - everything else you say falls into a small soggy heap on the floor where it may be safely ignored.

In future, please start new discussions at the bottom of the page...thanks!

SteveBaker (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

An interesting arguement that shows that the person making it does not have a fundamental understanding of the operation of an alternator.

Quite simply, the mechanical load that an alternator applies to the engine that is driving it is proportional to the current drawn from it at the time plus inefficiency. If the current being drawn is only 20A, the mechanical load is a lot less than when the current being drawn is 120A.

This fundamental misconception could be a good thing to add coverage of to the article. --Athol Mullen (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

At 60A the alternator is pulling .97hp from the engine and at 115A it is taking 1.85hp. Not counting inefficiencies. It would need to supply the amount of hydrogen equivalent to run a 2hp engine at best. Here's the challenge, get a small 2hp engine (hint, they already make 1300W generators) attach it to an alternator, attach the alternator to one of these gizmoz and see if it will run itself. It's not surprising that noone has made it work. If it can't produce enough to power itself, how could it even "enhance" an engine's performance?I55ere (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in a regular ICE vehicle, alternators consume gas and reduce your mileage. To save on gas, as note by Daring Cosgrove, a member of www.evco.ca (which b.t.w. we have a meeting tonight at 7h30 p.m. EST.) and whom I personally know (You may find a news article on his methodology here), you may remove the alternator. Darin did this and added extra batteries to his car. When he gets home he plugs in his batteries into the wall to get better efficiency... not only in charging from the grid but by reducing his fuel consumption. He's been able to bost 133 mpg. But Meuh! Who cares when you can burn, burn and burn oil with a roaring engine that make wonderful noise and speed up to your next red light like a "bat out of hell"! Argh arhg argh! Sarcastically your, --CyclePat (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

It appears that, at least on one noteworthy point, the citations in the article contradict what they are cited as confirming. Specifically, the article states:

"A number of well-known chemical compounds combine with water to release hydrogen, but in all cases the energy required to produce such compounds exceeds the energy obtained reacting them with water.[37][38][39]"

Citations 37, 38, and 39, as far as I can tell, make no such claims. In fact, they claim the opposite of what the author says they do. 2 of them are from companies discussing processes they have developed whereby water can be used as an efficient fuel via extracting hydrogen on-site in automobiles, and another is a New Scientist article supportive of the idea. None claim the amount of energy to extract hydrogen by these particular processes exceeds the amount of energy that can be obtained from burning the extracted hydrogen as a fuel, nor that the amount of energy needed to obtain the chemical compounds used in such processes. It would be ludicrous for these companies and New Scientist to discuss such alternatives as feasible if that was the case.

Whether you believe water can be used a fuel or not, the simple fact is these sources do not support the author's contentions and in fact, flatly contradict them. I would like to see some explanation for these discrepancies since it appears the citations actually contradict this central claim by the author to discredit the efficiency of water as an alternative fuel.

Cecilman (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made a small change,[4] to clarify exactly what information in the first paragraph comes from the cited references, and what info is not explicitly mentioned. Hope this clears things up.Yilloslime (t) 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The New Scientist paper has that statement covered - they say the efficiency will be around 11%. I moved that reference up. SteveBaker (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

comment below from cecilman

Thank you for correcting that. It certainly appeared that the placement of the citations suggested they backed up the claim the energy used is greater than the potential energy of the hydrogen. However, I note that you cite the New Scientist article now.

"In all cases the energy required to produce such compounds exceeds the energy obtained from their reaction with water.[40]"

However, your citation does not appear to back up your claim. In fact, the article appears to still contradict the claim you cite it for.

"By reacting water with the element boron, their system produces hydrogen that can be burnt in an internal combustion engine or fed to a fuel cell to generate electricity."

Moreover, I am not sure about this comment in the article:

"While these may seem at first sight to be 'water-fuelled cars', they actually take their energy from the chemical that reacts with water,"

Are you suggesting that all of their energy stems from the chemicals used to react with the water, and no energy comes from the actual hydrogen being burned. One reason I ask is you also suggest somehow these claims violate laws of thermodynamics......maybe I am missing something, but how is burning water any different than burning oil which also must go through a refining process (refining used loosely here in regard to water). Both water and oil contain properties that are combustible. With water, the inherent fuel not added but simply extracted is primarily the hydrogen, correct?

Also, your citation's comments on 11% are in reference to the entire system using solar energy for electricity and states this is on a par with petroleum-based systems:

"The energy to drive these processes would ultimately come from the sun. The team calculates that a system of mirrors could concentrate enough sunlight to produce electricity from solar cells with an efficiency of 35 per cent. Overall, they say, their system could convert solar energy into work by the car's engine with an efficiency of 11 per cent, similar to today's petrol engines."

In terms of cost comparisons, they state:

"The team calculates that a car would have to carry just 18 kilograms of boron and 45 litres of water to produce 5 kilograms of hydrogen, which has the same energy content as a 40-litre tank of conventional fuel. An Israeli company has begun designing a prototype engine that works in the same way, and the Japanese company Samsung has built a prototype scooter based on a similar idea." Cecilman (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 August

2008 (UTC)

The part of the New Scientist article that I'm thinking of says:

"The team calculates that a system of mirrors could concentrate enough sunlight to produce electricity from solar cells with an efficiency of 35 per cent. Overall, they say, their system could convert solar energy into work by the car's engine with an efficiency of 11 per cent, similar to today's petrol engines."

So 35% of sunlight is turned into electricity in their Boron processing plant - and the engine produces only 11% - so less than a third of the electricity used to process the BoronOxide back into Boron actually ends up as power. That means that reprocessing the Boron requires three times as much energy as the engine produces - which backs up the statement that:

"the energy required to produce such compounds exceeds the energy obtained from their reaction with water"

You ask:

"Are you suggesting that all of their energy stems from the chemicals used to react with the water, and no energy comes from the actual hydrogen being burned."

No. It's a little more complex than that. I'm saying that in these "Hydrogen on Demand" systems, all of the energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen in the car comes from the chemicals (the metal hydride). The energy from the chemical is then bound up inside the hydrogen and oxygen molecules - and when they are burned in the engine (or preferably in a hydrogen fuel cell), that energy is released and turned into motion, heat and sound by the car's engine. So long as the energy comes from the metal hydride fuel - which is then depleted and has to be replaced - then no laws of physics are violated. You just "burned" some metal hydride fuel using a rather complicated set of intermediaries...but you burned that fuel. What's interesting about metal hydride fuel is that you can take the stuff that's left over - pump raw electrical energy back into it and get fuel back that you can put back into your car. BUT that step requires more energy (three times more energy, according to the New Scientist reference) than the car produces...so compared to charging up a set of batteries, this Boron-fuelled car is kinda inefficient. However, convenience in terms of refuelling MIGHT maybe make up in convenience what is lost in energy efficiency. These are NOT water fuelled cars - but they seem enough like them if you don't understand them that I wanted to explain what's going on with them in the article so that people don't imagine that the Boron-fuelled car (which really works!) is an example of a water fuelled car (which universally do not, cannot, will not EVER, work).

SteveBaker (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

from cecilman

Your comment:

"The energy from the chemical is then bound up inside the hydrogen and oxygen molecules - and when they are burned in the engine (or preferably in a hydrogen fuel cell), that energy is released and turned into motion, heat and sound by the car's engine. So long as the energy comes from the metal hydride fuel - which is then depleted and has to be replaced - then no laws of physics are violated. You just "burned" some metal hydride fuel using a rather complicated set of intermediaries...but you burned that fuel."

So just to be clear, you are saying no hydrogen is actually being burned, just the metal? The citations in the article include specific claims of the hydrogen being burned. Let's call the electricity E and the additive A and the hydrogen H. It appears that you are claiming:

E + A + H = E + A

When in reality,

E + A + H > E + A

The article specifically states for one process:

"2H2O → 2H2 + O2 [Electrolysis step] 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O [Combustion step]"

However, this can only be true if an equal amount of 2H20 is produced. If less 2H20 is produced, some of it then is burned as the proponents of water as a fuel contend. I see nothing substantiating the claim no hydrogen is actually burned, just the electricity used in this case or the metals added in others.

Can substantiate no hydrogen is actually burned?

I don't know the details on the 11% claim but they are claiming the effiency is similar to the efficiency of producing petroleum. Someone somewhere must calculate the energy to drill, trasport, refine and transport again petrol, and keep in mind engines don't burn all the energy of petrol but apparently someone has, and their process is just as efficient according to their claim.

Cecilman (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen is burned in part of the process. But you have to consider the whole process, and the question to keep in mind is, "Where is the energy coming from—the water, the metal, divine intervention?" A very similar discussion happened in this thread at Talk:Genepax some time back. Check that out, particularly my comments which start with: "Hopefully 147.83.xxx.xxx is straightened out now, but I can't resist taking a stab at making this a little clearer." (Please don't reopen that debate, but continue discussion here if you still have questions.) Yilloslime (t) 04:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question:

"Where is the energy coming from—the water, the metal..."

The answer is quite simple. It comes from the water (hydrogen) and the metal in this case. By the way, who ever brought up divine intervention?

Cecilman (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If the energy comes from the hydrogen and the hydrogen comes from the water by some other process, then it's not true that the energy "comes from" the water, unless the process that creates it is driven by energy in the water. Which is not true: X + H2O → Y + H2 (for arbitrary collections of materials X and Y) won't work unless X is fairly high-energy compared to Y. H2 doesn't magically appear from water, you have to use energy to drive it out. DMacks (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

One point that sticks out is the analogy of refining oil and splitting the water molecule. If I put fire to crude oil, fresh from the well, it will burn. It has energy. If I put fire to water, fresh from the well, it goes out. The refining process for oil does nothing more than clean and separate the oil. The oil is not consumed in the process, only separated into its lighter components, as letting whole milk stand will separate the cream (another energy source). The energy used for refining is far less than the energy inherent in the crude oil to begin with. The only way to make water "burn" is to separate it, either through electrolysis or chemical reaction. Using Boron will create hydrogen, but in the chemical reaction, the boron is consumed. If this were to be used to fuel a car, the boron would be the fuel, oxydized by the water releasing hydrogen as a byproduct.I55ere (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition of water-fueled car....

The article starts with:

"A water-fuelled car is a automobile that is claimed to use water as its fuel or produces fuel from water onboard, with no other energy input. "

None of the proposed water-fuelled cars mentioned in the article fit this description. It seems there is confusion throughout the article in part because it begins with this poor definition. For example, there is no proposal I am aware of, nor cited here, that purports to produce fuel from water on-board with no energy input. That's just false to claim so. There are various techniques, some listed here, for extracting hydrogen from water or turning water into a gas, but all them specify quite plainly the need for electricity and often other additives. Cecilman (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. Genepax, Stanley Meyer, Garrett and Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe all make the clear, unambiguous claim that they are extracting energy from water. Sure, they all require electricity to initiate the splitting of the water - but the claim is that the battery is simply recharged from the cars alternator. (Except Genepax who claim the energy is extracted directly from water with some kind of membrane/catalyst gizmo). Meyer, Garrett and Edirisinghe all claim the energy comes from the water. Read the references - it's pretty clear. They are all either frauds - but that's what the article is about. SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

from cecilman below

They say they are extracting energy from the water, sure? But they also claim electricity is added to do this and usually an additive as well, right? It may be a small correction but to misdefine water-fueled cars off the bat is a serious mistake, in my opinion.

Moreover, there is a greater issue at stake here. Are you suggesting no energy is added by the hydrogen in the water? Your comments on "oxyhydrogen" suggest that since you claim in one place the process is identical in reverse to electrolysis.

"Since the combustion step is the exact reverse of the electrolysis step, the energy released in combustion exactly equals the energy consumed in the electrolysis step"

If it is identical, then there is no hydrogen burned at all, right? The water just reverses into a different form and only the energy used to change the form is used. The problem with making this claim, besides it being unsubtantiated, is that clearly that's not what the proponents claim, and moreover with the other forms of "water" as a fuel mentioned in the article, they too insist hydrogen is actually being burned. It seems to me that the crux of the issue then is whether hydrogen and oxygen is actually being consumed or not. If it is, then claiming there is a violation of thermodynamics laws is kind of silly. If it is not, then all the proponents are mistaken in their claims hydrogen is actually the fuel in the first place.

It isn't clear, in my opinion, whether you are claiming energy can be obtained from burning hydrogen or not. If hydrogen is being burned, then the issue of how much energy is used to extract the hydrogen is still an issue, but the argument it cannot exceed the energy in-put on theoritical grounds is no more valid than saying the energy used to create gasoline from oil cannot exceed the costs and energy to refine the oil. Both oil and water (hydrogen) are fuels that are added to the process and so add energy into the process. In fact, to claim that such an addition to an energy system is not accounted for is the violation of thermodynamics laws as the only way for the energy to equal the amount of electricity and additives put into it is if the added energy of the hydrogen is not used.

Cecilman (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Cecilman (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding 03:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Steve will walk you through this stuff better than I can. But I have to point out that the hydrogen in water is the water. The H₂O doesn't have any H₂ in it or useful combustion energy. Thats why its used to put out fires. In contrast oil (a good reducing agent) is a fuel.

To take water (H₂O) and separate it into H₂ and O₂ via electrolysis or any other way requires energy input. There are always inefficiency involved so you dump in extra energy (there are thermodynamics to support this). After that you can get some energy back by burning the H₂ in an internal combustion engine or running the H₂ through a fuel cell in both cased reaching the more stable H₂O known as water. But again there are inefficiency and not all the energy comes out (there are thermodynamics to support this). Please read the article a few more times and related articles on perpetual motion, water, combustion, water electrolysis, and just think about this stuff for a while.--OMCV (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ineffeciencies is one thing. Claiming the process is electrolysis in reverse despite the probable fact less water and so less hydrogen comes out at the end of it is another. I raised specific questions with no real response to them, in my opinion. The article really should present the proponent's arguments clearly and the critics' arguments clearly, which is basically the idea that hydrogen cannot be anything but an energy carrier despite all the observations and claims to the contrary. I don't believe that is being adequately explained, nor substantiated, and certainly there are numerous projects in development with prototypes that deny that claim, one being the Blacklight Power project confirmed by guys like Randy Booker, a physics professor at UNC-A. Rather than insist all the people observing more energy being produced from hydrogen than put in to create it, (and even if that were the case it doesn't mean it wouldn't be more viable than gasoline), why not more evenly present the different opinions and sides of this issue: both what proponents of hydrogen are saying or some of them and the critics' insistence that it's impossible?

As it stands, the article is more an expression of partisan opinion with the criticism unsubstantiated and many errors in citation and definitions.

Cecilman (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a conservation of mass. All the atoms that go in the front of any of these systems come out the back. You are correct hydrogen is an energy carrier in most of these systems, the question remains "what is the energy source?" For all the examples in this article (and Blacklight Power) the origin of the power is mysterious or identified/implied to be water. Water is not chemical energy source and those who claim it is are confused or frauds. Its kinda wilde how familiar this feels, but if you repeat your specific question myself or someone else will try to answer them.--OMCV (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

When saying that a fuel cell is electrolysis in reverse, it is doing exactly that. Electrical energy is used to convert water to 2H2 and O2. When recombined in a fuel cell 2H2 + O2 = 2H20 and electrical energy is released. Neither electrolysis or fuel cells are 100% efficient. Thermodynamics by name deals with heat and both electrolysis and fuel cells generate heat. Heat is raw energy and is taken from the sum totals, so we cannot get to 100%. In a perfect world, with perfect cathodes and anodes that would never oxydize. With perfect containment of the smallest atom and superconducting electrical connections, then theoretically water could be converted and recombined perpetually. Always getting the same amount of water out, as put in. No heat generated and also, no extra electrons. The net energy is 0. There is a finite number of both H2 and O atoms in the system. A finite number of electrons orbiting those atoms. To go from water (Finite) to gases (Finite) and back to water (Finite) all atoms have to start and finish with the same number of protons, neutrons and electrons. Nothing is left over. Now go to thermodynamics again and check out "conservation of energy". Even if this perfect system could be built, without something to "stimulate" it into action it would not work just for the sake of working. 0 energy in, 0 energy out. Water in the water tank would remain just that, water at a constant volume and temperature. The gases in the fuel cell would remain also at a constant volume and temperature and no useful "work" being performed. Anything connected to this sytem would do absolutely nothing because, there is nothing to spare.I55ere (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"When saying that a fuel cell is electrolysis in reverse, it is doing exactly that."

The problem with that statement is it's unproven.

" Electrical energy is used to convert water to 2H2 and O2. When recombined in a fuel cell 2H2 + O2 = 2H20 and electrical energy is released. Neither electrolysis or fuel cells are 100% efficient. Thermodynamics by name deals with heat and both electrolysis and fuel cells generate heat. "

But this isn't a fuel cell. Most if not all of these "water fuel" cars are using a plasma-state and reporting excess energy (heat) from it. As I have pointed out elsewhere, there have been published experiments showing excess heat from hydrogen-based plasmas. One theory for these results is the hydrino hypothesis by Blacklight. Keep in mind they apply this theory to more than simply plasmas but they and others have published data showing orders of magniture more energy stemming from such plasmas than the energy to produce them via a catalyst. Personally, I don't know if their theory is right or not, but either all these people are bald-faced lying including scientists offering faked data then for publication, or excess heat and energy can genuinely be obtained.

If the article is to maintain a neutral stance, it cannot insist this data is a hoax. All the evidence we have so far indicates it is not since we have published data showing it and no one viewing the experiments and labs or apparatus, nor replicating it, claiming it didn't produce what these scientists and other said. It's fine to say many or most consider it impossible, etc,....but you must also report the findings are published in reputable journals and reputable scientists have reviewed the data and agree that excess heat occurs, and of course, there are actual devices by various inventors out there which have never been refuted and certainly appear viable.

Cecilman (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to basics, what part of WATER-FUELLED CAR is ambiguous? Are the inventors of the plasma system that you are talking about now hooking one up to a car and driving it around? You have a good idea of what the system is, but Water-Fuelled Car may not be the proper article in which to put it.I55ere (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the point being missed is a conversion of units. In equating the burning of hydrogen there is a certain amount of energy released. This energy can be easily measured, calculated and converted. Whether it is measured in BTU's, Joules, Watts or Horsepower. The amount of energy used in electrolysis vs the amount of energy provided by a fuel cell are the same. If one were to separate one gram mole of H20 via electrolysis and then run the resultant gas back through a fuel cell the net energy would be 0. If one were to burn the Hydrogen with the oxygen, the thermal release converted to Watts would be on par with the amount of energy used to separate the water to begin with. Since there is no perfect system, it will work towards being a negative energy source, which means that it takes more energy than the resultant recombination of the H2 and O.I55ere (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I clearly remember in science class the teacher putting Oxygen and Hydrogen together and blowing up the balloon. We then had water. Isn't it funny how you can get energy by recombining these elements through a chemical reaction? Maybe this article should talk a little more about that type of chemical reaction which is most likely well sourced within our chemistry books and even referenced in Meyer's Patent on water fuel cells? --CyclePat (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is an inventor that claim to have hooked up such a plasma device. It's Meyer and it can be found in his Water fuel cell wikipedia article. --CyclePat (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a point CyclePat or are you trying to further confuse the subject? This conversation is going little to developed and should be allowed to wither.--OMCV (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing

How does this work? The simple reality is the article needs to be editted. The idea that people claim nothing but water, no other energy input, is involved is patently false. Every doggone one of these things says they need electricity to separate the hydrogen from water. I tried editting it to reflect that, and it is immediately editted back.

What gives?

Isn't it correct that all these water-car people admit and say they need to use electricity? The only beef is some say the only amount of power they can use is the electricity and fuel from the additives put in whereas they claim the hydrogen itself is produces more power. Regardless of what someone thinks, the article should reflect at least basic accuracy in what people claim a water-fuelled car is.

Moreover, since others believe and are investing many millions based on prototypes they insist show hydrogen can more than an energy carrier, the article should state "many consider" that water-fuelled cars violate thermodynamics laws. I mean heck, this is not the place for someone to express their opinions in trying to insist something is bunk. This is the place to INFORM.

Just state what most or many consider and what others claim.......geesh!

Cecilman (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the cars discussed in the section Water-fuelled_car#Technology (with the exception of some mentioned in Water-fuelled_car#Hydrogen_as_a_supplement subsection) are purported to use water and only water for power. If you don't believe me, read the cited references. Yes, electricity is involved the functioning of the vehicles, but it's claimed that this electricity is generated by the vehicle itself, with no input other than water. (This is analogous to a gasoline powered car. Electricity is needed to make the sparkplugs and other essential components works, but the electricity is generated by the car itself, with no other input besides gasoline. The reason you can do this with gasoline but not with water is that gasoline can be combined with oxygen (which is readily available for free in the air) and converted into lower energy combustion products (CO2, H2O) and the energy that's released in the process can be used to run the car. No analogous reactions exist for water which could convert it into a lower energy substances, releasing useable energy in the process. Yilloslime (t) 06:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You commented:

"Yes, electricity is involved the functioning of the vehicles, but it's claimed that this electricity is generated by the vehicle itself, with no input other than water."

That's incorrect. First off, electricity precedes the energy from the water in all these systems. It's not just electricity for the regular operations of the car, but rather they all state electricity is used in making the gas or hydrogen. I understand what you want to say, which is they are claiming they are getting the power from the water itself and not the electricity, but you have worded it incorrectly. You cannot say "no other energy input" when they all say another energy input is needed. You have to say they are claiming more energy output than is being input by the electricity used to extract hydrogen and any additives supplied.

This shouldn't even be debated. It's a matter of standard and proper English regardless of your view of the matter.

Cecilman (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: it appears every attempt to edit the article to make it accurate is changed back,and looking at the Discussion, it also appears that I'm not the only one that has noticed some problems.....what is wiki all about? My experience with this one article is causing me to change my opinion of it. It doesn't really seem to represent some sort of consensus opinion or varied opinions but merely reflects who is the most dogmatic, maybe the one with the best computer program, about editting it.

Cecilman (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the issue is that you've misunderstood what the promoters of these perpetual motion devices are actually claiming. The claims are fairly consistently that they can extract energy from water and end up with water. The usual cycle is that the water is electrolysed to produce hydrogen and oxygen, which are usually delivered to an internal combustion engine as a mixture just as it came out of the electrolysis device. The internal combustion engine drives the vehicle but also powers a generator or alternator, which powers the electrolysis to supply further fuel. That is the type of hoax device that this article is primarily about. Your edit, while apparently well meaning, has missed the point. The electricity does not precede the thermodynamically impossible cycle except when "starting" the cycle.--Athol Mullen (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding it at all. You are stating a fuel-based system whereby fuel needs to be added into the system is a perpetual motion machine because you do not believe hydrogen can be a fuel in that sense but rather just an energy carrier. The problem is we have observations that counter your argument and so the jury has to be out on the issue until more is understood on what is going on.

Couple of points. "Except" means the way the article is written is incorrect because there is more energy input. The article then is misleading people on what water-car companies and people are claiming. Secondly, it's obvious the article and the comments here by some are intended to simply present one contention, that these are frauds and perpetual motion machines. Perhaps that's the reason for misleading people right off the bat? That makes the article not an encyclopedia article but rather a partisan opinion piece. What is missing is the fact others don't view what is occuring in the process as simply electrolysis in reverse and have hard observations to back that up. A similar tension exists with the BlackLight Power project. The observations are of more power coming out than is being put into the hydrogen which suggests hydrogen can be used as a fuel, that there are unusual properties with hydrogen that be tapped into. It's a hard observable even if the interpretations of it are not.

It also fits the observation of what occurs when welding with water gas or whatever one wishes to call it. The gas displays unusual properties in the manner in which it reacts with the material.

So just because some folks say it cannot be occuring doesn't really add up when we have evidence it is. Perhaps the truth is that process of burning hydrogen can be more complicated than some of you believe, and so hydrogen can actually be a fuel rather than simply an energy carrier.

Cecilman (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by August 2008 (UTC)

Actually we have no actual WP:RS/WP:CITE evidence that it is actually creating energy solely from water, yet we do have some supported statements that such a thing would be impossible. Burden of proof is on those who assert WP:FRINGE. DMacks (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

66.177.50.158 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you say you have no evidence when you have working devices demonstrating the effect? Take the Blacklight Power project. Physics professors including one from UNC-A were invited to come and inspect the technology with full access to the experiment. They came back saying that indeed more power comes out than is being put into the hydrogen to make it. Blacklight has a theory on how this can be which may or may not be correct, but the effect has definitely been verified by 3rd parties. To claim there is no evidence is absurd in the face of companies, often with 3rd party inspections, brining out actual demonstrations of it.

Cecilman (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Blacklight Power. They have one professor who says their on to something and a ton of critics. Remember that not all 3rd party's are impartial. Beyond that they are claiming a lot of fictitious chemistry about hydrogen based on the writings of a physician. This is well outside the mainstream understanding reality held by science. Its assuredly delusional or a fraud. Just review Blacklight Power, your efforts might be better spent over there.--OMCV (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If any of what you are claiming to be true is ever going to make it into the article, then you are going to need to provide reliable, third party sources to substantiate it. The policies that must be complied with are here: WP:RS and WP:V, and also WP:CITE. WP:PARITY may also be relevant. Hope this helps. Yilloslime (t) 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's incorrect to claim only one professor verifies Blacklight's system. Moreover, there is no one it seems that has actually observed and tested the system who agrees with the critics. That alone suggests the critics are wrong, especially since the 3rd party people that do verify the claims did so as initial skeptics. Whether the theory advanced to explain the phenomena is correct, there is no reasonable doubt as to the phenomena.

In terms of citations, what I have tried to do is correct erroneous citation and point out there are few citations for the criticism of water as a fuel. There are bold statements the systems are simply electrolysis in reverse but no evidence or citation for that whereas the citations listed elsewhere generally state the opposite with a few exceptions.

When I have the time, I may look up and add citations and comments into the article that disagree with the views presented. However, it appears that regardless of evidence, the article will merely be editted back. I hadn't realized the nature of wikipedia was largely one where some advocate personal positions, as this piece does, rather than merely inform as to what respected opinion, including minority opinions on the facts, are saying. I guess I was naive in thinking the goal was more informative rather than advocacy.

In terms of Blacklight, it's worth noting a varied group of respected people believe the results do indeed show hydrogen can be used to produce more energy than it takes to produce the hygrogen. In fact, the evidence is so strong that they have attracted 50 million in investement money, mostly private. That sort of money, from sources like hedge funds, utilities, etc,.....indicates that unlike what the article here purports, this is not some fringe concept. That sort of money from varied and highly informed and educated sources, who are looking for profit, doesn't flow to ridiculous, fringe claims as this idea is presented in the article. The article should be revised to reflect both the claims of those who believe in and have tested hydrogen in this manner and it's critics rather than solely present the idea as a fringe and hoax.

I suspect no one here insisting it is a hoax has ever raised venture capital in the millions of dollars, nor has such eminent people attesting to their idea and on their board as Blacklight does. It is comical, in fact, to read the article when one is aware of the intense efforts to verify the claims of Blacklight, all of which have resulted in verifying that the system does in fact show more energy coming out than energy put in to produce the hydrogen. Such a varied group of investors, including regulated groups such as utilities, just don't put up 50 million dollars without a lot of due diligence to verify proof of concept and in this case, proof a working prototype duly examined and demonstrates as feasible.

Cecilman (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The following policies determine what topics get covered on wikipedia and how they are described: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. Please read them if you have not. Note that nowhere in any of these policies is the idea espoused that raising $50 million in venture capital proves that an invention works. Maybe that's proof enough by your standards, but wikipedia has it's own standards. If you want to contributed wikipedia, you have abide its standards, even if you don't like them or don't understand the logic behind them. Wikipedia requires that we look at what reliable third party sources have said about a topic, and write articles that accurately reflect the mix views in presented in those articles. Yilloslime (t) 23:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable third party sources like tenured and well-respected physics professors....oh, er no apparently because they disagree with us, eh? How about numerable repeatable, verifiable demonstrations....nah, can't be valid because we choose not to accept it. How about a wide ranging due diligence process involving numerous validations of the system from academics and others prior to attracting 50 million.....nah, we here at wiki choose to insist only one side of the issue and want to denigrate anyone disagreeing with us, regardless of whether they are respected academics, technicians or whoever and label them either liars or nutjobs, calling such things scams and hoaxes.

The simple fact is you guys come nowhere near abiding by the standards set in those wiki guidelines. It's a complete joke on your part to suggest otherwise. Moreover, you misrepresent what I have written suggesting I claim raising venture capital alone is a standard. No, but the standards do say that when respected, knowledgeable academics and others come forward with an idea that can be tested, is tested and so forth that it should be afforded a measure of respect in reporting here and not simply dismissed as a fringe concept or hoax. What you guys are doing is the classic straw man and disinformation approach and it doesn't belong on a site that claims to have the standards wiki does. Cecilman (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the policies that I and others have pointed you to?Yilloslime (t) 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I perused them earlier. If you would like me to point out the specific areas of violation of those policies on the article's part, I will. However, I find pointing out the obvious leading me to a less civil approach than I prefer and so am considering just avoiding wiki for awhile. One such guideline on whether something should be presented as credible (opposite of calling it a hoax or scam) is:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses"

Another concept is that of neutrality. However, you are claiming data that has been published and confirmed numerous times in peer-reviewed literature is a hoax. It seems incredible that in light of overwhelming documentation of more energy output from hydrogen than the energy of the catalyst to move it into a plasma, that you still insist that there is no credible evidence of the phenomenon. Here are some articles which verify the concept has been experimentally observed and published in peer-reviewed journals. Please note, if you can, that the debate is largely about the theory explaining the phenomena, not claims as you suggest that the phenomena is a hoax. Please read the articles with that understanding.

For example, this peer-reviewed article makes the comment:

"Intensive laboratory research over much of the past decade at the Technical University of Eindhoven and at Blacklight Power, see Ref. [3] for a review of the several publicationsin refereed journals, on what has come to be known as the “hydrino” state of hydrogen has sent theorists scurrying to explain the experimental spectroscopic observations on the basis of known and trusted physical laws."

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:SahqUVGpc-4J:www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2007/astp5-8-2007/bourgoinASTP5-8-2007.pdf+Technical+University+of+Eindhoven+hydrogen+plasma+hydrino&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

This article is claiming a new energy level for hydrogen. There is nothing supporting creation of energy. Man with two legs (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[Not sure how to indent like you did, but quit creating a straw man. No one is talking about creating energy but the release of energy from hydrogen itself.]

He then discusses the various theories and debates about them to explain the results, specifically whether the existence of the hydrino is real. But nowhere are the lab results themselves considered to be hoaxes or scams. They are published in peer-reviewed journals, and 3rd party sources such as the Technical University of Eindhoven, several college professors and others all confirm the lab results. Even those that disagree with the hydrino hypothesis that have nonetheless taken a look at the experiments and sought to verify the lab results all agree that the basic phenomenon of getting more energy from hydrogen via hydrogen plasmas (sounds exactly like Brown's gas, aquygen, HHO, etc,....) than the energy put in to create the plasma are real.

Here are more articles you should read and recognize you are calling something a "hoax" which has been repeatedly confirmed in lab results and published in peer-reviewed journals. Keep in mind the rules you asked me to read, which I had perused before though perhaps should read more closely, that discuss whether an idea has validity.....being published, having repeated observations of, academics accepting even in a minority, are specifically mentioned are they not?

"In a series of papers Mills and co-workers have argued that the results of a variety of experiments on hydrogen plasmas can only be explained by the existence of a new state in which the electron has less energy than the n=1 ground state. ...... Naudts says that results of Mills and co-workers have recently been confirmed by a group at the Technical University of Eindhoven. "Nothing is decided yet, but I think it is time to fill the holes in our theoretical understanding of the hydrogen atom."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/22820

This article is claiming a new energy level for hydrogen. There is nothing supporting creation of energy. Man with two legs (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[Wrong, no one claims anything about creation of energy from nothing. That is simply your misunderstanding of what these papers are about.]Cecilman (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[Once again, please don't misrepresent people and their claims as you are doing. Clearly, all along the argument is more energy can be released from hydrogen plasmas than is used as a catalyst to produce the plasma. You are just misrepresenting the claims here and dodging the issue.]

If you read the article, once again there is no one disputing the results, just the theory. Can you show me anyone that has reviewed any of the 60 or so papers published showing these results that argues effectively the data is wrong on energy output or something?

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-link=8226983/1367-2630/4/1/370

This article is about transfer of energy from one atom to another and has nothing to do with creation of energy. Man with two legs (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[Wrong, no one claims anything about creation of energy from nothing. That is simply your misunderstanding of what these papers are about.]Cecilman (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.iop.org/EJ/ref/-prog=article/-target=inspec/1367-2630/7/1/127/4

This article is about transfer of energy from one atom to another and has nothing to do with creation of energy. Man with two legs (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2[Wrong, no one claims anything about creation of energy from nothing. That is simply your misunderstanding of what these papers are about.]Cecilman (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is claiming a new energy level for hydrogen. There is nothing supporting creation of energy. Man with two legs (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[Wrong, no one claims anything about creation of energy from nothing. That is simply your misunderstanding of what these papers are about.]Cecilman (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just want to make it clear. The article needs seriour revision but apparently every edit is being reverted to the original. Specifically, the guidelines state:

" All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. "

The article is not written from a neutral point of view, not even slightly. Clearly significant views whether right or wrong have been published repeatedly in scientific journals seeking to explain theoritically the experimentally confirmed results of hydrogen plasmas producing more energy than is used to create them. The very fact that respected peer-reviewed journals are publishing papers discussing ways to adjust scientific theory to explain this FACT demonstrates it is taken seriously, and so you absolutely cannot call it a scam or hoax as your article does and follow this most basic precept which wiki is suppossed to follow.

You can say many or perhaps the majority consider the claims bogus, a hoax or scam and explain why, but you must also credibly present what the other side claims here and that their views are taken seriously and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Cecilman (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cecilman (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Like others before you, you don't understand:

1. that resonance is about energy transfer and storage. New energy states and new resonance phenomena do not create energy
2. any physicist demonstrating energy creation would win a Nobel prize. It is not the sort of thing that would be neglected if true.

Man with two legs (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand full well. You are simply being obstinate in refusing to see what they are talking about. Please read the articles. One reason for the claim of the hydrino is that it is theorized hydrogen when it moves into this state gives off considerable excess energy. It's not creation of energy per se but rather energy given off moving from a higher energy state to a lower one. The reason for the hydrino hypothesis is to explain the lab results which confirm what proponents of Brown's gas, HHO, or however you want to describe various hydrogen-based plasmas have been reporting for years.

Now, we have repeated published verification of these facts. Just because you choose not to accept these facts does not mean it is proper for you to call them a hoax or fraud here. This is not the place for such advocacy, is it? Here is a layman's media article's description.

"What has much of the physics world up in arms is Dr Mills's claim that he has produced a new form of hydrogen, the simplest of all the atoms, with just a single proton circled by one electron. In his "hydrino", the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal, and the formation of the new atoms from traditional hydrogen releases huge amounts of energy. ..... "We've done a lot of testing. We've got 50 independent validation reports, we've got 65 peer-reviewed journal articles," he said. "We ran into this theoretical resistance and there are some vested interests here. People are very strong and fervent protectors of this [quantum] theory that they use." Rick Maas, a chemist at the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNC) who specialises in sustainable energy sources, was allowed unfettered access to Blacklight's laboratories this year. "We went in with a healthy amount of scepticism. While it would certainly be nice if this were true, in my position as head of a research institution, I really wouldn't want to make a mistake. The last thing I want is to be remembered as the person who derailed a lot of sustainable energy investment into something that wasn't real."

But Prof Maas and Randy Booker, a UNC physicist, left under no doubt about Dr Mill's claims. "All of us who are not quantum physicists are looking at Dr Mills's data and we find it very compelling," said Prof Maas. "Dr Booker and I have both put our professional reputations on the line as far as that goes." "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/04/energy.science

He's got 65 peer-reviewed articles and 50 independent validation reports. That's been reported by others with similar statements in the links I've provided elsewhere. What do you have?

A misinterpretation of what is being presented and so you create a straw man and call it a hoax. If it were such a hoax, why are journals publishing it so much?

Seriously, read the articles. It's very clear they are claiming much smaller amounts of power can be used as a catalyst to produce hydrogen plasmas than the power gained from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 08:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure inserting edits into my paragraphs is proper so I won't do on your's yet. Your comment:

"This article is claiming a new energy level for hydrogen. There is nothing supporting creation of energy."

Did anyone make any claims of "creation of energy" as you put it? No, the point is energy is produced and the articles do indeed make that claim as all the lab results do. Read the peer-reviewed articles, and if they are too much, read the Guardian quote:

"In his "hydrino", the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal, and the formation of the new atoms from traditional hydrogen releases huge amounts of energy."

Please note the term RELEASES, not creates, huge amounts of energy. Just to head you off, he's not talking about simply a transfer of the energy used to create the plasma. READ THE ARTICLES before commenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 08:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if all that were true, it would be irrelevant for at least two reasons:

1. It refers to ISOLATED hydrogen atoms which do not exist in the molecules that make up water. The energy levels of an atom change when the atom is connected with another atom.
2. Once you have taken energy out, you have to put it back again before you can get it out again so there is no overall release of energy in any closed cycle, which includes anything that could be configured as a perpetual motion machine (even if it has not been)

Furthermore, in claiming these inventions don't work, the article conforms to established science. Wikipedia is not a forum for attempting to rewrite textbooks. Even you should understand that energy from water is currently regarded as fringe science.

Man with two legs (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article happens to be about Water Fuelled Car. Is Black Light Energy now purporting to run automobiles? Stay on track and focus on what the title of this article implies...A car that is fuelled by, runs on, breaks down and recombines water. Starting with water, ending with water and extracting useable energy in the process. Whatever is being done at Black Light Energy, it is not what this article was written for. Water Fuelled Car. If it is ambiguous, find a video of Stanley Meyer. Painted on the side of his dune buggy, I quote..."WATER POWERED CAR" not hydrogen powered, not fuel cell powered, not Black Light Energy Powered. It says Water Powered and that is the type of claims that this article is dealing with. Hydrogen by itself can be a fuel (when combined with the free oxygen in the atmosphere). If you can find hydrogen by itself, please lead the rest of us to it. There is no free hydrogen floating around in water and the amount of energy released by burning hydrogen with oxygen or combining with oxygen it in a fuel cell is well documented, proven and peer reviewed. The same goes for the amount of energy needed to break the hydrogen bond of the water molecule. The amazing part is....it is the same. Documented, tested, peer reviewed, published science.I55ere (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"This article happens to be about Water Fuelled Car. Is Black Light Energy now purporting to run automobiles? Stay on track and focus on what the title of this article implies...A car that is fuelled by, runs on, breaks down and recombines water. Starting with water, ending with water and extracting useable energy in the process. "

Actually, a large part if not the bulk of the article is about presenting one interpretation of how such cars would work and claiming they violate thermodynamics laws. This is where the research on Blacklight Power and others is directly germane here. All of these water fuels are basically hydrogen-based plasmas. None of them are water in a liquid form. There has been a ton of research, including peer-reviewed published materials, that demonstrate hydrogen-based plasmas do indeed do exactly what the article insists is physically impossible. There is no denying this.

So the article needs to be changed. It should either drop the charges such hydrogen-based plasma technology is a hoax, scam and perpetual motion machine, or it should current scientific opinion in the literature and while mentioning many consider such results would violate thermodynamic laws, others have published results of acheiving these results, and there is a controversy of how theory can explain it.

If there is any integrity here, the article will be adjusted to reflect current, peer-reviewed documentation and observation of hydrogen-based plasmas being used to generate excess energy over and above the energy involved in inducing the plasma.

Cecilman (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this falls under the "tiny minority" clause of wp:fringe, and ought not to be mentioned in the article. Also I don't accept the claim that there are "numerous peer-reviewed publications" in support. Not in reputable journals, there aren't. Looie496 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that's your opinion. The simple fact is these findings are reported in very reputable journals contrary to your beliefs and as such, cannot be considered a fringe idea. You can choose to ignore this fact but it only serves to discredit your opinion. In fact, it's becomingly increasingly clear that many of those oppossed to the concept and findings are simply basing their views on prejudice instead of real science.

Cecilman (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Which journals would those be? In your flood of messages, I haven't been able to spot that information. I don't need a complete list, just naming the one or two best would get us started. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start with the articles in the journals I have already provided? Is there a comprehension issue where you haven't seen them linked here yet? Here they some of what has been linked so far.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-link=8226983/1367-2630/4/1/370 http://www.iop.org/EJ/ref/-prog=article/-target=inspec/1367-2630/7/1/127/4 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/22820

On the following comment:

"..."WATER POWERED CAR" not hydrogen powered, not fuel cell powered, not Black Light Energy Powered. It says Water Powered and that is the type of claims that this article is dealing with. "

I didn't realize you were under the mistaken impression that people were claiming to use liquid water rather than a hydrogen plasma from water to run cars. It appears you just are caught off guard, as you put it, by the labelling. No one is claiming to run cars or anything off via water in it's normal form, meaning liquid water. Take some time to learn what the proponents of the idea are stating and the degree of evidence for it, and then you or whomever could write and edit a proper, balanced article on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 03:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course liquid water is what they are claiming. That is the whole point of the article. That is why it is called "Water-fuelled car" rather than "Hydrogen plasma fuelled car". If you wish to write about something completely different, it belongs in another article. Can you really not see that? Man with two legs (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Published article and data from the Journal of Molecular structure.

"Since a significant increase in H temperature was observed with helium–hydrogen discharge plasmas, and energetic hydrino lines were observed at short wavelengths in the corresponding microwave plasmas that required a very significant reaction rate due to low photon detection efficiency in this region, the power balance was measured on the helium–hydrogen microwave plasmas. With a microwave input power of 30 W, the thermal output power was measured to be at least 300 W"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TGS-47C8N0P-B&_coverDate=12%2F19%2F2002&_alid=308918281&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5262&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=82d2cdf37641d3ec848f070de1f6a1d2

Don't want to be too hard, but not sure how else to ask this without coming off confrontational......Looie496, are you publicly stating this journal is not reputable?

How about the Journal of Plasma Physics?

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=449981&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0022377805004034

How about this journal?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-48PM2VX-1&_user=10&_origUdi=B6TGS-47C8N0P-B&_fmt=high&_coverDate=11%2F28%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=04f6e6a2b582642048256c370c32bccd

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=27155&arnumber=1206739&count=18&index=5

Or this one?

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193

Cecilman (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article

The scope of this article has expanded to beyond purely water fueled cars. It now also discusses the use of hydrogen as a supplement, the "gasoline pill", and hydrogen on demand technologies. So I'm if wondering either a name-change or a splitting off of sub articles is in order. The content of the article, regardless of title, seems, in my opinion, to hold together quit nicely, so I'm provisionally opposed to splitting. The hydrogen-on-demand stuff seems like the most obvious candidate to be split since unlike the rest of the stuff discussed, this technology doesn't violate the laws of nature, but it's so frequently misunderstood and confused with water-as-fuel cars, that I still think it makes the most sense to discuss it here. So I would argue for changing the name of the article to something like "water as fuel". Or I guess a third option--and I'm starting think this is my favorite--would be to leave the name alone and not split anything, but instead change the part of the LEAD that says "This article focuses on those cars or motors which purport to extract their energy directly from water" to something like "This article focuses on those cars or motors which purport to extract their energy directly from water and related devices, as well as technologically feasible systems which are frequently mislabeled as water fueled." Or something which gets at the expanded scope but is worded better than this. Thoughts? Yilloslime (t) 06:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think change you suggest is good, especially on clarifying the issue and agree with including the part on hydrogen as a supplement here, but think the pill additive stuff is really a separate topic. I also think there is a bit of dogma in the article. Clearly there are a lot of people that believe that have created a system whereby they can get more out of hydrogen than is put in. Sure, plenty say it violates the laws of thermodynamics and so it should say that, but there isn't really enough about why respected scientists and technicians and others believe they are observing something different.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 06:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cecilman (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think all you need to say is "This article focuses on those cars or motors which purport to extract their energy directly from water and related devices." The included devices are mentioned only because of their relationship to water fuel scams. I also prefer the idea of the title being "water as fuel" it covers the core issue. This way it doesn't matter if the water is powering a lawn mower or car. I think article is much improved and the recent edits have been good, keep up the excellent work Yilloslime.--OMCV (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Such a name would also alleviate the WP:ENGVAR cycles that the current title endures. --Athol Mullen (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

66.177.50.158 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

a word on neutrality

The wiki article does not take a neutral view on the available facts and opinion on various hydrogen-based plasmas reported to give off excess energy and display unusual properties. There has been considerable, published, peer-reviewed verifications of the phenomena despite the article suggesting such claims are scams and hoaxes.

One such example:

"A variety of experimental configurations have been employed to measure excess energy in low-pressure hydrogen gas/catalyst systems (Phillips, et al. 1996; Jansson, 1997; Mills, 2001). One of the recent experiments (Mills, 2001) will be described briefly here since the authors reported extremely high heat release (orders of magnitude greater than H2/O2 combustion) and the reported figures were used in preliminary calculations of BlackLight Rocket performance.

....

In a variety of experiments performed as part of the Phase I study, there was indeed a clear, repeatable difference (approximately 20 W) between measured power corresponding to water bath heating rates for control gases vs. H2/catalyst gases."

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/752Marchese.pdf

Note as well articles indicating the theory to explain the results of excess energy from hydrogen are controversial. The tendency is to dispute the theory, not the fact. The wiki article claims the fact is itself a hoax, but apparently reputable scientific publications take the same facts as credible and worth discussing.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/22820

http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2007/astp5-8-2007/bourgoinASTP5-8-2007.pdf

Cecilman (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2

The peer reviewed articles discuss theoretical energy states, these theoretical states are the extent of the 3rd party review I believe. Its a big jump from theoretical eigenstates to observed reality and an even further jump to applied technology. Thats irrelevant because your vexation belongs on the hydrino page. This will change when there is non-self published information on the observation that over-unity device can be built around hydrogen. However even if hydrogen has ground states lower than previously expected it just means the ground state needs reassigning. But that still doesn't meter here since it doesn't change any of the arguments on this page since none of them are based on the ground states of hydrogen. I could offer more arguments on the nature of a catalyst and Blacklight's application of the term but this isn't the place. When you come back with citations they should deal directly with an over-unity device, the subject matter of this page. In the mean time would you be interested in investing in a venture involving the developments I have made in cold fusion technology? Its based on hydrogen in a platinum lattice modeled by Blacklight's millsian.--OMCV (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to state it again, stick with the title and what it implies. Water Fuelled Car. Who claims to have built them? How do they operate? Where are they now? Good points are what is not a water fuelled car and the scientific evidence that they are hoax's and fraud. When someone builds a genuinely water fuelled/powered car and puts it out for scientific review, which means it can be duplicated and the results published, then it will be accepted. There is no reason not to satisfy the scientific community since patents are available that would protect the inventor while the tech is going through review. Patents don't prove anything works, but they do protect an inventor's interests. So far, the score is Science all, Water Fuelled Car zero.I55ere (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment:

T"he peer reviewed articles discuss theoretical energy states, these theoretical states are the extent of the 3rd party review I believe. Its a big jump from theoretical eigenstates to observed reality and an even further jump to applied technology. "

This is completely incorrect. The article discusses theoritical energy states in order to EXPLAIN OBSERVED LAB RESULTS. You guys are claiming such lab results, repeatedly published in peer-reviewed journals and independently verified, don't exist because in your world you mistakenly think obtaining energy from hydrogen in this manner is an over-unity device and a perpetual motion machine. It is not, and no one claims it is. You are just so confused as to what the claims are you misrepresent them in the article and fail to address the substance of what many credible people are saying and what has been published numerous times in peer-reviewed journals on the potential for hydrogen-based plasmas.

The sad thing is rather than take a neutral stance, you are violating wiki standards and insisting on characterizing using hydrogen-based plasmas in a manner opposite of what these published journals are saying. Regardless, one fact is clear. More energy is being produced from the hydrogen than from the catalyst used to induce the plasma. You need to change the article to reflect this fact instead of erreously insisting accomplishing that is equivalent to a perpetual motion machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just read all of the references that Cecilman puts forth. They are talking about a HIGHLY theoretical energy state of a relativistic hydrogen atom - the theory (according to other peer reviewed reports) is a result of a mathematical slip up - and the organization that's pushing it are developing rocket engines in a tiny engineering department of an almost unheard of private university. Please tell me how ANY of that has the slightest, remotest relationship to water powered cars? Hydrolysis? Anything? The jump from this to "You can run your car on water" is about as big as the jump from "Hello Kitty" to "The moon landings were a hoax". It's nothing whatever to do with this article - and even if it was, it's marginal theory that's hotly disputed from an organization with very little standing. Really, this is ridiculous. SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Euh! Steve. Meyer's patent claims for his "water fuel cell" are that it renders hydrogen, and then that it excites it into another stage (plasma perhaps)? --CyclePat (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, if you had read the articles, you would noted they are talking of the exact same thing, hydrogen-based plasmas. In fact, the 3 ways they indicate to make these plasmas are the exact methods the water-fuel car guys have said they use. They are all talking of the same fuel. The reason for the controversy on the hydrino is that the hypothesis of the hydrino is being offered as an explanation for why there is excess energy in the process. Frankly, if you genuinely think "it has nothing to do with this article", you should not be editting this article in any manner. Both are talking of water in the form of hydrogen plasmas as a potential for fuel. Sorry to break it to you, but no one is actually talking of using water in it's normal state as a fuel. That indeed would be foolish. What they are all talking about is the potential for water in a plasma state that does indeed "burn" and is not simply electrolysis in reverse.

Cecilman (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the part that you are mistaken with is that this article is about hydrogen as a fuel. It is not. It is about claims of cars that run on water. The Garrett carburetor claimed to do electrolysis at the point of intake. Stanley meyers claimed on demand hydrogen via a resonant form of electrolysis, which user:SteveBaker was observant enough to calculate that it produced 13,000 times too little hydrogen to get the job done. Aquygen claims to run a car on Browns gas (Just another form of electrolysis that does not separate the oxygen and hydrogen). Genepax claims to use some catalyst to separate water. Is there really a catalyst that will remove oxygen from water, leaving only hydrogen and not consume itself in the process? Otherwise it's a chemical reaction and water, therefore, is not the fuel. No one has claimed a plasma of any type. Companies such as Black Light Power have not claimed to put their systems in an automobile and present themselves on the evening news driving it around. All the pre-mentioned systems have. When the hype was over and level heads examined the claims and inventions, all of these water-fuelled cars didn't pass muster. There is neither an alternator or car battery that can support electrolysis at a level to sustain combustion in an ICE. The fuel and energy demands are too great of a load. That is the scope of this article.I55ere (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cecilman: I explicitly told you that I read all of those articles. The first thing in your reply is to say that I didn't read them. Please - don't call me a liar. I said I read them - I did read them. Carefully.

I agree entirely that those papers are talking about hydrogen plasma's - let's be sure we know what a "plasma" is: A plasma is the fourth state of matter vastly hotter than a gas. Please read Plasma (physics) if you are in any way doubtful of that. None - not ONE of the inventors named in out article was ever dumb enough to claim they were dealing with a plasma...much less a hydrogen plasma such as the BlackLight papers are talking about!! Their "fuel" is claimed to be water...NOT hydrogen. For them, hydrogen is a product not an input. You can watch countless videos of Meyers demonstrating his "water fuel cell" - there is no telltall blue glow anywhere in sight! It's a few bubbles drifting upwards from a set of copper electrodes with a car battery stuch across it. The energy required to convert liquid water into a plasma would be even higher than that needed to electrolyse liquid water! Besides - people like Meyers, Aquagen and Genepax are quite clearly saying that they claim to be splitting liquid water. You can go to the Genepax site and view a pretty animation that explains how they claim it work. There is no hydrino - no plasma - no half-quantum energy levels. Meyers made absolutely no secret of he claimed to be doing electrolysis - he merely claimed that by using some special electrical waveform that he could somehow break up water more easily. Ditto for Aquagen. They talk about resonance effects, "shattering" the water molecule. They talk about "magnecules" and other things that are nowhere mentioned in any of your references. You can read what each of those people said - in the references in our article - not a single one of them is talking about all of this stuff that BlackLight are going on about.

So, again, those references you offer are completely irrelevent to this article. Sorry.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think they are talking about hydrogen and plasmas or plasma-like states, then you haven't seriously looked into their claims or you aren't paying sufficient attention to edit this article and speak to it. Brown's gas, HHO, aquygen or whatever you want to call it is a plasma-like or plasma based on hydrogen and oxygen. It's a gas, not a water vapor. Sorry but your insistence that just because they use the word "water", they are talking of plain liquid water is absurd and silly. You know full well or should, that they are not talking of "water" in that respect. They are talking of a water gas that burns. It is noteworthy that Blacklight and others also use the word "water" in discussing their ideas on fuel. In fact, Blacklight lists the exact same mechanisms as ways to produce such a gas as the other people do, including using RF radiation and electrolysis.

As far as hydrogen, as an example, Denny Kline's home page on aquygen is titled:

"Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc."

To try to suggest they aren't talking about using hydrogen as a fuel but just "water" is frankly absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It incumbent in an encyclopedia article to report the claims accurately whether you think they are silly or not. Unfortunately, that's not occuring here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilman (talk • contribs) 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I for one have looked into what Brown's gas, HHO, aquygen etc are. Quite simply, it is a mixture of H2 (Hydrogen) and O2 (Oxygen) in a 2:1 ratio, which is the direct result of electrolysis of water without using a membrane to keep the products at the cathode and anode separate. They are in gaseous form as stable molecules. There is no plasma state involved, no unstable ions, nothing. If you burn that mixture, you'll get the same nominal quantity of energy out as was put in, which translates to less actual energy once you factor in efficiency. Simple primary school level science. --Athol Mullen (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's a gas form of water that's not water vapor, correct? How do you explain it's unusual properties such as seeming to know how to heat up automatically with substances when used as a torch. I am not in this business, for the record, but some 12 years or so ago, I did handle one of these torches and machines in a warehouse without anyone present that made or sold these machines and experimented with it, and it really does what they say. Without additional energy, for example, it reacts with whatever substance it comes into contact with to melt or sublimate it, including tungsten, which isn't that easy to do, and yet it seemed to to take no more energy for tungsten than steel. It was very strange in it's behaviour. I've looked for some scientific explanation for it's behaviour but have found nothing that's really been published and verifiable. Whether it's technically a plasma, or just something else?, it certainly behaves like a plasma. How would you characterize it?

Unless and until it's unusual properties are properly explored and tested, it seems foolish and erroneous to characterize claims it produces more energy than the energy to make it if one is taking a neutral stance, and certainly Blacklight's research supports the same claims, as they suggest the same methods for making this "plasma" or however one wishes to describe it.

Cecilman (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas is not "a gas form of water that's not water vapor". Electrolysis means that the atoms within the water molecules have been separated and recombined to convert that water into separate, different compounds. To say that they were simply a different form of water would be as invalid as saying that a piece of coal and oxygen from the air are a form of carbon dioxide. "HHO" gas can also be sourced from bottled gas, simply by mixing bottled hydrogen with bottled oxygen in a 2:1 ratio, as was done for some industrial applications before more modern techniques were developed that rendered this obsolete. Burning this gas mixture is not a great deal different to burning any other mixture of gaseous fuel (eg acetylene, propane, butane) and oxygen except for the temperature of the flame and the fact that the result is only water vapour whereas most others result in a mixture or carbon dioxide and water vapour in a ratio that is dependent upon the chemical compound. Just to be clear, there is no "plasma" involved in a simple mixture of stable gaseous chemical compounds. This is still basic primary school level science. --Athol Mullen (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm....

" plasma is the fourth state of matter vastly hotter than a gas."

Actually, plasmas don't have to be high temperature as is the case with non-equilibrium plasmas.

Cecilman (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you may wish to take a look at Meyer's water fuel cell which, if I recall correctly, one of his patents claims to excite the gas into a fourth stage. --CyclePat (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

None of this has to do with the article. Move on, nothing to see here. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"I dare to dif." So can you please explain before I spend time rebuting your aforementioned statement with inline references and citations. --CyclePat (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets see... the article is about water fueled cars. So something to do with the article would be to do with 'water fueled cars'. As in "I have this source that meets inclusion criteria for wikipedia and I'd like to include it in the article", not "hi I'd like to ramble on endlessly about some fringe science topic that might be related and can I cite a scan of a something an unaccredited scietist wrote on a napkin?" Take it to a user talk page. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent Discussion

I have created a new heading to re-emphasize the following point: You must use WP:RS/WP:CITE to provide evidence, and burden of proof is on those who assert WP:FRINGE. I would also like to remind Cecilman that though he is new, the editors here are assuming good faith and they should not be attacked for their diligent efforts in keeping this article within Wikipedia guidelines. Let's redirect this discussion with a civil tone. Thank you for all the hard work on this article. Fletch81 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline Pill

The section on the Gasoline pill is good, but it is followed by a Hydrogen on Demand section which goes into an explanation of Boron. The "gasoline Pill" was ultimately debaunked as in fact being Boron. The Hydrogen on Demand section should cover Stanley Meyers' Fuel Cell, Aguagen, Genepax, The Garrett Carb etc. I would like to move the part explaining Boron's reaction with water to the Gasoline Pill section.I55ere (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the gasoline pill could have been boron. It was claimed that you put this green pill into a tankful of water and it would transform it into a tankful of gasoline. This wasn't some kind of hydrogen generation system. It was debunked - but it couldn't have been a ball of boron...no way.

SteveBaker (talk)

Ya, I have doubts that it was elemental boron, too. I don't recall metallic boron reacting with water the way some other metals or certain compounds of boron do. (Certainly B + H2O is downhill thermodynamically, but kinetically, I think it's super slow.) Yilloslime (t) 04:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This source[5] (not sure about reliability), says is was naphthalene. Yilloslime (t) 04:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a few different scams. There was a naphthalene based fuel enhancement product called Bioperformance, while the gas pill referes to some kind of transmutative product. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep - when the Mythbusters were investigating a whole bunch of things people claim you can toss into the gas tank of a car to kill the engine, one of the suggestions they tried was moth-balls. They found that far from killing the engine, the mothballs actually made it run faster. Since the principle ingredient of mothballs is naphtha - this makes sense. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch - the cost of mothballs is guaranteed to be more than whatever savings you might get.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably got a few articles mixed up. I remember reading about the gasoline pill and then it was debunked in either Popular Mechanics or another popular science magazine. Instead of turning water into the fuel, it was proven that the pill was the fuel. The article went on to point out that the pill would have to contain the energy of a full tank of fuel to convert water to anything useful and be competitive with petrol pricing. Wouldn't mothballs be an octane booster at best and really only make a difference in high compression engines, if at all?I55ere (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

Blacklight has come up, admittedly by me, on several topics here in discussion. I pointed out they and others have published specific results to back up their claims of excess energy, and several tenured professors have reviewed their experiments in person and found excess energy to be real and apparent. In the literature, these results of excess heat and energy have generally not been challenged, as far as I can tell, but rather the theory behind how these results has been challenged and is not generally accepted. Personally, I think there is no rational alternative but to either accept the data the scientists at Blacklight confirming excess energy or they are bald-faced lying. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence of someone replicating without success their efforts and so charging them with lying, creating a scam or hoax, is in my opinion slanderous and potentially libelous.

That being said, that doesn't mean it isn't a hoax. It's just considering that these are reputable scientists working there and reputable scientists reviewing the work, usually as skeptics, it's hard to say they are just mistaken somehow or something like that. The more controversial issue in some respects is the theory they espouse to explain the results, which is a different topic.

Some have stated they don't see Blacklight as relevant to this discussion. However, their description of the process bears resemblance to the claims of the water-fuelled car guys.

"The hydrogen fuel is obtained by diverting a fraction of the output energy of the process to power the electrolysis of water into its elemental constituents. With water as the fuel, the operational cost of BlackLight Power generators will be very inexpensive."

http://www.blacklightpower.com/applications.shtml#Power

Clearly, they too consider "water as the fuel" despite both Blacklight and the water-fuel car guys actually using hydrogen in some form or another as the fuel.

I offered this post to hopefully clear up some confusion on the claims of water as fuel by these groups. They really mean hydrogen but use the word "water" since water is where they get the hydrogen from. Hope that helps.

Cecilman (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless they have a automobile application (and they don't) they're irrelevent to this page. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest clue about black light but if there is the slightest correlation, such as the reference to the laws of thermodynamics, then I think it is relevant. Please let us be reminded that Wikipedia is based on the principals of an encyclopedia. Etymologically, encyclopedia means "cyclo" which means "circular". In fact etymonline.com defines it "from enkyklios "circular," also "general" (from en- "in" + kyklos "circle") + paideia "education, child-rearing," from pais (gen. paidos) "child". Your opinion is quite erroneous. In fact, like a child, I understood the metaphor and found the inferred correlation quite relevant to the subject mater. For example: Speaking metaphorically, and even scientifically, everything comes from the sun. If this philosophy is prevalently notable within a subject matter, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. This correlation of black light power, if properly referenced, will help create a circularity. To finish, perhaps a little off topic, ultimately, I believe one should be able to continue clicking around in circles and like a child enjoy the educational process of reading! Hence... relevant. --CyclePat (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the question you may be asking, is : is this a notable subject. Perhaps you meant to say this lack sufficient notability for inclusion in the water car article? --CyclePat (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, no one other than certain commenters on this talk page has ever (to my knowledge) invoked hydrinos/Black light theory as an explanation for a purported water-fuelled car. Even more, no one, other than certain commenters on this talk page, has ever even suggested that blacklight technology could be utilized in some future water fuelled vehicle. Therefore, it would violate WP's policy on original research to include a mention of Blacklight Power in this article. Yilloslime (t) 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The fuel for water-fuelled cars and water for fuel-cells or power plants via Blacklight's stuff is the same fuel. So of course it is relevant. The article says there is no credible science behind this "fuel" but Blacklight shows there is peer-reviewed science backing up these claims. You can argue the peer-reviewed science and other scientific verifications of excess energy must be wrong because, in your view, they violate thermodynamic laws, but you cannot just willy-nilly dismiss it as a hoax or fringe when there is such evidence presented. Say it's not accepted by most scientists (if true) but you cannot just say it isn't supported by valid scientific means and analysis. Of course, more testing and so forth could indicate the initial papers, some 60 of them, and others that think they are getting excess energy from water (hydrogen) are wrong, but to categorically just present one side and pretend there is no valid science behind the fuel is wrong. Wiki suppossed to be a neutral site, not an advocacy site. The article should reflect the views of the scientists and others that have put a theory and devices on the table and what they have done to validate their ideas instead of solely presenting the critics' arguments.

Cecilman (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant in your opinion or analysis...you are the one making the connection between "blacklight power" and "water-fuelled car", either seeing a commonality or a potential application of "water as a fuel". But neither the common aspect nor the realm of potential applications are what this article is about. So we have material that is not directly on the topic. Further, you need an actual WP:RS WP:CITE linking it to the topic at hand, lest you be engaging in WP:SYN. DMacks (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cecil: We're not really getting anywhere, so let's try a different approach. Why don't you make a concrete proposal for bringing BlackLight Power/Hydrinos into the article. Propose a paragraph to add somewhere, or suggest how to reword an existing section differently. Just make a new section on this talk page, name it "Proposed section" or something like that, and float your proposal. Then we can talk about it. This general discussion of BlackLight that you've been pursuing lately hasn't convincing me nor any of the other editors of this page, so it's time for you to drop it. Yilloslime (t) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment moved from Talk:Water-fuelled car/Comments

I found the following comment over at Talk:Water-fuelled car/Comments, which i've just WP:SPEEDYed. Yilloslime (t) 06:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd rate this about a 1 on a 1-10 scale because it includes citations which state the exact opposite of what the author claims they state. For example, consider this quote from the article:

"A number of well-known chemical compounds combine with water to release hydrogen, but in all cases the energy required to produce such compounds exceeds the energy obtained reacting them with water.[37][38][39]"

Unfortunately as far as accuracy is concerned, citations 37, 38, and 39 claim the opposite of what they are suppossed to. 2 of them are from companies discussing their claims they have developed a process whereby water can be used as an efficient fuel via extracting hydrogen on-site in automobiles, and another is a New Scientist article supportive of the idea. None claim the amount of energy to extract hydrogen by these particular processes exceed the amount of energy that can be obtained from burning the extracted hydrogen as a fuel. In fact, it would be ludicrous for these companies and New Scientist to discuss such alternatives as feasible if that was the case.

The fact the author has shown such an inability to check his own citations is very telling, in my opinion, and seems to demonstrate a lack of informative value except perhaps as an example of disinformation though it could just be simple ignorance or laxness in citation.

I would like to see some explanation for these discrepancies since it appears the citations actually contradict this central claim by the author in trying to discredit the efficiency of water as an alternative fuel.

Cecilman (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"A number of well-known chemical compounds combine with water to release hydrogen, but in all cases the energy required to produce such compounds exceeds the energy obtained reacting them with water.[37][38][39]" The fact that it as a chemical compound reacting with water and releasing the hydrogen should make it obvious that the compound is the fuel. It is being used up in the process and must be replenished or replaced. There are certain metal-hydrides that do react with water and produce hydrogen. They in turn can be returned to a metal-hydride state, but it requires more energy than what is obtained from the hydrogen. Sure, you could link solar or wind power into the equation, but the outcome would be a long way around to a solar or wind powered car. Water is not the fuel. Hydrogen is not the fuel, it is being used as a battery in this situation. Whatever is being used to power the conversion is the fuel, and with today's power generation systems, you would most likely have a coal, natural gas, oil, solar, wind powered car. It is not water powered. Ran by water. No chemicals, no additives, just plain old water. It doesn't happen. If it were so easy, it would have been figured out long ago. Thousands of scientists have been working on alternate fuels for over 70 years. Water doesn't/can't cut it as a fuel. When Black Light Energy hooks their system up to an automobile and runs it from water alone, then it will be worthy of inclusion in this article. So far, they haven't. They haven't even made the claim and as such have no place in an article about Water Fuelled Cars.I55ere (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed system

Here`s an interesting concept! http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4243793.html --CyclePat (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it differs from a peltier device run backwards. If you heat one side of a peltier device (and keep the other side cooler) - it generates a voltage. This is Pyroelectricity and we've known about it for decades. At any rate, it's nothing to do with water fuelled cars. SteveBaker (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does this car fit in?

Where can we fit this Japanese car in the Water-fuelled car article?--Geremia (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already covered in this section. Yilloslime (t) 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition: partially water fuelled or fully water-fuelled?

I tried to restate the definition to include the car modifications that use energy from the car's battery to electrolisize water, then uses the hydrogen to create energy to run the car. User:Yilloslime undid my revision implying that water-fuelled cars run on water, and water alone. He felt "with no other energy input" was important to have in the definition.

I just want to clarify, is a water-fueled car a car that is *only* run on water? Because most (if not all) of this article talks about gasoline car modifications and scams. One rhetorical question: Is a hybrid vehicle an "electrically-fueled car", or do only pure electric cars fit that description? Any comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya agree that this article is a little schizophrenic and potentially problematic, and that's why I had started a thread about this ealier: Talk:Water-fuelled_car#The_scope_of_this_article. Basically, the way I conceptualize this article, is that it's about both purely water-fuelled cars as well as related scams like Hydrogen as a supplement, the Gasoline pill and related additives, and Hydrogen on demand technologies. For the purpose of this article, the term "water-fuelled car" has been defined as a car that derives it's energy exclusively from water. And we talk about these other devices/scam here only because it seems like the most logical place, even though they're not, strictly speaking, purely water fuelled. So anyways, yes, I think the intro of the article could be improved, but I don't think changing the definition of the term "water-fuelled car" is the way to go. Yilloslime (t) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is about vehicles powered purely by energy extracted from water. A thermodynamic impossibility. The use of the car battery to electrolyse the water is covered by this in that, if the battery is supposed to be charged by the engine running on the hydrogen evolved from electrolysis, we still have no energy source except the mythical ability to extract energy from the water. I think that an important function of this article is to explain the distinction between this and other arrangements that can actually physically work (albeit inefficiently), such as by using oxidation of refined metal as the true energy source. The way I see it, watering the concept down to "partially" water fuelled blurs the distinction between the physically impossible and the possible but inefficient. --Athol Mullen (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Extracting any energy from water violates the laws of thermodynamics. Although a number of scams are perpetrated by cars that are "water hybrids", the fact is if you can "partially fuel" a car with water, there is no reason you can't fully fuel it, and if someone claims there is, it's a pretty good sign they're lying to you. Adding the part about "partially fueled" cars blurs the line with hydrogen injection systems.Prebys (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Extracting any energy from water violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Wrong. Think fusion.

OK, I should have said chemical energy. I have, in fact, pointed this out myself in threads, so I shouldn't complain. However, I know of no water fueled car that claims to run on fusion.Prebys (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And this exact point is already made in the article, so I think this discussion is moot. Yilloslime (t) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We have one of two choices. We either need to split this article into two (water-only vs hydrogen-as-supplement) OR we need to change the definition. I can't think of any other way to solve this problem. Its obviously not correct to talk about the hydrogen-as-supplement ideas if this article is about vehciles fueled by water-only. Which choice should we make? Fresheneesz (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not wrong. Fusion of specific isotopes of hydrogen will evolve energy in a one-way process, and hydrogen is a constituent of water, but as has already been discussed on this talk page (and can be found in archive 1), highly refined hydrogen isotopes does not equal water.

Hydrogen fuel that occurs within a closed cycle that starts and ends with water molecules is clearly within the definition of trying to extract energy from water in contravention of the laws of thermodynamics. Introduce a separate energy source that leads to the production of hydrogen that is then burnt in the engine and you have an entirely different story. I believe that what has been done in this article is to differentiate between the thermodynamically impossible and the possible. --Athol Mullen (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm *very* sorry I even mentioned fusion. My little statement about that was simply to correct a poorly worded sentence, and not to start an arguement about something we all agree on.

However, I'd like to ask: Do all of you think that information about "partially-water-fuelled" vehicles belongs on a page about "fully-water-fuelled" vehicles? At very least, I would like the distinction between the impossible and the merely-stupid to *both* have separate definitions in this article. Would anyone object to me creating a second definition for the vehicles of the second category? Fresheneesz (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The tricky problem with 'partly' water-fuelled cars is that many (but not all) of the 'hydrogen-supplement' people really ARE claiming to get energy from the water. We are on a tricky slope here. We really don't want to muddy the message that "There is no energy in water - period" - so we don't want to slip into talking about hydrogen (or water spray) enhancement of gasoline engines where the hydrogen/water is claimed to improve the efficiency of gasoline burning. Such systems are possible in principle (but not much in practice) - but they DON'T EXTRACT ENERGY FROM THE WATER. So I'd prefer to keep that version of the explanation for the jam-jar-and-two-bolts scam firmly out of the article. However, when the jam-jar-and-two-bolts guys stray over the line to claiming that they are indeed extracting energy from the water - then we can legitimately say that the car is "Water fuelled" - even if only partially. So if we do want to talk about those things, we have to be super-cautious not to open the floodgates to things that can horribly confuse the message. Talking about fusion power here is completely out of the question - nobody is claiming they have fusion driving their cars - and nobody will until we have huge industrial fusion plants running routinely. Those things don't run on water anyway. So again, there is zero benefit to pedantically muddying the water by talking about fusion power. If we're being super-pedantic then we should point out that many of the "Water fuelled cars" described here (Meyer's dune buggy for example) do not fit the dictionary definition of a "car" anyway and we should talk about "Water fuelled vehicles" or just "Energy from water" as a general topic. It's only because (WITHOUT FAIL!) the free energy nuts are somehow mesmerized by the car as the subject of their experiments rather than figuring how to use these (supposedly) amazing technologies to build power stations. SteveBaker (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. And thus I'd like to propose that we rename this article "Water-fuelled vehicles" or "Water as fuel". I'd also like to propose we split the article into two articles: one being the aforementioned change of name, the second being "Partially-water fuelled vehicles". Comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the comment below very telling.

"We really don't want to muddy the message that "There is no energy in water - period" "

Sounds more like an advocacy approach, not an objective, informative one.

Refs disappeared.. but are still on wiki-side

I just made a minor edit to the definition.. and the references that I left in place on the wiki-side are nowhere to be found in the new edit of the article... I'm not sure why this would be, but it looks like a bug of some sort. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure what you're talking about--all the refs seem to be where they were. Can you be more specific? Yilloslime (t) 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs 3, 4, 5, and 6 at the very end of the first paragraph. Looking through the history of this page, some edits have those refs shown, and some do not. The last edit where they were shown was your last edit Yilloslime. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it--they're still there, aren't they? Yilloslime (t) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its just my browser... Fresheneesz (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

info about partially-water fuelled cars

I added the following content to the introduction: Some cars are claimed to be partially water-fuelled or have claims of increasing efficiency by extracting energy from water (for example using the car's battery to perform hydrolysis).

It was reverted for reason of "not saying what it means to say" and without a source. First of all, that information is simply a summary of part of the rest of the article. For example: 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. and selling plans for do-it-yourself electrolysers or entire kits with the promise of large improvements in fuel efficiency

The article *still* doesn't have anything in the introduction that introduces hydrogen as a supplement at all. It is completely ridiculous that I can't get a simple sentence into the intro that covers this inconsistency. Let me put it back in *please*. Fresheneesz (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence in the LEAD, "This article focuses on vehicles which claim to extract chemical energy directly from water..." gets at it. I'm not convinced that we need to explicitly introduce the idea of partially water-fuelled cars any further at that point in the article. Yilloslime (t) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because your sentence sounded like an apologetic trying to get around the first law issue by saying that some cars only get some energy from water. I decided that either the sentence was making unsupportable claims (and should be reverted), or it was worded in such a way that the intended meaning was not conveyed (and should be reverted). - Eldereft (cont.) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Partially water fueled" is a confusing term in that it implies that a car gets some its energy from the water. Getting any energy from the water would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Also, if you can get any energy from water, there is no reason you can't get all your energy from water. Techniques such as water injection and hydrogen injection use water to increase the efficiency of ordinary combustion. While these techniques are often dramatically overrated, there is nothing about the concept that necessarily violates any physical laws. These things already have extensive articles of their own, and are explicitly excluded from this article in the second section ("Water fueled cars are NOT").Prebys (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion may come from the fact that water can perform work. Perhaps people view such things as water injection as being a fuel. Some people may believe (mistakenly) that water in a steam engine is a fuel. Would it be appropriate to put in either a link or a brief explanation that although water can perform work, it is not the actual fuel of the process?I55ere (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement I added was not trying to posit that some cars are partially fuelled by water - only that some cars are *claimed* to be partially fuelled by water. This is exactly analogous to talking about cars that claim to be *fully* fuelled by water. I don't understand why you are confused: "a confusing term in that it implies that a car gets some its energy from the water". Its not confusing, it means exactly what you think it does - and it is indeed against the laws of physics. So REPORT that, but i'm tired of my statements being removed because you're confused. If you're confused reword it, don't remove it. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not confused. The statement as worded is confusing to potential readers who have no idea that "partially fuelled" and "fully fuelled" are synonymous. Both terms imply that there is a surplus of energy in water that can be tapped to fuel an automobile. That is not the case. The statement should lead to this obvious conclusion. Using hydrogen as a supplement is not using water as a fuel and departs the boundaries of this article.I55ere (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking. "partially fuelled" and "fully fuelled" are *different*. Thats exactly the intention I had in writing about partially fuelled vehicles. A vehicle that puts water in its tank and claims to run solely on that is *FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT* from cars that create hydrogen from their batteries, then use the hydrogen as a supplement. Do you disagree with this? Fresheneesz (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are trying to argue that this article is about claims of gaining energy from water. And I agree with you. However, when you talk about "fully water fuelled" cars, the very clear fraud cases that use the car's battery to create hydrogen supplement are not included in "fully". However, they are cases where energy is claimed to be deriven from water. I think we need to reconcile this confusion. The terms you use is confusing to *me* and thus i'm certain its confusing to others as well. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Indent reset. When I say partially fuelled and fully fuelled are synonomous, my intent is...that if a vehicle can gain energy from water partially, what is stopping it from getting all of its energy from water? Where is the line of demarkation that cannot be passed? At what point would I go from gaining energy to losing energy using a "partially fuelled" process if I were to decrease the conventional fuel and increase the "fuel/energy" obtained from water? Fresheneesz idea might be explorable, the net result would reveal the same type of scams and misinformation about chemistry and physics that allow water fuelled vehicle claims to exist. Using hydrogen as a supplement may be viable, but using the alternator or onboard battery to perform electrolysis will not create energy gains.I55ere (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasted energy from alternator

I think this edit (which was reverted by DMack), and though it lacks some sources or reference and borders WP:OR, has an excellent POV which, if possible should be represented within this article. --CyclePat (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, my friend Darin Cosgrove and his website on hypermilling may shed some light on this subject. During our last meeting he explained how he disconnected his alternator to save on fuel. Even with the extra batteries which he lugs behind his driver's seat, this saved him an enormous amount of energy. Similar to the aformentioned edit, recovering this "lost energy" (be via electrolysis) (or in the case of Mr. Cosgrove, not wasting it in the first place) can increase your milleage and reduce fuel consumption. --CyclePat (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Recovering wasted energy has no intrinsic connection to "water as a fuel". Using water-electrolysis or similar is just energy storage, no different (or at least not better, except in terms of efficiency) than a battery. "Electrolyze water then burn it" is just using the electrolysis products (whatever they are) as a storage medium. However, the fuel-efficiency savings is in the reduced friction and other inefficiencies in the alternator itself. If you add a load (electrolyzer, battery-charger, whatever), you will not suddenly regain any of that lost efficiency. You will actually lose MPG as extra fuel must be consumed in order to overcome mechanical losses of the alternator and also charge the battery. It's already been discussed: in an ideal world, it takes exactly as much additional energy input on a generator as the energy output collected, and as usual, the world isn't even ideal. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with your first statement, however I believe you are forgetting 1 important element... we are talking about "water-fuelled cars" not "water as fuel". Obviously there is no link between recovering energy for creating "water fuel" unless there is a "car" or some primary source of energy involved within the equation. Hence, I believe there is a link between the recovery of wasted energy (from the atlernator of the car) and "water-fuelled cars". Furtheremore, I put it to you that the even though there may be some losses along the way, that there are moments, for example when the vehicle is sitting idle and the battery is fully charged, that the alternator is in fact wasting energy (or creating to much). So I disagree. But, in the end, we seem to agree. This is simply a storage of energy. Your economic argument, input vs. out-put, and "extra load" argument appears to be a weak argument for excluding this relevant information. In fact, I believe, it helps substantiate it's inclusion from the fact that others have in fact "peer reviewed" the idea. Hence, we could easily present various WP:POV's on the subject. Again, per my Cosgrove's example, let's assume you have no alternator, are carrying extra batteries. You will save. Let's assume you can reduce energy loss by turning off your alternator when it's not needed with a special cut-off switch. You save there too. Let's assume, you can't turn off your alternator and it always runs... once your vehicle is at peak level (charged batteries, etc.) you are lossing wasting energy by using the alternator. Some energy which would have been used to charge your battery could be used to create hydrogen, and, I believe, though there may be some issues on efficiency, there are many good argument which support this idea. In fact, you said it yourself "it takes exactly as much additional energy input on a generator as the energy output collected."... the important element, which I'm trying to highlight, is the inherent ineficiency of the vehicle and how this technology "allegedly" takes advantage of recovery the "lost energy". Hence, I believe the idea should be properly presented and discussed within the article. After all, we do agree that there is an interest in this right? --CyclePat (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that alternators are not 100% efficient has nothing to do with the hypothetical, and thermodynamically impossible, use of water as fuel and has no place in this artcle. Man with two legs (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No one really arguing about whether there is loss or gain of energy (or as you would like to try and claim, that, if the system was completely, close it would violated the laws of thermodynamics). You are free to add that information and I believe it is already within the article. In fact, I believe, that in most circumstances there would most likely be a loss of energy if an electrolyser device was installed onto a conventional ICE automobile... and ultimatelly got it's power from the alternator. In fact I just learned today that the Accura has an environment/conservation system which stops the alternator from wasting energy (fuel), by dissengaging the latter when the vehicle is opperated in low RPM. That means, if you do as my friend John Ford explained today... "Much hypermilling and low RPM driving, made my battery low." He also said he now "charges his car battery up with a convential plug-in the wall charger." (He's got a true plug-in hybrid? just kidding) Anyways, the more we talk about this, the more I believe there is a link between this supposed "loss of energy" (from alternators) and the idea that a device such as a water electrolyser which would be hooked in series with a fuel line may not necessarily create a gain of energy. In fact one person from Transport Canada had mentioned that the increase (if any) is minimal, maybe 1% (after you do the averages). So argue, all you want about thermodynamics but I believe this is a valid POV which should be equaly represented within the article (of course only if we find "reliable sources"). Since, you have not specifically addressed this issue, I will assume that my logic (which I believe concurs with wikipedia's policies, is sound and should the day arrive that there are reliable source that the facts should be properly presented within this article. --CyclePat (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Still wrong. It does not matter how you disguise the facts by introducing confusing details, it remains the case that you can't get energy from fiddling with water other than by nuclear fusion no matter what you do. Every attempt to avoid that fact reduces to a perpetual motion machine, and they don't exist. Get real. Man with two legs (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Man with two legs, could you please refrain from commenting on my methodology of work. ie.: "...doesn't matter how you disguise the fact." Also, could you please avoid insinuating and attacking comments such as "get real", which leave the reader of this talk page believing that I may in fact believe in these (or this) device(s). The only agenda I have is to work within the scope of WP:NPOV, which, in my view, is a fundamental rights (or rule) which should be respected here at Wikipedia. We are after all working on the same article and trying to present something which represent to views of everyone. right? No matter the case, there is obviously a miss-understanding here. You have indicated that you believe the facts to be confusing details. I disagree. But first I will refute your statement regarding energy from water (see Water power engine) and the ability to obtain hydroelectricity via kinetic energy and the Potential energy of water (see next section discussion below). Yes! Point taken that nuclear means (or burning fuel) is obviously the theme of this article but this has really nothing to do with proper presentation of POVs.

So, I will re-state what I did in the previous paragraphs. All I'm saying is that this is an issue of WP:POV. I believe we should take care to present equal POVs which are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. As I state on my user page: "In The Globe and mail on February 20th 2006 at page A14 in the Section of Social Studies, sub-section A daily miscellany of Information, Micheal Kesteron cited Harold Geneen in his Though du jour and stated:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

In short "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at Wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy."

Failing to present the prevailing POVs, for example, the fact that "so and so" or that "many websites" believe that this is a functioning device is truly arbitrary. (In this case I'm talking about all the crackpots that believe this device works... which is a fairly substantial minority, if not even a majority). My small (solo) belief, that an alternator wastes energy, is obviously a POV. I shall dub it as the "alternator theory". (electrolysis of water using the alternator of an ICE vehicle). Obviously, we're not going to include any information on the "alternator theory" if it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion according to WP:NPOV. So, prior to doing extensive research, formatting references, etc. for who, what, etc. I just wanted to see if there were any arguments or opinions regarding this POV. Do you see this as being:

• a viewpoint held by a significant minority, with easy to name prominent adherents; or
• a viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, (which hence, according NPOV rules, wouldn't belong in "Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." ?

Since you appear to have some expert knowledge on this subject, perhaps you could help us better understand which parties you believe hold the majority POV on the subject of "Water-fuelled cars"? (Remember; a majority POV should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.) Is the fact that people believed this is a perpetual motion machine the prevailing POV? I would tend to say yes... I AGREE WITH YOU.. and this is based on the status quo of the article. Does the alternator theory currently pass the majority test? I would say it currently does not. I also believe that the alternator theory would most likely fall, if we find reliable sources, within the minority POV. The big thing here is if we find reliable sources. In short, right now without sources, we can’t tell. Or, I can’t tell. So the big question, since you (and some others here) appear to have some background knowledge in this matter: (since I don’t want to waste to much time doing research) ‘’’Do you believe there are sufficient reliable resources for the alternator theory’’’ to make this a POV which is prominently adherent for this article? I would like to know this so we can continue to productively work at building this article (or if necessary some ancillary article or the subject matter). Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept that I probably should have omitted the "get real" but the key point here is that the schemes for reducing the inefficiency of a car alternator, while potentially useful as a way of saving small amounts of fuel, have nothing to do with the use of water as a fuel irrespective of how that reduction is achieved. This point is made in more than one place in the discussions above. If one did want to reduce alternator losses, doing it by using any spare current to generate hydrogen would be inherently less efficient than just using a better alternator because an alternator can have near 100% efficiency while a hydrogen burning engine cannot.

The point about disguising the facts is that a complicated scheme such as this one involving the alternator takes attention off one highly relevant hard fact: all water-fuelled cars would violate the laws of thermodynamics if they worked.

There is a case for including this in the article, along with a refutation, if there is a commercial organisation promoting this idea and claiming it as a use of water as fuel.

Man with two legs (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar to the aformentioned edit, recovering this "lost energy" (be via electrolysis) (or in the case of Mr. Cosgrove, not wasting it in the first place) can increase your milleage and reduce fuel consumption. --CyclePat (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No - it can't. Cosgroves thing is a TOTALLY different matter than this bogus nonsense about "wasted electricity" somehow coming out of the alternator. This is absolutely typical fuzzy thinking.

CyclePat says: "In fact, my friend Darin Cosgrove and his website on hypermilling may shed some light on this subject. During our last meeting he explained how he disconnected his alternator to save on fuel. Even with the extra batteries which he lugs behind his driver's seat, this saved him an enormous amount of energy." - the problem is that the guy is NOT saving energy - he's saving fuel - which is not at all the same thing. In a conventional car, the battery is run down because it powers various electronics, the sparks for the sparkplugs, the cars computer, etc - the alternator recharges it. If you disconnect the alternator, you'll save fuel, yes - but you're not saving ENERGY because the battery is simply running down and eventually, the car will stop running (even though it has plenty of fuel) because the battery will no longer be able to produce a spark. That's why he needs more batteries than normal. But he's not saving energy because he has to recharge all of those batteries at some point. It's possible that recharging the batteries from (for example) mains electricity is cheaper than recharging it using the alternator - but it's hardly a general-purpose solution.

Hypermilers are only interested in their bottom-line 'miles per gallon' number - which he can obviously improve by disconnecting his alternator. But if he thinks he's saving energy, he's under a severe misapprehension. But if discharging batteries as you drive is an "allowed" trick in hypermiling - why not drive a plug-in-hybrid and get infinite miles per gallon (until the batteries run down)...that's exactly the same thing as disconnecting your alternator and saving gas 'until the batteries run down'.

At any rate, none of this has ANY bearing on the argument about hydrolysis units. The (idiot) proponents of those things claim that the alternator produces more electricity than the battery requires for recharging and therefore there is "spare" or "unused" electricity for doing hydrolysis that would otherwise be "wasted". That's emphatically not true - the amount of effort it takes the engine to turn the alternator depends on the amount of electricity the alternator produces. So if you're charging the battery AND doing hydrolysis then the alternator will be harder to turn than if it's only charging the battery. Hence the engine uses more energy to turn the alternator - and (because nothing is ever 100% efficient) it'll waste more energy in doing so than the hydrogen you'd produce could possibly generate. The idea that a generator produces "spare" electricity is a complete misunderstanding of how electrical circuits work! That's an error of monumental proportions and shows a total lack of understanding of basic electrical principles.

So the Cosgrove/hypermiler thing is (a) nothing amazing and (b) irrelevent to this article. The hydrolysis-using-spare-electricity is just plain delusional.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Water fueled cars

Technically, anyone who owns an electric car could be using a "water fueled car". My friend Allan Poulsen and his sparky Electric vehicle runs on wind power. He utilizes Bullfrog Power and specifically pays for wind generate electricity. Similarly, anyone runing an electric vehicle could "fuel" it with electricity generated via hydroelectricity. A Water power engine (the new article I created) demonstrates that "prime movers can be driven by water". In turn this can be transformed into energy. The definition of "fuel", according to our wikipedia article, is "any material that is burned or altered in order to obtain energy. I know, I know, you're going to say that I'm being ignorant to the "combustion part" or the "chemical reaction", but you must admit, it is a valiant effort. Similar to gasoline, water is often stored, in big dams, for later use to pass through water turbines. A water turbine is a type of water power engine. If you take a look at this definition it says fuel is a type "A type of energy or fuel used by the household. Electricity is included as a fuel."[6]. Where should the line be drawn, between kinetic energy, fuel, water and it's Working fluid? Anyways, just food for thought, or should I say fuel for thought?

No, completely wrong. This article is about cars that claim to get energy from water by some weird chemical or electrical process. Not at all the same thing as wind power (where power comes from the wind, strangely enough) or hydroelectric power which comes from falling weight and does not gain energy from doing something to the water other than dropping it. Man with two legs (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydroelectricity is not using water as a fuel. It is the flow of water that spins the turbines, thus gravity is doing the work. For all intents and purposes, this would be a very long way around to being a solar powered car when the water cycle is carried to its ultimnate conclusion. It is a try, but not even concievable for an article on water fuelled cars.208.242.58.125 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

lol. Well, I figured it might lighten the mood (hey! Pun not originally intended there) and send a chuckle. I hope it did! :) b.t.w.: Good one! I really didn't think of the solar energy... making the atmosphere! Let's not forget the about planetary, gravitational pull (the moon), and Jupiter vs. Mars... we may need to contact the Astrology and compare with the astronomy experts for this one! LOL! (sigh)(Oh! It's good when I can laught about how silly I sound) --CyclePat (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)