Talk:Water-fuelled car

Please add new comments to the BOTTOM of the page.

Sourcing and thermodynamics

I have removed again the material regarding the "violation of the laws of thermodynamics." The reference used in this circumstance did not explicitly state that all, let alone most, water cars violate these laws. Please find a better reference. There is however no denial that this reference could be used somewhere further down to support the fact that this author has a belief that water fuel cars are "rubish". Or that this article has brough upon much discussion, in particular some of which pertain to third party, (non-reputable sources), regarding the laws of thermodynamics. Again, the article/reference in question does not specifically state that water cars are a violation. The sentence I removed did state this. The wikipedia article was stating however that it does and hence contradicts the article/reference being used to substantiate the fact. That sentence is plain wrong and requires another reference if we want to state this "fact". --CyclePat (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No - the sentence is absolutely 100% correct - your complaint is with how it's referenced - not whether it's true or not. Well, here is the quote from the reference:

Problem: It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics haven’t changed, in spite of any hype you read on some blog or news aggregator. Subtract the losses to heat in the engine and alternator and electrolysis cell, and you’re losing energy, not gaining it—period."

That's not a statement that's unique to any one specific water fuelled car - it applies to all of them. This is plenty good enough to back up a solid, mainstream scientific principle - which really wouldn't need a reference in any other article because it's really beyond dispute in any rational field of study. However, in this article it really benefits from SOME kind of reference - and this is it. Unless you have a reliable reference that shows that there is a car somewhere that runs on water and yet somehow (how?!) doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics - then this reference seems OK to me. We could wish for a better reference - but WP:FRINGE only requires that we have 'parity' of references - and this reference says you can't run on water without violating thermodynamics. So it backs up what we say in the article...which is mainstream scientific theory anyway. Truly - if you want to dispute that sentence the onus is on you to come up with a reference that's at least as good as that one that says that you CAN run on water without violating thermodynamics.

Conclusion: This is a true statement and it's backed up with a reference that says the right thing. You have no business deleting it. By all means delete highly disputable statements with poor reference - or perhaps true statements that are being disputed by the fringe theorists that have no references. But this is a true statement and it really doesn't need much backup.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That reference state: "Problem: It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell." It also states that the author believes electrolysis is being used in the Genepax. Finally, that reference states "The laws of thermodynamics haven’t changed, in spite of any hype you read on some blog or news aggregator." It doesn't say that the process of running a car violates the laws of thermodynamics. The author also believes that there are heat loses and that these vehicles uses alternators... Is he talking about the same vehicle, the Genepax when he states "Subtract the losses to heat in the engine and alternator and electrolysis cell, and you’re losing energy, not gaining it—period." Something seems wrong if he uses the term engine... the Genepax vehicles uses the WES system. "The system uses no fossil fuel or non-fossil energy in the process of producing electricity and heat from water."[2] We need to clearly show that there is a contradiction in these POVs. (I'm also left to believe that the Genepax, from what I've heard in video news reports, uses an electric motor and not an engine (if there's any difference). Anyways, these discrepencies leave me to believe the author may have been talking about some other type of vehicle or that his analysis was wrong. Has this been peer-reviewed? No matter the case... if we add the term electrolysis, I'm not sure, but maybe it could helps us arrive at a concensus? Nevertheless there is still a problem is he talking about Genepax car... if so, then why didn't the author simply make it clear and say the "Genepax car violates the laws of thermodynamics". I think the author tried to cover his ass just in case his first assumption is wrong. In fact the Genepax appears to use a water to water WES Stack structure and not an electrolitic cell. Nothing on it's entire website state electrolysis. (Google has no hits for the term). Hence, I put it to you that this article is not entirely relevant. It should not be used in the intro because of it's potential to mislead. It has a valid POV shared by the general population, that should however try to be properly presented, but only further down within the appropriate sections dealing with electrolysis. The Genepax according to the creators website does not appear to use electrolysis. Therefore, we are stuck to either removed the Genepax from this article or remove this sentence.--CyclePat (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I must however concede, you do make a valid point. I'll put the article back as it was for now. Or instead try to add, instead of remove material. --CyclePat (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you've done that already and on top of that, added some new references. If they stand up to what they say, then I think you've added a good reference. I'll check them out. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to my own statement in removing the Genepax... maybe not... maybe we should believe the reference you've provide and keep it in this article. I think that would be a more logical way to proceed. However, this same reference should be used in the Genepax section to explain why. I'll read through this again. Sorry, if this is getting confussing. --CyclePat (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious to know if you think any energy comes out of the Genepax WES Stack structure. I'm more curious to see if you can describe where that energy comes from in established scientific language. No one ever said every crack pot had to claim to use electrolysis but most seem to.--OMCV (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The Genepax system is described most accurately in one of their animations - it's the usual claim - water is mysteriously (but astoundingly efficiently) ripped apart - then the resulting hydrogen and oxygen is recombined to produce power. In their case, the recombination is in a hydrogen fuel cell - which is real technology that actually works to produce electricity to drive the wheels - and it's a LOT more credible than Stanley Meyer et al's claims to have driven a regular gasoline engine.

The problem is that Genepax are evasive about how exactly the critical 'ripping apart of water' business happens. They say there is a membrane that does the job - they also say there are metal hydride "catalysts" involved. They say it's an elaboration of an existing technique that's fairly well known. What I deduce from that is one of two possibilities:

1. There is "an existing techique" that's pretty well known involving metal hyrdrides to produce hydrogen from water. But in that case, the metal hydride is the fuel that supplies the energy for the hydrogen extraction - it's not a "catalyst" as Genepax are saying - it's the "fuel" that's actually providing 100% of the energy. A "catalyst" on the other hand (by definition) helps a chemical reaction to happen - but is not itself affected by the reaction. So if their metal hydride is really being eaten away as the fuel - then they are not using the word "catalyst" correctly - and that means that they are lying to us about the true source of energy driving the system. They'll have to replace their metal hydrides on a regular basis - and that's a really terrible way to drive a car because hydrides are expensive to produce - both in dollars and in energy requirement. So if this is what they are doing, it's useless...and it's still a scam because they must know that they need to stop and replace the metal hydride fairly frequently as they drive the car.
2. The other possibility relies on a different property of metal hydrides - which is that under the right circumstances of heat and pressure, they can be pursuaded to absorb VAST quantities of hydrogen gas into their structure. This gas can later be liberated and used to drive (say) a hydrogen fuel cell. The result would be a car that runs on hydrogen - not water. There are MANY such car designs in the world - it's pretty advanced technology but it's not running on water and it's not free energy. If that's what they are doing then it's a scam again - because they must know that they have to keep recharging their metal hydrides with more hydrogen gas from a damned great cylinder of the stuff somewhere back at base.
3. I'm actually giving them credit for at least some engineering and chemical prowess by suggesting that it's either of those two previous things. A third - MUCH simpler - possibility is this: The car they are using for their demonstrations isn't something they designed themselves - it's actually a low cost, lightweight completely conventional, all-electric car that you can buy in Japan. If we think Genepax are honest or that either of the two scams above is happening - then this is an entirely logical decision for them to have made. Their hydrogen fuel cell produces electricity - and testing it on a small, lightweight car that already runs on electricity (so it has the right controls, motors, regenerative braking, etc) would make a lot of sense - and would save them from having to design an entire street-legal car just to demonstrate their gizmo. But the skeptic in me wonders whether they might just have left the original batteries inside...meaning that this is a 100% electric car - with some impressive looking (but entirely fake) apparatus in the back! What makes me more suspicious that this is true is that Genepax's claim for the distance they can travel on one load of water is 80km...which by an AMAZING coincidence is exactly the range of the original electric car without all of the Genepax equipment inside.

I'm pretty much 100% certain it's one of those three things...but without actually examining the car, it's going to be impossible to prove it. The page you pointed to says "degradation of the electrodes is minimal"...which means..."there is degradation of the electrodes". That could imply that it's the first of those three possibilities...the metal hydride is the fuel and this "degradation" is in fact not that minimal at all! I suppose - if I were being SUPER-generous - I might suggest that they are completely honest people who simply haven't realised that this slightly annoying "electrode degradation" problem isn't just a small design flaw that they can someday work around - but actually the entire means of propulsion of the car! That opens the possiblility that they are confused but honest! That would have to be a 'first'! The first ever honest water-fuelled-car inventors! Sadly, it doesn't make their invention any more useful. SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

SteveBaker (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[3]...is an excellent listen for any remaining believers in this stuff. It backs up a lot of the things we're saying here. SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to OMCV (this may go off topic) (this reply was done prior to reading SteveBakers post). I know it take about 10 Killowatts to power a conventional electric car to about 80 kms/h. I don't know if that helps... scientifically... well... I also know that there are millions of volts in the air. There are many types of gases in the air, which could be mixed into this system, making it a non-closed system. I remember watching a documentary, whereas the expert plumbers had describes how you can generate energy/electricity from the difference between charges created in the metal of running water pipes and running gas lines pipes. If you take a look at comment #124 of that article (the reference #3 at the time), I agree with that comment and believe there is probably some scientific way of explaining and perhaps even doing the inverse process of a fuel cell. I've had many hypothesis on where the energy comes from, but to do so in a scientific language would take some considerable time. Would I suceed in describing it in a scientific language? I think not. I'll leave that up to... as you say... the "crack pot"s... Plus... that's a difficult question to answer, specially if a scientific study is usually peer-reviewed to determine the author's level of "scientific language" and if it meets a general set of criteria! All that said, my hypothesis is quite irelevant, what is relevant are the WP:V facts that are properly cited and which meet wikipedia's standards of inclusion and that represent these "crack pot's" point of views... which appear to be in our case a very common POV. (So, I'dd like to say, even if it comes from Dr. Evil's mini me... so long as it's relevant and meets wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion we should try and put it in... of course within reason). It's my view that currently on Wikipedia, scientifically worded references face a higher level of scrutiny than regular references such as "non-peer reviewed" commercial websites. It's also my view that there is a view out there are different types of water cars which may actually work. Somehow, we need to figure out how' we're going to state all of these facts properly. --CyclePat (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So many misunderstandings...so little time! All three major planks of your statement above are essentially misunderstandings that have never been corrected for you. Here is some truth:

• "I know it take about 10 Killowatts to power a conventional electric car to about 80 kms/h" - Nope - that's nowhere near enough. The gasoline engine in my car (an '07 MINI Cooper'S) generates about 160 kilowatts...and that'll drive it at 140mph...but it's a VERY lightweight car. It doesn't matter how that power is generated (gasoline or electric) the energy required to propel the car is the same. Something more 'conventional' in size than a teeny-tiny MINI would need more power than that even at 80kph. So your number: 10kW is definitely on the small side - even the lightest possible golf cart wouldn't get away with so little...100kW would be a better number to go with. So - you say you "know that" - but really you don't. You're off by a factor of about ten.

• "expert plumbers had describes how you can generate energy/electricity from the difference between charges created in the metal of running water pipes" - There is no mystery about the dissimilar metals problem for plumbers. It's very well known that you can extract energy from two dissimilar metals with an appropriate dialectric between them. You may have seen the classic children's experiment where you stick a piece of copper and a piece of tin or zinc into a lemon or a potato to generate tiny amounts of electricity. It certainly works - and the principle is exactly the same as for a regular AAA battery. The battery does run down eventually. In the case of the plumbing, the voltage produced is tiny and the current is EXCEEDINGLY weak. The two metals are gradually eroded over the years as energy is extracted from the metal...and that's why plumbers care so much - if you touch a copper pipe water pipe directly to (say) an iron gas pipe, sooner or later, that voltaic erosion will cause a water leak or a gas leak. It's not free energy - and the energy doesn't come from the water - it comes from a chemical reaction in the two metals. There is STILL no such thing as a free lunch.

• "I also know that there are millions of volts in the air." - sure, you heard that somewhere - and it's a little bit true. When clouds move through the air, they pick up static electricity from the friction with the wind. The voltages they can build up can be immense - certainly a million volts is not altogether impossible. This is no different from generating static electricity by rubbing a rubber balloon against the sleeve of your jacket to produce a static charge - or the way nylon clothing picks up a static charge by rubbing against other clothes in your laundry drier. Your laundry can charge up to a few tens of thousands of volts too...but it's static electricity and the current it can drive is TINY. In the case of clouds - that's where lightning comes from...it's the accumulated static charge shorting to the ground and dissipating. There is nothing much magical about it. We understand the details fully and completely. Sadly, we can't tap into this energy because it's static electricity and you only get one (albeit large) ZZZAAPPP!...then nothing else. Capturing lightining bolts as an energy source is theoretically possible - and lots of people have wasted lots of time thinking about it - but their irregularity, unpredictability and relatively low energy density makes them almost impossible to tap practically.

This is exactly the problem with all of this stuff - non-scientists like yourself hear half an idea and remember half of what you hear and probably actually understand nothing of it beyond the words themselves - then you have only a quarter of the story - yet you inflate that all the way up to a major thing by itself (free energy from your plumbing!) without knowing the very simple scientific explanation...which makes a lot more sense - which actually stands up to experiment - and which doesn't violate any fundamental laws of nature. This tends to upset people because they think they came up with this oh-so-clever idea - and that the boring scientists just won't listen to it. That's just backwards. The reality is that science already knows about every microscopic detail of this idea and has long ago investigated, understood and rejected the concept for really solid reasons. The metal pipe thing is a classic example of that. Scientists don't guess. They investigate. When you said that electric cars need 10 kW to go at 80 kph - I didn't just accept that number - and I didn't guess a number either - I went out to my car, I picked up the owner's manual, I flipped through to the section that's written in French (because they use Kilowatts to describe the power of a car engine - not Horsepower like Americans do) - then I thought for a bit - then came back to the computer and I pointed out that 10kW is an entirely unreasonable number. I don't just think this stuff up out of nowhere!

So there is rarely anything weird or mysterious ONCE YOU'VE HEARD THE WHOLE STORY. But if you only have half an understanding then "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...and you're halfway to becoming another free energy nut. If there is something like that which you don't understand then I highly recommend Wikipedia's "Reference Desk" service (WP:RD) - where dozens of very knowledgeable, rational people are standing by 24/7 to answer your questions...or you can just email me and I'll do my best to help. There is almost NOTHING on this kind of level that science hasn't completely understood, explained, extrapolated on - and probably exploited. But to suddenly take half an idea that you half heard and to make claims of free energy generated from plumbing fixtures without at least asking a scientist what's going on...well, yeah, you're guaranteed to come up with some crackpot ideas that are quite utterly worthless in reality.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty CyclePat and for your analysis Steve. I offered the question to CyclePat since the ideas he is choosing to challenge on grounds of citation seem to motivated by a distinct POV. I don't mean to insult here and its not really fair for me to consider your motivation but you've been going after the same sort of details for a while. I agree that we need to let well supported facts speak for themselves working within reason is very important. The Water Fuelled Car is name created by the editors here to group all of these scams together since every one of their promotes uses different flashy language to sell their scam. There is no great shame in this grouping it needed to be done. No one is interested in creating information on this subject. The limits the authors of this article have limited the page to any vehicle that claims to be fueled or powered by water alone. Mind you this is not activated water such as hot water, or water water under pressure, or water combined with chemicals, or water at the top of a damn. This is water that goes into the system and comes out of the system at the same energy state. We the authors of this page can argue over whether the first or second law of thermodynamics covers this phenomenon better. There is no doubt one or number of them does and it is beyond the need for citation. The first law deals with a change in energy between the universe and a system. The proprietors of Water Fuelled Car claim to get energy out which means the first law should apply but it never works out since the systems are fictions. The second law states the direction time moves. The application here is that you can't pull the ambient heat out of something like liquid water. Its imaginable that a system could suck in water and poop out ice cubes if such energy was available for work. But the energy is not available for work and I won't try to explain why since even a succinct explanation would derail my point. These laws don't fit systems that don't really exist (ie Water Fuelled Car) making it hard to apply them to the fictitious systems in a sensible way. For this reason I prefer to use one of the thermodynamic laws underlying assumptions, an even older law called the conservation of energy. If energy is neither created nor destroyed then the energy for any engine, motor, or power system must come from some place it just matter of figuring out where. If a system sucks up water and spits it out in the same energy state the system has gained no energy from the water. Thus the system couldn't have delivered energy from the water for use elsewhere. It doesn't matter what has happened to the water while it was in the system, the atoms nuclei could have been torn apart, mixed up, and put back together, as long as the water comes out in the same form it went in no energy could have been extracted. It is simple accounting. Please consider your motivations CyclePat.--OMCV (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy! I just wanted to say, that the way this article is going could limit us to certain types of "water fuelled cars". There's nothing wrong with that except for maybe that POV thing I had raised... ... but the potential for, us, to label a certain vehicle as a "water vehicle" within our "category" is not only, more often then less, utilizing our original research... or our WP:SYNTH to conclude a fact on a certain vehicle. In fact, we may be wrong. That's the main reason we always cite other people on Wikipedia. One reason I think there may be a mystake is because of the link to the water fuel cell from Genepax. But anyways... I guess we should only be reporting the facts even if they contradict each other. And I do concede that the Genepax appears to be well located within this article, even if, assuming here, we find evidence or "other peoples facts" that the Genepax is not a water fuelled car within the meaning of our current article. If properly written, I think it could still work. To Answer Steve's... the information of 10 KW is from Bill Kemps Book. (Here's his website http://aztext.com/zero_carbon_car.cfm) However you won't find that information because, I asked him during our last EVCO.ca meeting. You may find the information in his book (reference)Kemp, William. "The zero-carbon car : building the car the auto industry can't get right" 2007. Aztext Press. ISBN 978-0-9733233-4-4 ^[edit]. Here's a couple fact you might like to consider. (p.174 - Energy Efficiency) Fossil-fuel-powered vehicles, no matter how good the fuel economy appears to be, are inefficient. "A typical vehicle is enormously inefficient as a result of the cumulative losses incurred during the conversion of the energy contained in gasoline to forward motion..." 92% of potential engery is a gallon of gas is lost as a result of engine inefficiencies, idling, driveline friction, and tire rolling resistance (he also mentions heat loss). 1 gallon of gas has 33.2 kWh of energy... a typical current-tech electric car requires approx. 0.25 kWh of energy per mile traveled (0.155 kWh per Km)... allowing it to travel 133 miles on the energy = to one gallon of gas. (47 km/l) (Kemp 175). Anyways... I trust Bill and his builder Rick Lane... but to help clarify maybe you might want to take a look at his specs on page. So the 10 Kw was an estimate that Bill had done prior to his test. The test may be hard for you to believe, but at 80 kph voltage was 108.1 v and current was 157 amps... the total horsepower was 23 (17 kW) (kemp 381)(this was in 4th gear). In short Bill concludes, as I have too after driving the car, that the Zero-Carbon Car uses less than 50% of the energy used by a typical vehicle and provides more than adequate performace for city or highway driving... and that "Technology is not the problem; society's attitude is." (Kemp 382) p.s.: The electric motor is rated at 28 hp, peak 85 hp (21 kw rated / 63.5 kW peak) (Kemp 519) This may seem anemic until you realize that the electric motor produces maximum torque at zero speed... a gas engine would stall (see www.kta-ev.com). Since Bill's car is however, a hybrid, he only needs a 10 kW bio-fuel generator (amazingly consuming only 0.22 l/kWh) or getting 1600 km per tank). If you want more information go buy his book it's a good read and you get all the blue print so you can build it yourself and test it yourself. I'll be back for the other comments. But I hope you now understand how easy it is for "us" to "mis-interpret" facts and that we are obliged to provide reference. (Even I, you see made a mystake... the generator is 10 kW... but at 80 kph it's 17 kW) (If you go to 70 kph it's a bit closer at 12 kW) Again... references. --CyclePat (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

b.t.w.: Thank you for the reply Steve in explain the coper pipes/ plumbers thing et all. Sorry for the awful spelling (It's late and I'm tired). --CyclePat (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean types? The page title is a literal descriptor not a special technical label. If you can explain your meaning of types it would be worth adding. Reporting just the facts on non-controversial topics is fine. In the case of financially charged scams there is often a great deal of text and some discerning is required in identifying what is fact and what is fiction. Weighting information is a serious issue. Its the reason we rank sources from scientific journal down to text books then patents and the newspaper and then private publication. We don't want to dump all the unweighted information on the reader. In most encyclopedias experts write the entries and they take responsibility for selecting information in a NPOV way. For better or for worse everyone gets involved here.

Further more scammers feel no obligation to stand by their position so contradicting them is both easy and difficult. It is easy since they usually contradict themselves but difficult because they we always counter with jargon where it suits them. They are pathological liars. Genepex's own diagrams represent things that are physically impossible according the main stream understanding of reality. These diagrams also squarely place them as claiming a "water fueled car". Now they will always claim that they have proprietary information to explain any inconsistencies. This will be enough to string along those who want to believe. To the discerning eye they have already lost. Anything that would let their system work must contradict the information they have already presented.

An order of magnitude in energy consumption is irrelevant. Besides its not the energy required for a steady traveling speed that matters. The size of engines are designed for acceleration.

CyclePat please consider your own POV. Lets hash through your concerns here so we can see if there is POV or SYNTH issues. The title of this page is SYNTH in the strictest sense by my analysis but I still think it should be here. The reason for the SYNTH is that it deals with a subject matter that does not wish to be defined. What do you think?--OMCV (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A 37hp car...sadly, no longer street-legal

So when Cyclpat says "I know it take about 10 Killowatts to power a conventional electric car to about 80 kms/h" - what he really means is "Bill Kemp claims that in some future, hypothetical car design, we might only need 10kWatt at 80 km/hr." - that's a VERY different statement! Actually, to get down that low, you really have to do some drastic things. It's not enough to say: well, 95% of the energy that a modern car uses is wasted in overcoming friction, etc, etc - therefore we only need 5% as much energy as we do now. The problem is that any hypothetical future car will ALSO need to overcome friction, drag, etc. A MINI Cooper is a pretty light car - and it could weigh half that much (a 2007 MINI weighs 2600lbs - but a 1963 Mini weighs only 1300lbs)...but sadly, if it did, it wouldn't meet passenger and pedestrian impact safety standards, it wouldn't meet air quality standards and it would probably fail to sell in any quantity in the US market because there was no airconditioner. So, yeah - theoretically you could halve it's weight - but then it wouldn't be street-legal anymore. At a steady 70mph, a typical modern car is actually expending 70 to 80% of it's fuel overcoming air resistance. Even if you drop all of the other sources of energy consumption to ZERO, it's really tough to get more than a 50% energy saving. Getting a factor of 16 less energy required at highway speeds is therefore impossible other than by changing the shape of the car. But that's tough - you've got to get your passengers in there - you've got to have a view of the road ahead - that imposes some serious constraints on the shape. When you look at experimental high energy efficiency cars, they almost all are single person vehicles - shaped like a recumbant bicycle wrapped in a flimsy plastic teardrop shape with a top speed of 15mph. That's just not a reasonable replacement for the modern car. So while I believe 10kW for that kind of experimental vehicle. It would take a lot to convince me that getting below (say) 30kW is possible with a street-legal car that can go at 70mph, is safe and has A/C.

Bill's 23hp car isn't at all amazing - unless it's up to modern safety and regulatory standards and meets consumer expectations for comfort and speed. My 1963 Mini originally had an entirely conventional 37hp gasoline engine and a top speed of 72mph - but you wouldn't be allowed to sell one today. The old Isetta bubble cars managed reasonably well on just 12hp...but they are death-traps with about a 40mph top speed! SteveBaker (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the wording of the caption on the above image. What it should say is that the vehicle, while legal when it was built, does not comply with current standards for new vehicles. I think that the distinction here is analogous and quite important. --Athol Mullen (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. The car isn't even up to the standards for older vehicles. It's only drivable on the streets in the USA if you register it under the 25 year "antique car" exemption. The exact same design of car that's only 24 years old cannot be driven legally in the USA. Of course, in other countries, YMMV SteveBaker (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Euh! Steve. It's not hypothetical. Did you read the part when I said, I've actually driven it. Did you see the free video on his website. The vehicle is legally plated for use on roads here in Ontario. It can attain highways speeds quite reasonably. I actually do recommend you look at the aforementioned link where you can purchase his book... you'd probably enjoy reading his book or watching his DVD. It's not hypothetical and it's not future... it's now! It exists and it works. It has zero carbon emission because it uses biodiesel fuel". (This fuel is renewable, clean burning (relatively), carbon neutral that can be obtained from a variety of oilseed plants, waste oils and rendered animal fats. It meets all safety requirements and is considered a passenger vehicle (built on the chassis of a 2000 Mazda Miata). More specifically, it's a Hybrid Electric Vehicle. It weights 3110 pounds (1413 Kg). It's 5 speed manual. It has an advanced DC Motor 9 inch model FB1-4001A. It has 90 foot-pound torque. It's Battery bank is "Optima D750S Spiral Cells - Sealed Lead Acid - 120 V". It uses Curtis PMC 120 V 500A #1231C-8601 controller and of course DC to DC converter (Vicor VI-200 Series 120-12.8V 150 Watt). It uses a marine generator from Fisher Panda Generators Inc.. Bill says you just need to talk to Paulo Oliveria, chief engineer at Fisher Panda, who recommended the line of AGT-DC generators. (Or a liquid fuel power plant). (Which makes me believe this article should utlize this term) (see Kemp 317) If you have questions regarding the methodology of testing I recommend you, again, get the book or bring this discussion off list where I could then send you some more specific charts copies from his book. There we could discuss aerodynamical forces and Bill's testing methodology. I find the hypothetical disclaimer that you raise concerning the modification of a modern 2007 MINI Cooper back to the state of a 1963 version quite incomparable for so many reasons. (1) ICE vs. electric hybrid (2) non-street legal vs. street legal, (3) The modern diesel engine is a far cry from the smoky, aneamic model of the 1970s (ex. take the Mercedes E320 family of "common rail, turbo diesel engines that offer no 'dieseling noise, smoke, or vibration... and better acceleration than the same model car equipped with a gasoline engine (Kemp 427) etc... (In fact ethanol contains oxygen... nevertheless ethanol does have about 47% less energy than gasoline)(Kemp 421) If you had brought up the Toyato Prius or another street legal Hybrid vehicle, now that would make a good comparison. So I find that example quite irrelevant. Nevertheless, I understand what you are trying to say and the Zero-Carbon Car, is not a vehicle that removed several "important" items to increase efficient at the expense of "environmental" and "legal" violations. We are talking about an a self made electric hybrid car which is legal, efficient and which demonstrates the lack of complacency of our society and auto industry builders to create an economical vehicle. Heck! If a bunch a guys during a couple weekends can build this car in our backyard, why can't you or the large auto companies? As for theI would like to turn the tides around here and ask if you read through the book and facts before making your comment. The result are real... the result are measured and there's even one photo on his website that shows how some of the tests where done. The variables you mention, in terms of testing a vehicle, are inconceivable to properly measure... in the fashion that you raise the question. That's why, we test cars an extrapolate the data from dynamometerreadings. In fact, as I turn through Kemp's book I notice that he tested other vehicles such as the Honda 1.6 litre engine I turn the question around? Where did you pull your fact from? Again... I'm citing the fact? Do you have any citations? Sorry, but I need to go do my laundry now. I'll be back latter on. --CyclePat (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything you say is very wonderful - but it doesn't gel with 10 kWatt at 80kph which is the only fact I disputed. I don't disbelieve any other figure (yet) - but 13hp isn't enough to drive a "normal" car at "normal" speeds...it just doesn't add up. A Miata won't go at 50mph (80kph) with only a 13 horsepower motor - it's UTTERLY unbelievable. I don't doubt his car goes at 80kph - but I don't believe he can sustain that with a 13 hp engine. Sure, he can charge his batteries using a 13hp engine - then drive for a while at 80kph - but then the batteries have to deliver more than 13hp. There is no possible way he can sustain that with a fairly conventional/street-legal car like a Miata. Even the Prius needs a 58hp engine and it's beautifully streamlined with frictional forces minimised everywhere. So something is wrong here - there is at least one piece of data you've gotten wrong. I can't easily guess what it is - but SOMETHING is wrong with what you said. As I pointed out, my '63 Mini has a 37hp engine - it's 3x more power than you claim this guy is using and my car weighs only 1300lbs (versus 4100lbs for your friend's machine). For the purposes of this discussion - it's irrelevent how those horsepowers are generated - hybrid, 1963 A-series gas engine, hamsters in hamster wheels. The question is only - How can a car that weighs two and a half times what mine does get by with a third of the horsepower and go at about the same speed? The only two things it could be would be rolling resistance or drag coefficient. I don't believe that either of those things can be reduced by a factor of 3 no matter how good the technology - and even if they could - your car would grind to a halt on the first hill because no matter how little drag and friction you have, hauling 4100lbs up a 1:6 gradient requires more horsepower than that car has. So - something, somewhere is DEFINITELY wrong with what you're saying. SteveBaker (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say citations... I do appologize for the tone... I mean, more specifically, an example of the 70% air frictions (resistance) you're talking about. Which model cars? Where they tested in closed experiment conditions? Tunnel conditions like at my local Ottawa NRC (wind tunnel)[4]? Also, who says that a liquid fuel power plant, in a water fueled car was ever a closed system? According to the one reference we provide, the "laws of thermodynamics" are violated... the idea that law #1 and law #2 are violated, I think is a type of Synth. (For example: Souce A says that the laws are violated. Source B says there are only 2 laws... We assume that the two laws are violated, but in fact the author of statement A did not say that. this is a Synth) Of course, I'm willing to accept this Synth, because it appears to be something of such obvious context. However, as is, we would require a reference that for the fact that there are only 2 laws and an annotation indicating this is a perfectly viable synth per WP:SYNTH. --CyclePat (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this a bazillion times before - I'm not doing it again. If you want to take this further - go to one of the numerous Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms. But this continual crap where you simply demand an infinite regression of references and when they exist, you make synthesis claims is beyond ridiculous. Your demands for referencing are FAR beyond what Wikipedia demands. You are now simply trolling and I'm not going to feed you anymore. We are adequately referenced - period. Your increasingly pathetic efforts to keep the truth out of this article by Wikilawyering isn't going to work - I don't know why you are so desperate to keep this fact out of the encyclopedia - I strongly suspect you have a conflict of interest - but I can't prove that. The truth is that water fuelled cars are a fundamental violation of the most fundamental laws of mainstream physics - and that's what the article is going to say. Half a dozen other editors have tried to explain this to you (here and in other articles). If you want more references for that - YOU GO FIND THEM - I don't need to. If you don't like that - take it to dispute resolution. SteveBaker (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:OR, WP:V and the general concensus of most wikipedians is that you (the one providing the information) provide the proper reference. We are not adequatelly referenced to state that this process violates law #1 and law#2.... we can however state that the process violates the laws of thermodynamics. This information is being contest and will be removed, once more, if this discussion fails. There is no truth about water fuelled cars... there are only POVs and our responsibility is to report those POV. What I suspect, from the tone of your aformentioned comment, is that you have a POV to promote regarding, as you stated, the "fundamental violation of the most fundamental laws of mainstream physics - and that's what the article is going to say." This, is my friend, I believe is a bias for this POV. You outlandish claims of trolling are frankly absurd and distracting from the fact that "you fail" to answer and provide a reference. Again, you are the one providing content to the article, hence you are the one that needs to "GO FIND" the references. Otherwise, to be blunt, I can only assuming you're pulling this information out of your ass. It can be contested and can be removed. An RfC will inherently be your responsibility, specifically if you keep putting the "unreferenced material" back within the article. --CyclePat (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears as one point in time, since I started this conversation, (and last looked at the article), that a reference, in particular reference #5, appears to substantiate the POV, to which I've been requesting a reference (Law #1 and Law #2). I can understand why you would feel anoyed. Thank you for the reference. --CyclePat (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First off this conversation is absurd. Its "true" everything has a POV, all we are looking for is a NPOV. For science subjects wikipedia POV defines NPOV as main stream science. Main stream science assumes there is as "objective" measurable reality and that generalizations known as "laws" and "theories" can be made about that objective reality. These generalizations are sometimes but not always called or equated with truth. It follows claiming there is "no truth" doesn't work for main stream science. Even when people don't care for the term truth there is always at the very least a statistical understanding of the objective reality, a statistical truth. There are very real "science truth"s about water-fuelled cars just as there is a great deal of "truth" about the internal combustion engine, water electrolysis, or fuel cells. None of these subject even delve into the statical. If your aim (and POV) is to undervalue the "truth" (read NPOV) presented here by requesting for absurd citations then you are violating wikipedia's NPOV stance on science subjects. Citation 5 taken from the work of "Loosey Goosey" can hardly be considered a reliable scientific source. How do you even know this isn't the work of one of the editors here. We don't take blog entries form crack pots and we shouldn't selectively accept them when it suits our purposes.--OMCV (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

---

edit break

It seems to me you can't claim that Genepax violates the laws of thermodynamics when it hasn't even been made known how it works yet. Furthermore, I've read in articles that the hydrogen is not even burned and the hydrogen and oxygen are not even recombined, which wouldn't make this a closed system if that were the case. It seems presumptive to declare that Genepax violates the laws of thermodynamics. Wikipedia is not a board of scientists, and should avoid making scientific claims like it has. Inferring that Genepax is "rubbish" is pure rubbish in itself and violates the neutral POV. --Rrand (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The beauty of this is we don't need to know how the system is attributed to work to dismiss the system. If the system goes from water to water you don't need to know what happens to the water in the interim because you know the beginning and end state. This is the foundation of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, all energy must be accounted for. Since the energy source (water) hasn't changed its energy states we know their system as described thus far can't work. No energy was removed from water. This safe generalization doesn't even need to be applied since every statement in the Genepax section is meticulously cited. As folks have mentioned earlier applying the laws of thermodynamics to systems is trivial; 2+2=4, trivial. No self respecting scientist will waste professional time to debunk this stuff (there is no journal to publish discussions of faulty systems). Efforts to discuss such "rubbish" would tarnish their reputation since they should be working on real science. So you get folks in their spare time on these talk pages and thats it. Applying thermodynamic laws is less of a SYNTH than titling this page (water-fuelled car). Citing specific relationships between thermodynamic laws and a descriptive title is absurd. This title is a fabricated term to catch all of these scams whether they call themselvies by the term or not. If you want to discuss how the laws are applied or rather act as a defining feature of this "term" that would be great. Test your lawyering against some expert testimony and lets look for a reasonable consensus. After all it doesn't matter if you're right if you can't convince the jury. We should be looking for the spirit of the law not the letter, especially since our main goal at wikipeida is education.--OMCV (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said? There has been no statememt from Genepax that the hydrogen is burned, or recombined, or goes from 'water' to 'water'. Those have only been speculative statements, making the whole of your argument speculative.--Rrand (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If the hydrogen isn't burned or somehow else recombined (i.e., the product is hydrogen and oxygen gases), then the whole thing is even more impossible because it takes energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. There's no way around that fact...at best, with a closed system, you could (if you were 100% efficient, which is impossible), get that energy back when you recombined. The system doesn't have to be closed itself...it merely has to be the key that allows the system to close where it otherwise couldn't. Consider, if it produced hydrogen, then one could burn that hydrogen and get both more energy and the water back again, so the water-splitting-at-zero-cost (or even a surplus of energy) is where things become impossible. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't claim to know how the system works. The author of this article however, does. If it's not a closed system, then the law of thermodynamics does not apply. The law requires a closed system. This article states that it violates the law of thermodynamics and that is the only argument I'm contesting. How do you know? Genepax, as far as I know, has not released any details allowing us to come to a scientific conclusion.--Rrand (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter how it works. It doesn't matter how they claim that pushing a rock up a hill generates energy, and it doesn't matter that they don't say "and if you let the rock go, it'll roll down and you get even more energy out" (thereby actually closing the system by returning the rock to where it was). They are the ones making the extraordinary claim that going up hill produces energy, therefore they need some extraordinary evidence to support it. Otherwise, all they have is a rock sitting at the foot of a hill. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be the last to argue with you if you change the unprovable assertion made in this article with the text you just wrote.--Rrand (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Genepax DO show that water goes in and water comes out again. look at this image which shows water entering the "stack" and water exiting the stack - and electricity coming out and NOTHING else going in. This animation is even more explicit - you can watch the individual atoms as they progress through the cell. Watch the animation loop - for every H2O molecule that goes in - exactly one H2O molecule comes out. One oxygen molecule passes through in the opposite direction. If you take the water molecule and the oxygen molecule that come out and stuff them back into the opposite end, you'd never run out of water or oxygen. So where does the energy come from?

(In fact, their animation is even less plausible than the usual 'electrolyse water - then combine the oxygen and hydrogen in a fuel cell'. It shows the hydrogen molecules being ripped apart into individual hydrogen atoms! But it doesn't matter - as User:RrandUser:OMCV says - thermodynamics applies to whole closed systems and you only need to look at the inputs and outputs without bothering to understand the internals.)

If there are no net changes between the inputs and outputs - how can electricity come out? It's perpetual motion - it's a violation of the laws of thermodynamics and it's a violation of the conservation of mass/energy. Those laws are absolutely as fundamental to physics as 2+2=4 is to mathematics. You don't ask for references when I say 123+321=444 - and you don't complain about 'synthesis' when I say that three apples plus two oranges is five pieces of fruit. This is the exact same thing. We count the inputs and outputs of a closed system and they have to match or else the machine cannot work as claimed...the reference for that is any standard textbook description of the first law. Nothing more is required - and even that is a bit overkill because nobody in mainstream physics is going to dispute it - we're required to express the views of mainstream physics and we're not required to produce references for things that are not likely to be disputed. Mainstream physics is NOT going to dispute the laws of thermodynamics!

SteveBaker (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve, please do not put words in my mouth. I agree that the demonstration you linked to is convincing, and it does appear water is coming out. Maybe the news article I read was wrong. And with that I will buzz off.--Rrand (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Steve meant OMCV, me, in regards to system inputs and outputs. Sorry I didn't link to the image and animation, Rrand, I figured you had seen them. Now for the "2+2" analogy (which I got from Steve). Its important that those involved with editing this page have a basic understanding of thermodynamics so we can discern when the application of thermodynamics is in fact SYNTH.--OMCV (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he did. I apologize. No, I didn't see that image or animation. I did research on this maybe a couple of months ago, and at that time I don't think those kind of details were made public. I errantly assumed (ass->me) no further details had been released because I have only been watching Google News for updates and press releases. I did not think to re-check the website.--Rrand (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I messed up - I did indeed mean OMCV (but Rrand should have said it too because it's true - and the key to understanding this stuff). I fixed up my comment above. SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The real reason I didn't want that remark attributed to me is that Dmacks said that if it wasn't burned, then it was even more implausible. While that might be true, I think you would need to look at the internals if somehow the law of thermodynamics did not apply (not a closed system). I know this is a late response, and my thinking might have been in err, but it just occurred to me what I was thinking at the time that I responded that way. Not that I want to have an argument about this. :)--Rrand (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If the system wasn't closed it would just mean the energy was coming form some place other than the water. We just need to know the beginning and the final states to know that the water isn't an energy source.--OMCV (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the only way to rationalize the potential function of the technology. This is counter intuitive because thermodynamic diagrams say it takes energy input to increase a substances energy content. Maybe by stressing water (which is polar) with high frequency voltage the energy state of water is somehow lowered to such a degree that the energy flow into the system is greater than the energy required to generate the high frequency voltage. Ehh, no more original research this isn't the place for it. We are wasting our time turning this page into a discussion of the technology rather than the article. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the system is closed is irrelevant in this case. We had this discussion in the Talk:Water Fuel Cell page. The point to be made is it starts with water. Energy is used to separate the water molecule. The water molecule is reformed releasing energy. At 100% efficiency the net energy is 0. Whether the loop is open or not, what prevents it from theoretically being closed?I55ere (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Meyers tech claims that energy is not delivered to separate the water molecule. Voltage is applied until the voltage breakdown threshold. Ions would form allowing current to flow, and voltage times current is power delivered. Prevent the current from flowing with diodes and other circuitry and only voltage was used to breakdown the water. It sounds pretty on paper, and many people "believe" in it blindly, like religion. The point is don't believe things without concrete proof. Making bold claims without proof causes conflict, and this article talk page is proof of that.

Also, people say "perpetual motion" like its a bad thing. Its logically not possible in a closed system as clearly shown in thermodynamics. This does not rule out that a system can be made to draw energy from an external source. An example would be a classical diagram of a heat pump, with two inputs; one input is applied energy and the other input is drawn energy resulting from an unknown mechanism caused by the applied energy. It would be more accurate to say closed system perpetual motion is not possible but open system is possible. There should be nothing wrong with discussing perpetual motion as long as everyone remains rational relying on undeniable scientific principles. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if meyers tech did work the energy is absolutely not coming from the water. Making the statement "water as fuel" is FRAUD. This is no debating this, it is obvious. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is assumed a theoretical system is closed when the term "perpetual motion" is used. So "perpetual motion" ends up being just another way of saying "impossible". Not a "bad" thing, just "impossible". In addition any internal combustion engine can "theoretically" sustain motion perpetually as long as fuel and oxygen are added (open system) and exhausts removed (open system). There is a lot of bad information out there on "water cars" and "perpetual motion". We can only add what we can cite to the page. There are a lot of people that come here understanding only a moderate amount of science. The layperson would never be interested in something like rotating ring-disk electrode, the only people who visit that pages are student and experts, for them there is never a need to review the basics. Here we go over the fundamentals again and again. On the talk page we can explain things to the new comer more directly using analogues and language we can't cite. This talk helps these would be vandals realize they don't need to edit the page based on misconceptions promoted by fruadsters. This need to explain ideas repeatedly to laypersons goes along with any subject that is fiercely contested due to close ties with a fictitious science phenomenon which is key to a commercial fraud.--OMCV (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I dislike this "perpetual motion" term. Certainly you can't apply thermodynamics directly to an open system - but it's trivial to draw a line around a system that IS closed - then apply thermodynamics to prove the point. In the case of a car engine, we draw the line around a finite amount of gasoline and any gasses that come out of the exhaust - and the resulting system is "closed". Now we can employ thermodynamics just fine - and lo and behold, the system isn't perpetual motion because eventually all of the gasoline is converted to heat and exhaust gasses and the machine stops. If you do the same thing with something like Stanley Meyer's dune buggy - you have a closed system in which water is consumed and an identical amount of water is produced - yet energy also appears in the form of heat an the forward motion of the car - hence "perpetual motion".

But the term confuses people because they say things like "Well I won't connect the exhausted water to the fuel tank - so it'll run out of water and stop. Now you can't call it perpetual motion."...that's true - but I can still draw a line around the machine, the water it takes as input and the exhaust and show that it violates the first law of thermodynamics even though it doesn't happen to run "perpetually".

If you think that's an unlikely position to take - you should read the LONG sparring match between yours truly and the Press & Publicity Officer of the Newman energy company over on "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman". Newman claims that his machine (essentially an electric motor/generator combo) produces more electrical energy on output than it requires on input. What's really happening is that his machine generates a really spikey weird high-voltage waveform that makes it tough to measure the actual energy output with simple equipment. (That's how it fools so many people - and Newman himself.) But when I scream "perpetual motion", he would strongly claim that the nature of the current and voltage waveforms of the output of the machine was somehow (unspecified) incompatible with the voltage/current/waveform required to drive the machine - so the output couldn't be connected to the input - and hence it was "over unity" but not "perpetual motion". I asked whether the machine could be run from rechargeable car batteries (Answer: "Yes, it can") and whether the output could be used to charge car batteries through a suitable converter (Answer: "Yes! It can!"). So it's perpetual motion - right? (Answer: "Nope - you can't connect the input to the output - so it's not perpetual motion"). I had to resort to asking whether I could build a robot to connect one car battery to a charger on the output of the machine, wait until the battery is charged, then move it to the input of the machine and reconnect it to the input. If the robot itself were to be run from batteries charged by this miraculous machine - then the entire SYSTEM (batteries, robot, Newman-energy-machine) would be a closed system that would run perpetually - right? (Answer: "..." - silence).

Newman is a lot different from Meyer though - I don't think he's a fraud - he genuinely believes in his invention - but the world won't listen to him. Some how that's even more sad than the Meyer situation.

I agree though that it's easier to explain things clearly and coherently here on Talk: than it is to duke it out in article space. Painful though it is - it's much better than the alternatives. In an ideal world, these people would ask questions somewhere like the Wikipedia Reference Desk where questions can be answered more informally and by linking to Wikipedia articles rather than having to provide references.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Template:RFCpolicy 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.[5] 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 ([[6]) 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)

"Spare" energy from a cars' alternator

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)

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,[7] 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)

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)

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.

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)