A car that runs on water?

[Kosh]

I smell some fishies in that water...

Water powered car announced (http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/)

[skepticalbip]

Water powered car announced (http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/)Again? This particular perpetual motion machine has been "announced" about every five years or so for the last fifty years at least.

[general_koffi]

Is there some sort of law which states that all these eco-friendly cars have to be fucking hideous? Do environmentalists ALL have terrible taste?

Can we have the clown car's cost and performance data, please? Or would that be too much to ask?

[Kosh]

Is there some sort of law which states that all these eco-friendly cars have to be fucking hideous? Do environmentalists ALL have terrible taste?

Can we have the clown car's cost and performance data, please? Or would that be too much to ask?

I think it's a combination of:

1) trying to "standout" and be noticed
2) not having the top design talent (or tooling) in house.

You should see some of the DARPA prototypes when technologies are being proven...

[Lavis Knight]

They seem to be claiming that with only 1 litre of water you can run the car for 1 hour at 80kph. O_o;;

If such a generator existed it would revolutionize everything, not just powering cars. That is why i am kind of skeptical of the claim. With such a thing you could tie in your power for your house to your plumbing system and have plenty of energy.

How much hydrogen is in a litre of water anyhow? Is there really physically enough to propel such a car at those speeds for that duration?

[budgie]

I smell some fishies in that water...

Water powered car announced (http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/)

Nothing new around here. Check out photos from the floods in Iowa...plenty of cars running on water, in water, under water...you name it.

:D

-jim

[Kosh]

And... aren't we already on the verge of a water shortage? ;)

[skepticalbip]

Is there some sort of law which states that all these eco-friendly cars have to be fucking hideous?
Actually I think that there is such a physical law. To be fuel efficient it has to be as small and light as possible. To hold two adults (in the front seats) and 1.7 kids (in the back seats), the passenger compartment has to be roomy enough. When you put those two requirements together you get a hideous design like this thing.

[Lavis Knight]

Is there any reason why Jason Vorhees is sitting in the drivers seat O_o;?

[schu]

Water powered car announced (http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/)Again? This particular perpetual motion machine has been "announced" about every five years or so for the last fifty years at least.

You are right.

They don't run the car on water. That is BS. What the article says is that they break down the water to hydrogen and oxygen. That has a cost in energy people! What powers that? Chemicals. How much does the chemicals cost? Well howdy doo, more than gas I will bet.

Is this stuff really that hard to comprehend? In a world of idiots, I guess it is.

[general_koffi]

Is there some sort of law which states that all these eco-friendly cars have to be fucking hideous?
Actually I think that there is such a physical law. To be fuel efficient it has to be as small and light as possible. To hold two adults (in the front seats) and 1.7 kids (in the back seats), the passenger compartment has to be roomy enough. When you put those two requirements together you get a hideous design like this thing.

Sports cars have to be as small and light as possible (after they've accommodated the monstrous engine, of course). A lot of 'em let you squeeze two small children in the back.

And they're damn beautiful. (Many of them, anyway.)

Although I suppose it would be insulting to have a Porsche lookalike buzzing along from 0-60 in thirty-eight seconds for a top speed of 62. :p Somehow the clown car is more appropriate.

[skepticalbip]

. :p Somehow the clown car is more appropriate.Gotta agree that the clown car style seems to fit.

I think that the problem is that they refuse to compromise even a little if streamlining for aesthetics adds weight. They could start with a nice looking design like this Porsche:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n7/skepticalbip/misc/2009porsche911.jpg

Then they would eliminate the extra, unused space (and metal) in front reducing the trunk size and taper to the bumper. Then since there would be less space needed in the engine compartment and the taper to the rear bumper, more metal could be eliminated. They would reduce the original to something like this:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n7/skepticalbip/misc/2009porsche911s.jpg

[Buck Laser]

I am truly surprised and disappointed that anyone on IIDB took the time to follow that bit of bullshit. My detector goes off loud and clear anytime I hear something about free energy, world peace or similar stuff.

As to the appearance of fuel-efficient cars, I think the Toyota Prius is a pretty good looking car. My Honda Civic Hybrid ain't bad either--just like any other Civic except for a slightly different grill, and the 44 mpg I've gotten over 4 years of ownership.

Seriously, did anyone REALLY think a water-powered car made sense?

[general_koffi]

They would reduce the original to something like this:

I think that's what they did with the newer Beetle...

I think the Toyota Prius is a pretty good looking car.

...

Damn... There's no infraction for this.

*Starts emergency thread in moderator forum to rectify situation.*

[barbos]

They seem to be claiming that with only 1 litre of water you can run the car for 1 hour at 80kph. O_o;;

Well, 1 liter contains 2/34 kg=~60grams of of hydrogen.

If such a generator existed it would revolutionize everything, not just powering cars. That is why i am kind of skeptical of the claim. With such a thing you could tie in your power for your house to your plumbing system and have plenty of energy.

So your complain is just amount of water, not the fact that they created perpetual motion machine ? :)

[Kosh]

I am truly surprised and disappointed that anyone on IIDB took the time to follow that bit of bullshit. My detector goes off loud and clear anytime I hear something about free energy, world peace or similar stuff.


But... the video had a very formal looking Japanese business man in a nice suit! How could it fake?

[spamandham]

I smell some fishies in that water...

Water powered car announced (http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/)

Uhm, converting water to hydrogen and oxygen requires putting energy IN. Hell, I knew that in high school.

A fuel cell that "runs on water" is still going to require energy from an external source. It's not like the water IS the source of energy.

[crispy]

Again? This particular perpetual motion machine has been "announced" about every five years or so for the last fifty years at least.

You are right.

They don't run the car on water. That is BS. What the article says is that they break down the water to hydrogen and oxygen. That has a cost in energy people! What powers that? Chemicals. How much does the chemicals cost? Well howdy doo, more than gas I will bet.

Is this stuff really that hard to comprehend? In a world of idiots, I guess it is.

Dibs on mining space for H2 :p

[Yggdrasill]

I think the Toyota Prius is a pretty good looking car.

...

Damn... There's no infraction for this.

*Starts emergency thread in moderator forum to rectify situation.*It is good looking!

If I could buy a car costing less than $60k (that's the norwegian price) on the basis of looks alone, I think I'd get a Prius. I especially like the rear end of it, the way they've tucked in the sides to reduce drag gives it a pretty cool look. I think they could have done a better job on the grill, as it doesn't quite align with the lines of the car, but it doesn't detract from it too much.

In my view, aerodynamic = pretty.

But as for the water-"powered" car, I suspect the energy is coming from corroding metal, as they said:
This process is allegedly similar to the mechanism that produces hydrogen by a reaction of metal hydride and water. But compared with the existing method, the new process is expected to produce hydrogen from water for longer time, the company said.

That means you'll have to replace the metal source every X miles. So, it's not a water-powered car, it's a metal-powered car, where water is used in process of extracting the energy from the metal.

[barbos]

That means you'll have to replace the metal source every X miles. So, it's not a water-powered car, it's a metal-powered car, where water is used in process of extracting the energy from the metal.

There is a way to use reaction between aluminum and water to create hydrogen. So in principle one can power car using aluminum cans and waste products of drinking content of the cans :)

But then Aluminum can be used without water in aluminum-air battery.

[uberhobo]

Oh, that's rich. They rig up a hydrogen fuel cell to run in reverse, and turn electricity into combustible gas, which then runs a car. If this isn't some kind of venture capital scam to fund a real project, then Japan has some real problems on its hands.

[Bartender]

That means you'll have to replace the metal source every X miles. So, it's not a water-powered car, it's a metal-powered car, where water is used in process of extracting the energy from the metal.

There is a way to use reaction between aluminum and water to create hydrogen. So in principle one can power car using aluminum cans and waste products of drinking content of the cans :)

But then Aluminum can be used without water in aluminum-air battery.


So I can throw my empty beer cans over my shoulder into the backseat and pee on the floor? Sweet.....

[BTV Engineer]

One big problem, it seems to me, is that water can't be compressed and that it contains oxygen. You can get oxygen for free from the atmosphere and hydrogen gas can be stored under pressure in a tank. You can carry around a lot more hydrogen, by volume, than you can carrying around a tank of water.

[skepticalbip]

One big problem, it seems to me, is that water can't be compressed and that it contains oxygen. You can get oxygen for free from the atmosphere and hydrogen gas can be stored under pressure in a tank. You can carry around a lot more hydrogen, by volume, than you can carrying around a tank of water.But then you couldn't create all the hype that you had a car that "ran on water" to stun and amaze the scientifically illiterate.

[Yggdrasill]

One big problem, it seems to me, is that water can't be compressed and that it contains oxygen. You can get oxygen for free from the atmosphere and hydrogen gas can be stored under pressure in a tank. You can carry around a lot more hydrogen, by volume, than you can carrying around a tank of water.Are you sure about that?

Water has a molecular mass of 18.01524 g/mol, which corresponds to 55.6 mol/kg or 55.6 mol/l. At 20 C and 1 atm, the volume of 55.6 mols of hydrogen would be 1337 liters, and if you store it at the reasonable storage pressure of 200 atm, it would be 6.7 liters.

The above means that if you store hydrogen in water, you can carry with you almost seven times more hydrogen than with hydrogen as a gas, given a specific volume.

It's even better to store hydrogen as a liquid, but then you have to cool it.

[AdamWho]

Is there any reason why Jason Vorhees is sitting in the drivers seat O_o;?

Many Engadget posts on "Friday the 13" have Jason in them, it is a joke.

[militant agnostic]

This makes we remember all the crazyness that happened in the wake of the Who Killed The Electric Car movie.

Was the car they talked about in that movie for real? All the stuff I remember about it seemed to good to be true.

I doubted that the oil industrie had any real motivation to destroy it if it existed. Oil is a finite resource that is used for a hell of alot ore than making gas, and it seemed to me like they could milk the profits from it alot longer if they let new energy make gassoline less important and kept controling the distribution of it for the manufacturing of electronics, cosmetics, and medical sundries, etc. Unless of course they are so greedy and short sided that they can't let anything cut into their short term profits, no matter how rich they already are.

But seriously. Was that thing for real?

[BTV Engineer]

One big problem, it seems to me, is that water can't be compressed and that it contains oxygen. You can get oxygen for free from the atmosphere and hydrogen gas can be stored under pressure in a tank. You can carry around a lot more hydrogen, by volume, than you can carrying around a tank of water.Are you sure about that?

Water has a molecular mass of 18.01524 g/mol, which corresponds to 55.6 mol/kg or 55.6 mol/l. At 20 C and 1 atm, the volume of 55.6 mols of hydrogen would be 1337 liters, and if you store it at the reasonable storage pressure of 200 atm, it would be 6.7 liters.

The above means that if you store hydrogen in water, you can carry with you almost seven times more hydrogen than with hydrogen as a gas, given a specific volume.

It's even better to store hydrogen as a liquid, but then you have to cool it.

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you, it sounds like you are talking about storing hydrogen, under pressure, in water.

[skepticalbip]

This makes we remember all the crazyness that happened in the wake of the Who Killed The Electric Car movie.

Was the car they talked about in that movie for real? All the stuff I remember about it seemed to good to be true.

I doubted that the oil industrie had any real motivation to destroy it if it existed. Oil is a finite resource that is used for a hell of alot ore than making gas, and it seemed to me like they could milk the profits from it alot longer if they let new energy make gassoline less important and kept controling the distribution of it for the manufacturing of electronics, cosmetics, and medical sundries, etc. Unless of course they are so greedy and short sided that they can't let anything cut into their short term profits, no matter how rich they already are.

But seriously. Was that thing for real?
I don't know exactly what you are talking about because I have never even heard of the movie. But, as I recall, the very first automobile was an electric car. In fact, they have been available every since. There are still electric cars, electric golf carts, electric fork lifts, electric wheel chairs, electric scooters, etc. Electric is still preferred for some specific purposes.

However, very early the electric car lost out to cars driven by gasoline powered internal combustion engines because of the limited range, speed, and lengthy recharging times of the electric cars. People just preferred the gas powered cars.

With the growing interest in electric car design and production, I am wondering how State and Federal agencies will find a way to tax the power used to charge them. Now gasoline tax is the source to fund most highway construction and maintenance (which seems fair). A decrease or loss of those taxes with increased use of electric cars means that it will have to come from somewhere else. - Will they come up with a highway tax that is as fair as the gasoline tax?

[Yggdrasill]

Are you sure about that?

Water has a molecular mass of 18.01524 g/mol, which corresponds to 55.6 mol/kg or 55.6 mol/l. At 20 C and 1 atm, the volume of 55.6 mols of hydrogen would be 1337 liters, and if you store it at the reasonable storage pressure of 200 atm, it would be 6.7 liters.

The above means that if you store hydrogen in water, you can carry with you almost seven times more hydrogen than with hydrogen as a gas, given a specific volume.

It's even better to store hydrogen as a liquid, but then you have to cool it.

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you, it sounds like you are talking about storing hydrogen, under pressure, in water.You're totally misunderstanding me. ;)

I mean you can store hydrogen in two different ways:

- As water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_%28molecule%29). This means that one liter of water contains 55.6 mols of dihydrogen, where each of the dihydrogen molecules are bonded with one oxygen atom.

- As a compressed gas. This means that one liter of compressed gas contains 8.3 mols of dihydrogen. (Assuming the storage pressure is 200 atm and the storage temperature is 20 C.) To be able to store 55.6 mols of dihydrogen as a compressed gas, you have to increase the volume to 6.7 liters, or you can increase the storage pressure to 1337 atm (which is very dangerous and impractical), or a combination thereof.

I understand that it can seem counterintuitive that adding oxygen to the hydrogen can decrease it's volume, but try to think of the oxygen as an additive that increases the boiling temperature of the dihydrogen to 100 C. When the dihydrogen undergoes the shift into a liquid, the losses of volume to the oxygen is more than made up for by the way the molecules are stacked much closer.

Because I've got nothing better to do, here are a few other ways to store hydrogen:

- As compressed methane. The density of methane is 0.717 g/l at 1 atm (0 C?), but when you increase it to 200 atm, the density increases to 143.4 g/l. The molar mass of methane is 16 g/mol so one liter contains 143.4 / 16 = 8.9 mols of methane. Because each molecule contains 2 dihydrogen molecules, you need to multiply by two, so it's 17.9 mols/liter. This is about twice as good as the dihydrogen alone, but not nearly as good as the water.

- As liquid hydrogen. At 20 K, one liter of hydrogen contains 71 g of dihydrogen, and with a molecular weight of 2 g/mol, this means one liter contains 35.5 mols. Better again than both compressed methane and dihydrogen, but still not as good as water.

- Octane ("gasoline"). One liter of gasoline weighs 0.703 kg, and the molar mass of octane is 0.114 kg/mol. This means one liter of octane equals 6.16 mols of octane. Each octane molecule contains 9 dihydrogen molecules, so you have to multiply 6.16 by 9, which equals 55.4 mols/liter. This is roughly equal to water (my calculations aren't that exact), but much better than the other alternatives.

- Hentriacontane. One liter of the stuff weighs 0.781 kg,and the molar mass is 0.437 kg/mol. This means one liter of hentriacontane equals 1.79 mols of hentriacontane. Each hentriacontane molecule contains 32 dihydrogen molecules, so you have to multiply 1.79 by 32, which equals 57.3 mols/liter. This is the best storage method so far.

[Yggdrasill]

Also:

- Hydrazine. One liter of the stuff weighs 1.01 kg,and the molar mass is 0.032 kg/mol. This means one liter of hydrazine equals 31.6 mols of hydrazine. Each hydrazine molecule contains 2 dihydrogen molecules, so you have to multiply 31.6 by 2, which equals 63 mols/liter.

I suspected it would be higher. That stuff is awesome/terrifying. :)

[youngalexander]

Is there any reason why Jason Vorhees is sitting in the drivers seat O_o;?
Yes, that it where they sucked the energy from.:wave:

PS: who is ...
PPS: please do not reply

[Buck Laser]

I am truly surprised and disappointed that anyone on IIDB took the time to follow that bit of bullshit. My detector goes off loud and clear anytime I hear something about free energy, world peace or similar stuff.


But... the video had a very formal looking Japanese business man in a nice suit! How could it fake?
Oh. I didn't realize THAT. I hereby renounce all my skepticism. I'm going in tomorrow to have my bullshit detector filter changed.

[BTV Engineer]

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you, it sounds like you are talking about storing hydrogen, under pressure, in water.You're totally misunderstanding me. ;)
Well, you did say "if you store hydrogen in water", I just interpreted that wrong.
I mean you can store hydrogen in two different ways:

- As water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_%28molecule%29). This means that one liter of water contains 55.6 mols of dihydrogen, where each of the dihydrogen molecules are bonded with one oxygen atom.

- As a compressed gas. This means that one liter of compressed gas contains 8.3 mols of dihydrogen. (Assuming the storage pressure is 200 atm and the storage temperature is 20 C.) To be able to store 55.6 mols of dihydrogen as a compressed gas, you have to increase the volume to 6.7 liters, or you can increase the storage pressure to 1337 atm (which is very dangerous and impractical), or a combination thereof.

I understand that it can seem counterintuitive that adding oxygen to the hydrogen can decrease it's volume, but try to think of the oxygen as an additive that increases the boiling temperature of the dihydrogen to 100 C. When the dihydrogen undergoes the shift into a liquid, the losses of volume to the oxygen is more than made up for by the way the molecules are stacked much closer.I see what you are talking about. Of course, while you can carry around 7 times more hydrogen, by volume, in its water form, you are carrying 18 times more total mass. In a moving vehicle that would be a major waste, not to mention that you still have to remove the hydrogen from its storage method.

[Deleet]

I've had something equivalent to high school chemistry.

There are two kinds of reactions, exothermic and endothermic, the first frees up energy and the latter uses energy. We know that burning dihydrogen is an exothermic reaction. Thus the other way must be endothermic.

The reaction from water to dihydrogen is:
2H2O + energy -> O2 + 2H2

Now, we have freed our fuel, lets burn it:
O2 + 2H2 -> 2H2O + energy

Aha! wait, we have just received zero output of energy, since we just did the same reaction in both directions. Am I off? :huh:

[BTV Engineer]

Aha! wait, we have just received zero output of energy, since we just did the same reaction in both directions. Am I off? :huh:No, you have it right but the same thing can be said of hydrogen powered vehicles. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread and the referenced article, the energy to dissociate the water comes from a chemical reaction. What isn't mentioned is the cost of the chemicals to split the water molecules.

I saw a similar and interesting idea on, of all places, "This Old House." A solar powered prototype house that uses solar electricity to generate hydrogen for a fuel cell in an electric car. The hydrogen is generated from your local tap water. In this way it is as much of a water powered vehicle as the one created by Genepax.

Logistically, it might be easier to refill your water tank than find a source of hydrogen gas.

[spamandham]

Aha! wait, we have just received zero output of energy, since we just did the same reaction in both directions. Am I off? :huh:

No. The energy to break apart the water has to come from somewhere else. In this case, the article says it's a chemical reaction of some kind, but there's nothing more specific than that.

My bet is it's either a magnesium or sodium based reaction, which would both produce hydrogen gas plus an aqueous solution that can be recovered and reprocessed (i.e. add energy back in) .