Jun 16 2008
The Car That Runs on Water
This story keeps coming back, and it is likes we will continue to see it into the future. The car that runs on water has become almost a technological icon – like the hover car or the cure for cancer. Except we will never see it because it simply is not possible.
Here is the latest iteration of this scam/pseudoscience. Japanese company Genepax claims that is has a car that runs on water. Reuters reports:
“The car will continue to run as long as you have a bottle of water to top up from time to time,” Genepax CEO Kiyoshi Hirasawa told local broadcaster TV Tokyo.
“It does not require you to build up an infrastructure to recharge your batteries, which is usually the case for most electric cars,” he added.
The Reuters article was pretty light on details. It was also light on skepticism (i.e basic journalism). It failed to inform readers that such claims have been made numerous times before and that the scientific consensus is that such claims violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Cryptogon reports that on June 12th the company held a press conference, adding:
The basic power generation mechanism of the new system is similar to that of a normal fuel cell, which uses hydrogen as a fuel. According to Genepax, the main feature of the new system is that it uses the company’s membrane electrode assembly (MEA), which contains a material capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction.
Though the company did not reveal the details, it “succeeded in adopting a well-known process to produce hydrogen from water to the MEA,” said Hirasawa Kiyoshi, the company’s president. 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.
Here is the problem – it takes energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. When you then burn the hydrogen by recombining it with oxygen you generate some of that energy back. But the laws of thermodynamic say that the energy you get back must be less than the energy you put in. You simply cannot get energy out of this process.
Those who have claimed to have done so in the past fall into one of two broad categories: Either they were deceiving themselves through sloppy science or they were scam artists. In the former case the energy inputs and outputs were not measured accurately, or a source of energy input was missed, leading to the false conclusion that energy output exceeds input. In the latter case con artists are simply looking for investors for a product they know will never work. I do not know which category Genepax falls into.
The company claims that it is their membrane technology that allows for the splitting of hydrogen off water. But this does not explain where the energy is coming from. The word “catalyst” is thrown around a lot – but a catalyst just allows a reaction to run more quickly, it does not allow a reaction to go from a low energy state (water) to a higher energy state (hydrogen and oxygen). The company also says that the reaction is driven by a chemical reaction. It is possible for a chemical reaction to provide energy to split water – but then the fuel is the chemicals undergoing the reaction. What chemical might these be? How much is needed to fuel the car? Whey aren’t these chemicals already used as fuels? Since the company claims the car need only water and outputs only water it is unlikely they are fueling the car with large amounts of substances from which they are getting chemical energy. This is a good way to confuse the scientifically challenged, however.
What is most amusing about this story, other than the utter failure of the mainstream media to report it adequately, are some of the comments in the online article. Here are some gems:
For those who do not believe this (‘academic’ people especially)… get ready to be imperially f@cked when oil hits $200 a barrel. all I hear from them are moans that ‘it cannot be done’ while they offer no other solutions’. Fact is, you do not even know how many truths are kept away from you by the oil cartels. maybe a breakthrough was already created 20 years ago.
——————————–
All this talk about a hoax is a little silly. Do you not think the reporters from Reuters didn’t at least check this thing out. I am sure they made sure that the person put water in the tank to make it run. And for thermodynamics it is mostly garbage. Do the galaxies spin based on thermodynamics.——————————–
A scam? So what.. If I can get down the road with this cheaper than I can with oil it has a market. We are looking at $ per mile and availability of fuel. The “real” fuel here may be in the form of a metallic reaction bar or other type of catylist but who really cares?
These were the basic types of gullible comments. Some talked about the “big oil” conspiracy to suppress any such technology, while others simply stated that we need an alternative to gasoline (as if needed it made it so). One commenter made a type of argument from authority – that the press reporting can be trusted (how naive). But the most simplistic idiocy came from those who said something to the effect – who cares if it’s a scam, as long as it works. Huh?
It was good to see a fair percentage of commenters who understood the physics and that such claims must be fraudulent. One commenter said it very well – “when will people learn that water is not fuel.” Exactly.
Reading the comments of such articles always gives me the sensation (at the risk of creating a false dichotomy) that people fall into two basic groups: those who understand science and basically trust the institutions of science, and those whose thinking is hopelessly muddled by conspiracy thinking, pseudoscientific ideology, and/or scientific illiteracy. Perhaps the internet, with its exquisite catering to niche markets, is exacerbating this divide – making skeptics into better skeptics while simultaneously feeding the conspiracy mongers and lunatic fringe. If true it will be interesting to see where this gets us.
One thing is for sure – wherever that is we won’t be getting there in a water-powered car.
18 Responses to “The Car That Runs on Water”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] The Car That Runs on Water Categories: Cons & ScamsTags: archive, author, education, general-science, internet-scams, [...]
I used to agree with the following statement:
“Here is the problem – it takes energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. When you then burn the hydrogen by recombining it with oxygen you generate some of that energy back. But the laws of thermodynamic say that the energy you get back must be less than the energy you put in. You simply cannot get energy out of this process.”
But it turns out that this statement doesn’t really sum up the situation!
You split H2O into H2 and O2 by a chemical process known as hydrolosis. Let’s say that this takes “X” amount of energy. You then “burn” the H2 with a process called cold fusion. Water is produced as a byproduct, but the energy doesn’t come from creating the water (which is a chemical process), but rather from the atomic process, which creates “X” times 10,000 units of energy.
This is not, however, a perpetual process because the amount of water which is produced as a byproduct is less than the amount of water which you initially used for hydrolosis.
Sorry skeptics. You misapplied your science here.
Larry
No, they specifically said that it’s a chemical process in fact. We do use the atomic process to produce energy, in nuclear power plants. I don’t think they are using any atomic process in their car, though that might not be a bad scam to try next. A tiny controlled atomic process, using some sort of catalyst to control the reaction, producing just enough energy to run a car (and home and everything else in the world.)
If this process were valid, this wouldn’t be a solution to rising gas prices for our cars. This would be a solution to the energy problems of the entire world. We could basically produce “free” energy from water, stopping our use of everything from oil to uranium in order to produce energy. This would almost certainly be one of the biggest finds of the century, if not more.
Larry–
Nice, yes, the answer is just cold fusion. You could probably do it with a perpetual motion machine or a unicorn too.
Cold Fusion… well, it needed another pseudo-science to balance the scale, why not cold fusion?
If cold fusion really work it would produce Helium (and other by products) by fusing the Hydrogen atom, not Water. But cold fusion does not work.
Wasn’t cold fusion covered by Steven Novella before? I think in the SGU podcast.
My father has a boat that runs on water!
Sorry Steve, I had to. heh
Larryon 16 Jun 2008 at 9:38 am wrote:
“You split H2O into H2 and O2 by a chemical process known as hydrolosis. Let’s say that this takes “X” amount of energy. You then “burn” the H2 with a process called cold fusion. Water is produced as a byproduct, but the energy doesn’t come from creating the water (which is a chemical process), but rather from the atomic process, which creates “X” times 10,000 units of energy.”
This argument would be valid if the unstated major premise was true and cold fusion existed as an exploitable technology. Since no-one has convincingly demonstrated cold fusion this is a little like claiming that airplanes can travel at near the speed of light because they use matter annihilation engines. It is not _impossible_ that they one day might but asserting that it is happening now is stupid.
This argument also suffers from the same problem as the people that were going to use free energy devices to reduce (not eliminate?) home heating bills. If these people had developed functioning cold fusion why would they be building car engines? Why not power plants? Why not go for the Nobel prize?
And the great thing about the cold fusion is that you can use the extra gamma rays to turn yourself into the incredible hulk! Talk about convenient.
They do say chemical process – not cold fusion.
Explaining this with cold fusion is like using ESP to prove the existence of ghosts. Besides – if they really thought the energy came from cold fusion I think that would have been the headline.
The catch is the car can only be operated by a certified homeopath.
“sorry skeptics”
Larry, you’re killing me man.
please, buy the car. I beg you. fill it with dasani or whatever you like, dig?
News for the pre-prepared hydrogen story:
Honda has begun the first commercial production of a zero-emission, hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicle
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7456141.stm
“In the next few years, we are not going to do without petrol and diesel motors, but the future belongs to the electric car”
You know, I can’t believe how this amazing car just never seems to die. I remember first hearing this old chestnut about a car that will run on water years and years ago–so long that I don’t remember exactly when it was. It just keeps popping up every couple of years.
I was surprised when a friend of mine sent me a link to this story (he’s an engineer, as I am). At first, I assumed this was a hoax. Some digging revealed that it probably isn’t a hoax, but a case of very sloppy reporting.
Dr. Novella mentioned the “membrane electrode assembly” which produces the hydrogen from water. That’s actually all there is to report here. The MEA uses some consumable chemical (it isn’t mentioned what, it could be a metal hydride) to produce hydrogen, which runs fuel cells for a grand total of 300 Watts. That’s too little to power a car, even a tiny one, so the unit charges a battery over several hours that, in turn, runs the car for a while.
The only noteworthy thing about this story is that the company in question is claiming to have improved their hydrogen-producing reaction device and their electricity-producing fuel cell. They made no claims–that I could find–on the longevity of the MEA (how long the reagent lasts), but one article said the unit’s energy capacity is “in testing”.
As best I can tell, the company made no fraudulent or misleading claims, but their unfortunate (and maybe mistranslated) quote that the car “requires nothing but water” to run was breathlessly reported over and over again. Since I don’t speak Japanese, I can’t tell if the company’s ACTUAL press release was misleading or just misinterpreted. It could be both, of course. Maybe they wanted to get a bunch of free press, so they penned an intentionally-unscientific release. If so, it will no doubt cost them in the long term.
For the record, as best I can confirm, there’s nothing controversial or mysterious here. There’s nothing magical. There’s really not even anything exciting, since there have been more thrilling improvements in hydrogen-generation science and fuel cell science in recent years.
I still don’t quite understand what this company is claiming to have done that’s so novel. Maybe they think they’re about to break through to an economically-competitive business model with their 300 Watt fuel cell system.
Skeptics should be careful about bandying about the term “hoaxers” and “frauds” based on preliminary, non-technical mass media reports.
As soon as I see a careful translation of actual Genepax assertions that they’ve violated the 1st Law, I’ll be the first in line with a multimeter and tar and feathers. For the moment, I’m satisfied to chalk this one up to abysmal media coverage.
Cheers,
Damian
PS: Cold fusion, guys? Really? Is there a version of Godwin’s Law for posts about controversial (or bogus) energy technologies and the odds of someone lobbing the cold fusion gambit?
Cold Fusion
The following is a link to a reasonable experiment in what is being labeled as Cold Fusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLUeGX3hNpU&NR=1
Read the skeptic comments on youtube and you will see that there is plenty of controversy about this scientifically. Those comments should be sufficient to get rid of the masses of pseudo-skeptics who already have their minds made up and plan to ignore the facts regardless of what they are.
If your still with me, check out the Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
There you will see the following key satement:
“Since 2004, two peer-reviewed literature reviews have concluded that cold fusion has been demonstrated by experiments that result in excess heat production and nuclear reaction products such as helium-4.[7][8] The reviews stated that although many explanations have been proposed, several of which do not use new physics, none is yet satisfactory.”
Whether or not “Cold Fusion” is the correct term is of no significance to the argument — its just a label. What we have is a scientificaly repeatable phenomenon. Through careful engineering processes, this phenomenon may be used to create power, and this power may be used to propel cars.
… and of course I was drugged by the KGB and learned all this from a dream about faeries
Larry
I’m sorry, Larry. I followed your links and I’m totally unimpressed.
I’ll admit, straight out, that I think cold fusion is incredibly unlikely. I’m not ashamed to say that, and I don’t think it means I’m biased. Since I have a master’s degree in mechanical engineering and a minor in physics, I feel like I’m at LEAST qualified to say “cold fusion, if it exists, would be difficult to achieve.” The laws of physics don’t seem to allow any easy ways to induce fusion at low energies, and the engineering of producing high-enough energy states to induce fusion without creating a million-degree plasma remains inaccessible.
I hope we can at least agree, therefore, that the evidence for cold fusion would have to be pretty good.
Now let’s look at that YouTube video. (First, are we really willing to admit a YouTube video as evidence of anything? I don’t think that’s a good idea. Anyway, let’s look at it.
The presenter claims he’s going to show us “cold fusion”. But then he says this:
“What happens when the plasma arc hits the hydrogen? You guessed it, it’s going to burn the hydrogen … That’s why some people say we can make over-unity … that’s what the controversy is all about.”
What? Electrolyzing water and then burning the hydrogen is NOT cold fusion.
Sure enough, he just heats the (nonconducting) distilled water until enough potassium hydroxide has dissolved to make the solution a conductor. He cranks up the voltage, and the two charged electrodes start arcing, which is EXACTLY what you’d expect, and he calls this cold fusion. No it isn’t. All the power is coming from either the Variac or the water-KOH reaction. This is not a fusion reaction. It’s a short circuit.
Also, to be frank, I found the narrator’s pedantic and impatient tone insulting. He doesn’t appear to have any idea what he’s doing (or he’s lying about believing it’s cold fusion), and he’s taking a tone that implies I’m a five year old who could never understand the mysteries he’s about to unleash. At one point he humorously says–when admitting that he doesn’t know at what voltage his “reaction” will start–”oh well, that’s science”. Actually, it’s exactly the opposite of science!
If you really want to know about “cold fusion”, I recommend a paper by Yaron Danon (a real scientist who doesn’t make You Tube videos in his garage) at Rensselaer. He and his colleagues developed a tabletop miniature particle accelerator, of sorts, that actually does create fusion. It’s useless for power generation, but it might some day be used as a neutron source. See a good article about it here:
http://www.physorg.com/news10806.html
Cheers,
Damian
They could be talking about making hydrogen by adding water to an aluminum gallium alloy. In this instance energy is used to make the alloy, which is then consumed during the reaction.
The research is discussed here:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2007/Jun/hour1_060107.html
and here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750/
the car does not require you to build up an infrastructure to recharge your batteries, which is usually the case for most electric cars. it would be great for all Auto Enthusiasts.