''Japanese invent car that runs solely on water"

[dgg9]

catalyst anyone?



A catalyst is a chemical compound that acts to speed up a reaction, but in the process is not itself changed.

And when in doubt, reread the last half of that sentence.

From the article you cited:

Using Energy to break water to form hydrogen to combine oxygen to form Energy - in this way is rather circular. In fact, because of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't break even in this exchange of energy.

End of discussion.

[Damage control]

And when in doubt, reread the last half of that sentence.

From the article you cited:

Using Energy to break water to form hydrogen to combine oxygen to form Energy - in this way is rather circular. In fact, because of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't break even in this exchange of energy.

End of discussion.

Ahh but that is where catalyst comes in. It states that with catalyst it outputs more than it inputs. Unless of course I'm reading it wrong.

There is a Video on the web about a guy who put water in between I believe it was high intensity radio waves and the water burned at 3000 degrees.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm

For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned.

So when an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax.

John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube.

Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies.

His discovery has spawned scientific interest in using the world's most abundant substance as clean fuel, among other uses.

Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, held a demonstration last week at the university's Materials Research Laboratory in State College, to confirm what he'd witnessed weeks before in an Erie lab.

"It's true, it works," Dr. Roy said. "Everyone told me, 'Rustum, don't be fooled. He put electrodes in there.' "

But there are no electrodes and no gimmicks, he said.

Dr. Roy said the salt water isn't burning per se, despite appearances. The radio frequency actually weakens bonds holding together the constituents of salt water -- sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen -- and releases the hydrogen, which, once ignited, burns continuously when exposed to the RF energy field. Mr. Kanzius said an independent source measured the flame's temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting an enormous energy output.

As such, Dr. Roy, a founding member of the Materials Research Laboratory and expert in water structure, said Mr. Kanzius' discovery represents "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years."

But researching its potential will take time and money, he said. One immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen.

Dr. Roy said he's scheduled to meet tomorrow with U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense officials in Washington to discuss the discovery and seek research funding.

Mr. Kanzius said he powered a Stirling, or hot air, engine with salt water. But whether the system can power a car or be used as an efficient fuel will depend on research results.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Dr. Roy said. "The potential is huge.

"In the life sciences, the role of water is infinite, and this guy is doing something new in using the most important and most abundant material on the face of the earth."

Mr. Kanzius' discovery was an accident.

He developed the RF generator as a novel cancer treatment. His research in targeting cancer cells with metallic nanoparticles then destroying them with radio-frequency is proceeding at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and at the University of Texas' MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Manuscripts updating the cancer research are in preparation for publication in coming months, Mr. Kanzius said.

While Mr. Kanzius was demonstrating how his generator heated nanoparticles, someone noted condensation inside the test tube and suggested he try using his equipment to desalinate water.

So, Mr. Kanzius said, he put sea water in a test tube, then trained his machine on it, producing an unexpected spark. In time he and laboratory owners struck a match and ignited the water, which continued burning as long as it remained in the radio-frequency field.

During several trials, heat from burning hydrogen grew hot enough to melt the test tube, he said. Dr. Roy's tests on the machine last week provided further evidence that the process is releasing and burning hydrogen from the water. Tests on different water solutions and concentrations produced various temperatures and flame colors.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Dr. Roy said of salt water. "Seeing it burn gives me chills."

DC

[Kaos]

You beat me to the article DC.

There's more ways to get energy than by fossil fuels. Im not saying that oil's useless and doesn't have it's place. But wouldn't it be fantastic if it were?

[pex]

The energy we put into gasoline is less than the energy we get out, too. Why would separating water be any different?

You start with a charged battery. Let's say a fossil fuel produced it. You add water, get the hydrogen, burn it, run the car, and charge the battery with the alternator.

My guess would be someone decided that we could decrease the energy dissipation of the battery by adding water to the equation.

It's just an electric car with water.

[dgg9]

The energy we put into gasoline is less than the energy we get out, too. Why would separating water be any different?

Because gasoline represents stored energy that produces more energy than it takes to combust it. Water represents NO stored energy. Gasoline is equivalent to running a Hydrogen engine -- all the work involved in creating a flammable liquid/gas has been done before you leave the house.

It's just an electric car with water.

No it isn't.

[dgg9]

You start with a charged battery. Let's say a fossil fuel produced it. You add water, get the hydrogen, burn it, run the car, and charge the battery with the alternator.

You're missing the central point. It takes MORE energy to separate H2 from O than you get back from then burning the resultant separated Hydrogen and Oxygen. That bottom line reality is what stops this idea, end of story.

The process represents a net loss of energy. It's exactly equivalent to a battery run car that starts out with a dead battery and then someone claiming that running the engine will charge the battery, then you use the batery to run the car. It's a perpetual motion machine. It's bogus.

[headcase]

You're missing the central point. It takes MORE energy to separate H2 from O than you get back from then burning the resultant separated Hydrogen and Oxygen. That bottom line reality is what stops this idea, end of story.

The process represents a net loss of energy. It's exactly equivalent to a battery run car that starts out with a dead battery and then someone claiming that running the engine will charge the battery, then you use the batery to run the car. It's a perpetual motion machine. It's bogus.

And before that guy burned water, you'd have said it was impossible. Seeing as it has made news headlines all over the world, I would wait and see if they developed a new technology, before I condemned it as a hoax. Getting into an argument and trying to prove something is impossible, that is apparently being demonstrated to people higher up the intelligence food chain then you or I, is kind of stupid. Some of our greatest inventions were laughed at and dismissed as being impossible, until they were shown to not be impossible....

[dgg9]

And before that guy burned water, you'd have said it was impossible.

Um, no. No one says it's impossible. It's quite possible, through a well known mechanism: you separate the Hydrogen and the Oxygen, then you recombine. Net loss of energy.

Seeing as it has made news headlines all over the world, I would wait and see if they developed a new technology, before I condemned it as a hoax.

I can declare it a hoax right now, as can anyone with an undergrad college course in the basic laws of thermodynamics and energy under his belt. This is basic, rock solid chemistry we're talking about here, well understood for over a hundred years. The chemical reaction that makes/breaks water can't be "gotten around."

[Damage control]

Um, no. No one says it's impossible. It's quite possible, through a well known mechanism: you separate the Hydrogen and the Oxygen, then you recombine. Net loss of energy.



I can declare it a hoax right now, as can anyone with an undergrad college course in the basic laws of thermodynamics and energy under his belt. This is basic, rock solid chemistry we're talking about here, well understood for over a hundred years. The chemical reaction that makes/breaks water can't be "gotten around."

Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics.

The conservation laws are particularly robust. Noether's theorem states that any conservation law can be derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry, and the theorem can be proven. In other words, as long as the laws of physics (not simply the current understanding of them, but the actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) and the various physical constants remain invariant over time — as long as the laws of the universe are fixed — then the conservation laws must be true, in the sense that they follow from the presupposition using mathematical logic. To put it the other way around: if perpetual motion or "overunity" machines were possible, then most of what we believe to be true about physics, mathematics, or both would have to be false. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that mathematics is believed to be absolute, since its veracity is not dependent on anything that happens in the real world.

Never say never! Everything you have ever learned can be changed in the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse. Most of the best inventions were found by mistake.

DC

[dgg9]

Never say never! Everything you have ever learned can be changed in the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse. Most of the best inventions were found by mistake.

You're mixing apples and oranges. Inventions are man-made ways to USE the laws of thermodynamics. The laws themselves have never changed. They will not change in the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse.

You can not get energy from water. I recommend a high school physics class to everyone on this thread, as a way of inoculating yourselves against further scams.

My prediction for this news article:

1. Either it's an outright scam, or
2. You'll find that the process of separating water into H2 and O2 comes from fuel sources already in the car to begin with, that must then be renewed. IOW, "burning water" is not the source of energy, merely the means of using the already-stored battery/fuel-cell energy, which means they could simply have run the car directly from the battery.