Yeah, so we agree it doesn't need to be 100% efficient. The water vapor/hydrogen combustion engine example I gave earlier would rely on outside hydrogen and pure water. No electrolysis needed on-site. The concept is rock solid (basically just steam power), and the only limiting factor is our ability to produce cheap hydrogen. Of all the technology dealing with water, that one seemed the most clever and simplest approach, with the runner-up being the guy who discovered that salt water burns when hit with microwaves. I'm sure there's huge potential there, if we're willing to look.

[edit]
Sorry, radio waves, not microwaves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo

Here's the japan model (not sure the method)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME

Here's a domestic version from way back in the day: (Stan Meyers)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1UrlDNkYSo

Here's the HHO torch I mentioned (watch the flame turn into water)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-sRqAsMEW8

I'm looking for the video of the water vapor/hydrogen van this guy designed, but there's a ton of videos on youtube on this subject and it's proving difficult to pick that one out of the bunch. Trust me, though, it's there.

Here's a brief on that tech coming out of New Zealand.
http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/rotary.html

I refuse to reply to any of this on the grounds that vehicles already exist that run exclusively on water.

Yes.

Oh, did you want me to link it? I thought you would have seen it already, but ok. [link]

Jp wrote:

Given that all of those use methods that are not, in fact, use of water as a fuel, you're quite clearly wrong. I thought you had some actual, y'know, evidence.

Oh really? Funny, I could have sworn the reporter for the Japan Water Car story clearly stated, and I doth quote:

"With oil prices soaring and fuel protests spreading across the globe, it almost sounds too good to be true; a car that runs on nothing but water."

And now I shall quote the representative of the company who built the car:

"The main characteristic of this car is that no external input is needed. The car will continue to run as long as you have a bottle of water inside to add from time to time."


Sure sounds like power from water to me. Though, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the interpreter was incompetent and only thought the man said it ran just on water. Maybe Reuters got it wrong, too, huh?

As I've already run through, the 'radio wave' method is equivalent to claiming that the fuel tank of a car produces power. Where does the power to emit the radio waves to (allegedly) 'burn' saltwater come from?

The burning of the saltwater produces heat which can be converted into motion, which can be converted to electricity. Or you can skip the motion and go straight from heat to electricity. It doesn't even take a lot of power to produce the burn. I've seen people do it with household RF devices (like those that can transmit video or audio through the house via radio). I believe it was a 900 watt transmitter they used. Point being, you can burn saltwater at very high temperatures with such a setup. How you harness that power is up to you.

The Japanese model clearly runs on something other than water.

Wrong again.

"While the company did not disclose much, its president claimed that they had "succeeded in adopting a well-known process to produce hydrogen from water to the MEA", Environmental News Network reported.

Oh, so a well known process makes the water something else before you put it into the car? Wow. Really. Wow.

Ok, let me get this straight. I put water in the car, I turn on the ignition, the car goes. Where is this "other" fuel you speak of? I only put water in, there should be no other fuel necessary.

He also said that the mechanism was similar to the method in which hydrogen is produced by a reaction of metal hydride and water." From here.

In short, it runs on metal hydride.

No, it runs on water. You're not pulling up to a metal hydride station (if that is what they're using), you pull up to a water station. Water is the fuel. Water goes in, nothing else.

Given that Stan Meyer's vehicle basically was a perpetual motion machine, it can't possibly have worked. Given that nobody attempting to make a modern version of it have ever succeeded in making a functional version, it's pretty clearly bunkum. He was convicted of fraud over it, remember?

Yeah... right. I'll leave this one alone for now. I'm well aware of how much controversy surrounds him, and I'm also well aware of how his machine worked. You probably wouldn't like the fact that people are feverishly replicating all these technologies at home, nor that many of these new technologies were based off of Meyer's work. My friend has a water fuel cell in his car, and guess what? It improved his gas mileage. You can tell me it's bunk, but I know it's not.

I've already pointed out what's wrong with using Brown's Gas (otherwise known as HHO) to fuel a vehicle - you're fuelling it on Brown's Gas, not water.

Stan's machine makes brown's gas from water. The HHO torch also makes brown's gas from water. Yes, they require electricity to do this, but they do it.

Finally, the New Zealand motor, while interesting and certainly a useful invention, is running on hydrogen, not watter. As I suspected, it's just using water to recover some of the energy lost as heat when burning the hydrogen. Clever, yes. Useful, yes. Water-powered? No.

Oh, right. Because you can't get hydrogen from water at all. No sir. Not here on this little blue rock.

Oh, wait... we can.

EDIT: Crap, just realised the New Zealand motor wasn't what I thought it was. No, it's bunkum and it won't work. I thought it was more like the Crowe six-stroke.

Yet again, wrong. I've seen the engine run in a van. It wasn't this exact team from New Zealand, but the concept is the same.

The vast majority of these are less efficient than just burning hydrogen, let alone a fuel cell.

Uh huh. Tell that to Japan as they drive by in their water-powered cars and laugh at you.

Sigh. Perpetual motion crap. Learn some thermodynamics.

Sure sounds like power from water to me. Though, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the interpreter was incompetent and only thought the man said it ran just on water. Maybe Reuters got it wrong, too, huh?

Sounds like hyperbole from the marketing department, considering the statement I've quoted in my post, that you obviously haven't understood.

The burning of the saltwater produces heat which can be converted into motion, which can be converted to electricity. Or you can skip the motion and go straight from heat to electricity. It doesn't even take a lot of power to produce the burn. I've seen people do it with household RF devices (like those that can transmit video or audio through the house via radio). I believe it was a 900 watt transmitter they used. Point being, you can burn saltwater at very high temperatures with such a setup. How you harness that power is up to you.

So it's fed back into the system - use a hundred joules of energy to produce ninety joules of energy, and claim success. Wow. I'm impressed.

And once again, the water isn't consumed - it's just there to hold the sodium and chlorine ions, as I've already mentioned. That is, if this crap has anything to do with what this machine actually does. If it even does anything.

No, it runs on water. You're not pulling up to a metal hydride station (if that is what they're using), you pull up to a water station. Water is the fuel. Water goes in, nothing else.

No. Water goes in, water goes out, metal hydrides are used up. The metal hydrides are consumed in producing the hydrogen. You're putting water in, sure, but it's not a fuel - it's a catalyst, pretty much. On-demand hydrogen generation is certainly a useful technology, but it's not using water as a fuel. It's impossible, short of nuclear fusion. Water is just too stable. You may as well try and run a car on helium.

Meyer's machine can't possibly have worked. That's all I'm saying. It's a physical impossibility. It takes just as much energy to ionise water as you can get out by putting it back together, and there's no way to avoid it. This isn't 'new physics', this is 'ignoring all previously established rules of physics'.

Stan's machine makes brown's gas from water. The HHO torch also makes brown's gas from water. Yes, they require electricity to do this, but they do it.

(Emphasis mine).

So, in short, they require external energy input - there's no energy being produced by the water, it's being fed in externally. The fuel is whatever made the electricity, not the water. Note that it's not consumed. If it's not consumed, it's not a fuel.

Yet again, wrong. I've seen the engine run in a van. It wasn't this exact team from New Zealand, but the concept is the same.

1 - Making hydrogen from water takes, at minimum, as much energy as burning hydrogen produces.
2 - Hydrogen cannot burn at a hot enough temperature to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen naturally, because that would violate the laws of chemistry. Pretty badly. This isn't like thermodynamics-violation, this is more like being-in-three-places-simultaeneously-while-posessing-imagin ary-mass violation.
3 - I doubt this engine actually ran on water. Because, y'know, it would change the entire basis of physics, what with it completely breaking the laws of thermodynamics. Seriously, man, get a grip.

Jp wrote:

Sigh. Perpetual motion crap. Learn some thermodynamics.

No. Learn that the universe doesn't play by your rules, no matter how much you believe it does.

Sounds like hyperbole from the marketing department, considering the statement I've quoted in my post, that you obviously haven't understood.

Actually, I never read it. I figured from your remarks you didn't watch any of the videos I linked, so I failed to see why I should pay any mind to your link.

So it's fed back into the system - use a hundred joules of energy to produce ninety joules of energy, and claim success. Wow. I'm impressed.

And once again, the water isn't consumed - it's just there to hold the sodium and chlorine ions, as I've already mentioned. That is, if this crap has anything to do with what this machine actually does. If it even does anything.

Oh, so burning things doesn't produce energy now? Explain to me how burning water isn't consumed, if THE THING IS ON FIRE!!!!

You burn the water only when it's excited by the radio waves, otherwise it is stable and will not burn. You're not burning radio waves, which is the only other ingredient here, you're burning the water itself. The water IS consumed: by FIRE. Wrap your little head around that for a sec. I'll wait.


With me now? Oh, I didn't think so.

Ok, you burn oil, but to do so it requires the proper environment. You provide that environment with a spark plug. That requires energy. That energy comes from... that's right, the burning oil produces heat which is converted to motion which is then converted back into electricity which sparks the gap and ignites the oil which burns and produces heat..., with plenty of juice left to make the beast move from 0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds.

You say that oil is different, because it's consumable. So is water in these conditions. If it were not, it would not burn at all. Something has to be consumed for flame to exist. Obviously, a flame exists, so therefore your argument is quite invalid, again.

No. Water goes in, water goes out, metal hydrides are used up. The metal hydrides are consumed in producing the hydrogen. You're putting water in, sure, but it's not a fuel - it's a catalyst, pretty much. On-demand hydrogen generation is certainly a useful technology, but it's not using water as a fuel. It's impossible, short of nuclear fusion. Water is just too stable. You may as well try and run a car on helium.

You put water in. It runs. It runs on water. Does it matter it uses metal hydride? No. You don't put that in the car, you put water in the car. You put water in, and it runs. Am I getting through to you? Water in, power out. Vrooom. If water was the catalyst, it wouldn't need replenishing, would it?

Meyer's machine can't possibly have worked. That's all I'm saying. It's a physical impossibility.

According to the church of JP, maybe. I'd rather believe my eyes, thanks. You can keep your hokey religion.

It takes just as much energy to ionise water as you can get out by putting it back together, and there's no way to avoid it. This isn't 'new physics', this is 'ignoring all previously established rules of physics'.

So you've been told.

Stan's machine makes brown's gas from water. The HHO torch also makes brown's gas from water. Yes, they require electricity to do this, but they do it.

(Emphasis mine).

I'd like to point out that your original argument which this statement is replying to claimed that these didn't use water, but this funny brown's gas. I'm pointing out that a few produce HHO from water, which again invalidates your original statement.

So, in short, they require external energy input - there's no energy being produced by the water, it's being fed in externally. The fuel is whatever made the electricity, not the water. Note that it's not consumed. If it's not consumed, it's not a fuel.

But if it is, then it is, right? Can we agree on that at least? Because I'm pretty sure burning something is consumption. If it burns it's fuel. HHO burns, it is fuel. Meyers (and others) use very little power at all. Less than an amp, in fact, is reported by most people who've reconstructed his cell.

The system can be fed back to power itself and other devices, though most researchers are focusing on the hydrogen production for a gasoline engine hybrid, which is more practical on a grass roots level than designing and marketing a new engine to run on brown's gas exclusively.

1 - Making hydrogen from water takes, at minimum, as much energy as burning hydrogen produces.

Nope, thanks for plying!

2 - Hydrogen cannot burn at a hot enough temperature to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen naturally, because that would violate the laws of chemistry. Pretty badly. This isn't like thermodynamics-violation, this is more like being-in-three-places-simultaeneously-while-posessing-imagin ary-mass violation.

I never said that's what it did. You see. This is why I don't think you bother to read my posts before diving in to debunk them. I said it was basically a steam engine. I never said anything about burning the water with hydrogen. Seriously, I've only said like 4 times now. Perhaps the multitude of technologies has you confused, but I thought I was quite clear.

3 - I doubt this engine actually ran on water. Because, y'know, it would change the entire basis of physics, what with it completely breaking the laws of thermodynamics. Seriously, man, get a grip.

I have a grip, and I'm gonna hold fast. You stuffy has-beens are the ones who need to come to terms with reality. Your physics is dead. Long live the impossible.

Xooxer wrote:

Jp wrote:

Water is not being used as a power source. I'm going to disregard the claims of over-unity, other than to note that I wouldn't trust the engineering credentials of the person behind the device if they claimed it.

I know it's hard, and it's not your fault, but your deep seated beliefs are not at all becoming a man of science.

ARE YOU CALLING HIM, JP, CLOSE-MINDED?!?!

I'm only saying that if you're not willing to consider the possibility that the laws of thermodynamics are faulty or wrong, you have no scientific basis for your stance on anything that has to do with breaking the second law. Blind faith is not science, it's religion. What he, and most people I talk with about this subject, seem to think is that the second law of thermodynamics is utterly sound and can never ever be broken, no matter what we learn, invent or discover. It's a position of absolute refusal to be reasonable. Just because we haven't discovered a loophole or way out doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Science needs to concern itself not only with what we know, but also with what we don't know. If you're only arguing from a position of absolute knowledge, your argument is no longer scientific, it's religious. That I have no patience for.

But Like I said, it's not really his fault. Just think for a second what it would mean if the second law of thermodynamics was proven false.

Popisfizzy wrote:

And argue if you wish, but you're just a nutcase or a troll, and arguing with you is an absolutely waste of time. So, this is my last post in this thread, relating to you.

If this is true, then why even bother in the first place? If you think me so trollish and unworthy of your time, you hardly show it with the vigor you show in reply to anything I say that you believe is an in to bash my character. At least I'm arguing from a platform of reason. You're just calling people names.

What would it mean if the laws of thermodynamics were wrong?

Hmm, let's consider:
1 - It would mean our understanding of gases is completely and utterly wrong, on the deepest level.
2 - It would cast doubt on atom theory.
3 - It would require us to doubt statistical mechanics.
4 - It would imply we do not, in fact, understand anything about any engine of any sort - they all use thermodynamics as the basis for our understanding.
5 - It would mean that pretty much all scientific observations can be called into question. If we can't guarantee energy has been conserved, there's no way to demonstrate that, say, those by-products of a particle collision have the properties you think they have.
6 - In short, all of modern science becomes very shaky.

So yeah, it's a big deal.

Basically, thermodynamics ties in with so much, and thermodynamics is such a long-standing law, that it takes extraordinary evidence to disprove it. My mind is as open as it needs to be. I am quite capable of admitting that thermodynamics (or any other scientific law or theory) is wrong... but only with a suitable quantity and quality of evidence.

Sure, science needs to consider itself with what we don't know. Sure, scientific tests of these claims should be carried out. But I know enough to know it's unlikely that they'll find anything out of the ordinary. I also know it's unlikely that any of these machines will ever get tested, because however deluded their inventors are, they've got some sense of self-preservation. And that's not even considering the ones that are just frauds, or oversold by the marketing department (See - japanese car)