digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at techon.nikkeibp.co.jp —

New Fuel Cell System 'Generates Electricity with Only Water,

techon.nikkeibp.co.jp — Genepax Co Ltd explained the technologies used in its new fuel cell system "Water Energy System (WES)," which uses water as a fuel and does not emit CO2. The system can generate power just by supplying water and air to the fuel and air electrodes, respectively, the company said at the press conference, which took place June 12, 2008, at the Osaka A

show profanity settings
expand all
  • greenboyDOTorg, on 06/13/2008, -17/+5Doesn't this seem like a solution to emissions from cars? Just imagine a bunch of Smart Cars running on water!
    • trixterIreland, on 06/14/2008, -10/+3that may seem ideal, however odds are the water has to be clean, which means water treatment plants have to be increased (its possible that it doesnt, using an evaporator and condenser on the tank).

      As for being green, how much energy and waste goes into the fuel cell? What do you do with the electrodes when they no longer are effective?

      And while this may work well in the city, I am unsure how well it will work in more rural areas. Farmers generally need vehicles that are much more capable and functional than a simple electric car, they need to haul fence posts, wire, they need tractors to plow and till the ground. They are also the group most forgotten about when people insist that gas taxes be raised, that surcharges on trucks be levied, yet they are the first that people complain about when food prices go up as a direct result.

      Granted in most countries 80-90% of the population are city folk, so it would have a dramatic impact regardless.
      • AngryFox, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3"...much more capable and functional than a simple electric car..."

        This article highlights a power-generator; one which could be used to supply an electric motor. The torque profile of an electric motor is such that no IC engine could possibly beat it for doing any of the jobs you describe. I shudder to think how kick-ass an F350 would be with 2 high-power electric motors operating the drive-train. The low-end torque would be enough to pull a wall down.
    • apeweek, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4Except that the water is not the fuel; the article is quite misleading.

      Water is not, and cannot be a fuel. Whatever the mystery substance or process is that breaks the water down will require energy. It is this energy that powers the car.

      If the process requires electricity, then what we have is an electric car - and (pardon my skepticism) this complicated process is probably not even as efficient as a battery (since battery efficiencies can already exceed 90%)
    • Billybones, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Innovative but not practical. A state of the art PEM fuel cells with a similar volume is able to provide 30 times the power at 4 Kilowatts. This technology would not be suitable for automotive applications. Although, it might be able to to power a small microwave ....
  • Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -7/+63I'm betting this is a hoax. Or, at any rate, all the information given is consistent with a hoax and not a real technology.

    Where does the "magic energy" come from that splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen?

    This is sort of like claiming that you have a magical wheel that rolls uphill. (No, it's not filled with helium.)
    • trixterIreland, on 06/14/2008, -5/+14fuel cells like this are in the space shuttle (I dont think they yet split water though by themselves). The problem in the past was temperature, which caused a shorter life. They ran at 1000 degrees or 4-5 times what a normal car runs at. Then they made 800 degree ones which were better. This is just another enhancement along that line.

      What they probably arent telling you is that you need to periodically replace the electrodes which is what is doing the real work. Think of it as an oil change with a larger price tag.

      To support my theory on this:
      "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."

      That chemical reaction cant last forever, it has to at some point break down, where the replacement electrodes come in. The key here is how much are those electrodes, how often do you have to replace them, and does the cost make sense. If it costs $100k every 6 months, it does not. If its $100 every year then it does.
      • mnky9800n, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3I think 100$ a month would be satisfactory to me. I pay twice that in gasoline.
      • Terr01, on 06/14/2008, -1/+5My point was that (given entropy, conversion losses, etc) it will always take more energy to split the water than you can get out by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen.

        If that energy comes from their water-splitting-magic-technology, then something needs to be replaced frequently and the "fuel" of the car is actually whatever that reactant is.

        Anybody saying: "water is the fuel" in the same way "gasoline is the fuel" is pulling a fast one.

        ... Or else or relying on conversion of mass to energy or some really incredible new physics that would be nobel-prize-worthy on it's own.
    • tocsy, on 06/14/2008, -1/+13I believe Terr01 is correct. Producing sufficient amounts of hydrogen from water takes a large amount of energy. Now hypothetically, it's certainly possible that they've found a way to do this. Hell, they could just have a huge block of sodium in the tank, which would do the trick just fine. The problem with that (along with the fact that it's moderately dangerous) is that the reaction will use up the sodium pretty quickly. Basically, unless they're putting energy into the car from another source (gasoline, electricity from a wall plug etc.), the only "chemical reaction" I can think of to do this would be to react the water with alkalies.

      If they've found a different way to do it, however, I'm DEFINITELY curious.
      • SickMonkey, on 06/14/2008, -1/+5Actually it doesn't take as much energy to split water into hydrogen as conventional wisdom has lead us to believe. If you go to you-tube and type in "HHO fuel cell" you'll find hundreds of videos posted by people who have built and tested low voltage units in their garage. The electrolytes (baking soda) and water last a pretty long time too.

        I don't think anyone has managed to get more energy out of the reaction than they have put in though. If this Japanese company has, they have broken the laws of thermodynamics, which is very doubtful indeed. Still, I think hydrogen based fuels/engines will prove to be a lot more efficient in the long run than today's combustion engines. They are a lot cleaner for sure.
        • tocsy, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Ok, so after watching some of those videos, I guess the hydrogen production isn't too slow at all.

          Still, what they're doing is putting energy into the water to split it into oxygen and hydrogen. The article leads us to believe that they have some magical way to split the water. Otherwise they could just call it "hydrolysis." Also, where is the energy coming from in their design?

          All in all, it doesn't add up.

          Also, fuel cells are not necessarily cleaner than combustion engines. The actual apparatus is, you are correct, but where does the energy come from? If it's from a coal plant, you have the same greenhouse gas problem you do from a combustion engine. I'm not sure on the exact levels of pollution from the two so I won't say for sure one is cleaner than the other, but if the electricity to do the hydrolysis comes from a dirty source, it doesn't help in the long run.
        • nagawarrior, on 06/14/2008, -6/+1Your wrong. It DOESN'T break the laws of thermodynamics.

          Energy is stored in HYDROGEN. Just like how we get energy from coal, we can get energy from hydrogen. We just have to find a way to get the hydrogen away from the oxygen. It isn't breaking any laws.....
        • Terr01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5nagawarrior: Uhm... I don't think you get it.

          We don't get energy from coal in the same way we get energy from hydrogen.

          The reason coal is different is that we don't pay the energy cost to create it. It's a "discovered" fuel that is consumed. Ditto for gasoline.

          The problem is "getting the hydrogen away from the oxygen" TAKES ENERGY. Basic physics and chemistry here. It's not like you can just ask them politely if you find the magical words.

          If you're thinking you can get them apart (costs energy) and them put them together (gives energy) and somehow be getting a positive amount of energy out in the end, YES, you ARE breaking laws.
    • Smills, on 06/14/2008, -0/+11I have actually read up on this. It seems real, and it doesn't break any laws of physics, however there is a catch. The electrode that magically converts the water into hydrogen and oxygen is consumed doing so, so you have to replace it every-so-often. Also, it isn't cheap. That seems to be where the energy comes from.
      • Terr01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9So they're being misleading when they say "water is the fuel", aren't they?
        • FLarsen, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5Yes. The electrodes is the fuel, water just transports the energy.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2My car actually kind of works like this as well.

        There is an unopened bottle of water in my glove compartment and it has been the fuel for my car for over 3 years now without needing to be changed.

        There is a small caveat: This other thing called gasoline is also required. It has to be replaced every so often and it isn't cheap. There are some theories that this may in fact be where the energy comes from.
    • nagawarrior, on 06/14/2008, -5/+0You don't understand how it works then....Let me try to explain the idea. Everyone thinks that it is impossible to have hydrogen power because they think it HAS to take more energy to separate them then you get from hydrogen. And they say because you can't create or destroy energy. Which is true but...

      Okay, hydrogen stores a lot of energy in it. So if you have hydrogen you can get a lot of energy out of it. Now, that means that if you can separate the hydrogen from the water then you will have a lot of energy. The problem is, is the bonds in the H20 are really strong. Since hydrogen stores that energy, you aren't creating any energy. You are spending energy to separate the two, but that doesn't have to be equal or less then the energy from hydrogen because hydrogen STORES that energy. Get that? Now with that said, as of now, nobody has found an efficient way to separate hydrogen from oxygen. But that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Yes it does. Enthalpy of formation and separation are always the same.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hess%27s_Law
      • elTito, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2That...was more convoluted than it needed to be. You basically said what everyone already knows (at least I think everyone already knows).

        In order for hydrogen to be as viable an alternative as traditional batteries someone needs to come up with a method for getting it out of water (or some other compound) with about 95% efficiency. Right now they're at roughly 30%.

        Hydrogen isn't a source, it's a carrier. Think of it as a different sort of battery. Personally I think that until we can find some organic means of production - like the way yeast makes CO2 or photosynthesis makes CO2 into O2 - hydrogen isn't going to be viable.

        If this technology turns out to be real, however, and they can get the cost of electrode replacement down to about $1,000 a year I think it might be worth looking at. My only concern is how much energy is required to produce the electrodes and where does it come from.
    • Ebulating, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Ubiq ...
      • wakananda, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1This reference does not logically follow from consideration of hydrogen fuel systems sourced from H2O.

        Funny, how very many people are willing to throw themselves in front of any report of progress, *a priori*, without even troubling themselves to find out what it is they are dismissing. I guess it makes them feel smarter...
        • Ebulating, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1The hell it doesn't. The very sentence "hydrogen fuel systems sourced from H2O" is utter gibberish, and the article I linked to explains exactly why.

          Certain claims can certainly be dismissed a prior if they are know to break the laws of physics.
    • baylat, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2actually, the technology exist for quite some time now.
    • steelese, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I think I understand what they are doing. Though, I could be wrong. What they are doing is pulling the O and H^2 apart using a catalyst. Catalysts are great because they don't use energy to create a reaction. They simply use chemical properties of the surface. Now, I have never heard of a catalyst that can break down water. It may well exist, but I am not aware of it. I think what they have really done is found a way to prevent Carbon monoxide (CO) from breaking down the catalyst. This is the problem with a lot of catalyst, there is always something that can plug up the chemical process.

      As for the issue of free energy. Well they are not creating free energy. The the H^2 molecule pulls a free electron out of the environment so that it can reach stable electron valance. When the H^2 is then converted back into water by the hydrogen reactor. The electron is released and used to power the system.

      Problems

      I always thought catalyst can't work with super stable molecules, like water. That being said, if it works, and my somewhat limited understand of chemistry, especially catalysts, then it should work.
    • drummer17, on 08/23/2008, -0/+0I guess it's not a hoax.
      They use a similar technology in these "water 4 gas" products.
      Like here:
      http://www.convertyourcar.org/Water-4-Gas-Review.h ...

      A friend of mine wants to try it and see if it works.
      Let's see....
  • tehbored, on 06/14/2008, -2/+20How can this be energy positive?
    • chiapet, on 06/14/2008, -1/+8It's not! it use's material capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and
      oxygen through a chemical reaction.
      so it run's on chemical's and water :-P
  • JigoroKano, on 06/14/2008, -10/+38*****.

    Fuel Cells get electric power from a chemical reaction and spend fuel in the process. They are like batteries but refillable like engines.

    H2O is a bound state and is at a lower energy level than when separated. You can't get net energy out of that process with any chemical reaction.
    • tocsy, on 06/14/2008, -9/+2Hate to rain on your parade, but you ever thrown sodium (or potassium, or any alkali metal) in water? It creates an exothermic reaction, resulting in hydrogen gas and a metal oxide.

      That said, I agree that it's probably *****.
      • cleansoap, on 06/14/2008, -2/+12He said you can't get NET energy out of it with any chemical reaction.
        He is correct.
        Use the energy gained by rebounding the hydrogen and oxygen to deoxify the metal oxide.
        You can't.
        No NET energy.
        • tocsy, on 06/14/2008, -4/+1Well, if you talk about 'net' energy, technically no 'net' energy can EVER be produced, in any reaction (due to the laws of conservation of energy in a closed system, the system being the universe and counting matter as energy).

          Still, if the heat leaves the system (water and alkali metal) in such a reaction, the total energy of the system WILL be lower.

          So technically, you are correct, that there is no net energy change, BUT that is like trying to say that there is no change in energy in a gas fire because there is no net loss or gain of energy in the universe.
        • cleansoap, on 06/14/2008, -3/+2Expanding your definition of the "system" in this argument to be the entire universe is a bit unreasonable, and misses the point.
    • chiapet, on 06/14/2008, -4/+2You know I didn't read any thing in that article about free energy this is just a concept car not ***** a car
    • kcasper, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2You can with aluminum. H2O splits immediately in the presence of pure aluminum and some aluminum alloys.
      They may have found another way. I doubt aluminum is the only element with that property.
      • Terr01, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Then "Aluminum and Water" are the fuels, not "water".
        • apophisitis, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Not quite. Aluminum could just be a catalyst there.
    • zarex, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Exactly right. You CANNOT get net power out of H2O. Absolutely impossible.
  • CamZak, on 06/14/2008, -3/+16There could be something more to the story. For instance several years back I bought one of those clocks powered by water on think-geek. It truely works, pour water in, and it powers up. Turns out that it's powered by zinc. The clock doesn't use that much of it over time, so the clock lasts for years...however a clock is not a car. But I'm willing to bet there's some similar catch with the car, otherwise why not just set up a power generator near the ocean? Unlimited free energy.
    • zarex, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2No, there is nothing more to this story. H2O is a low-energy state. Taking out hydrogen costs energy, which must come from somewhere. This is a 100% hoax. Why do people believe this crap?
  • TwiztedDezign, on 06/14/2008, -9/+7Get ready to pay more for water.
    • Nintendesert, on 06/14/2008, -1/+10No.
    • colourclassic, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Yes. Of course the government will attempt to tax our water further.
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Heh. They tried that in Australia you know. They wanted to put meters on our pumps and charge farmers for the water we pulled out of our own dams... on our own properties...

      Yeah, that didn't go down too well. People got their representatives together and assembled the pole brigade to do some good old fashioned political-arse-ramming.
      • spawnfree, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2is it mandatory that only manipulative retards get into politics?
      • Ryvenn, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2To get anywhere in politics, being manipulative is pretty much a requirement.
  • david76, on 06/14/2008, -12/+4Did any of you actually read the article?

    "...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."

    There's a chemical catalyst.
    • unknownpoltroon, on 06/14/2008, -3/+30*****. Catalyst, no catalyst, the energy to crack a water molecule has to come from somewhere. Either these guys have discovered a brand new law of physics, or theyre full of *****.
    • Aphelion27, on 06/14/2008, -2/+9A catalyst will just lower the energy of activation, not the energy required to complete the reaction. Back you highschool physics for david
    • Ebulating, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5It takes ENERGY to break hydrogen and water apart, more ENERGY than you will ever get out of reacting them again. I am always saddened by just how little most people know about thermodynamics, even though it is so fundamental to EVERYTHING.
      • david76, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1Thanks sherlock, I understand thermodynamics. I was just pointing out how the process works to counter everyone above who was claiming it was "magic". Obviously, energy must enter the system somewhere to break the bond.
  • motters, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2I would love to believe this was true, but there have been similar claims made in the past which turned out either to be hoaxes or were never proven one way or the other. If they have a real technology what they need to do is either begin marketing it as soon as possible, or to allow independent experts in to verify that the claims being made are genuine. In principle something like this might work, so it's worth keeping an open mind on the subject.
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Suppose Fox "News" comes along and tells you it was in fact a hoax.

      There lies the dilemma. Who to believe? Who is owned by who? Doesn't matter, they all belong to a resource corporation in the end.
  • luag, on 06/14/2008, -5/+11In the year 2052: Oh noes! Water is now $150/barrel!
    • Philbert, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Not if the future is anything like Water World. Then they come up with a way to fuel vehicles with dirt.
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1In Water World, as many rare materials do, dirt took on a legendary status because of what it represented, not its uses. Why are rubies so treasured? However, dirt would probably never get that valuable considering we could sweep skin flakes off the floor and come up with something pretty similar.
    • tnoy, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2I'll be surprised if we make it to 2052.
  • elscorcho717, on 06/14/2008, -8/+2Alright! Take that, oil companies!




    /sarcasm
  • Mohan, on 06/14/2008, -2/+5hey, Reva is an Indian car. I don't know what Takeoka Mini Car Products Co Ltd, has to with it... check http://www.revaindia.com/
  • hampusl, on 06/14/2008, -4/+1This is probably just some translation failure. If I first had this machine and then a normal fuel-cell I would get an infinite machine delivering huge amounts of free energy.
  • aflaks, on 06/14/2008, -1/+7I wasnt able to find the actual company, only articles about it. Something isn't right, this company doesn't exist anywhere
    • zarex, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1Duh. Why would anyone believe this is real?
  • Philbert, on 06/14/2008, -2/+8New conundrum: You run out of fuel in the desert. After a while you somehow find some water. Do you drink it or put it in the car?
    • cast55, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1C) None of the above, since if you are the type of person to make an excursion into the desert without sufficient fuel, the world will probably benefit from your death, or
      D) Drink the water, let it pass, and urinate into the vehicle.
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Nah. I choose E)

      Put the water in your car and crack a cold beer out of the full eski in the boot.

      ...You do have a full, cooled beer eski in your boot right?
  • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -10/+6Nope. They'll go under. Just watch. They'll get bought by some random 'future-tech' company (that will be traceable through sub-ownership to a major oil company or car company like GM), then they'll just disappear. A case of "whatever happened to..." or the new owners will shut down the project and say it was a pie-in-the-sky experiment that was over-hyped.

    More likely however, they'll be bought, shelved and there will never even be a press conference. Soon after the takeover, the new owner company will re-merge with the major company or be "shut down". Nobody ever hears about them again. Revolutionary technology has been going this way for decades. Whatever happened to Nikola Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower project with electrostatic resonance? Free electricity everywhere to everyone. J. P. Morgan bought it out and shut it down then spent a lot of money discrediting his name.

    Same thing happened to Allen Caggiano and his ultra-carburettors (allowing absurdly fantastic mileage on current engines and fuel). If Nikola Tesla, the man who invented the twentieth century, was destroyed by these corporate empires, what chance did Allen Caggiano ever have?
    • KarlH, on 06/14/2008, -2/+3Right ... And the reason you never got your share of the $73 million in that secret Nigerian bank account was that the CIA confiscated it?
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1On the contrary, you seem to have problems accepting anything that would place you on the border of "acceptable behaviour" in modern "society". Blocking every email you receive is not a valid solution to avoiding Nigerian scammers. One must maintain an open and objective mind, able to sift through valid and invalid theory alike and judge it on its merits.

      Unlike you, "social norm" does not scare me into closing my mind to the possibilities of a universe NOBODY alive truly understands. Unfounded and fanatically defended skepticism is essentially the complete destruction of the learning process before it can begin. But then I suppose you still leave milk and cookies out for Santa Claus because somebody told you he was real before somebody told you he was fake.
    • GlassAgate, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Okay, the idea of a "ultra-carburettors" being suppressed by "Big
      Oil" makes no economical sense. Assuming that it caught on, and
      the majority of the vehicles got, say 300 mpg, the amount of oil sold
      would plummet. This would mean less profits. How would one make
      up for lost profits?....Increase the markup. You think $4-$5 gas is
      expensive? It'd be considered dirt cheap if such a carburettor went onto
      the market, and was installed in the mass majority of vehicles. I don't
      know, let's figure....

      Let's assume that the average MPG is 30 miles per gallon. New average MPG would be
      300 MPG. They would be selling about one tenth
      of the gas that they previously sold. So, would that lead to the price
      going up by 10 times? I don't know if my figures are correct, but if they
      are, gas would cost about...$400 to $500 a gallon. $4 - $5 a gallon sounds
      like one hell of a bargain now, doesn't it? Of course, that doesn't mean
      that you have to get a full gallon. You could get a tenth of a gallon,
      and go a fair distance. This may also lead to tiny cars that get good
      great mileage. How about a car that only hold a single gallon, and can
      drive 300 miles? How about a half gallon tank, and a distance of 150
      miles? Doesn't sound to bad, for some people at least.

      Also, since they would sell less gas per year, the oil reserves would
      last longer, and the "evil big oil's empire" could last much, much longer.

      So which would you prefer?
      "Big Oil" lasting not much longer, and a gallon of gas costing between $5 and $10?
      or
      "Big Oil" lasting, say a century or two longer, with sky high prices?


      Please, if there are any economists out there, could you correct any of the
      errors that I made? If there are none, then could you say so? Thanks a bundle.
      Oh, if you don't know jack flurpping snit about economics, and just spout
      some conspiracy theory garbage, you will be bured, so don't bother posting.
      • Ryvenn, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Do you know how much petrol is in Saudi Arabia?

        There is NO oil shortage, only a limitation of supply, just like diamonds. Rare my arse, they're ***** everywhere and stockpiled by the millions.

        You seem to be assuming that we're running out. We're not, oil companies are simply experimenting with how high they can raise prices without having to change any existing infrastructure.

        Assuming they let ultra-efficient engines come onto the market, do you really think they could raise fuel prices by that much without A) drastically destabilising the global economy or B) royally pissing off the population of most of the planet? Raising the price of petrol is directly proportional to the prices of all other petroleum products. If not, then the price fixing becomes blatantly obvious. Do you seriously believe that the oil companies swimming in trillions of dollars are completely helpless in the face of a "lack of emergence of revolutionary technologies"? The greatest minds of the modern world are no more sophisticated than "Explode ***** to push a piston!"?

        I feel sad for the people out there that so lack faith in the fantastical abilities of the human mind and instead choose to believe our "inferiority" in the face of something so simple as a propulsion system used to turn circles. To say combustion engines are primitive would be the understatement of the century.
    • LinusVanPelt, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1So if demand for gas goes down, prices would go up? It doesn't take an economist to see the flaw in that.
      • GlassAgate, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Well, heck. That does sound about right.
        Well then, if prices do go down, good for the consumer.
        The "Big Oil" empire will continue on for many for generations.
        Thanks for pointing out that error.
  • Elsewhere42, on 06/14/2008, -4/+9I call *****! You cannot get energy out of water. Water is the end result of extracting energy, not the other way around.

    There has got to be some form of energy being injected into their system that they are not mentioning in the article.
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -7/+1Good to see a wonderfully thought out argument by Mr Tesla-stein here. I'm sure everything you have been told in life by the bought-out education systems is the perfect truth!

      After all, who was it that said "Imagination is more important than knowledge."? Hmm. I've forgotten. Nevermind, it must have been some random stupid nutcase. I mean, challenging what we KNOW!? Who would do such a thing.

      People these days make me sick, some "scientists" cling to their beliefs more zealously than religious nuts.
      • leakus, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2If those guys are really able to do, what they claim to do, this shouldn't be an article about cars, but rather about completely revolutionizing our understanding of physics. I am just skeptical that such a news would be broken on techon.nikkeibp.co.jp. And that no other scientists would be talking about it. You should also always keep in mind that somebody somewhere on the internet might be making ***** up. That being said, I have often read how journalist misrepresent science and technology. So it seems also very possible that the guy who wrote the article, simply didn't know what he was talking about.
    • mrgreen4242, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1You are sort of correct but misunderstanding the claimed source of the energy. The user need only add water (and air) but that is not the source of the energy in this system - a chemical reaction with the metals in the cell and the water/air being added are.
      • cleansoap, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Then that isn't a fuel cell, that is a battery with water as the electrolyte.
        Water (not having free ions itself) is a horrible electrolyte.

        Not to mention the article does claim water is the energy source.

        • kcasper, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1If the point of the chemical reaction is to split water, then you are wrong.
    • khyberkitsune, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1You can get energy out of water. Hydrogen in it's free state has more potential energy than when bound to an oxygen molecule. Same with Oxygen. however, the energy input required to split those molecules apart hasn't been fine-tuned into a system efficient enough for splitting/harvesting the fuel.
  • cleansoap, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1I also love how they plan on making a 1KW cell.
    1 KW = 1.3HP.
    Good luck powering a car with that. Good luck powering a car with that even if you scale it up to 50KW, the size that claimed cell appear to be would make a 50KW unit larger than a compact car.
    • sparksalot, on 06/14/2008, -2/+0hitpoints?
    • elTito, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2They're not directly powering the vehicle with it. They're creating energy to store in conventional batteries.

      1KW created at a constant rate (when you're slowing down, stopped, in the store, at work, in bed, whatever) stored over time could maybe be put to good use - though I think it'd have to be more like 10KW+ to really be effective.

      The bigger problem, however, is how are they producing the electrodes, what are they made of, how much energy does it take to make them and where does the energy come from?
      • cleansoap, on 06/14/2008, -0/+01KW produced per hour for 23 hours still only equals 30 horsepower for the one hour a day you have left.
        • elTito, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1By "put to good use" I meant to power the climate control system or something of that nature.
      • MaskedSlacker, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1No, the bigger problem is that this physically cannot work.
  • Lephtovermeet, on 06/14/2008, -2/+21There's this car man, and it like runs on water man! But the government doesn't want you to know about it!
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -4/+1I'm glad we've got you to examine the process they claim to use to run this car and use your informed opinion and scientific theory to rationally disprove their findings.
    • Rambus89, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1woah man!
  • joebloe3000, on 06/14/2008, -5/+3People have been doing this out of their basements for a while.

    Do a search for HHO Gas on Youtube or online.
  • aecarol, on 06/14/2008, -1/+8Water is ash. It's what you get AFTER you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. There's no chemical energy left after that reaction.

    They "hint" they chemically separate the hydrogen and oxygen then recombine in them in a fuel cell. The problem is that to do that you need a chemical which wants to bond to the oxygen (or hydrogen) even more than the water bonds to itself. Doing so will break the water apart but then the parts then form a stronger bond with the chemical. Now you're in a worse place than before.

    As an example you could add sodium to water, liberating hydrogen and also forming sodium hydroxide. You could take that liberated hydrogen and use it in a fuel cell with atmospheric oxygen to make electricity, but you'd have to keep refueling the vehicle with more sodium, which is MUCH more expensive than gas. AND you'd have to get rid of the caustic sodium hydroxide waste.
    • genepooldesign, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2You only add less than a teaspoon of sodium to a gallon of water, and that gallon of water lasts about 10 weeks (in my system it lasts that long, others claim longer, others not as long)
      • cleansoap, on 06/14/2008, -0/+19.55 BTUs per liter of hydrogen at STP.
        4707 Liters of hydrogen per gallon of water.
        44,951 BTUs per gallon of water when split.
        125,000 BTUs per gallon of Gasoline when burned.
        Your gallon of water which supposedly lasts 10 weeks provides as much potential energy as 36% of a gallon of gasoline, spread over 10 weeks.
        That's not enough energy to blow your nose, much less propel even a motorcycle, much less a car.
      • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Well that depends on how much energy you like to waste. In the case of modern cars, that would be A *****. Engines run at hundreds of degrees, belch out hot smoke and unburned fuel. How much of your fuel are you really using to get from point A to B?
  • senzabandiera, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4I think it's an hoax, have a look to their explanation on their web site:

    http://www.genepax.co.jp/mechanism/system.html

    water and hoxigen are entering in the cell, energy is released, and the output is again water and hoxigen....
    I call it "motum perpetuum" and it exists only in men's dreams....
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1Space flight was a dream before it was realised too you know.
      • leakus, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4But a Space flight was never thought of to break the laws of physics.
      • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -3/+1They've been broken before.

        What goes up must come down?

        ***** not be coming down.
        • xadhominemx, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5When?
          What goes up must come down is not a law of physics, btw. The equation for minimum escape velocity was derived long ago.
          Be careful, your ignorance is showing.
        • Ryvenn, on 06/15/2008, -1/+1So I take it the laws of physics always existed as they are and that the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible simply because the universe is flawed. Right. We know everything. Excuse me while I go worship the great book of physics because a guy said it was the absolute truth. Oh wait, nobody ever said that, silly me.

          Even Einstein saw his theories were flawed and was attempting to rework them on his deathbed. He admitted his fallibility yet you seem to be in denial of the fact that all current scientific theory is being perpetually reworked. Nobody cares about the cynics that opposed the greatest minds in history, they are simply remembered as closed minded road blocks that let their fanaticism get in the way of good scientific evaluation.
      • zarex, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2You're an idiot.
    • mlavergn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+0You mean the magic WHAMO! cloud in their Flash animation isn't really magic? Everything else looks legit, but the WHAMO! is what makes this all fairy dust. There are a few possible explanations for what might happen behind the WHAMO!, but unless byproducts are missing from the animation or the animation doesn't show an external energy source, some pretty fundamental science is being violated.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 06/14/2008, -3/+4*****.
  • genepooldesign, on 06/14/2008, -5/+3People are awfully skeptical of this, and it's unfortunate. I built my own Brown's Gas system and it works. The big problem is that there are people out there claiming that it's free energy, so no one takes it seriously. It isn't free, but it works. I'm getting just around a 30 percent increase in my gas mileage by supplementing my fuel with Brown's Gas (also called HHO), and my car runs better now than it did when it was new.
    • zarex, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2What's unfortunate is that anyone would believe this for even a split second. IT DOES NOT WORK.
    • Bleach90, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1I don't doubt that they work, but is it true that you have to refill the tank with water after three hours if your driving (from use or evaporation). I heard that if you don't they can damage the engine and that turned me off to getting one.
    • GlassAgate, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2HHO?
      Hmmmm....

      Dihydrogen monoxide?

      HH0 = H20
      Brown's Gas = Water

      Who the devil is calling water "Brown's Gas"?

      I smell a scam.
  • skyshock1, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Hate to rain on the parade...

    The amount of hydrogen you can get per container of water is ridiculously small. Water contains an EXTREMELY low amount of hydrogen (1:2 ratio) so using water as a stable storage medium for hydrogen isn't optimal. BMW found this out in the 70's when they made their first Water/Hydrogen car. There have been advances that use an alternate storage medium for keeping hydrogen in a stable form with close to a 90% yield, and hardly any emissions.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/22689

    THOSE are what we should be looking at. Not water.
    • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2Ahem... I believe you meant 2:1 ratio actually putting Hydrogen at a much higher, not lower concentration in water than in any other (practical and readily available) storage medium bar pure liquid Hydrogen.

      Remember, the more processing that goes into a potential fuel, the more money to be made before the consumer ultimately gets their product. False information has been used to justify unnecessary measures for thousands of years and modern conglomerates are no different to the Romans labeling the Gauls as baby-eating murderers to garner citizen support and are certainly no different to an American president labeling some aluminium tubes nuclear weapons to justify a resource war.
      • cleansoap, on 06/14/2008, -0/+0There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
        "pure liquid hydrogen" is a horrible storage medium.
      • Ryvenn, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2I suppose volume is an issue here huh...
    • freddyware, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Ahem... I believe you meant 2:1 ratio of atoms in a water molecule, but the mass of hydrogen is only about 11% of water. Not that the mass matters.
    • cn2zv5oe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0You're missing the point. The problem is energy conservation not water density.
  • baylat, on 06/14/2008, -6/+1Interesting, so many septics. But I want to believe this is real. Plus, I think this technology existed quite some time already. (Can't prove it, might be some false rumors before.)
    • FLarsen, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Wanting something to be real, doesn't make it real.
  • happyseamonster, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3In other news: The inventor has gone missing.
  • bfaber, on 06/14/2008, -1/+6The lack of any knowledge of basic physics laws on this board is amazing...
    • leakus, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Actually, I am impressed that so many people know about physics on digg and the ***** science is getting dugg down.
  • djrdnr1380, on 06/14/2008, -3/+1How can you run a car on water where the waste is water? I don't think so. And how can a car run on the hydrogen in water when there is barely any in it?
  • LLLSecretChimp, on 06/14/2008, -4/+2Even if it's true (which I doubt), water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.
    • skidooer, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1An inconvenient truth.
    • GlassAgate, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Dihydrogen monoxide is a very nasty greenhouse gas.

      Environmental Impact of Dihydrogen Monoxide
      http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html

      Spread the word.
      • JoeRW, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Now, now... thats silly.
      • GlassAgate, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Silly!? You have to be kidding!
      • cn2zv5oe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0That's no joke! Large quantities of DHMO have been found in most juices sold in supermarkets across America. Surprisingly, consumers can avoid this by buying powdered drinks like Tang or powdered Gatorade.
  • uglypercy, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2I'm ready to invest right now, and get in on the ground floor of this ten-bagger! Can't win if you don't play the game! Let's start with $500K for 0.1% of the company stock and take it from there. Does anyone here represent the company? Yes, Ryvenn? Excellent! I could cut you a check today, or just Fed-Ex cash to your office or home, even. Post office box is better? Used bills only? Fine, let's do this thing! Well, back to the driving range...
  • ATLien74, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3(Rolls Eyes and thinks of Hydrogen Booster/Water4gas scams) Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. Although Einstein said, "If it at first it doesn't seem absurd, there is no hope for it.", well this definitley seems absurd.
  • mike17032, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4How do you dumb ***** keep getting this kind of ***** to the homepage?

    I bet you all buy a lot of swamp land too,
  • bklny, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1more details here

    http://cryptogon.com/?p=2740
  • 4321234, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Powered by air and water? The first thing I thought of was "vapor ware".
  • freddyjackson, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5so, basically what you're saying is...

    input = water & oxygen
    output = water & oxygen & energy

    sound plausible to me...
    actually, why not just eliminate the water & oxygen completely, and generate energy out of nothing?
  • lofispy, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1I have to call shenanigans on this one...definitely a hoax...and even if it did work, water is just as a precious resource as petro...I think it's time we put this one to bed...
  • pkulak, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Oh boy, a car that runs on water. Never head that one before!
  • MaskedSlacker, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2This is absolute bunk, and Reuters and Engadget should be ashamed of themselves.
    http://digg.com/general_sciences/Reuters_Engadget_ ...
  • bincoder, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Oh. Yet someone else has discovered controlled thermonuclear fusion in a compact, cheap and simple manner. Whats with the tiny deathmobile?
    If I had small cheap fusion, I would rush right out and buy myself a hummer, while they are still a bargain, and install the system into that.
    Phooey on you can have everything in the world, if you just buy and drive our magic crackerbox which runs on air, water and a sprinkle of pixie dust.
  • pajeff2, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1The car in the photo looks like a match box car...Will we ever have a system that can power a real car ? This seems like a hoax.
  • AmericansRevolt, on 06/15/2008, -2/+0how ***** stupid are people? of course this isnt an energy producing machine, why does everyone always expect that? it sounds very much like a battery to me, as said with water as the electrolyte. but if it does it efficiently enough and doesnt leave the roads all soaking wet why is this such a bad idea? people seem to forget how convenient water is to get- thats why this idea makes sense.

    i just wonder how long the chemical that does the chemical reacting lasts before you have to replace it... and if its expensive... or dangerous...
  • jlhoben, on 06/15/2008, -2/+1No doubt Bush, Cheny and their Saudi friends will be promoting this one.
  • Superc00kie, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Great, yet another "car-that-runs-on-water" hoax.
  • johnandrews52, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0Can we run our car with water and gas?
    Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?
    • cn2zv5oe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0Short answer: Scam.

      Does HHO gas burn?
      YES, because HHO converts to H2O plus energy.

      Awesome! So a car can run on water then right?
      NO, because you need H2O plus energy to get HHO.

      Basically Genepax is claiming that they have figured out a clever way to get more energy out than they put in. Their plan is on schedule so far but they will need to get special permission to extract energy from out of the divine ass of the Almighty Creator of the Universe before they can go into full production.
  • ronaldcollins, on 06/18/2008, -1/+0hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

    • cn2zv5oe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0This is a well worn fraud. Yes, your cylinders can be boosted by HHO combustion but the the extra boost will not be enough to power the electrolysis required to make the HHO. The idea is contrived to sound just plausible enough to sell conversion kits to gullible people. Sanity check: If an electrolyzer cell could really boost the efficiency of the motor, wouldn't the auto manufacturers be falling over themselves to install it stock?

      Your que for the old big oil conspiracy bunk. Go on let's hear it...
  • Slycom1, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0I think it's a great idea! I'm a generator mechanic, and know a little something about energy. It's everywhere, in everything. Somethings like to give off their energy in the right circumstances, others like to hang on to it just like some people with what they think they know about the world. Alkali metals like lithium, sodium, potassium, and a couple of others react with simple water to release energy in the form of heat this reaction also releases hydrogen. When this reaction is exposed to air it can cause the released hydrogen to burst into flames and with some metals explode (stay away from cesium). We all know that water wants to sink to the bottom of oil not because it's heavier but rather because of surface tension. So, with a metal like potassium already sealed in mineral oil when you take posession of it, a few drops of water and a way to collect your gases once they bubble to the surface to be later recombimed with oxygen from the atmosphere with the help of a hydrogen fuel cell, can give you a positve net result in the form of electricity. Instead of buying gas you'll be buying your alkali metals at a very pretty penny. But I suspect you won't need much or that often. The future is depending on all of us to start thinking about the big picture and shutdown these oil companies once and for all. Get creative, talk to your chemistry teachers, see if you can set up an experiment like this. You can't patent an idea, but you can a product, the race begins now!
    • cn2zv5oe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0You apparently know a very little something about energy indeed. If you knew a big something about energy you might know about this thing called the conservation law. It says that energy always comes from somewhere and it always goes somewhere when you use it. This means two things: 1) There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine like a car that runs on water. 2) Energy is a scarce resource that people pay money for. If the claims of Genepax were true, you would not have a job as a generator mechanic.

      So instead of denying the First Law of Thermodynamics you should be thankful for it. You should also be thankful that you apparently don't need high school level physics to be a generator mechanic.
  • cn2zv5oe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0*****, Charlatans, Snake Oil, Perpetual Motion, Fraud, Pseudoscience, Woo.

    The only energy involved is expended by Genepax's marketing department.



  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.