Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Company Says Laws of Physics Don't Apply — to Cars

Fantastic Lad, among many others, points out another in a long series of claimed "powered by water" cars, this one by a Japanese company called "Genepax," which interestingly enough does not have so much as a Wikipedia entry. What's scary is the uncritical, even serious-sounding, presentation by Reuters of such extraordinary claims quite unbacked by extraordinary evidence. "Almost sounds too good to be true" isn't the half of it; if cars could be made which would run as "long as you have a bottle of water inside" to pour into the fuel tank ("even tea," repeats this report), not only would you know about the car, but you'd notice the long lines of people buying generators, laptops, and power tools that run on the same technology. The snippet Reuters is carrying says "Jun. 13 — Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water. The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it." Fantastic Lad, deadpan, goes on: "Check out the Reuter's story and accompanying video. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some sort of conservation of energy thing happening in the whole 'separating hydrogen from water' game? I wonder what the real story is on this. Investment fraud? Magic?" Show your work; bonus points if you use Haiku.

6 of 736 comments (clear)

  1. Running cars on water? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to use about a gallon of water per tank of petrol to get 40mpg out of my '82 Volvo 340, with the engine running quieter and more smoothly, and better low-end torque. Water is great, you've just got to put in the engine the right way. If modern cars used water injection, they wouldn't need catalytic converters.

    1. Re:Running cars on water? by evilviper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is 100% BS. Please cite a single reputable study or article that demonstrates you can increase mileage by adding water to gasoline.

      No, actually it's NOT (entirely) BS. Water injection is a well-known technique which does improve fuel efficiency.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

      Don't you think that if it did work, more people would do it, and it would be built into modern cars?

      Now THIS is BS. There are innumerable reasons a technology, which can improve fuel efficiency in modern vehicles, might not be used. Things like weight, maintenance, reliability, etc.

      The fact that superchargers aren't used in mass-produced automobiles is evidence enough of that. Higher compression ratios and water injection would be a welcome improvement.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  2. Re:Screw water by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually when I first got into extreme overclocking for gaming back in the Athlon Slot A and Celeron A days, I remember that we were told that peltiers were the way to go and were only going to move as much heat as they consumed power. Someone even derided an article I wrote mentioning that small Airconditioner was the way to go for extreme cooling. When companies such as Asetek picked it up and made their VapoChill case, the "all knowing" geeks screamed that it was against all the laws of conservation of energy if a 10-50 watt AC unit could move 200 watts of heat... it was 'unpossible' they screamed.

    Strangely, having built and designed air conditioning units for some time, and having done a LOT of installations, I have a few ideas on how the laws of physics can be exploited to use LESS energy to accomplish a job that normally requires MORE energy. Air Conditioning is only one of the visible uses of compression and decompression as well as radiation of heat in order to transfer heat for a much smaller energy cost than the standard peltier technology once used for "extreme cooling" in computers.

    Refrigeration technology is OLD and works admirably well. Until I see a proof and more than just a "not possible" debunking, I will remain skeptical of the claim and of its eager debunkers. Just my 10 cents.

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  3. Re:Screw water by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't it depend on how much energy is stored in the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms? Is it more than the energy required to split the molecule? If I remember correctly, normally the answer is no, but adding the right catalyst can change that. No, the answer is always no. It might help you to think of it as analogous to kinetic energy. The amount of energy you can harvest from a weight falling one meter will never be more than the amount of energy required to lift an equal weight up one meter. Like a see-saw, it'll balance and remain static until either the end height of weight 2 is reduced by moving the fulcrum, or weight 1 is made heavier or weight 2 is made lighter. This is the basic reason why perpetual motion machines don't work. Chemistry is no different. You can't get more out than you put in. A catalyst can only "grease the wheels" of the reaction, reducing the amount of excess energy needed to start the reaction.

    the process works with splitting the atom...splitting an atom leaves a whole lot of excess energy. Fission reactions have nothing to do with chemistry. Fission power takes advantage of nuclear physics. Chemistry is like reconfiguring lego blocks into different arrays, while fission is like smashing the blocks with a hammer.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  4. Re:Open your minds, please. by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, there's a small problem - all fusion reactors emit neutrons and x-rays. It should be (barely) possible to shield x-rays without making your car to be the size of a small tank. However, there's no way to effectively shield from neutrons (even submerging the reactor in a tank of boronated water won't help much).

    So let's calculate how fast you'll receive a fatal dose of radiation. Let's assume the fatal dose to be 10 grays - that's 1000 joules of whole-body absorbed energy for 100kg of body weight.

    Even aneutronic boron-proton fusion produces 0.1% energy in form of neutrons. Let's assume that 1% of these neutrons reaches you.

    So you'll absorb 0.01% of engine's power in form of penetrating radiation. Let's assume that engine's power is 100hp, that's 75kWt in SI. So the neutron flux through your body will be about 7.5 Watts.

    So you'll get the fatal dose in about 2 minutes.

    Have a nice ride!

  5. Re:Screw water by RickRussellTX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article makes it pretty clear (emphasis mine):

    ... 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.


    Their fuel cell has a chemical in it which is consumed when it splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. Eventually, that chemical will be consumed and need to be replaced. That's where the energy comes from. The guy in the suit is just lying about the external inputs to a credulous reporter.