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.

34 of 736 comments (clear)

  1. Screw water by ijakings · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want my Mr fusion and I want it now!

    1. 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
    2. Re:Screw water by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The laws of physics apply to air conditioning too; basically they say that you have to reject heat somewhere, and the amount of heat you reject has to be more than the amount of heat that you move (that is, you can't use the rejected heat to run an engine to power the airconditioner).

      You can use less energy to accomplish a job, but you can't use no energy. That's what these cars (apparently) seem to claim-- they are running on NO energy-- they (use energy to) split the water into hydrogen and oxyen, then burn the hydrogen and oxygen to get the energy to split the water, and have extra energy left over. This is not "refrigeration technology"-- this is magic.

      With that said, let me say that I wrote "apparently" in the previous paragraph, because I haven't actually seen the Japanese text, only the news articles, and I know that news articles often miss a key point, or two-- for all I know this may actually be a perfectly functional car, and the reporter screwed up the article. It could be a fuel-cell car, for example, powered off the grid (which could be said to "run on water", although not in a perpetual-motion closed cycle.)

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    3. Re:Screw water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, it is a fuel-cell. Here's an article some pictures as well.

    4. Re:Screw water by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, we all know the laws of physics apply to air conditioning. What GP was pointing out is that geeks like to "debunk" claims by claiming something violates the laws of physics when it fact it does not, they simply don't understand what's occuring.

      There's not enough information in the Reuters article to validate or debunk the operation of this car. Therefore, a large number of geeks have made a large number of assumptions about what hasn't been said, then "proven" it impossible by showing it doesn't work under the set of assumptions they made. In short, they've proven nothing.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    5. Re:Screw water by magisterx · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/ has an excellent write up of why this is not possible in the way it should work according to the description.

    6. Re:Screw water by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Informative

      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. If it requires X amount of energy to split the molecule, and the 2 Hydrogen atoms have 2X energy, then you have energy left over to drive your car.


      The problem is that when you "use" hydrogen to create electricity, the hydrogen recombines with oxygen to become water once again. So let me use some fictional numbers here to demonstrate why your suggestion is impossible:

      1. Assume it takes 1 joule of energy to split a water molecule.
      2. Assume you get back 2 joules of energy when you "use" the hydrogen.
      3. You now have the same water molecule you started with, and a surplus of 1 joule of energy.

      Where did that energy come from? It'd be one hell of a magic trick if you could pull it off! That's why no process which splits water will ever generate more energy than it consumes.

      I mean, the process works with splitting the atom. It doesn't require a nuclear bomb worth of energy to split an atom...splitting an atom leaves a whole lot of excess energy.


      Yes, but when you split an atom you're actually destroying that atom. Once the process is complete you don't have the same atom you started with - instead the atom is gone, and you have a surplus of energy.

      And for the other type of nuclear reaction - fusion - you actually fuse two hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, so you end up with a different form of matter than what you started with. THAT is where the energy comes from.

      See the difference?
    7. Re:Screw water by Cctoide · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm going to invent a car that runs on strawmen.

      Check back tomorrow for the press release.

      --
      "Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
    8. Re:Screw water by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An idea that i'd like to present is that, for the most part, even the oil system we have today, depends on burning more resources than it pulls out, but the costs are largely hidden from the consumer. The "energy" industry of today is largely the same thing. This shit we're burning today had to come from somewhere. Call it resources, call it a zit in the earth or magic beans, but the question is... how much energy is burned up moving this stuff around, refining it, marketing it, selling it, etc. I bet if you did the math like some have, you'd notice that liquid fuel extraction (petroleum based) you'd discover that a lot of it is wasted merely to further extract MORE of it. All in all, its a losing game either way. Perhaps less energy should be wasted debunking things based only on mere assumptions, and actually figuring something new out.

      For a bunch of "geeks" and "science nerds" I'm seeing a lot of bullshit and very little science. If you don't have solutions, why don't you get together with someone who can think and come up with a few? Can't hurt, seeing as to how science has been reduced to verifying predominant dogmas and outright rejecting any other possibilities.

      Strangely, if your dogmas were to be followed, quantum mechanics would've been an outright pipe dream. Strangely, as far as our current means go, this stuff has proven pretty eye opening, if nothing else.

      Question to ask is: if we've been hoodwinked into believing so much other shit before, even by our teachers, from the world being flat, to flies manifesting on rotten meat, to the various other propagandas of our age... what else have we been lied to or mislead about? Instead of immediately debunking things based on preaching, perhaps a second look at "HOW" something might be done, would be eye opening, would it not? Almost like the arguments that free markets don't work, when a truly free market has rarely existed because governments have been quick to destroy them, lest people gain some measure of autonomy through exchanges of value based on consent, rather than lies, misinformation and government coercion and controls.

      Try figuring out how it COULD be done, rather than bitching about something we all were taught in high school. By the way, I still remember my mathematics professor telling me that that there were no numbers other than positive and negative. Guess her education was weaker than mine and when I asked her about the posible results of radicals from negative roots, she turned pale white, having a kid explain to her how that stuff should work in front of her class. Yeah, that kind of shit is what makes me not believe that teachers, professors and doctors know it all. Most only know what they've been TOLD to know, and believe only what they've been TOLD to believe.

      A guy that went by Teilhard de Chardin, long ago, said something to the effect of "in the cosmos, only the fantastic has a chance of being real."

      Given that everything we once took to be science fiction or "tools of the devil" are now things we take for granted every day, perhaps the idea that energy is easier to extract than we've been taught by our establishment, may well not be as "unpossible" as we've been taught to believe. Frankly, I've seen entirely too many things in my life to think that its all as simple and cut and dry as school would have us believe.

      That is why I simply said, if I see a working sample, or if I am asked to witness such a thing, I will gladly maintain an open mind. Why? I've seen too much weird shit in my life, survived lots of weird shit, and delved in places where I was told not to.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    9. 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.



  2. 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 jamie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, if you pour dirt into the radiator, it cleans your hoses with the power of mud.

    2. 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
  3. haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    water runs your car
    rain, tea, and cool gentle mists
    maybe piss does too

    1. Re:haiku by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      maybe piss does too

      Yes, but only if you are using a reciprocating internal combustion engine that has pisstons.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:haiku by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny



      Lisa, in this house
      We obey the Three Laws of
      Thermodynamics

      ---

      Cap'n, I canna
      Break the laws o' physics
      But Genepax can

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  4. uunnngh by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Profane Muthafucka
    Would purchase a water car
    And fuel it with sperm.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  5. Haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Garden hose pressure
    Spins turbine blades to release
    BS upon world

  6. Summer by Robaato · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rainy season comes
    bringing with it a fresh crop
    of nutball scammers

  7. Deep thoughts..... by RatPh!nk · · Score: 5, Funny

    car runs on water

    being fooled is never fun

    want to buy a bridge?

    --
    Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
  8. Haiku by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Homer Simpson says
    In this house we all obey
    Thermodynamics

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  9. Re:Whats the problem.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah and my boat runs on water.

  10. Water car haiku by cunamara · · Score: 5, Funny

    Car running on water
    driving in a desert.
    Which way do you go?

  11. How it works by camperdave · · Score: 5, Informative

    The key to that system, it seems, is its membrane electrode assembly (or MEA), which contains a material that's capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction.http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax-shows-off-water-powered-fuel-cell-vehicle/


    So water may not be the only thing fueling this car. They use a chemical reaction to crack the water, and then use the hydrogen from the water and oxygen from the air to run a fuel cell. The real questions are: What is in these membranes? How long do they last? What does it cost to renew the membranes?
    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:How it works by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 5, Informative

      What is in these membranes? How long do they last? What does it cost to renew the membranes?

      It may be related to a 2005 discovery published in the Scientfic American that combine organosilanes with water in the presence of a rhenium based catalyst to produce hydrogen.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:How it works by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 5, Informative

      I found a better "TFA" than a lame Reuters vid. There's actually a few more details about the system.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  12. Haiku by Tabernaque86 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Haikus are easy,
    but sometimes they don't make sense.
    Refridgerator.

  13. Poor education -- haiku by istartedi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Poor education
    Drool from your lips runs the car
    Reporters buy it

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  14. Re:Whats the problem.... by toriver · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since one Jesus walked on water you probably need two or three Jesuses to run on it.

  15. Re:Mines better! by fishdan · · Score: 5, Funny

    H2O powers cars
    Pigs fly out of my buttocks
    Your check is in mail.

    --
    Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
  16. Re:Not saying it's credible at first glance.. by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can you not see how this is an impossible self-contained system? You can't convert water to its component gasses and back, and expect to make an energy profit.

    Everyone can see that. Can you not see that the person you're replying to insisted that this isn't a closed system?

    It's a poorly explained system. It's probably something like this. In any case, a system like this is perfectly workable and does not violate any physical laws. The process to create the hydrogen uses less electricity than the process of burning it. That's not magic, that's chemistry. Eventually, you pay for it when you recycle the aluminum in the linked case. Not sure how it works in the Genepax system, but doubtless it's something similar.

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  17. Re:Not saying it's credible at first glance.. by andre.ramaciotti · · Score: 5, Informative

    That link you've sent might have the answer to this problem. They're using an alloy of aluminum and galium that breaks the water molecule, generating aluminum oxide. But then the energy comes from this reaction of Al -> Al2O3 and therefore there's no magic here. In this case you will have 'extra' energy, that will be consumed when reverting the oxidation of the aluminum.

  18. Re:Not saying it's credible at first glance.. by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny
    Can you not see how this is an impossible self-contained system? You can't convert water to its component gasses and back, and expect to make an energy profit.

    Hello? Did you even watch the video? It's pretty impossible to argue with what the video shows.

    The video clearly shows a little, blue car with the words "Water Energy System" in small, green letters. What's more, the car has the words "H2O POWER", in big, white capital letters, written on it. "H20 POWER" is written on the front, the back, AND even the sides, in ALL CAPS so it's impossible to miss that this car uses H20 POWER. If it's NOT powered by water, then how come it says "H2O POWER" all over the car, Mr. Smarty Pants?

    If that wasn't enough to silence the skeptics that the car uses H2O POWER, the video features a guy in a suit talking about the car. The fact that the guy talking is wearing a SUIT clearly shows that these guys are professionals, because professional people wear suits. Now, I can't tell what he's saying, because it's in Japanese. But that's not important. The fact that he is saying it in JAPANESE is the important thing. Because that PROVES that he is Japanese! And everyone knows that Japanese people are very, very smart. To top it all off, the video is narrated by a woman with a sophisticated-sounding British accent. The same kind of sophisticated British accent you will hear on the BBC, one of the world's most reliable news organizations. You can't argue with information that is presented with a sophisticated sounding foreign accent.

  19. Haiku by BMojo · · Score: 5, Funny

    If water was fuel
    No smoking near the ocean
    The world could explode

    --


    -BMojo