Japanese invent car that runs on water

[MJC]

http://www.yahoo.com/s/899886 - video

http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINSP7366720080613

Petrol pricey? Japanese invent car that runs on water
Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:53pm IST

Email | Print |
Share
| Single Page
[-] Text [+]

TOKYO (Reuters Life!) - Tired of petrol prices rising daily at the pump? A Japanese company has invented an electric-powered, and environmentally friendly, car that it says runs solely on water.

Genepax unveiled the car in the western city of Osaka on Thursday, saying that a liter (2.1 pints) of any kind of water -- rain, river or sea -- was all you needed to get the engine going for about an hour at a speed of 80 km (50 miles).

"The car will continue to run as long as you have a bottle of water to top up from time to time," Genepax CEO Kiyoshi Hirasawa told local broadcaster TV Tokyo.

"It does not require you to build up an infrastructure to recharge your batteries, which is usually the case for most electric cars," he added.

Once the water is poured into the tank at the back of the car, the a generator breaks it down and uses it to create electrical power, TV Tokyo said.

Whether the car makes it into showrooms remains to be seen. Genepax said it had just applied for a patent and is hoping to collaborate with Japanese auto manufacturers in the future.

Most big automakers, meanwhile, are working on fuel-cell cars that run on hydrogen and emit -- not consume -- water.

Wow. I know hydrogen technology has been around for a little while, but if they can make this economical it could really, really change things. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

Wonder what the oil companies think about it.

I'm also wondering if urine would work. It's like 97% water...

[LewMoxinsghost]

This is pretty exciting! The tech has been around for awhile, but I am glad to see it finally starting to hit stride even if it doesn't take off in America or Europe. And it sure beats the alternative:
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2008/06/trebuchet-commuting.html
These combined with wingsuits could work... maybe...

[Night]

The only problem is that someone is going to throw good money at bad science. The reason we have chemical reactions that emit water (combustion) is that we get a lot of energy from the reaction. Conversely it takes a lot of energy to split water into the h2 and o2. Most applications that do this get the energy from outside the system (for example the big solar panels on the space station). The claim that this is a closed loop violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

My favorite part on the video is that it clams that once the h2 is pulled from the water, electrons are generated.... from where? the oxygen??!!! I get it... a vehicle that emits hydrogen and ionic oxygen... for some odd reason the cars behind it keep spontaneously exploding.

Yes, it's an old technology (1700's), just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain shoveling coal into it.
http://indiana-transit-museum.visit-indianapolis.com/steam-engine-587.jpg

[Serik]

The journalist who wrote that article needs to be fired; how can you accurately report on reality if you have no understanding of it?

Where does the energy that splits the water molecules come from? Right, a coal/hydro/nuclear/solar plant. Considering most of our energy comes from non-renewable sources, the water "powered" car is a terrible idea.

(Hydrogen cars are also bullshit because hydrogen is not a net energy provider: it merely transmits energy from a power plant to your car. Energy is also needed to keep the H under pressure. As the smallest atom, hydrogen can easily escape from containers. Oh ya, it also boils at -423 degrees F. But let's keep buying into that fairy tale...)

[LewMoxinsghost]

That's a really good point that it is not a closed system. I didn't get to watch the video but I will now.

But why is extending the capabilities of one energy source (some dirty coal shovelin' fool) a necessarily bad idea? I think it is great. All of your impurities are at the electric plant where the initial charge is, instead of out on the road. Right? Or am I missing something? The pollution will then at least be contained at the plant, where it can be dealt with easier than noxious exhaust fumes everywhere. Plus, there are ways of replicating that same energy with static solar panels or wind power. I mean, it is definitely not an end, but I think it is a great beginning.

[LewMoxinsghost]

Burning water is different than steam power... I only meant the tech to separate hydrogen and oxygen and use the hydrogen for energy has only been shared widely for the past twenty years or so.

After nosing around Snopes, I found this:
http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp

Which basicly confirms that yes, under certain conditions water can "explode."

[Demon wizard]

The US government had cars that run on water for years, man! They were just hiding it from us because they knew if we used all of our water for fuel, the only thing left to drink would be beer! And the last thing the government wants is all those drunk people on its hands.

[LewMoxinsghost]

The US government had cars that run on water for years, man! They were just hiding it from us because they knew if we used all of our water for fuel, the only thing left to drink would be beer! And the last thing the government wants is all those drunk people on its hands.

Drunk people driving water powered cars! Oh nos!

I wonder if this tech could lead to the oceans, lakes, and rivers being turned into big burning pools of fire? Scary thought.

The list so far of "the next big thing":
Sperm with wheels:
http://www.aptera.com
Ethanol Ford:
http://digg.com/autos/Prototype_Ford_Escape_Plug_in_Hybrid_88_MPG_on_85_ Ethanol
Tesla Roadster:
http://www.teslamotors.com

Anyone got any more? Smart cars don't count.

[gary bolt]

Smart cars don't count.

Why not? They're safe and miserly on fuel.

[LewMoxinsghost]

Why not? They're safe and miserly on fuel.

Aw, come on. They are so 2007. :tongue:

[gary bolt]

Aw, come on. They are so 2007. :tongue:

They've been on the road here for a few years and there are quite a few around town. My main problem with them is they tend to be second or third cars. We know one couple who own a Smart Car and their other one is an SUV. In Hamburg they have a Smart Car dispenser.

http://i.pbase.com/u5/saintj/upload/37079068.SmartCarDispenser.jpg

[Charles RB]

I'm also wondering if urine would work

That's exactly what I was thinking. I would buy a car like that - on long journeys, I just pull over and top the "petrol" up!

[StoneGold]

That's exactly what I was thinking. I would buy a car like that - on long journeys, I just pull over and top the "petrol" up!

From the way it looked, if you could set up some kind of hose or catheter system, you'd never have to stop!

I'm mostly dubious about the 1 liter per 80 kilometers claim. Granted, I'm having a little trouble doing the conversion math, being stupid and all, but isn't that better mileage than on gas?

[LewMoxinsghost]

They've been on the road here for a few years and there are quite a few around town. My main problem with them is they tend to be second or third cars. We know one couple who own a Smart Car and their other one is an SUV. In Hamburg they have a Smart Car dispenser.

http://i.pbase.com/u5/saintj/upload/37079068.SmartCarDispenser.jpg

Yep, there is one in Rhineland Pfalz too. They have their charm, but I think what I am looking for is a more of a long-term solution. Smart cars still use petrol.
I think also there is a percieved safety issue. They just don't look survivable in a crash- especially the glass topped ones. They still seem to be popular in Europe though. There are just more pick-up trucks, SUVs and such in the states- big imposing vehicles which scare little Smart cars on the open road or in city traffic. (I know there is probably more big rigs per capita in Germany but they are pretty well-behaved compared to US) The culture in the US comes out of the muscle car movement of the 50s and 60s. Which I guess makes it that much more painful to switch to something like a Smart car.

I'm all for more practical bike trails being built.

[StoneGold]

I took a test drive about a year ago in a Smart Car when they were introducing them. I didn't like how the thing accelerated or handled. It felt like a go-kart.

[LewMoxinsghost]

From the way it looked, if you could set up some kind of hose or catheter system, you'd never have to stop!


That visual is straight out of Grant Morrison's the Filth. Nevermind my question, I figured it out. Started a thread over in the cleverly titled "Books" forum.

[Cthulhudrew]

They were just hiding it from us because they knew if we used all of our water for fuel, the only thing left to drink would be beer!

You can't make beer without water... :tongue:

[Night]

Burning water is different than steam power... I only meant the tech to separate hydrogen and oxygen and use the hydrogen for energy has only been shared widely for the past twenty years or so. I hate having to explain my jokes. The most often scam for the "water burning car" is that once you get the hydrogen you get the energy by burning said hydrogen... (by adding oxygen) but guess what.... you get your water back... (along with a net loss of usable energy) so the most likely explanation for the water to be leaving the system is through evaporation (since this is a hot reaction involving water) hence the steam engine reference. Until someone figures out how to use the hydrogen in fusing to helium efficiently and safely... stay skeptical. It is far better on terrestrial uses to just send the electricity direct to the motor, and take out the water loop.has only been shared widely for the past twenty years or so. Sir William Grove developed the first fuel cell in England in 1839. His experiments during this time on electrolysis — the use of electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen — led to the first mention of a device that would later be termed the "fuel cell."It's not that hard of tech.... I made hydrogen in the 8th grade. Which basicly confirms that yes, under certain conditions water can "explode." There is a reason "explode" is in quotes here; it's because they're referring to the general definition of explode that merely means "to expand rapidly" (because it's at high pressure)... duh any fluid can do it. Trying to connect that to a chemical explosion is misinformation.But why is extending the capabilities of one energy source (some dirty coal shovelin' fool) a necessarily bad idea? I think it is great. All of your impurities are at the electric plant where the initial charge is, instead of out on the road. Right? Or am I missing something? The pollution will then at least be contained at the plant, where it can be dealt with easier than noxious exhaust fumes everywhere. Ah the lovely fad of pretending we're green by farting in someone else's back yard. This is why many Texans have little sympathy for California high electricity prices.

[Ontir]

Wonder what the oil companies think about it.

The oil companies have been buying up, what used to be, municipal water supplies around the country in preparation. They're trying to eke out every cent from oil before the inevitable switch to hydrogen, but when you hear Condi Rice talk about "the Hydrogen Economy," you know they're already in the driver's seat. At least it's a green engine, though.

[Serik]

The switch to hydrogen better not be inevitable because it's stupid. It won't happen, not in our lifetimes, not ever. There are far, far more efficient ways of delivering energy than liquid H.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png

[howyadoin]

Why not? They're safe and miserly on fuel.Not that miserly. Because the engine's so small it has to rev at almost full throttle just for city driving. Automobile Magazine took one out on the highway and couldn't get more than about 30mpg out of it.

[Demon wizard]

You can't make beer without water... :tongue:

pff, maybe you can't.