Ask HN: Running a car on water. Plausible or just more bad internet science?
7 comments
Can you ask your friend to send his tinfoil hat folding instructions? I've lost mine, and I'm pretty sure his would be superior anyway.
There is a reason you can find no conclusive evidence anywhere in the world that this is possible even in a lab environment...
There is a reason you can find no conclusive evidence anywhere in the world that this is possible even in a lab environment...
Trouble is, he thinks the videos are conclusive evidence. I can provide links if anyone's interested (youtube only, no desire to promote these sites)
How do you demonstrate to someone that what they are watching is not proof when they don't understand what you're talking about? Example - someone takes a 'fuel cell', plugs in into mains power and exclaims how great it is because it's producing bubbles. Apparently this is a working example and therefore conclusive proof. He just does not comprehend when I say that it demonstrates nothing. Arghhh :/
This raises another question then - how can seemingly intelligent people fall for such bad science. Why don't people understand the basics of chemistry? Why on earth can someone who has completed a university level education be so lacking in the fundamentals of chemistry?
How do you demonstrate to someone that what they are watching is not proof when they don't understand what you're talking about? Example - someone takes a 'fuel cell', plugs in into mains power and exclaims how great it is because it's producing bubbles. Apparently this is a working example and therefore conclusive proof. He just does not comprehend when I say that it demonstrates nothing. Arghhh :/
This raises another question then - how can seemingly intelligent people fall for such bad science. Why don't people understand the basics of chemistry? Why on earth can someone who has completed a university level education be so lacking in the fundamentals of chemistry?
far from possible - it actually takes more energy to pull apart an O-H bond than you get from burning H2. it has to do with the polarity of the bonds (oxygen holds on the hydrogen stronger than another hydrogen atom would). I just looked it up and the heat of combustion of H2 (energy released from burning) is about 280kJ/mol. while the dissociation of H2O (energy to pull it apart) is about 920kJ/mol..... so 3-4 times more energy to pull water apart than released by making it....
now if you strapped a solar panel to the roof and a wind turbine to the front.... maybe......
...... nah that still wouldnt be enough..... complete bs
Sounds like bad science too me. The energy put into breaking a hydrogen to oxygen bond will be the same as the energy release when forming the bond - which is what happens when hydrogen and oxygen is burnt.
Just think conservation of energy.
Having said that - it might be possible to run a car on water if you had a fusion reactor that would fit in your car. Pull the heavy hydrogen from the water and away you go. That technology is still a way off.
Just think conservation of energy.
Having said that - it might be possible to run a car on water if you had a fusion reactor that would fit in your car. Pull the heavy hydrogen from the water and away you go. That technology is still a way off.
The idea is that by having rods of certain dimensions, and by pulsing the current at exactly the right frequency, it is possible to break the bonds using less energy that normally required.
It'd be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? What sort of energy does he expect to extract from the water? Is he going to split it back into H2O and then burn the hydrogen? That just results in the same amount of H2O that you had to begin with (assuming 100% efficiency). The only way a car could run purely on water is to get the H to bond with something more chemically reactive than Oxygen, and that's just not possible since you're just running on water.
Look at the periodic table. There is just ONE element more electrochemically negative than Oxygen, and it's Fluorine. So unless he's planning to make a car that runs on water and Fluorine, it's not possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity
The one other alternative is fusion, and I'm sorry bud, but it ain't happening in a car anytime soon.
Look at the periodic table. There is just ONE element more electrochemically negative than Oxygen, and it's Fluorine. So unless he's planning to make a car that runs on water and Fluorine, it's not possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity
The one other alternative is fusion, and I'm sorry bud, but it ain't happening in a car anytime soon.
What does he mean by "Run"?
If he takes electricity, puts it into some magical device containing water, and unplugs it, and then runs his car on the output, then it all depends on how much went in and how much came out.
I'll bet more went in than came out.
If he means he puts water into some magical device, and then the car runs on that, no chance.
There are cars that run on air. They put compressed air into a cylinder, then drive an engine similar to a steam engine. Then the proponents claim "It runs on Air!" and in a sense they're right.
Precision required. What actually happens?
Short answer: TANSTAAFL.
If he takes electricity, puts it into some magical device containing water, and unplugs it, and then runs his car on the output, then it all depends on how much went in and how much came out.
I'll bet more went in than came out.
If he means he puts water into some magical device, and then the car runs on that, no chance.
There are cars that run on air. They put compressed air into a cylinder, then drive an engine similar to a steam engine. Then the proponents claim "It runs on Air!" and in a sense they're right.
Precision required. What actually happens?
Short answer: TANSTAAFL.
Try to ask him if he really wants it to be true. Everyone has a certain amount of bias, but if you want something to be true, you'd end up lowering your threshold of proof to believe something.
long story short: no. the process isn't efficient enough for water to actually successfully fuel anything.
the concept keeps getting rekindled with new breakthroughs, the latest one being the radio frequency generator that "burns" salt water. its still not efficient enough to make a car go. not yet, at least.
the concept keeps getting rekindled with new breakthroughs, the latest one being the radio frequency generator that "burns" salt water. its still not efficient enough to make a car go. not yet, at least.
I've sat through all the videos he's shown me, and I've read countless websites and other documents he's supplied, but so far I haven't seen anything like what I'd consider proof.
I try and keep an open mind, and I'd love for this to be possible, but all I keep seeing is bad science, appallingly bad science and stuff bordering on outright fraud. The basic premise behind most of these claims is a means of converting water to hydrogen and oxygen, that requires less energy that what's obtainable from burning the hydrogen.
So here's my question: Does anyone here know of any evidence that supports this? Do you know anyone who's played with this, or of anyone, anywhere, who has set up a simple closed system to prove it?