Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

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

Posted by timothy on Sat Jun 14, 2008 01:45 PM
from the transparent-hucksterism-meets-subtitles dept.
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Screw water (Score:5, Funny)

    by ijakings (982830) on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:47PM (#23792701)
    I want my Mr fusion and I want it now!
    • Re:Screw water (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DaedalusHKX (660194) on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:54PM (#23792759) Journal
      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.
      • Re:Screw water (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:13PM (#23792929) Homepage
        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.)

  • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:50PM (#23792721) Homepage
    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.
  • haiku (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:50PM (#23792727)

    water runs your car
    rain, tea, and cool gentle mists
    maybe piss does too
  • uunnngh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Profane MuthaFucka (574406) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:52PM (#23792737) Homepage Journal
    Profane Muthafucka
    Would purchase a water car
    And fuel it with sperm.
  • Haiku (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:54PM (#23792751)
    Garden hose pressure
    Spins turbine blades to release
    BS upon world
  • Summer (Score:5, Funny)

    by Robaato (958471) on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:55PM (#23792773)
    Rainy season comes
    bringing with it a fresh crop
    of nutball scammers
  • by RatPh!nk (216977) <ratpH1nk.gMail@com> on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:57PM (#23792791) Homepage

    car runs on water

    being fooled is never fun

    want to buy a bridge?

  • Haiku (Score:5, Funny)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Saturday June 14 2008, @01:58PM (#23792811)
    Homer Simpson says
    In this house we all obey
    Thermodynamics
  • by cunamara (937584) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:02PM (#23792839) Homepage
    Car running on water
    driving in a desert.
    Which way do you go?
  • How it works (Score:5, Informative)

    by camperdave (969942) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:06PM (#23792881) Journal

    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/ [engadget.com]


    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?
  • Haiku (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tabernaque86 (1046808) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:22PM (#23793019)
    Haikus are easy,
    but sometimes they don't make sense.
    Refridgerator.
  • by Ecuador (740021) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:25PM (#23793041) Homepage
    If I understand correctly, this car claims to burn hydrogen to power itself. So, since burning hydrogen = producing water, you can just take the water from the exhaust and put it back in the little thingy that separates hydrogen. So, they were being modest, you don't even need to add water (or tea)!

    Seriously now, I see serious posts here about things that "we don't know / don't yet comprehend" like "zero point energy" etc. Guys, perhaps if you take a couple of physics courses you will both "know" and "comprehend" and in addition you will be able to discern obvious scams.

    Unless they are using a nice tiny fusion generator here. In that case when you pour water, it would be taking the deuterium out of it. Then I imagine they will tell you to throw in some old lithium batteries you have lying around, so that tritium can be generated. So, with your deuterium-tritium fuel you can power up Mr Fusion and have all the power you need!

    Seriously people...
  • by istartedi (132515) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:25PM (#23793051) Journal

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

  • Some links ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by flnca (1022891) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:28PM (#23793093) Journal
    ... because there are none in TFA:

    WES system [google.com] (Google-translated)

    Genepax homepage [genepax.co.jp] (English)
  • Tea? (Score:5, Funny)

    by stranger_to_himself (1132241) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:30PM (#23793109) Journal

    .."long as you have a bottle of water inside" to pour into the fuel tank ("even tea," repeats this report)..
    With what we're currently paying for bottled water, I think you'd be better off sticking with gas.
  • Nooklear Wessels (Score:5, Informative)

    by hpa (7948) on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:30PM (#23793115) Homepage
    Okay, this is starting to piss me off, because I have now seen posts on Slashdot that gets this elementary thing wrong both ways...

    There is exactly one way by which you can make hydrogen extraction from water a net power gain: if the hydrogen extracted is used for nuclear fusion. Assuming any remotely efficient fusion (i.e. worth bothering with), the energy gain from fusion should vastly exceed the cost of splicing water, separating out deuterium, etc. For combustion in oxygen, no... water is already the ash of that process.

    You could theoretically burn hydrogen in a fluorine atmosphere and get more energy out, but that assumes a ready supply of elemental fluorine (doesn't exist) and something to do with the hydrogen fluoride that results (HF will corrode glass.)

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Saturday June 14 2008, @02:43PM (#23793229) Homepage
      > It's one thing to claim that their car doesn't work, it's another
      > to claim it doesn't work because what it proposes to do is impossible.

      Conservation of Energy says that what they are claiming is impossible. Water simply cannot be the fuel source for a hydrogen fueled energy source. When you burn (i.e. oxidize) hydrogen you get water as the result. Since no machine yet devised by man is 100% efficient the machine can't even sit and spin, to say nothing of produce enough excess energy to move a vehicle.

      What they are claiming is more fantastic than a perpetual motion machine and the Patent Office stopped bothering to examine perpetual motion applications decades ago. Used to be every generation of half educated 'scientists' would learn just enough about magnets to get convinced there just 'had' to be an arrangement of them that would create perpetual motion, totally ignoring conservation of energy. Now the fetish seems to be moving to the water -> hydrogen + oxygen -> water cycle.

      Now the claims of some in this thread that they are actually getting the energy from an Aluminum + water -> hydrogen + ? reaction is possible, but that isn't what they are claiming. And if they did it would be an Aluminum powered vehicle and we would be asking how many miles per pound it gets.