Talk:Water-fuelled car

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Additives to water

Whilst I agree that using Water as a fuel is complete nonsense, most people who have claimed to produce water fuelled cars provide some kind of additive to the water to make it work. ("Fill your tank with water - add this little blue pill - then just start up your engine")

There is (I suppose) some possibility that the additive could produce some kind of reaction in which water+additive = reaction products + heat. If this seems unlikely, consider what happens when you put a small amount of sodium metal into water. We would say that the sodium was the fuel in that case...but someone who is trying to raise venture capital would say it was the water - and it would be hard to argue otherwise. Indeed, if you could imagine a hypothetical situation in which sodium metal had somehow become very cheap - then water (+sodium 'additive') fuelled cars might not sound quite so ridiculous.

Yes - it's a ridiculous standpoint - but that's where most of the nut-jobs would argue their case and the article doesn't deal with that.

The issue with steam engines could also use some clarification. In this case, the water isn't the fuel it's the motive fluid. In changing it from water to steam, you aren't changing its chemical composition and you are putting energy into the water rather than extracting energy from it.

SteveBaker 13:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. These are valuable points which I shall address at some point. Man with two legs 13:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Done! Man with two legs 12:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird stuff

I put the bit about weird sources of energy in because it covers a point that the looney crowd sometimes raise. I thought that after reading some of the discussion on the water fuel cell. Without it, the article can be dismissed as simply being written by establishment luddites. I think pointing out that a working water fuelled engine would provide proof that science would accept is worth making in some way because it illustrates the point that science will accept things if they really do work. Thoughts, please? Man with two legs 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The point you made in the previous version (that the 'waste' output from a water-cell + engine combination is the same as the input 'fuel') - and that this is therefore a perpetual motion machine was a good one. What needed cleaning up was the tie-in to the first law of thermodynamics. With that connection, you can show that to make a water cell work, you'd need to violate the single most solidly proven law in all of science. I think it's better to come at it that way ("In order to make this work - you have to completely overturn all of science") rather than imply that there is a possibility that someone might make this work and then science would then happily accept it.
Just think about this for a moment. If you could build a machine to overturn the first law of thermodynamics, science wouldn't "accept it" because we wouldn't have any instruments that we could trust to measure whether it did or did not work. Thermometers only work because heat moves from hot things to cold things - if the laws of thermodynamics can't be trusted around this mythical machine - then we can't measure it's temperature reliably - so we can't know whether it actually works by violating the second law and cooling the world down a bit to extract heat with the water consumption just being a side-effect. If the car goes forwards as the water drains out of it's fuel tank - but the first law of thermodynamics no longer applies, then we can't trust in our belief that the car is moving or that we can correctly assume that the water stays in the tank - or anything. If there is no conservation of mass/energy in the world then maybe this machine is moving because it's mass is changing or because the air behind it suddenly and mysteriously got denser causing a pressure gradient - or maybe it works by telekinesis or magic of some kind.
That is not correct. Simply having a machine that produced energy from water would prove the existance of something new, and you could attach the output to a generator producing electrical power that could be measured. Science will eventually accept anything that is true. Man with two legs 11:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The first law of thermodynamics is the only thing that prevents unicorns from suddenly materialising out of nowhere! Without the first law, we don't have *any* basis of science left, we'd have no tools to judge what the machine was doing! SteveBaker 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Wrong! Unicorns popping up spontaneously is more a violation of the second law (which could be phrased "as you can't make order out of chaos without making more chaos somewhere else") because air could provide the raw material required by the first law ("you can't get something for nothing"). Man with two legs 11:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Saying something like "the laws of thermodynamics must be right" does not achieve what I would like to achieve (even though I believe it). To a wavering non-scientist, some grandiose sounding law is corroberative evidence rather than proof. I'd like to see this article end up as user-friendly as possible.
You can't rule out the discovery of new science of which existing science is a special case. Fusion creates a way to get energy from water that was unknown within living memory and does it without breaking the old laws of thermodynamics. I'm not saying I believe this new science is going to happen, but you need to mention it in order to make clear the difference between something genuinely new and a false rejigging of the old stuff because pseudoscientists and crooks are inclined to claim new science and to blur the distinction between new science and nonsense
These are different points:
1. Any water fuelled car that claims to work within the framework of known science must be a hoax
2. New science should only be believed when we actually see a water fuelled car that works
I think that my original paragraph is pretty near what is needed:
It could never be ruled out that a water fuelled engine could exist using an energy source unknown to existing science. A claim of a whole new science might suggest a need for grand new evidence, but in fact sufficient evidence would simply be a water fuelled engine that worked. It would not be necessary to reveal how the engine worked, but simply to demonstrate that it did work long enough for any hidden fuel to be consumed (with independent people providing the water for it to run on). No such engine has ever been demonstrated where trickery was not possible.
Man with two legs 11:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No - that is simply not correct. If I were to take a conventional car with it's filler cap mounted 2 feet from the ground and fill the (very large) tank with water - then I could place a hole at the bottom of the tank with a small water-turbine mounted inside driving the wheels through a reduction gearbox. As the water drains from the tank, it spins the turbine and moves the car very slowly forwards sending the waste water out of the exhaust pipe which is six inches from the ground. This fulfills YOUR criteria for a water fuelled car. It moved, fuel was consumed (and drained out of the 'exhaust') - it'll run on water that some independent person procures and pours into the tank themselves and you can pull it apart and verify that there is no other fuel on board. OH MY GOD!!! NEW SCIENCE!!! So, no - you are entirely wrong on this point. SteveBaker 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
How about this:
==Claims of "new science"==
It is sometimes claimed that a water fuelled energy source works due to "new science".
Because it is certain that a water fuelled engine is not possible within the laws of known science, absolute proof of this "new science" would be a water fuelled engine that worked. It would not be necessary to reveal how it worked, but sufficient to show that it did. No such engine has ever been demonstrated where trickery was not possible. Man with two legs 11:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - still no good. The word "worked" is too vague and the idea that making one that worked is somehow possible because the first law of thermodynamics might be overturned is giving the layman the wrong impression. As far as we know, it's impossible. We are not in the business of speculating about what might be the case if what we think we know is false. In the article on the Empire States Building, we don't say "If the Empire States Building were made of Jello, I would collapse" - so why do you want to say "If water fuelled cars were possible then..." - it's about as useful. SteveBaker 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sodium

The trimming of the bit about sodium introduces an inaccuracy. When water reacts with sodium, a small part of the energy does come from water molecules being converted into hydroxide ions or sticking to the sodium ions. The previous version had all that detail to make it rigorous. Also, it made the point that you get the same energy whatever path you take. Man with two legs 15:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps - but it made the paragraph very weak and left open the idea that there is energy to be had by 'converting water to hydroxide ions' - which isn't really what we're trying to get across here. What we're trying to say is that water is in it's lowest energy state already - and therefore you can't extract more from it without putting something else in. In this kind of popular writing, sometimes 'less is more'. SteveBaker 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that, technically, water can be further 'burned' as fuel, in an atmosphere of fluorine. This article should somehow bring in the enthalpy of formation, though I'm neither a writer nor a chemist I'm afraid. Femto 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point.
Water is in its lowest energy state while it is pure. Once you add another substance the goalposts move which is why people claim to invent gasoline pills. In fact, you can get energy out of water by dropping sodium in it or burning it in fluorine because sodium is more reactive than hydrogen and fluorine is more reactive than oxygen. If you point out you can't get very much energy from the water, then the article becomes rigorous. My earlier point that if you burn sodium you get a lot of energy and then when you drop the oxide in water you get not much more was intended to provide an example that non-scientists can relate to. It is probably true that my version was getting a bit long winded. Man with two legs 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This should go in the fuel pill article.Go-here.nl (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, your hiding of the real title of the article you linked to is the entire problem here. The article isn't called "fuel pill" it's called "gasoline pill" because it's about those people who claimed to literally transform water into gasoline (or something very similar) - thereby turning a relatively inert substance into an energy source (so they claimed). Using sodium mixed with water to produce energy isn't changing the water into an energy source - it's simply extracting energy from the sodium. That's not at all what the energy pill guys claimed. You could probably make a vehicle that operated by dropping pellets of sodium into water - and it would actually work. Of course pure sodium metal is lethally dangerous stuff and presumably costs a small fortune to extract - so this would be a ridiculously impractical vehicle. SteveBaker (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Water can be oxidized by fluorine but burning implies oxygen so by this definition water will never burn. Steve I think your being the literalist fuel pill and gasoline pills are the same concept. Frauds generally claim anything and everything. Best not to try and tie them down to a position since they feel no moral obligation to stand by their positions. As far as your comments on sodium, the lethality in general has little baring on the value of energy source, after all gasoline is also very lethal, it just a matter of how the material is handled. Actually the environmental impact of a sodium "spill" would be smaller than a gasoline spill. Cost must also consider scale, if there was a large market sodium would be very cheap after all the ocean is full of it. I thought you might like to know a variation of your sodium idea has been used in hearing aid batteries known as Zinc-air battery, different metal and the energy is pulled out through direct redox rather than burning hydrogen from evolved hydrogen but its the same idea.--OMCV (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fact reference

please ad reference links for each of the statements. thanks. reg .Mion 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of "new science"

I removed these sections because they unnecessarily cloud the explanation whilst adding no new information:

"Thermodynamic proof that a water fuelled car is impossible does not prevent someone from making a water fuelled car that works to some extent and therefore looks promising to a gullible investor. For example, there is nothing in the laws of science to stop you making a car with this design:
  • it makes hydrogen using electricity from its batteries
  • it uses the hydrogen to run its engine thus moving the car at speed and making electricity (like any car engine)
  • it uses the electricity to recharge the batteries
However, this car will not produce enough electricity to stop the batteries from running down quite quickly. The inventor might claim that this is a technical problem soluble by having, say, a more efficient piston engine and a better design of electrolyser, but the laws of science show that it is a problem that can never be solved.
Hence there is a fundamental difference between a design that very nearly works and one that actually works.

...and...

"As explained above, a non-nuclear water fuelled car is not possible within the laws of known science. It is sometimes suggested that designs might work by some new principle previously unknown to science. However as is also explained above, it is not difficult to build a false "energy source" that appears close to working but in fact can never be made to work.
Hence a claim of "new science" can only be taken seriously after a demonstration of a water fulled engine that clearly does work, but not one that nearly works (no matter how convincingly).
It would not be necessary for the inventor of such an engine to reveal how it works. Absolute proof that a new science had indeed been discovered would require no more than an engine that could light up a single lightbulb for a long time with no fuel other than water. In reality, no such engine has ever been demonstrated where trickery was not possible."

...because...

  1. It would not be sufficient to do what you say. I can easily come up with two designs for 'water fuelled engines' that would meet your criteria and therefore (according to your text) require new science. For example, you didn't say that the water has to be at ambient air temperature. It would be perfectly possible to design a car that used water at 100degC or at -100degC as 'fuel'. (You could use thermocouples to extract electricity and drive an electric motor - this is not "new science" - yet it fits your criteria). It would have to be at the same height as the exhaust or you could build a waterfall-powered engine using a simple waterwheel. What do you mean by "a long time" and "light up a lightbulb" - can I make it emit one photon per hour for 3 hours? Is that new Science? This is all too fuzzy and vague and we just don't need it. We have shown that water fuelled engines are impossible - let's not go on to explain in detail how they might be shown to be possible.
  2. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis isn't a water fuelled car - it's an electrically fuelled car. We explained that very carefully in an earlier section - and now you are saying that it IS a water fuelled car and what's more, it "nearly works"!! No it doesn't - it's neither a water fuelled car nor does it work...not even "nearly".
  3. It is not actually practical to build a hydrolysis driven car - the rate at which hydrogen can be produced from water using batteries is actually very low indeed (try it!) - the rate of production wouldn't even be enough to start a regular internal combustion engine large enough to pull those batteries around - let alone have it pull anything along. You are giving the entirely false impression that such a car might run for a few minutes before the battery went flat - in truth, it would never even start. Those that have been 'demonstrated' have used a big hydrogen gas cylinder that they would claim is being refilled by the electrolysis - although in reality you can't generate enough pressure from the hydrolysis cell to refill anything.
  4. Phrases like "It is sometimes suggested that" are weasel-words and are frowned upon in Wikipedia. Provide a concrete reference to who is actually suggesting that or leave it out.
  5. I strongly object to "nearly works" - it implies that someone who was just a bit smarter than the rest of us could maybe just push a bit harder on the research and make it work...because it 'nearly' does already. In fact, none of these things "nearly" work - they don't work at all - period. To nearly work, they'd have to extract SOME energy from the water but fail to drive the car for merely practical reasons like friction or something. In truth, they extract no energy whatever from the water and therefore quite utterly fail to work. A water fuelled engine that 'nearly' worked would still require new science.

I just don't think we need these section. They add no new INFORMATION but merely expound on your theory of what counts as a success and what doesn't. That's (at best) a subjective thing and at worst it counts as 'original research' which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Let's just list the facts and be done with it.

SteveBaker 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The comments I thought I posted on the 29th seem to have disappeared into the vacuum. Here is the gist:

  • the bit about the car that "nearly works" contains no new information but I think it makes the point clear to a non-scientist reader in a way that modifing the paragraph higher up would not. By the way, such a car would be essentially an electric car with an efficiency of about 20-25% so it would be possible to do it if one were really determined.
  • the bit about "new science" covers a claim that is likely to be raised by the sort of people who push perpetual motion machines. I think that somehow this article needs to make the point that a claim of "new science" is believable ONLY when something works and not when it looks like it might be promising. This also neatly keeps the article accurate should someone discover a way to make cold fusion work.
  • the thing I think should be avoided is ending up with an article that boils down to "we are scientists, trust us" because (a) many non-scientists don't see why they should (b) it is not an argument that works against a hoaxer. Also, "believe it when you see it work" illustrates why science is right on this one; the laws of science get their legitimacy from the fact that they do accruately describe reality.
  • I don't think that the averager reader will look for loopholes if the explanations are clear. Closing loopholes is worth doing if clarity is not lost.
  • having said all that, I don't think the existing version is perfect. It would be good to use examples from actual claims. Man with two legs 13:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We're never going to convince the people who think that perpetual motion is possible. If they don't believe science's proofs for the laws of thermodynamics then they also won't believe Wikipedia. In fact, they won't believe anything they didn't think up for themselves. So I don't think we should be concerned about them. I'm concerned that when one of these nut-jobs claims to have produced a water fuelled car and members of the general public see that and look up 'Water fuelled car' in Wikipedia, that those readers see the facts, and nothing else. Facts clearly stated and without weasel-words that might make the nut-job look creditable - no speculation about what might happen if someone managed to do this. If you say that a water-fuelled engine just has to run a lightbulb for a while in order to completely overturn everything we know about science - then you are giving a completely incorrect impression to our 'target demographic'. I can make something (using a turbine and the gravitational potential energy of the "fuel" - or thermocouples and the temperature differential of the "fuel") that meets ALL of your criteria. Where does the article's credibility stand if someone actually tries to pull that off as a water fuelled engine? Hell no! I'm happy to work to dumb-down the science to the point that non-scientists can understand it (although there are limits to this) - but I absolutely won't lie to them. SteveBaker 13:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting lying! That suggests you still don't quite get why I want to make that point. You are right that with the wrong phrasing, it could be misread as an endorsement of false science. It is true that a water fuelled engine WOULD be new science which is not the same thing at all as saying it is likely to happen. It is an example of the concept of falsifiability: the fact that you could falsify something if it were false does not mean it is false but is actually evidence it is true because, despite effort, nobody has falsified it. This all illustrates a point: if you are finding this hard to live with, then it might be more difficult than I thought to phrase it in a way that gets the point across to a non-scientist. What I am trying to say is "believe it when you see it working properly (which you won't) and not before". You might be in a better position than me to find the right words for this. Man with two legs 11:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquygen

Is this whole article written around aquygen ? 81.171.25.93 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)not logged in. Mion 11:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Aquygen is mentioned in passing purely because it is a well publicised product (with scientifically nonsensical claims about it) that could be mistaken for a new car fuel. It would not be appropriate to add more because (a) this article is not about aquygen and (b) the science in this article completely covers why aquygen is not a new fuel. Man with two legs 11:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
it is the only statement pointing to something in the whole article, the rest is like a Readers Digest story, heard some people saying, pointing to long past times or people who are dead, etc.Mion 11:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is new. Citations and tidy up are still required. Man with two legs 11:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The one that makes the statements can also add the references ?. Mion 11:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that the claims made by this company are incorrect? http://hytechapps.com/company/press. Denny Klein has created a car that will go 100 miles on 4 ounces of water. Briandr 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those claims are incorrect. Unfortunately, every time we try to say this on Wikipedia, promoters and pseudoskeptics get the article deleted. Don't worry, there will be an article eventually... — Omegatron 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Fox, CNN, The St. Petersburg Times, and a local NBC affiliate in Louisville, KY have all done stories on Klein backing his claims. Briandr 1:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>
Newspapers are not good scientists. Examples of people fooling journalists can be found everywhere every day. I guearantee this is bullshit. My personal belief that nobody can break the laws of thermodynamics means that I will personally bet anyone a thousand dollars that I can find solid proof that this car is not in fact fuelled by water - or that it flat out doesn't work. Give me a day alone with the supposedly working example and some basic tools with which to measure and disassemble the thing. All of these machines (without exception) either:
  1. Do not in fact drive for any resonable distance...or...
  2. Only run until the battery inside runs flat (because in reality it is powering the car...or...
  3. Are pre-charged with hydrogen in some storage container which (in reality) is what fuels the car...or...
  4. Are simply outright fraud - being driven by gasoline or some other fuel supply than the water that is claimed. SteveBaker 01:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you read the current Aquagen claims (as opposed to the crazy press reports) they are actually saying that their power system will 'enhance' the power of a gasoline or diesel engine - that's a very different thing from running the car using water as a fuel. Injecting a small spray of water into an engine is a known trick to help prevent predetonation and to allow the engine to run on a leaner mixture without knocking...this can probably be made to give you a small gas consumption improvement...but there are severe downsides to the long term survival of your engine which is why this 50 year-old trick isn't commonly used. It's not new, it's not rocket science and it's not really practical - but it's enough to allow you to let gullible folk believe that your car "runs on water"...it's still bullshit. SteveBaker 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Journalists know essentially nothing about science. Even legitimate science gets completely corrupted by the time it appears in your local newspaper. The reason we're emphasizing the coverage by many newspapers is to demonstrate how notable and popular this idea is, and that we therefore need a (neutral, scientific) article about it.
More evidence that we need an article: The "runs 100 miles on 4 ounces of water" quote is not referring to using water as a fuel. He didn't make that claim. He claims a hybrid car that runs on gasoline, but injects hydrogen derived from electrolysis as a fuel additive to increase the efficiency of the engine. Whether this is legit or not, I have no idea, but we need an article to sort out what is and isn't actually claimed. — Omegatron 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the third video listed at http://hytechapps.com/company/press, Klein's Aquygen machine creates Aquygen gas (effectively hydrogen and oxygen still connected in the gas giving the gas more stability than pure hydrogen) from water. The gas is then burned to fuel a car. The car is effectively fueled by Aquygen (hydrogen stabalized by oxygen) that is created from water (hence the term "fueled by water"). The Aquygen gas generator can be purchased from Klein's company: http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/generator. Briandr 2:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the claims of Denny Klein and Ruggero Santilli, Aquygen gas is not just a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. That's the crux of the matter. Oxyhydrogen is well-known. They claim that HHO gas or Aquygen is a different gas that contains other anomalous compounds besides hydrogen and oxygen. This is also well-known, though; things like hydrogen peroxide, ozone, and trioxidane are known to form during electrolysis when the gases aren't kept separated. So they go a step further and claim an entirely new type of chemical bond, the "magnecular" bond.  :-) — Omegatron 03:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - and it's complete babble - it's nonsense! Nobody with an ounce of knowledge of chemistry or science in general is going to buy any of it. It truly doesn't matter what magical chemicals they may or may not be making along the way. If water is the sole input and water is the sole output then no net energy can be created without making a perpetual motion machine - and those are in violation of the first law of thermodynamics. If he has succeeded in breaking the first law then all of science as we know it is wrong. If he had done that, he'd be in line for a Nobel prize (at least) and we wouldn't be discussing whether you could run a car on it - we'd be wondering how the entire economy of our planet is going to change. But it's bullshit...it's on the same level of believability as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy - both of whom are possible within the laws of thermodynamics! SteveBaker 12:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If water is the sole input and water is the sole output
Don't be so enthusiastic in your skepticism that you discount things without actually researching them.
Although their website ambiguously says that "Aquygen" can be used as a "fuel or fuel additive", the prototype car Denny uses as demonstration is not claimed to be fueled by water. He clearly states that the car runs on gasoline, and uses electrolysis-derived hydrogen as a fuel additive to increase the efficiency of the engine. Whether this is legit or not, I don't know; I'm not a chemistry or internal combustion expert. I know typical engines aren't very efficient, though, so there's certainly a window for it. The news reporters bastardize everything for maximum popular appeal, of course. The way I see it, Denny's simply using the "water-fueled car" publicity to sell more electrolysis welders than his competitors. — Omegatron 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
OK - let's assume for a moment that this guy is talking about OxyHydrogen. OxyHydrogen isn't some weird new compound. It's boring old oxygen mixed with boring old hydrogen - and it's what you get out of electrolysis of water if you don't take care to separate out the two gasses. You do understand the difference between a MIXTURE and a COMPOUND - right? A MIXTURE is when the hydrogen and the oxygen are formed up into their own separate molecules a COMPOUND is what you get if they are reacted together. The trouble with a MIXTURE of oxygen and hydrogen is that it's very, very unstable - it's explosive as all hell and will explode spontaneously. It makes nitroglycerin look like a really safe substance! Far from being a good fuel for a car, it's a death-trap in the making - but that's OK because any rational person would realise that it's vastly preferable to separate out the oxygen and the hydrogen at the electrolysis stage, store just the hydrogen (which is pretty stable) and release oxygen into the atmosphere. You don't need to store the oxygen because when the car comes to burn this fuel, you can get all the oxygen you need from the atmosphere whenever you need it. Furthermore - by not storing the oxygen, you need much less storage space/weight. But now we're talking about a hydrogen powered car - which is a very well known thing. There are hundreds of hydrogen cars out there (the British embassy in Mexico own a hydrogen powered MINI Cooper for example). But these aren't FUELLED BY WATER - they are fuelled by hydrogen. Getting hydrogen requires that you use a heck of a lot of electricity to split water into oxygen and hydrogen - and the energy it takes to do that is more than you get back when you burn the hydrogen again. It has to be that way because otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine - and that's impossible. So claiming some bizarre OxyHydrogen thing gets you free energy from water merely tells us that these guys are either idiots or charlatans. I suspect the latter. SteveBaker 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another inventor

I'm skeptical myself about the encyclopedic value of this article. The part about the over-unity cranks can go into History of perpetual motion machines if notable -- and "ideas that nearly work" and "claims of new science" are rather essayistic.

But I can point out another crank: Stef Kling [1]. His story even made it into The Times of India [2].

Pjacobi 12:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do a Wikipedia search on water fuelled car, you don't get anything useful. I think an article debunking that particular urban legend is worth having simply because people will be able to find it. The fact that this kind of nonsense can still get into repectable newspapers suggests this article does have a place. Man with two legs 12:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Pjacobi said: "ideas that nearly work" and "claims of new science" are rather essayistic....I agree - which is one of the reasons I removed them the first time. Man with two legs put them back - I have re-removed them. As to whether the article has a place - yes, I think it does, so long as we stick to hard facts about water as a fuel and don't stray off into meta-science as Man with two legs repeatedly attempts. SteveBaker 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What's meta-science? Man with two legs 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
And what is your specific objection to debunking claims of "new science" which feature in some reports of water fuelled engines? Man with two legs 15:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just looked up meta-science on Google. It means mixing science with weird stuff. I find that not only insulting, but also proof that, as I suspected, you do not understand the point that I wish to include in the article which, as I am growing tired of explaining, is that people should not believe whacky science until they have seen it tested by experiment. Man with two legs 15:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Over at water fuel cell the general consensus seems to be that the article is rather Stanley-Meyer-centric and could also expand on the general concept of "water fuel", unless another article such as this one was created.

Here's a list of Water Car Inventors (courtesy of waterpoweredcar.com...)

This article should list some of them as examples (similar in style to history of perpetual motion machines, only water-fuel-specific), each entry summarizing their individual claims and technologies, this would give it more real-world relevance. Femto 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

People tend to forget that accusations of fraud do require actual proof of fraud. Yes, I actually don't think people are frauds until I have something to show for it. This keeps me out of legal trouble also. I don't know what the water car car scam is but I don't think I have seen that movie. Oh and to refer to peoples lives work as crank claims of new science is not very nice, rational or a useful activity?....is it? Go-here.nl (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer's claims were found to be fraudulent in a court of law, as were the water powered claims of Genesis World Energy, and the partial water power claims of Paul Pantone (GEET). Water-powered motor claims date back at least at least to John Keely in the late 1800's, who, while never found guilty in a court of law, was thoroughly debunked by Scientific American shortly after his death. If you've never heard of "water car scams", it can only be because you've never investigated the topic; they are the most common of the free energy scams and have been around for well over 100 years. As for your question about the usefulness of these comments, if Wikipedia can prevent a few people from losing money to conmen, then it has served a noble purpose.Prebys (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Selling someone something that you know to be useless or other than you describe it is fraud. To quote our article on fraud:
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.
We know that these devices cannot possibly work as described - so when the inventor claims to be extracting energy from the water and to have measured such-and-such performance, he or she must be lying. Hence, these people are without doubt frauds. As Prebys points out, many of them have been proven to be so in a court of law - but that is not necessary in order to know that they are behaving fraudulantly. If someone spends their life's work being a fraud - then saying so is certainly rational. It's also useful because it prevents others from being cheated out of their hard-earned cash - and it's "nice" because helping the innocent and revealing the guilty is "nice" behavior. SteveBaker (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Scientifically, if someone claims that a car runs on water, or makes any claim that's at odds with existing laws of physics, the burden of proof is 100% on them to establish their claims; however, the minute you call someone a "fraud", then the burden shifts to you to establish intent. While I have no doubt that intent exists in most cases (some of these characters are sincerely self-deluded), proving it can be tricky, and is best left to courts. Certainly Wikipedia isn't the place for such battles. Fighting a libel charge can consume a lot of resources, even if it's totally without merit. It's best to reserve the term "fraud" for those that have actually been legally convicted. As for the others, document how extremely implausible their claims are, and present their (invariable) histories of unfulfilled promises. Logical people will reach logical conclusions, and the rest would not have believed your accusations anyway.Prebys (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since we have someone who knows something of the laws of man, of a given nation, of a given time... I've got a question. Is it legally acceptable to state that some claims are fraudulent without identifying the individuals making the claims. By the way, where are the "courts" on hydrogen fuel enhancement schemes?--OMCV (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you're legally safe making vague fraud charges, but I don't see what it accomplishes. As for Hydrogen fuel enhancement, Paul Pantone was convicted of fraud for pushing his pet Hydrogen technology, but he was transferred from jail to a mental institution because there's some evidence he actually believes what he says. There are probably others.Prebys (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article has (predictably) been accused of being POV because it is in line with the scientific consensus that existing "water fuelled cars" are nonsense. All of the discussion to date is about what should go in the article rather than whether it is true or not. Contrary to claims by perpetual motion believers, there are no water fuelled cars and it remains NPOV science to say so until someone actually demonstrates one that works (and collects their Nobel Prize). As I would like to explain in the article, a water fuelled car that looks promising is entirely possible but very different from one that actually works. Man with two legs 11:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:
 We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts,
 including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a
 difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information
 about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a
 certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a
 fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of
 these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
Statements such as that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit such-and-such are not POV because that is a fact about which there is no serious dispute. SteveBaker 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This comment appeared and was reverted:

 "However, if external energy is used in the process of electrolysis, which already
 is true for 13% of the energy if water is electrolysed at 300 K (and 100% electrical
 efficiency; 90% is certainly feasible), the first law of thermodynamics would not
 apply because the system is not closed."

...whilst I don't understand the fractured language used here, one part is clear: You can't just write off the laws of thermodynamics merely by defining some part of your engine to be outside of the 'system' that you are referring to. The fact that you have provided an external energy source to electrolyse the water means that you have to account for the amount of energy it inputs into the system when applying the laws of thermodynamics. Hence, the amount of energy leaving the box has to be equal to the energy entering it. So at best (assuming no heat losses) the power produced by your engine can be no more than the power you are supplying it from this 'external energy' source. In reality, since burning the hydrogen produces heat as well as a useful mechanical output, the sum of the energy in the waste heat and the energy in the useful output will be equal to the energy input into the system - hence your useful output will inevitably be less than the input. There are no cases where the laws of thermodynamics "don't apply" - you just have to be careful to use them in the context of a closed system in which you account for all of the inputs and outputs. There isn't some kind of a 'loophole' that lets you simply handwave them away! SteveBaker 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether this is scientific nonsense or not is not the issue; the issue is that the wording used in the article is very biased and not neutral. Re-tagged for now. 71.3.233.125 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with the rules of Wikipedia, the fact that water-fueled cars violate the laws of thermodynamics is something "about which there is no serious dispute", so it is not POV and there is no reason to be "neutral" about it. That said, I agree that some of the wording, although accurate, is perhaps gratuitously inflammatory and under-cited. If you make reasonable improvements, they will likely be accepted, whereas the POV tag will pretty much always be removed.Prebys (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with "Neutrality" is that most people see their own viewpoint as being the "neutral" one - then expect viewpoints to be equally balanced on either side of their own position. Sadly, since no two people are at the exact same point along the 'opinion line', one person's neutrality is another person's bias. In this case, however, we have a clear mandate. WP:FRINGE clearly lays out that the mainstream scientific view is to be regarded as the neutral position. Points of view that are out on the fringe (or indeed, utterly "out there") may be identified by the fact that those views cannot be referenced in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That's the gold standard that is now well established in Wikipedia. So, in the case of water fuelled cars the position is clear. They don't work - mainstream science says that they cannot possibly work (laws of thermodynamics, etc) - and we can say so in the article providing we reference the laws of thermodynamics adequately. If you find a solid reference (in a peer reviewed, well-respected journal) that says that they do work - please point us at the document that says that and we'll be more than happy to adjust the article appropriately. Failing that, all we're allowed to say about the fringe theorists is that "so-and-so claims this" - NOT that "this is true because so-and-so says so" - and even then, we can only say it if we have a good reference to prove that so-and-so claimed that. SteveBaker (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Accepted scientific fact is NPOV. Any attempt to claim that the laws of thermodynamics can be disobeyed qualifies as a fringe theory. --Athol Mullen (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact is, most of these claims are beyond "fringe science" (which can still be legitimate) and solidly in the realm of "voodoo science", which is just plain silly. Nevertheless, sloppy and loaded editing can make an NPOV article sound very POV, which I think happens on some of these "free energy" articles. You shouldn't "preach to the choir". Remember, anyone with a background in science doesn't need Wikipedia to know water powered cars are fake, so the article should be aimed at those who might potentially believe these claims, and they will assume that unsourced invective statements are POV. For example, the intro contained the sentence "Claims for water-fuelled power sources are often invoked to fraudulently extract money from gullible investors.". In addition to being uncited, this convoluted an indisputable fact (that water fueled motors are a common investment scam) with a superfluous value judgment (the gullibility of the investors is irrelevant). I've tried to improve it, and will try to clean up the rest of the article when I get time.Prebys (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about this news report?

Thought I should post this: http://www.broadcaster.com/video/player.php?clip=1234 67.35.241.52 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the aquygen scam. Denny Klein is using electricity to make mixed hydrogen and oxygen from water and then burning it, yielding less power than he could have got from an electric motor. It is not a source of power and it is thermodynamically impossible for it to be developed into one. Man with two legs 10:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If you took the Hydrogen and Oxygen that you got from hydrolysis of water and stored them together, you'd have the most unstable and explosive mixture imaginable! But even assuming it made sense - why bother to store the oxygen? There is plenty of oxygen in the air. So use electricity to split your water - release the oxygen into the air and just bottle the hydrogen. Less weight to carry around, less space - and much, much less chance of a large KABOOOOOMMMMM!!!! So - bottled hydrogen is vastly better. But that's known technology - you can't make news that way - you can't dupe stupid investors into giving you large piles of cash. (HHO -- HO, HO, HO more like! How is HHO different from H2O? That's what the '2' means - two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen HHO, HOH, OHH, OH2 - it's all the same stuff! Water.)
Yes, this is yet another "free energy from water" magic trick. There seems to be an inexhaustible supply of gullible people who'll fall for this when a VERY simple scientific proof shows that there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy production. The first law of thermodynamics is one of the oldest and most well proven of scientific laws - nobody have ever come close to breaking it - there are no theories of how it might be broken - and if (god forbid) it ever were overturned, you can bet it would be in some zillion dollar cyclotron or in the heart of a black hole or something - not in some amateur inventor's spare bedroom! These things are ALWAYS scams - the only (slight) interest is in showing why they are a scam. If someone had actually found a way around the first law of thermodynamics, their best way to capitalise on it would be to write it up for 'Nature' and get their Nobel Prize in Physics and automatic tenure in the most prestigious university out there. SteveBaker 17:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Video about Stan and his invention: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

This video claims "1700% more efficient than 'normal' electrolysis methods". Since normal electrolysis is around 50% efficient, this is clearly a claim of an "over unity" device - so Stan Meyer (at least) is effectively claiming to have both overturned the first law of thermodynamics and created a perpetual motion machine. SteveBaker 16:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What shocks me is how persuasive it is. If they didn't know what they have left out, such as the car not working, many a sensible person might be taken in. Man with two legs 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What's gratifying though is that it has five of six the classic claims of a crank/fraud:
  1. Claiming not only to having zero scientific training - but also claiming that this is a good thing.
  2. Claims that "they" are out to get him - murder threats - claims of being offered a BILLION dollars by "big oil companies" to surpress his technology.
  3. Claims that "this is only a demo and I can't show you the much better one I have behind the curtain over here"...yeah...great.
  4. Over-specific claims. He could make himself rich and famous, fix global warming, solve world hunger and get at least one nobel prize just by demonstrating an actual working over-unity electrolytic cell. But instead he has to make it drive a car....Eh? WTF?
  5. Claims that being awarded a US patent is actually some kind of proof that the machine works as advertised are always a mainstay of this kind of nut-job. Patents are very easy to get yet somehow they add a lot of respectibility to ridiculous devices. The average patent claim gets something like 10 minutes of a patent officer's time - including the time to read the claim and fill out the paperwork...and that's an average - so most get a lot less.
(sadly, the lack of excessive precision in his claims is the missing sixth claim - most cranks would have claimed 1714% better efficiency than by classic electrolysis - he at least had the sense to round it to a reasonable precision!)
The pattern is well established - and this crank fits the classic symptoms to a tee! SteveBaker 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
We keep trying to write an article about this hoax, but it keeps getting put up for deletion. The latest rendition is at HHO gas. It would be great if you could help. — Omegatron 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific people

See Talk:Water_fuel_cell#Other_people

The article Water fuel cell has some stuff about other people hawking the same "water-powered car" hoax, but I see that it belongs here. I will move from talk and the article to this section:

  • Carl Cella
    • Alleged inventor of a water-fueled car in the 1980s.
      • He says: "As for building this device to sell as a completed system, that's a dead issue. In 1983, I contacted the Department of Energy to show them that my car actually worked. I was confronted by two very belligerent 'agents of tyrannical oppression' who told me that if I tried to sell pre-built units, I'd have a lot of "problems". I asked zhy, demanding an explanation, asd was told very bluntly, and not in a very nice tone: "Do you have any idea what a device like this, available to the public, would do to the economy?""...and then goes on to claim that because of this he can't manufacture the units for other people! Since when did the Department of Energy get to rule on what car modifications are not legal?! Did he never think to try to sell them in some other country? To appeal this rather ad'hoc ruling? But you can easily see that this is just another very naive electrolysis unit. He even goes on to claim that with water being recovered from the exhaust that a better than 100% efficiency is possible - so he's very 'up front' about the whole perpetual motion thing. Anyone who ever tried sticking a 12 volt car battery across a pair of electrodes and putting them into a container of water would be very quickly convinced that you aren't going to get enough gas out. You get one tiny bubble every couple of seconds - you might make maybe 1cc of hydrogen gas per minute. It's orders of magnitude too little to run a car engine. At least most other 'inventors' have the decency to claim they have some mysterious electronc gizmo that makes an electrical signal at some magical frequency or some such thing. You might maybe hypothesise something special in the way of a catalyst - or perhaps some kind of real special electrodes. This guy shows nothing more than a switch and a fuse and he says nothing at all about specialist electrodes or anything. He's also suggesting that a conventional fuel pump can be used to pump the water. Since ordinary tap water conducts electricity and gasoline doesn't, most fuel pumps would immediately short out if made to pump water. You can get specialised pumps for 100% ethanol fuel - but since he makes no mention of this issue, it's pretty clear that he's never actually tried to run one of these things. SteveBaker 21:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Most fuel pumps, and especially ones in the 1980's and earlier were generally of a diaphram construction and ran either from the crank or camshaft via a lever pumping up and down, The only electricity in the fuel systems was for the fuel level guage.I55ere (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope. My 1963 Austin Mini has an electric fuel pump - and even the 10% of electrically conductive ethanol in present gasoline is enough to cause a severe voltage drop. Water would put a dead short across it. SteveBaker (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

— Omegatron 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put in a link to waterpoweredcar.com (in the bit on suppressing inventions). They think not only that water powered cars DO work but also that 911 was not due to aeroplanes after all (despite all that film). I had no idea that conspiracy theorists could be quite that silly. Man with two legs 18:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
In one of the pages linked from that web page, someone who actually saw the demo of the car said that it sat there for a L-O-N-G time "charging it's tanks" before it drove off...and that it didn't drive very far. My presumption is that it was using electricity to split water into hydrogen - but that it couldn't do it at anything like the rate needed to sustain the car in motion for any significant amount of time - and that it was running down it's batteries by doing so. That's all pretty believable. With a handful of car batteries you could produce many litres of hydrogen in an hour or two - and that would suffice to run the car long enough for a demonstration. If nobody bothered to check how full the hydrogen tank was before and after the run - and whether the batteries were still fully charged at the end - then it's a completely invalid test. That being the case, there isn't much to write home about here. Most of those pages are ranting on about the trial at which Stanley Meyer was found guilty of defrauding his investors - there are all sorts of wild claims about the judge mis-trying the case (so why didn't they appeal?) - and suggestions that a 'white powder' was added into the water tank against the protests of Mr Meyer during the testing - when he wanted to run the car on pure tapwater?!?
There is lots of wild and crazy stuff there. The 9/11 allegations are just nuts though. They claim that one of the trade center buildings was not hit by a plane (that's true - but it wasn't one of the two main towers - there are half a dozen other buildings that were a part of the World Trade Center) - they claim it was blown up with C4 explosives. That is also true - days after the initial collapse, they demolished some of the other buildings because they were in an unsafe condition - but that was after a bazillion tons of concrete had fallen on them from the collapse of the towers. The idea that someone used that exact moment to say "Aha! This is our chance to get rid of the plans of that pesky water-powered car!" seems a little far-fetched! If these mysterious all-powerful corporate entities could frame al-quieda in the twin towers disaster in order to surpress the details of this car - I'm damned sure they would have put a stop to that pesky little web site that's exposing the entire plot!!
I've gotta stop reading those conspiracy-nut pages - it's fun to demolish their flimsy claims - but they can make new flimsy claims faster than I can research them! SteveBaker 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We should also debunk god. There is no proof that god exists, and technically the concept is inconsistent with the laws of physics. I think god should be grouped with the water fuel car nuts that believe in things that cannot be proven or are blatant violations of the laws of physics!!!!!!!! I am all for this, lets show the world what skeptics are made of and take down water fuel cars, god, and a couple of other things!!! 24.193.218.207 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
At most god is a theory, and a good theory has something testable. Its the same reason string theory is attacked, there is no test. God has no test. How should we debunk this, maybe we can create a page of untestable theories. At this moment the water fuel car, and god can be placed on that page. Any thoughts? 24.193.218.207 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you a troll or do you really think this? The Water Fuelled Car is testable: you take any that claims to exist and see if it works. Also the theory of the Water Fuelled Car can be examined in the light of existing science where it breaks established and tested rules. Man with two legs 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I don't believe in either God or that you can use water as a fuel, there is a clear distinction between them as scientific theories. God is unfalsifiable, the water fuelled car is false. That means that science can make no useful comment on the former (beyond, perhaps "God is not necessary - so Occam's razor says we should probably ignore that possibility") - but the latter is flat out false. We can prove it quite easily and conclusively using known science. SteveBaker 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
At minimum they should be grouped together as concepts that violate the laws of physics. Both concepts are blatent violations of the laws of physics!!! 24.193.218.207 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I just love the total lack of grammar and spelling exhibited by these people. I mean, come on, even firefox comes with a built in spell checker nowadays. This is straight from the from page of waterpoweredcar.com

They will also set out to prove you wrong. They base their laws of physics form 1825 thinking. Faraday's laws. Did you know that the first ICE engine ran on hydrogen from water? BMW has them! Hyunda will be making them. Japan indorses them.

(my italics)

How could anyone with an ounce of sense believe this crud? It's beyond me.Sippawitz (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking A-students here. Energy-from-water conmen have been proving "no one ever went broke underestimating human intelligence" for a long time. In addition to his "etheric device", the original free energy conman, John Keely, also claimed to have a water-powered motor. He was conclusively exposed as a fraud 110 years ago, and there are still people who believe his claims. More recently, Genesis World Energy used the same old shtick to bilk investors for $2.5 million in spite of having no address, a projected gross revenue equal to the Canadian GDP, and consistently using "Watts" as a unit of energy! Not only do people never learn, there's some evidence they're getting even dumber.Prebys (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Water fuel cell into Water-fuelled car

The Water fuel cell appears mainly to be described as a power plant for cars - whilst if it ever came to fruition, it would undoubtedly be used for other things, it is also true to say that if any of the water-fuelled cars ever came to fruition then they too would be used to power other things.

It seems that the merge needs to happen from Water fuel cell into Water-fuelled car because the latter also talks about stuff like the gasoline pill. Arguably we may wish to rename the article after the merger - but let's do one thing at a time.

The arguments for and against water as a fuel are made independently in both articles - and that's utterly unnecessary. Neither article is well written or particularly compelling and merging the efforts of both groups of editors could only help that.

Let's see if we have consensus. Please answer with support or oppose below - don't forget to sign your statement with four tilde's ('~~~~'). Thanks!

  • Support - per proposal. SteveBaker 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Gasoline pill and Water fuel cell are specific instances of the water-fuelled car concept. They should have their own articles. See Talk:Water_fuel_cell#Other_people. — Omegatron 04:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose - I think Water-fuelled car should discuss the general concept and in a particular section provide few lines of descriptions of the various "efforts" to build one. If the description is potentially longer than a couple of lines (as in Stan Meyers' Water fuel cell) perhaps a separate article is justified. That said, I fully support the idea of "merging the efforts of both groups of editors" in order to improve both (all) these articles. Abecedare 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The water fuelled car is the one that appears in urban legends and is therefore the one that people will search for. The water fuel cell is notable as a specific example which I had not heard of when this article was created. I think that having separate articles with links works better than merging them would. Also, a merged article would have to be tiresomely long if it were not to lose information. Man with two legs 09:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Each article is comprehensive enough to stand on its own. I would support a short paragraph in the water-fuelled car describing the water fuel cell, with a "main article" link. -Amatulic 18:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • MERGE, rename, delete, DO SOMETHING FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! : Both articles suck. They both have WP:OR violations beyond my 10 fingers and toes can counts. I admire Steve's initiave to try and fix these articles. Something needs to be done because this is seriously an eembarssement to wiki. I definatelly wouldn't want to show any of my friends any of these articles because it shows how biased and POV wikipedia can tully be. Smarten up and put your fut down and be WP:BOLD and start moving and deleting WP:REF stuff that is not referenced. If you haven't clued in yet, there is obviously some hidden issues that you need to take a look at within these articles. One example is the on-going poll since January (forever), that states that the article is not worthy of wikipedia standards. Another issue is the fact that the name is just not correcly reference "ever". I've never seen such a pathetic article that can't even give a reference for the term that it uses! Finally, the term "Water fuel cell", has other meanings... Please look at Water fuel cell reference section, reference #2, and you will sesee that a water fuel cell is used for waste management (SEWERS). This means we require a disambiguation page. I propose the creation of a dissambiguation page and to change the name of the article to Stanley Meyer but having a reference from the dissambiguation page. Done finito! Except for all the WP:CITE and WP:OR violations. not to sound pessimistic but, GOOD seriously luck! You have my support though! --CyclePat 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    Whilst I entirely agree with you, it is clear that unless half a dozen more people weigh in on the side of doing something, the consensus currently is to do nothing. SteveBaker 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose merger, but support rename. A lot of work has gone into the Water Fuel Cell article, and given the number of people who still believe in Meyer, it's worth having a separate article. However, I would support renaming it to something like "Water Fuel Cell of Stan Meyer", just so there's no ambiguity and it doesn't get diluted with lots of WP:COATRACK or OT stuff.Prebys (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose merger, also support rename.I55ere (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen cycle engine

The idea is to run completely without air, thus on the inert Nitrogen existing In the Air which forms Nitrogen Oxides with the combustion (Dissipation). An additional oxygen tank would by necessery with substancial costs in particular from the saftey aspect to burn pure oxygen

A Conversion of exhaust gases is intendet ( Exhaust gas recirculation ). This is made possible by replasing the air intake completely with hydrogen. The flow resistance minimises its higher fluidity (diffusion characteristic) and optimises the volumetric efficiency ( no Nitrogen ) . the achievment is adjusted totally over the quantity of the injectet oxygen ( higher power density ) The surpuls unburned hydrogen water Vapour can condense in the exhaust- intake system, whereby the negative pressure with fresh hydrogen results in mole contraction becoming balanced. Because of such a Rich mix the oxidizer ( Oxigen ) is fully converted. Also there is decrease in the combustion temperature. A further characteristic is that there is a Oxyhydrogen chain reaction, branched out strongly to a greater fragmentation ( Less binding energy ) in the combustion chamber. With modern rocket propulsion one uses likewise this effect (Synergy-Effect) (Oberth-Effect), which results from a hydrogen surplus.

The Oberth Effect: That seems to be the correct term for saying that, under some circumstances, it is better to use fuel deep inside a gravity well. Fuel provides ΔV, and a given ΔV provides a greater change of energy when applied at higher V.

I've reverted and edit by 80.129.211.231 (who is not a native English speaker) describing a device called a Hydrogen cycle engine because I could not make sense of it and there was no citation. Does anyone know what this is about? Man with two legs 09:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuelled vs fueled - WP:ENGVAR?

I note that on two occasions recently, editors have gone through the article and replaced fuelled with fueled. I'm guessing that this might be an issue with variations in English spelling but I'm not sure because I've never come across the latter spelling anywhere except as a mistake. If nothing else, this comment is here to point out that the spelling fuelled is correct for the variant of english used within this article and should not be changed to fueled. --Athol Mullen (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The spelling "fuelled' reached up and grabbed me too. To me it's a glaring spelling error, but it seems that "fuelled" is an alternative spelling of "fueled". But I'm not sure because I've never come accross the former spelling anywhere except as a mistake ;-) For what it's worth, as of today, Google returns 12 million results for "fueled" but only 3.9 million for "fuelled". By that reckoning, the fueled's have it. - Jbarta (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this has been bothering me for a while, too. But both spellings look wrong to me.  :) — Omegatron 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
See American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Doubled_in_British_English. The usual British spelling is fuelled, as the final consonant is doubled to preserve the short vowel, and although the usual American spelling is 'fueled' most dictionaries give fuelled as an acceptable alternative. Athol Mullen has it right: as with other variation issues, the policies of WP:ENGVAR should be followed. 86.20.205.210 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure if I understand the Wikipedia standard for spelling since every international reference to fueled or fueling regards the single l as the primary spelling with the exception of British preferences. I don't completely understand how the Wikipedia article on water-fueled cars is expressly British. That being said, I would respectfully request that duplicate pages are provided for both spellings so that the issue of correct spelling becomes mute and the preference of the user as to spelling prevails.

Wdhowellsr (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of reference I typed colour into the Wikipedia search box and was immediately, without correction or redirection, taken to the page for color. I may be wrong on this point but I do believe that Britain and their former colonies, save the US, still use colour as the accepted spelling of the American english color. I believe a solution similar to color can be provided while allowing for the understanding that many people would regard fuelled as the correct spelling.

Once again respectfully. Wdhowellsr (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's much deeper than "duplicate pages"...one is a redirect to the other one. That is, one is essentially declared as a synonymous title title for the other page--the one that has the actual content--instead of having two identical pages with different titles. The following titles:
are all redirects to the actual Water-fuelled car page. DMacks (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. However my initial point remains. If the primary spelling according to the majority of dictionaries is "fueled" why would Wikipedia use "fuelled" as the title of the primary page? I'm only pressing this because I've done a completely non-scientific survey of my peers and the concensus is that "fuelled" is disturbingly wrong. Wdhowellsr (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I referred you to WP:ENGVAR in the edit summary when I undid your edits that were contrary to the rules, so that you would be able to find out why what you did was wrong. If you read it and the many associated pages on variations of english, you'll discover that this is not a problem isolated to this one article and one word. There have been edit wars of this type of spelling issue for years. There are now a set of rules to cover it, and those rules should be followed. While you say that fuelled is disturbingly wrong, I find fuelled correct and fueled disturbingly wrong. That's what variations of english is all about... --Athol Mullen (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I defer to your understanding of the WP:ENGVAR and have modified all references to fueled as fuelled.

Wdhowellsr (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that there is no single Wikipedia standard for British versus US English spelling - but instead we have this rather messy and unsatisfying hotchpotch of ad-hoc rules. However, we need some kind of rule to prevent the continual oscillation of articles from one form of spelling to another as British, American, Canadian, Australian, NewZealand (and other) english-speaking editors each try to impose their national spellings. So - we stick to the rules and we suffer the consequences. The short-form of the rule is that if an article has an inherent national connotation (like articles about cities or biographies of famous English speaking people) - then we use that dialect for the article. If there is no obvious national origin (as I believe is the case in this article), then the fallback rule is that whatever dialect the article started out in - it should retain forever. That's a very arbitary rule - but it has the major benefit of preventing edit wars because it's easy to interpret. Hence, 'fuelled' - not 'fueled'. Appeals to majority of Google hits or anything like that don't work...we have a rule - and we're going to stick by it because anything else leads to edit warring and other nastinesses. SteveBaker (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid/Water

Hybrid/water combination, could be a good theory to test, batteries are charged by the movement of the vehicle and the electricity is then used to break down more water into hydrogen for charging or for moving the vehicle, it could be suplemented with small solar panels, and a electrical plug for complementary charging of the batteries, even if the there was a deficiency in energy production from the water system the amount of energy obtain from the water could be a big savings in energy.Hydrogen not to be stored but to be used by the car on demand, according to the speed/torque demands. the more demand the more production —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oma13 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - but your idea is completely without merit. Why? The process of converting water to hydrogen and oxygen is a lot less than 100% efficient. The process of reacting the hydrogen with the oxygen to drive the vehicle is also a lot less than 100% efficient. The result of what you propose is essentially just a horribly inefficient electric motor! Batteries and electric motors are vastly better. Solar panels over the area of a car don't produce much electricity compared to the energy it takes to run the car. Adding them to charge the batteries on a hybrid is possible - but currently not cost-effective...putting a water electrolysis unit and an internal combustion engine to burn the hydrogen would make them even less useful and VASTLY less cost-effective. So instead of messing around using the electricity to split water - just use it to charge the batteries! You might argue that you can store energy as hydrogen more compactly than you can using batteries - but sadly, that has been clearly shown to be false. In order to store hydrogen, you've either got to compress it to very high pressures (which would take a lot of energy and is dangerous in the event of a car crash) or you have to use some kind of high-tech hydride storage cell. If we had cheap/efficient/safe ways to do that then we'd crack the water much more efficiently on an industrial scale and just run hydrogen-powered cars. SteveBaker (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Name Change

I would propose changing the main name of the article to "Water-fueled motors" or even "Energy from water". The central issue is the claim that one can extract useful energy from water. Whether it's used to run a car is a detail. This would allow us to include things like Genesis World Energy and Keely's water motor and another of other things which (fraudulently) claim(ed) to extract energy from water using the same "principles" as the Garrett Carburetor (Meyer Fuel Cell, Brown's gas, whatever you call it), while not strictly speaking being cars.

Thoughts?Prebys (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


I agree - but that would then immediately invite a merger with Water fuel cell - which was already rejected by consensus. SteveBaker (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. I'd say no to "Energy from water" since it has implications of Water power. "Water-fueled motors" would be fine for (another) redirect link for this page, however since all current claims appear to involve vehicles, the current title seems appropriate. (Of the examples you cite, Keely's motor was also claimed to be useful for transportation, and Genesis World Energy appears to be nothing more than a collection of links to other websites of dubious worth.) - Ralphbk (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Genesis World Energy was one of the biggest free energy scams in recent history. I should really add an article about it. They actually did talk about water fueled cars, but that was late in the game. Their first "product" was the "Edison device", which supposedly used water to supply electricity to your home. They took investors for $2.5M before the president went to jail.Prebys (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen fuel injection vs water fuel

I had always been under the impression that this process was not getting the gain from energy in the water, but rather as an increased efficiency in the combustion of the normal fuel. This point seems to be totally missed. I agree it is important to clear up confusions about how people might imagine this system working, but lets cover all the bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.234.42 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This article was clearly defined to be about cars that run on water, as Meyer, Aquygen, the Garrett Carburetor, et al claim to do. The general topic of increased efficiency is covered in the hydrogen fuel injection article. It's best to separate a controversial topic (hydrogen fuel injection) from one which unquestionably violates the laws of physics as we currently understand them (water-fueled cars).Prebys (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly an important separation - but the claims made for Hydrogen fuel injection (as applied to automobiles - and especially using equipment such as that sold by 'water4fuel' and others) violates the laws of physics just as much as water fuelled cars do. If you claim to increase the mpg of a car by 50% (say) - and 99% of the fuel being consumed in the unmodified car is converted to energy then you are saying that about 33% of the energy of the modified car is somehow coming from the water. That's every bit as impossible as 100% of the power coming from the water. The link to the article on the Mythbusters forum (below) is very instructive in that regard. But certainly, that information doesn't belong in this article. SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mythbusters