Talk:Water-fuelled car/Archive 3

The section on the Gasoline pill is good, but it is followed by a Hydrogen on Demand section which goes into an explanation of Boron. The "gasoline Pill" was ultimately debaunked as in fact being Boron. The Hydrogen on Demand section should cover Stanley Meyers' Fuel Cell, Aguagen, Genepax, The Garrett Carb etc. I would like to move the part explaining Boron's reaction with water to the Gasoline Pill section.I55ere (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the gasoline pill could have been boron. It was claimed that you put this green pill into a tankful of water and it would transform it into a tankful of gasoline. This wasn't some kind of hydrogen generation system. It was debunked - but it couldn't have been a ball of boron...no way.

SteveBaker (talk)

Ya, I have doubts that it was elemental boron, too. I don't recall metallic boron reacting with water the way some other metals or certain compounds of boron do. (Certainly B + H2O is downhill thermodynamically, but kinetically, I think it's super slow.) Yilloslime (t) 04:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This source[1] (not sure about reliability), says is was naphthalene. Yilloslime (t) 04:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a few different scams. There was a naphthalene based fuel enhancement product called Bioperformance, while the gas pill referes to some kind of transmutative product. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep - when the

mothballs

is naphtha - this makes sense. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch - the cost of mothballs is guaranteed to be more than whatever savings you might get.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably got a few articles mixed up. I remember reading about the gasoline pill and then it was debunked in either Popular Mechanics or another popular science magazine. Instead of turning water into the fuel, it was proven that the pill was the fuel. The article went on to point out that the pill would have to contain the energy of a full tank of fuel to convert water to anything useful and be competitive with petrol pricing. Wouldn't mothballs be an octane booster at best and really only make a difference in high compression engines, if at all?I55ere (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blacklight has come up, admittedly by me, on several topics here in discussion. I pointed out they and others have published specific results to back up their claims of excess energy, and several tenured professors have reviewed their experiments in person and found excess energy to be real and apparent. In the literature, these results of excess heat and energy have generally not been challenged, as far as I can tell, but rather the theory behind how these results has been challenged and is not generally accepted. Personally, I think there is no rational alternative but to either accept the data the scientists at Blacklight confirming excess energy or they are bald-faced lying. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence of someone replicating without success their efforts and so charging them with lying, creating a scam or hoax, is in my opinion slanderous and potentially libelous.

That being said, that doesn't mean it isn't a hoax. It's just considering that these are reputable scientists working there and reputable scientists reviewing the work, usually as skeptics, it's hard to say they are just mistaken somehow or something like that. The more controversial issue in some respects is the theory they espouse to explain the results, which is a different topic.

Some have stated they don't see Blacklight as relevant to this discussion. However, their description of the process bears resemblance to the claims of the water-fuelled car guys.

"The hydrogen fuel is obtained by diverting a fraction of the output energy of the process to power the electrolysis of water into its elemental constituents. With water as the fuel, the operational cost of BlackLight Power generators will be very inexpensive."

http://www.blacklightpower.com/applications.shtml#Power

Clearly, they too consider "water as the fuel" despite both Blacklight and the water-fuel car guys actually using hydrogen in some form or another as the fuel.

I offered this post to hopefully clear up some confusion on the claims of water as fuel by these groups. They really mean hydrogen but use the word "water" since water is where they get the hydrogen from. Hope that helps.

Cecilman (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless they have a automobile application (and they don't) they're irrelevent to this page. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest clue about black light but if there is the slightest correlation, such as the reference to the laws of thermodynamics, then I think it is relevant. Please let us be reminded that Wikipedia is based on the principals of an encyclopedia. Etymologically, encyclopedia means "cyclo" which means "circular". In fact etymonline.com defines it "from enkyklios "circular," also "general" (from en- "in" + kyklos "circle") + paideia "education, child-rearing," from pais (gen. paidos) "child". Your opinion is quite erroneous. In fact, like a child, I understood the metaphor and found the inferred correlation quite relevant to the subject mater. For example: Speaking metaphorically, and even scientifically, everything comes from the sun. If this philosophy is prevalently notable within a subject matter, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. This correlation of black light power, if properly referenced, will help create a circularity. To finish, perhaps a little off topic, ultimately, I believe one should be able to continue clicking around in circles and like a child enjoy the educational process of reading! Hence... relevant. --CyclePat (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the question you may be asking, is : is this a notable subject. Perhaps you meant to say this lack sufficient notability for inclusion in the water car article? --CyclePat (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, no one other than certain commenters on this talk page has ever (to my knowledge) invoked hydrinos/Black light theory as an explanation for a purported water-fuelled car. Even more, no one, other than certain commenters on this talk page, has ever even suggested that blacklight technology could be utilized in some future water fuelled vehicle. Therefore, it would violate WP's policy on

Blacklight Power in this article. Yilloslime (t)

23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cecilman (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant in your opinion or analysis...you are the one making the connection between "blacklight power" and "water-fuelled car", either seeing a commonality or a potential application of "water as a fuel". But neither the common aspect nor the realm of potential applications are what this article is about. So we have material that is not directly on the topic. Further, you need an actual

WP:SYN. DMacks (talk

) 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cecil: We're not really getting anywhere, so let's try a different approach. Why don't you make a concrete proposal for bringing BlackLight Power/Hydrinos into the article. Propose a paragraph to add somewhere, or suggest how to reword an existing section differently. Just make a new section on this talk page, name it "Proposed section" or something like that, and float your proposal. Then we can talk about it. This general discussion of BlackLight that you've been pursuing lately hasn't convincing me nor any of the other editors of this page, so it's time for you to

drop it. Yilloslime (t)

23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Blacklight is the exact same scam: they make fraudulent claims no different than all the other "HHO" crooks and fools: water is not a fuel. My requests that the "business" provide evidence for his claim have all been ignored: if the "business" was legitimate, evidence for his absurd claims of miracles would have been produced by him by now. For example, quoting from the crook's web site: "The only consumable, hydrogen, can be obtained ultimately from water due to the two-hundred fold energy gain relative to breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen." Nobody with even a junior high school education or higher would believe that ridiculous and fraudulent assertion. --Desertphile (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the following comment over at

I'd rate this about a 1 on a 1-10 scale because it includes citations which state the exact opposite of what the author claims they state. For example, consider this quote from the article:

"A number of well-known chemical compounds combine with water to release hydrogen, but in all cases the energy required to produce such compounds exceeds the energy obtained reacting them with water.[37][38][39]"

Unfortunately as far as accuracy is concerned, citations 37, 38, and 39 claim the opposite of what they are suppossed to. 2 of them are from companies discussing their claims they have developed a process whereby water can be used as an efficient fuel via extracting hydrogen on-site in automobiles, and another is a New Scientist article supportive of the idea. None claim the amount of energy to extract hydrogen by these particular processes exceed the amount of energy that can be obtained from burning the extracted hydrogen as a fuel. In fact, it would be ludicrous for these companies and New Scientist to discuss such alternatives as feasible if that was the case.

The fact the author has shown such an inability to check his own citations is very telling, in my opinion, and seems to demonstrate a lack of informative value except perhaps as an example of disinformation though it could just be simple ignorance or laxness in citation.

I would like to see some explanation for these discrepancies since it appears the citations actually contradict this central claim by the author in trying to discredit the efficiency of water as an alternative fuel.

Cecilman (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"A number of well-known chemical compounds combine with water to release hydrogen, but in all cases the energy required to produce such compounds exceeds the energy obtained reacting them with water.[37][38][39]" The fact that it as a chemical compound reacting with water and releasing the hydrogen should make it obvious that the compound is the fuel. It is being used up in the process and must be replenished or replaced. There are certain metal-hydrides that do react with water and produce hydrogen. They in turn can be returned to a metal-hydride state, but it requires more energy than what is obtained from the hydrogen. Sure, you could link solar or wind power into the equation, but the outcome would be a long way around to a solar or wind powered car. Water is not the fuel. Hydrogen is not the fuel, it is being used as a battery in this situation. Whatever is being used to power the conversion is the fuel, and with today's power generation systems, you would most likely have a coal, natural gas, oil, solar, wind powered car. It is not water powered. Ran by water. No chemicals, no additives, just plain old water. It doesn't happen. If it were so easy, it would have been figured out long ago. Thousands of scientists have been working on alternate fuels for over 70 years. Water doesn't/can't cut it as a fuel. When Black Light Energy hooks their system up to an automobile and runs it from water alone, then it will be worthy of inclusion in this article. So far, they haven't. They haven't even made the claim and as such have no place in an article about Water Fuelled Cars.I55ere (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here`s an interesting concept! http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4243793.html --CyclePat (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it differs from a

Where can we fit this Japanese car in the Water-fuelled car article?--Geremia (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already covered in this section. Yilloslime (t) 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to restate the definition to include the car modifications that use energy from the car's battery to electrolisize water, then uses the hydrogen to create energy to run the car. User:Yilloslime undid my revision implying that water-fuelled cars run on water, and water alone. He felt "with no other energy input" was important to have in the definition.

I just want to clarify, is a water-fueled car a car that is *only* run on water? Because most (if not all) of this article talks about gasoline car modifications and scams. One rhetorical question: Is a hybrid vehicle an "electrically-fueled car", or do only pure electric cars fit that description? Any comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya agree that this article is a little schizophrenic and potentially problematic, and that's why I had started a thread about this ealier: Talk:Water-fuelled_car#The_scope_of_this_article. Basically, the way I conceptualize this article, is that it's about both purely water-fuelled cars as well as related scams like Hydrogen as a supplement, the Gasoline pill and related additives, and Hydrogen on demand technologies. For the purpose of this article, the term "water-fuelled car" has been defined as a car that derives it's energy exclusively from water. And we talk about these other devices/scam here only because it seems like the most logical place, even though they're not, strictly speaking, purely water fuelled. So anyways, yes, I think the intro of the article could be improved, but I don't think changing the definition of the term "water-fuelled car" is the way to go. Yilloslime (t) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is about vehicles powered purely by energy extracted from water. A thermodynamic impossibility. The use of the car battery to electrolyse the water is covered by this in that, if the battery is supposed to be charged by the engine running on the hydrogen evolved from electrolysis, we still have no energy source except the mythical ability to extract energy from the water. I think that an important function of this article is to explain the distinction between this and other arrangements that can actually physically work (albeit inefficiently), such as by using oxidation of refined metal as the true energy source. The way I see it, watering the concept down to "partially" water fuelled blurs the distinction between the physically impossible and the possible but inefficient. --Athol Mullen (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Extracting any energy from water violates the laws of thermodynamics. Although a number of scams are perpetrated by cars that are "water hybrids", the fact is if you can "partially fuel" a car with water, there is no reason you can't fully fuel it, and if someone claims there is, it's a pretty good sign they're lying to you. Adding the part about "partially fueled" cars blurs the line with hydrogen injection systems.Prebys (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Extracting any energy from water violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Wrong. Think fusion.

OK, I should have said chemical energy. I have, in fact, pointed this out myself in threads, so I shouldn't complain. However, I know of no water fueled car that claims to run on fusion.Prebys (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And this exact point is already made in the article, so I think this discussion is moot. Yilloslime (t) 21:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We have one of two choices. We either need to split this article into two (water-only vs hydrogen-as-supplement) OR we need to change the definition. I can't think of any other way to solve this problem. Its obviously not correct to talk about the hydrogen-as-supplement ideas if this article is about vehciles fueled by water-only. Which choice should we make? Fresheneesz (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not wrong. Fusion of specific isotopes of hydrogen will evolve energy in a one-way process, and hydrogen is a constituent of water, but as has already been discussed on this talk page (and can be found in archive 1), highly refined hydrogen isotopes does not equal water.

Hydrogen fuel that occurs within a closed cycle that starts and ends with water molecules is clearly within the definition of trying to extract energy from water in contravention of the laws of thermodynamics. Introduce a separate energy source that leads to the production of hydrogen that is then burnt in the engine and you have an entirely different story. I believe that what has been done in this article is to differentiate between the thermodynamically impossible and the possible. --Athol Mullen (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm *very* sorry I even mentioned fusion. My little statement about that was simply to correct a poorly worded sentence, and not to start an arguement about something we all agree on.

However, I'd like to ask: Do all of you think that information about "partially-water-fuelled" vehicles belongs on a page about "fully-water-fuelled" vehicles? At very least, I would like the distinction between the impossible and the merely-stupid to *both* have separate definitions in this article. Would anyone object to me creating a second definition for the vehicles of the second category? Fresheneesz (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The tricky problem with 'partly' water-fuelled cars is that many (but not all) of the 'hydrogen-supplement' people really ARE claiming to get energy from the water. We are on a tricky slope here. We really don't want to muddy the message that "There is no energy in water - period" - so we don't want to slip into talking about hydrogen (or water spray) enhancement of gasoline engines where the hydrogen/water is claimed to improve the efficiency of gasoline burning. Such systems are possible in principle (but not much in practice) - but they DON'T EXTRACT ENERGY FROM THE WATER. So I'd prefer to keep that version of the explanation for the jam-jar-and-two-bolts scam firmly out of the article. However, when the jam-jar-and-two-bolts guys stray over the line to claiming that they are indeed extracting energy from the water - then we can legitimately say that the car is "Water fuelled" - even if only partially. So if we do want to talk about those things, we have to be super-cautious not to open the floodgates to things that can horribly confuse the message. Talking about fusion power here is completely out of the question - nobody is claiming they have fusion driving their cars - and nobody will until we have huge industrial fusion plants running routinely. Those things don't run on water anyway. So again, there is zero benefit to pedantically muddying the water by talking about fusion power. If we're being super-pedantic then we should point out that many of the "Water fuelled cars" described here (Meyer's dune buggy for example) do not fit the dictionary definition of a "car" anyway and we should talk about "Water fuelled vehicles" or just "Energy from water" as a general topic. It's only because (WITHOUT FAIL!) the free energy nuts are somehow mesmerized by the car as the subject of their experiments rather than figuring how to use these (supposedly) amazing technologies to build power stations. SteveBaker (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. And thus I'd like to propose that we rename this article "Water-fuelled vehicles" or "Water as fuel". I'd also like to propose we split the article into two articles: one being the aforementioned change of name, the second being "Partially-water fuelled vehicles". Comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the comment below very telling.

"We really don't want to muddy the message that "There is no energy in water - period" "

66.177.50.158 (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.50.158 (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 

I just made a minor edit to the definition.. and the references that I left in place on the wiki-side are nowhere to be found in the new edit of the article... I'm not sure why this would be, but it looks like a bug of some sort. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure what you're talking about--all the refs seem to be where they were. Can you be more specific? Yilloslime (t) 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs 3, 4, 5, and 6 at the very end of the first paragraph. Looking through the history of this page, some edits have those refs shown, and some do not. The last edit where they were shown was your last edit Yilloslime. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it--they're still there, aren't they? Yilloslime (t) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its just my browser... Fresheneesz (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the following content to the introduction: Some cars are claimed to be partially water-fuelled or have claims of increasing efficiency by extracting energy from water (for example using the car's battery to perform hydrolysis).

It was reverted for reason of "not saying what it means to say" and without a source. First of all, that information is simply a summary of part of the rest of the article. For example: In addition to claims of cars that run exclusively on water, there have also been claims that burning hydrogen or oxyhydrogen in addition to petrol or diesel fuel increases mileage. and selling plans for do-it-yourself electrolysers or entire kits with the promise of large improvements in fuel efficiency

The article *still* doesn't have anything in the introduction that introduces hydrogen as a supplement at all. It is completely ridiculous that I can't get a simple sentence into the intro that covers this inconsistency. Let me put it back in *please*. Fresheneesz (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence in the LEAD, "This article focuses on vehicles which claim to extract chemical energy directly from water..." gets at it. I'm not convinced that we need to explicitly introduce the idea of partially water-fuelled cars any further at that point in the article. Yilloslime (t) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because your sentence sounded like an apologetic trying to get around the first law issue by saying that some cars only get some energy from water. I decided that either the sentence was making unsupportable claims (and should be reverted), or it was worded in such a way that the intended meaning was not conveyed (and should be reverted). -

Eldereft (cont.

) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Partially water fueled" is a confusing term in that it implies that a car gets some its energy from the water. Getting any energy from the water would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Also, if you can get any energy from water, there is no reason you can't get all your energy from water. Techniques such as water injection and hydrogen injection use water to increase the efficiency of ordinary combustion. While these techniques are often dramatically overrated, there is nothing about the concept that necessarily violates any physical laws. These things already have extensive articles of their own, and are explicitly excluded from this article in the second section ("Water fueled cars are NOT").Prebys (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion may come from the fact that water can perform work. Perhaps people view such things as water injection as being a fuel. Some people may believe (mistakenly) that water in a steam engine is a fuel. Would it be appropriate to put in either a link or a brief explanation that although water can perform work, it is not the actual fuel of the process?I55ere (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement I added was not trying to posit that some cars are partially fuelled by water - only that some cars are *claimed* to be partially fuelled by water. This is exactly analogous to talking about cars that claim to be *fully* fuelled by water. I don't understand why you are confused: "a confusing term in that it implies that a car gets some its energy from the water". Its not confusing, it means exactly what you think it does - and it is indeed against the laws of physics. So REPORT that, but i'm tired of my statements being removed because you're confused. If you're confused reword it, don't remove it. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not confused. The statement as worded is confusing to potential readers who have no idea that "partially fuelled" and "fully fuelled" are synonymous. Both terms imply that there is a surplus of energy in water that can be tapped to fuel an automobile. That is not the case. The statement should lead to this obvious conclusion. Using hydrogen as a supplement is not using water as a fuel and departs the boundaries of this article.I55ere (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking. "partially fuelled" and "fully fuelled" are *different*. Thats exactly the intention I had in writing about partially fuelled vehicles. A vehicle that puts water in its tank and claims to run solely on that is *FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT* from cars that create hydrogen from their batteries, then use the hydrogen as a supplement. Do you disagree with this? Fresheneesz (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are trying to argue that this article is about claims of gaining energy from water. And I agree with you. However, when you talk about "fully water fuelled" cars, the very clear fraud cases that use the car's battery to create hydrogen supplement are not included in "fully". However, they are cases where energy is claimed to be deriven from water. I think we need to reconcile this confusion. The terms you use is confusing to *me* and thus i'm certain its confusing to others as well. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Indent reset. When I say partially fuelled and fully fuelled are synonomous, my intent is...that if a vehicle can gain energy from water partially, what is stopping it from getting all of its energy from water? Where is the line of demarkation that cannot be passed? At what point would I go from gaining energy to losing energy using a "partially fuelled" process if I were to decrease the conventional fuel and increase the "fuel/energy" obtained from water? Fresheneesz idea might be explorable, the net result would reveal the same type of scams and misinformation about chemistry and physics that allow water fuelled vehicle claims to exist. Using hydrogen as a supplement may be viable, but using the alternator or onboard battery to perform electrolysis will not create energy gains.I55ere (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit (which was reverted by DMack), and though it lacks some sources or reference and borders

In fact, my friend Darin Cosgrove and his website on hypermilling may shed some light on this subject. During our last meeting he explained how he disconnected his alternator to save on fuel. Even with the extra batteries which he lugs behind his driver's seat, this saved him an enormous amount of energy. Similar to the aformentioned edit, recovering this "lost energy" (be via electrolysis) (or in the case of Mr. Cosgrove, not wasting it in the first place) can increase your milleage and reduce fuel consumption. --CyclePat (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Recovering wasted energy has no intrinsic connection to "water as a fuel". Using water-electrolysis or similar is just energy storage, no different (or at least not better, except in terms of efficiency) than a battery. "Electrolyze water then burn it" is just using the electrolysis products (whatever they are) as a storage medium. However, the fuel-efficiency savings is in the reduced friction and other inefficiencies in the alternator itself. If you add a load (electrolyzer, battery-charger, whatever), you will not suddenly regain any of that lost efficiency. You will actually lose MPG as extra fuel must be consumed in order to overcome mechanical losses of the alternator and also charge the battery. It's already been discussed: in an ideal world, it takes exactly as much additional energy input on a generator as the energy output collected, and as usual, the world isn't even ideal. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with your first statement, however I believe you are forgetting 1 important element... we are talking about "water-fuelled cars" not "water as fuel". Obviously there is no link between recovering energy for creating "water fuel" unless there is a "car" or some primary source of energy involved within the equation. Hence, I believe there is a link between the recovery of wasted energy (from the atlernator of the car) and "water-fuelled cars". Furtheremore, I put it to you that the even though there may be some losses along the way, that there are moments, for example when the vehicle is sitting idle and the battery is fully charged, that the alternator is in fact wasting energy (or creating to much). So I disagree. But, in the end, we seem to agree. This is simply a storage of energy. Your economic argument, input vs. out-put, and "extra load" argument appears to be a weak argument for excluding this relevant information. In fact, I believe, it helps substantiate it's inclusion from the fact that others have in fact "peer reviewed" the idea. Hence, we could easily present various

WP:POV's on the subject. Again, per my Cosgrove's example, let's assume you have no alternator, are carrying extra batteries. You will save. Let's assume you can reduce energy loss by turning off your alternator when it's not needed with a special cut-off switch. You save there too. Let's assume, you can't turn off your alternator and it always runs... once your vehicle is at peak level (charged batteries, etc.) you are lossing wasting energy by using the alternator. Some energy which would have been used to charge your battery could be used to create hydrogen, and, I believe, though there may be some issues on efficiency, there are many good argument which support this idea. In fact, you said it yourself "it takes exactly as much additional energy input on a generator as the energy output collected."... the important element, which I'm trying to highlight, is the inherent ineficiency of the vehicle and how this technology "allegedly" takes advantage of recovery the "lost energy". Hence, I believe the idea should be properly presented and discussed within the article. After all, we do agree that there is an interest in this right? --CyclePat (talk

) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that alternators are not 100% efficient has nothing to do with the hypothetical, and thermodynamically impossible, use of water as fuel and has no place in this artcle. Man with two legs (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No one really arguing about whether there is loss or gain of energy (or as you would like to try and claim, that, if the system was completely, close it would violated the laws of thermodynamics). You are free to add that information and I believe it is already within the article. In fact, I believe, that in most circumstances there would most likely be a loss of energy if an electrolyser device was installed onto a conventional ICE automobile... and ultimatelly got it's power from the alternator. In fact I just learned today that the

Accura has an environment/conservation system which stops the alternator from wasting energy (fuel), by dissengaging the latter when the vehicle is opperated in low RPM. That means, if you do as my friend John Ford explained today... "Much hypermilling and low RPM driving, made my battery low." He also said he now "charges his car battery up with a convential plug-in the wall charger." (He's got a true plug-in hybrid? just kidding) Anyways, the more we talk about this, the more I believe there is a link between this supposed "loss of energy" (from alternators) and the idea that a device such as a water electrolyser which would be hooked in series with a fuel line may not necessarily create a gain of energy. In fact one person from Transport Canada had mentioned that the increase (if any) is minimal, maybe 1% (after you do the averages). So argue, all you want about thermodynamics but I believe this is a valid POV which should be equaly represented within the article (of course only if we find "reliable sources"). Since, you have not specifically addressed this issue, I will assume that my logic (which I believe concurs with wikipedia's policies, is sound and should the day arrive that there are reliable source that the facts should be properly presented within this article. --CyclePat (talk

) 06:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Still wrong. It does not matter how you disguise the facts by introducing confusing details, it remains the case that you can't get energy from fiddling with water other than by nuclear fusion no matter what you do. Every attempt to avoid that fact reduces to a perpetual motion machine, and they don't exist. Get real. Man with two legs (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Man with two legs, could you please refrain from commenting on my methodology of work. ie.: "...doesn't matter how you disguise the fact." Also, could you please avoid insinuating and

attacking comments such as "get real", which leave the reader of this talk page believing that I may in fact believe in these (or this) device(s). The only agenda I have is to work within the scope of WP:NPOV, which, in my view, is a fundamental rights (or rule) which should be respected here at Wikipedia. We are after all working on the same article and trying to present something which represent to views of everyone. right? No matter the case, there is obviously a miss-understanding here. You have indicated that you believe the facts to be confusing details. I disagree. But first I will refute your statement regarding energy from water (see Water power engine) and the ability to obtain hydroelectricity via kinetic energy and the Potential energy

of water (see next section discussion below). Yes! Point taken that nuclear means (or burning fuel) is obviously the theme of this article but this has really nothing to do with proper presentation of POVs.

So, I will re-state what I did in the previous paragraphs. All I'm saying is that this is an issue of

WP:POV

. I believe we should take care to present equal POVs which are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. As I state on my user page: "In The Globe and mail on February 20th 2006 at page A14 in the Section of Social Studies, sub-section A daily miscellany of Information, Micheal Kesteron cited Harold Geneen in his Though du jour and stated:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

In short "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles at Wikipedia are full of POV's. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy."

Failing to present the prevailing POVs, for example, the fact that "so and so" or that "many websites" believe that this is a functioning device is truly arbitrary. (In this case I'm talking about all the crackpots that believe this device works... which is a fairly substantial minority, if not even a majority). My small (solo) belief, that an alternator wastes energy, is obviously a POV. I shall dub it as the "alternator theory". (electrolysis of water using the alternator of an ICE vehicle). Obviously, we're not going to include any information on the "alternator theory" if it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion according to WP:NPOV. So, prior to doing extensive research, formatting references, etc. for who, what, etc. I just wanted to see if there were any arguments or opinions regarding this POV. Do you see this as being:

• a viewpoint held by a significant minority, with easy to name prominent adherents; or
• a viewpoint held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, (which hence, according NPOV rules, wouldn't belong in "Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." ?

Since you appear to have some expert knowledge on this subject, perhaps you could help us better understand which parties you believe hold the majority POV on the subject of "Water-fuelled cars"? (Remember; a majority POV should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.) Is the fact that people believed this is a perpetual motion machine the prevailing POV? I would tend to say yes... I AGREE WITH YOU.. and this is based on the status quo of the article. Does the alternator theory currently pass the majority test? I would say it currently does not. I also believe that the alternator theory would most likely fall, if we find reliable sources, within the minority POV. The big thing here is if we find reliable sources. In short, right now without sources, we can’t tell. Or, I can’t tell. So the big question, since you (and some others here) appear to have some background knowledge in this matter: (since I don’t want to waste to much time doing research) ‘’’Do you believe there are sufficient reliable resources for the alternator theory’’’ to make this a POV which is prominently adherent for this article? I would like to know this so we can continue to productively work at building this article (or if necessary some ancillary article or the subject matter). Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept that I probably should have omitted the "get real" but the key point here is that the schemes for reducing the inefficiency of a car alternator, while potentially useful as a way of saving small amounts of fuel, have nothing to do with the use of water as a fuel irrespective of how that reduction is achieved. This point is made in more than one place in the discussions above. If one did want to reduce alternator losses, doing it by using any spare current to generate hydrogen would be inherently less efficient than just using a better alternator because an alternator can have near 100% efficiency while a hydrogen burning engine cannot.

The point about disguising the facts is that a complicated scheme such as this one involving the alternator takes attention off one highly relevant hard fact: all water-fuelled cars would violate the laws of thermodynamics if they worked.

There is a case for including this in the article, along with a refutation, if there is a commercial organisation promoting this idea and claiming it as a use of water as fuel.

Man with two legs (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar to the aformentioned edit, recovering this "lost energy" (be via electrolysis) (or in the case of Mr. Cosgrove, not wasting it in the first place) can increase your milleage and reduce fuel consumption. --CyclePat (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No - it can't. Cosgroves thing is a TOTALLY different matter than this bogus nonsense about "wasted electricity" somehow coming out of the alternator. This is absolutely typical fuzzy thinking.

CyclePat says: "In fact, my friend Darin Cosgrove and his website on hypermilling may shed some light on this subject. During our last meeting he explained how he disconnected his alternator to save on fuel. Even with the extra batteries which he lugs behind his driver's seat, this saved him an enormous amount of energy." - the problem is that the guy is NOT saving energy - he's saving fuel - which is not at all the same thing. In a conventional car, the battery is run down because it powers various electronics, the sparks for the sparkplugs, the cars computer, etc - the alternator recharges it. If you disconnect the alternator, you'll save fuel, yes - but you're not saving ENERGY because the battery is simply running down and eventually, the car will stop running (even though it has plenty of fuel) because the battery will no longer be able to produce a spark. That's why he needs more batteries than normal. But he's not saving energy because he has to recharge all of those batteries at some point. It's possible that recharging the batteries from (for example) mains electricity is cheaper than recharging it using the alternator - but it's hardly a general-purpose solution.

Hypermilers are only interested in their bottom-line 'miles per gallon' number - which he can obviously improve by disconnecting his alternator. But if he thinks he's saving energy, he's under a severe misapprehension. But if discharging batteries as you drive is an "allowed" trick in hypermiling - why not drive a plug-in-hybrid and get infinite miles per gallon (until the batteries run down)...that's exactly the same thing as disconnecting your alternator and saving gas 'until the batteries run down'.

At any rate, none of this has ANY bearing on the argument about hydrolysis units. The (idiot) proponents of those things claim that the alternator produces more electricity than the battery requires for recharging and therefore there is "spare" or "unused" electricity for doing hydrolysis that would otherwise be "wasted". That's emphatically not true - the amount of effort it takes the engine to turn the alternator depends on the amount of electricity the alternator produces. So if you're charging the battery AND doing hydrolysis then the alternator will be harder to turn than if it's only charging the battery. Hence the engine uses more energy to turn the alternator - and (because nothing is ever 100% efficient) it'll waste more energy in doing so than the hydrogen you'd produce could possibly generate. The idea that a generator produces "spare" electricity is a complete misunderstanding of how electrical circuits work! That's an error of monumental proportions and shows a total lack of understanding of basic electrical principles.

So the Cosgrove/hypermiler thing is (a) nothing amazing and (b) irrelevent to this article. The hydrolysis-using-spare-electricity is just plain delusional.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, anyone who owns an electric car could be using a "water fueled car". My friend Allan Poulsen and his sparky Electric vehicle runs on wind power. He utilizes Bullfrog Power and specifically pays for wind generate electricity. Similarly, anyone runing an electric vehicle could "fuel" it with electricity generated via hydroelectricity. A Water power engine (the new article I created) demonstrates that "prime movers can be driven by water". In turn this can be transformed into energy. The definition of "fuel", according to our wikipedia article, is "any material that is burned or altered in order to obtain energy. I know, I know, you're going to say that I'm being ignorant to the "combustion part" or the "chemical reaction", but you must admit, it is a valiant effort. Similar to gasoline, water is often stored, in big dams, for later use to pass through water turbines. A water turbine is a type of water power engine. If you take a look at this definition it says fuel is a type "A type of energy or fuel used by the household. Electricity is included as a fuel."[2]. Where should the line be drawn, between kinetic energy, fuel, water and it's Working fluid? Anyways, just food for thought, or should I say fuel for thought?

No, completely wrong. This article is about cars that claim to get energy from water by some weird chemical or electrical process. Not at all the same thing as wind power (where power comes from the wind, strangely enough) or hydroelectric power which comes from falling weight and does not gain energy from doing something to the water other than dropping it. Man with two legs (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydroelectricity is not using water as a fuel. It is the flow of water that spins the turbines, thus gravity is doing the work. For all intents and purposes, this would be a very long way around to being a solar powered car when the water cycle is carried to its ultimnate conclusion. It is a try, but not even concievable for an article on water fuelled cars.208.242.58.125 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

lol. Well, I figured it might lighten the mood (hey! Pun not originally intended there) and send a chuckle. I hope it did! :) b.t.w.: Good one! I really didn't think of the solar energy... making the atmosphere! Let's not forget the about planetary, gravitational pull (the moon), and Jupiter vs. Mars... we may need to contact the Astrology and compare with the astronomy experts for this one! LOL! (sigh)(Oh! It's good when I can laught about how silly I sound) --CyclePat (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the title and most of the text spelled with "fuelled"? Even Firefox is telling me fuelled is wrong. Bluetd (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Fuelled" is the British spelling. There was a massive edit war a while back, and eventually the "fuelled" faction just plain wore everyone else down. It's just not worth the fight.Prebys (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works. There is a section in

english language variations. To avoid edit wars, there is a guideline in there on which variant is to be used under various circumstances. On my computer, firefox tells me that fueled is a spelling error, as I use the Australian English dictionary. If your computer tells you otherwise, you're obviously using the wrong dictionary.  :-p --Athol Mullen (talk

) 02:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Under

english language variations the rule is that because this article was created with British spellings, it should continue to use them. The only reason for change would be if the article were about something that is specific to another English speaking country. Man with two legs (talk

) 10:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: We're still getting sporadic efforts to change the spelling. So I have inserted the {{British English}} template at the top of this talk page to at least record the fact - and point people at the relevant guidelines. SteveBaker (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some better English speaking guy should add a third bullet there about catalytic engine. It is possible to decompose water into elements by using catalytic cells that would take a low amount of energy, and then burn them together to produce a higher amount of energy. Unfortunately in this case the catalyzer is consumed in the process, so an eventually car like that (they were attempts to build such an engine) would work on the catalizer, and not on water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.210.130 (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

- In 2007, a company led by Steve Ryan called BiosFuel^[1] has sprung up stating that he has made a conversion of a regular internal combustion engine driven motorbike. The bike now supposedly runs on water.

This entry was removed. Please reinsert, at http://www.whathappendto.com/item/water-powered-motorbike.php it was stated that the invention is however questionable

http://www.thewaterengine.com/wfctech.htm finally is intresting site to update article info

81.246.154.220 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reference was peswiki. Peswiki is not a

reliable source for the purpose of referencing wikipedia articles, and hence this is not able to go into the article in its present form. If you can find a reliable source that says essentially the same thing as the peswiki article, then it should be able to go in using that reference. The problem is that, since what is claimed is physically impossible, finding reliable references is difficult. Finding reliable sources to refute it is usually easy if any suitably qualified people have looked at it and expressed their opinion in writing. --Athol Mullen (talk

) 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)