Genepax Water-run Car?
Posted on Jun 15, 08 07:49 PM PDT
Could the Genepax be the Holy Grail where water-powered vehicles are concerned? Well, chances are not yet, despite the vehicle being ableo to run simply by consuming water and breaking it down to hydrogen and oxygen which is then fed to the fuel cell. Chances are this car will be able to run on water, but not for long since there is no external input other than water. I wonder what are the other segments of the processes that regenerates the energy generator? It would be nice to see such technology brought forward soonest possible as the world grapples with the ever rising costs of fuel, no thanks in part to speculators.
Your Comments
Comments will be published immediately if you use a Disqus, Facebook or Twitter account. Anonymous comments will be moderated.
Legacy Comments
By Mike , 10/07/08 10:31 AM (CommentID #772356)
Mr. Hatfield... you seem full of knowledge. I think you are, in fact, educated. It is the duty of the educated to continue to, at the highest level of competence, prove or disprove all theoretical knowledge. The earth was round, so said many educated individuals who could not prove it, and so the accepted fact was that the earth was flat. Heliocentric sound familiar at all, if it were not for the work of some educated free thinkers you would not have heard of that word. Here's one hatfield, ZERO was not accepted as a mathematical number until the 15th century. Did you ever take theoretical physics? Ever study astro physics? Quantum physics? String theory, M theory, or anything that can't be discussed without a high level of education? I know that you understand a lot of physics, but I leave you with my favorite thing to say, (I'm paraphrasing here)----- True wisdom comes from understanding that you know nothing----Socrates
By Mike , 09/07/08 11:18 PM (CommentID #771471)
I am a fan of education.... I am a big fan of open debate.... For debate to truly be open, minds must open up just a bit more. here's a little story for ya :While in college Nikola Tesla claimed it should be possible to operate an electrical motor without sparking brushes. He was told by the professor that such a motor would require perpetual motion and was therefore impossible. In the 1880's he patented the alternating current generator, motor, and transformer.
During the 1890's he intensively investigated other methods of power generation including a charged particle collector patented in 1901. When the New York Times in June of 1902 carried a story about an inventor who claimed an electrical generator not requiring a prime mover in the form of an external fuel supply, Tesla wrote a friend that he had already invented such a device.
Fuelless electrical generation raises the same objection of perpetual motion as did the generator in use today when it was first proposed. Research Nikola Tesla carried out during his second creative period and the resulting devices that were the basis for his assertion of fuelless electrical generation will be examined. Whether Tesla's fuelless generator was a "perpetual motion scheme" of the sort his teacher warned him against, or a creative application of recognized natural phenomena will be discussed.
TESLA'S STATEMENTS
In The Brooklyn Eagle, Tesla announced, on July 10th, 1931, that "I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device." Later on in the same article he said that "More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded." In 1933, he made the same assertion in an article for the New York American, November 1st, under the lead in "Device to Harness Cosmic Energy Claimed by Tesla." Here he said:
This new power for the driving of the world's machinery will be derived from the energy which operates the universe, the cosmic energy, whose central source for the earth is the sun and which is everywhere present in unlimited quantities.
By Mike , 09/07/08 11:05 PM (CommentID #771462)
Again... first law, schmirst law/. The most important part of the first law is the " closed system" bit. Tell me 30 yr physicist... is the earth a closed system, the solar system, the universe. Think small picture until you get a better lens
By hatfield , 02/07/08 9:56 PM (CommentID #759984)
Hamish,
Amount of hydrogen in 1 litre of water = 0.1kg
Amount of energy in 0.1 kg of hydrogen = 3.8 kw hr
A BMW car needs 15 kw to run at 55mph.
So at best there is enough hydrogen in 1 liter of water to run your car for 15 minutes.
If you drive a 60 mph, you can go 15 miles, about
24 kilometers.
This of course assumes you have first converted your water to hydrogen. This conversion requires
5 kw*hr per kilogram of water. I assume you are using your car alternator to provide the electricity needed for this task. A car alternator can provide about 0.5 kw running at full output. So in fact your existing alternator can only provide enough electricity to generate
10 gram of hydrogen per hour.
10 grams of hydrogen converted at 100% effiency
by burning in an internal conbustion engine will produce approx. 0.35kw*hr. But of course engines are only about 40% efficient at best. So your 10 grams of hydrogen will deliver about 0.12kw*hr to the wheels.
Now since your car needs 15 kw to run at highway speed, you can see that the hydrogen cell is providing about 1% of the required energy.
Even this is a moot point, because you used the car engine to run the car alternator. So the energy all came from gasoline anyway!
By Hamish , 02/07/08 12:26 AM (CommentID #758680)
I have made a hydrogen cell for my BMW 5 series and it works well saving 38%. The next is to get the car just to run on water, which I understands works.What they don't tell you is Hydrogen is three time as powerful as petrol and for every litre of waster in the cell, runs the car for 1144 kms. So I have 3 litres 3300 kms.
Stainless steel plates 1mm apart seperate the oxgyen & the hydrogen via 12 volts. this is piped into the air intake. Too easy.
By hatfield , 01/07/08 4:12 PM (CommentID #757939)
Scott: The three gallons of fossil fuel (or coal equivalent) is used at the *Power Plant* to make the electricity that is used to make the metal hydride. Then you put the hydride in your car and get the equivalent of 1 gallon of gas out of it. This is a net loss of 2 gallons of gas.
Will: If thermodynamics did not work, the following things would be happening around you:
You bake an apple pie in the oven. You take the pie out of the oven and place it on the table to cool. Instead of cooling, it starts to heat up. It turns red hot, then white hot. It melts through the table and the floor. It reaches the temperature of the center of the sun and then goes thermonuclear.
Thermodynamics is just a way of saying "We know these things do not happen in our universe."
You are saying "No one understands apple pie completely. Sometimes they heat up all by themselves and become nuclear bombs. Scientists are closed-minded fools who want us to believe
it is not possible....." 8^)
By Will , 01/07/08 9:55 AM (CommentID #757340)
Simple math is not always the correct math and even if you math is correct there may be variables that you could be leaving out leave out. For example electrons dont behave in a way which is completely understood. 30 years in the physics field does not make you an expert on everything in the universe and ignorance is really not bliss. Do you know the actual reaction that occurs when you pass electricity through water because if you do you have really good eyes because i can not see atoms with my naked eye. People may have ideas but no one can actually see it. You can not possible be 100% sure of anything in the universe especially when you can not see it with your own eyes. There are aspects of this universe that physics can not explain. Its good to be a skeptic but bad to close your mind to an idea different from the norm.
By scott , 30/06/08 10:07 PM (CommentID #756488)
So, for every 3 gallons of gas I run through my car, I will have generated an equivalent of 1 gallon of fuel I didnt have when I started. Sounds like a savings of 25% at the pump..
By Hatfield , 30/06/08 12:22 PM (CommentID #755663)
Mike: I've worked in physics for 30 years, and I've never met a nuclear physicist that didn't understand the truth of thermodynmaics. As for Tesla, everything he did followed the laws of themodynamics. Sure, transmitted energy by way of radio waves. He started with kilowatts of input and managed to transmit miliwatts at the other end. Since you are a "retired physicist" you should be able to calculate how inefficient that is!
Leo: Of course you can get hydrogen out of water. The point is that you must put more electricity into it than you can get out of the hydrogen. It takes at least three gallons of fossile fuel to make a kilogram of hydrogen. A kilogram of hydrogen has the energy of one gallon of gas. Can you handle that level of math?
By Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst , 29/06/08 10:40 PM (CommentID #754569)
Renewable Energy Manufactures/suppliers should use their own product to manufacture.
The manufacturers’ of Solar Panels and other forms of renewable energy with related support products manufactures/suppliers - should have at least the decency to practice what they preach what they market to the public.
That would be the best marketing approach I can think off.
If they believe in the product they manufacture/sell, they should utilize it to its fullest potential.
It will give the manufacturer the actual experience of utilizing the product on a daily basis, view and experience any shortcoming or improvements that are needed, implement the improvements and capitalize on that revision to improve the product and its performance.
This will instill confidence in the public to purchase the product.
Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst
PS
As with any new technology, PV will become more efficient, cheaper and cleaner to produce. In order for this to happen we (Governments / NGOs / Individuals) need to invest more time and money into making PV viable, e.g. through increased incentives, regulations, technical standards, R&D, manufacturing processes and generating consumer demand.
Just like the automobile industry, the manufacture used its own product.
Over the years the automobile industry and technology has evolved from the early 1900 to what it is today the year 2008.
I predict that in 10 years the automobile we know today will change drastically for the better, with new fuel technology and other modification that will improve its scales of economy and features.
By Scott , 27/06/08 11:05 PM (CommentID #750327)
Question, cars with fuel cells ultimatley turn their fuel into water. Are we sure all the hydrogen gets combined with oxygen? Do we lose some hydrogen into the atmosphere? Is it gone forever? What about all those garage inventors creating hydrogen, where is all that hydrogen going? ???
By Leo , 26/06/08 10:32 AM (CommentID #747504)
The laws of Thermodynamics may be confirmed everyday by the technology available but like I say we don't really know anything about the Universe compare to what we have yet to discover. Who knows what we may discover. What we "think we know about science and the universe" may change in 100 years just like it has throughout history. Who thought water could burn well its not actually the water that burns it is hydrogen. This has been done by electrolysis and by radio frequency saltsare the catalyst here. People all can continue to be blind and look at the world through the eyes of other people or people can look through their own eyes. Who knows how it works because it want built by you. If it wasnt done by you then you are right to be a skeptic but until you do it yourself you can not say how it really works. I understand many people are not actually in the scientific world and they believe everything you hear or read without being critical of it. Having a few classes, reading a book, or degree does not mean you know everything. I know "I" dont know everything in the universe but i am not closed minded. Then again maybe you do know how everything in the universe works and you can explain what makes up the unknown calculated mass of the universe that has been dubbed dark matter. Also what is Dark energy really and why does it seem to increase the rate of expansion of the universe when gravity should be slowing it down. Its good to see at least one of these posts are not sheep that follow everyone else.
By Mike Morgan , 23/06/08 7:28 PM (CommentID #743046)
First Law Schmirst Law... Retired Nuclear Physicist here. Listen... Tesla got energy from a rod in the ground, That's 0 in whole lot out. Remember, there are energy inputs all around you all day. Think for a moment about why we cannot get to a point where a source of energy is being sought not in just 1 form but multiple, piggy-backed forms of energy. Why not solar for electrolysis, capacitive storage(battery), wind power b/up, electromagnetic propulsion (magneto-plasma would be best) on roads for extra pull, perhaps you all think small cause it's above your head.
By You must serve as an example in implementing energy efficiency. , 22/06/08 7:51 AM (CommentID #740729)
You must serve as an example in implementing energy efficiency.
I think if corporate America is serious about energy conservation; it must start with people at the top and roll down from there to the rest of the executives and employees.
In order to accomplish such an important mission as energy conservation every executive and employee has to believe that what he is doing is the right thing.
They must practice the same attitude at home and implement energy conservation at home. This attitude will carry on to the workplace.
First thing that must be done is, each employee should be asked what has he/she done in their own lives to conserve energy, and than if the answer is positive advance the initiative from there, if not an education process must be implemented to drive the process home once this process has been achieved, it will be easier to get everyone to participate in energy conservation.
The motive and behavior has to come from within each individual person – it must become part of a routine practice – it must become a way of life – reducing waste in any form.
In today’s rising cost of energy – conservation must become a national theme.
Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst
By Hatfield , 20/06/08 8:04 PM (CommentID #737396)
The laws of thermodynamics are not 100 years old. They are 14 Billion years old. They are not the product of "some guy", but instead represent the ongoing collective knowledge of science and engineering. Thermodynamics and conservation of energy is confirmed millions of times every day by millions of machines and processes.
Were it not so, you could take any exhaust pipe and plug it back into the fuel input and run forever.
This car runs on a metal fuel. Such metals have been known for 200 years. The metal will be used up just as fast as an equivalent amount of gasoline. But the bad news is that these metals
(sodium, lithium, potassium, magnesium, aluminum) are made by the use of huge amounts of energy. Their carbon foot print is much worse than gasoline itself!
By Anonymous , 19/06/08 12:10 PM (CommentID #735191)
The First Law of Thermodynamics was derived in the mid 1800's. To think that this knowledge applies to everything in the universe when in the 1800's people never heard of atomic explosions which by the way release much larger quantities of energy then is used up to cause the explosion is ludicrous. Not everything in the universe can possibly be explained by this law because we don't know everything about the universe. To look blindly at something an say it does not work because of some law derived over 100 years ago says that you think you know everything there is to know in the universe and that you think the guy who developed the law knows everything in the universe and how every reaction, interaction between atoms, and chemical reaction works down to the very littlest detail. I just ask that everyone keep an open mind to this and look at it yourself. I for one have used electrolysis to create a flammable gas, Hydrogen like many other people. Even with only 12V of electricity and my very inefficient system of two metal probes I made it work. Who is to say that this technology cant be used and advanced. Its not being funded or taken seriously due to you skeptics that believe in 150+ year old ideas. Look up Stan Meyer on yahoo or Browns gas or water 4 gas or hydrogen garage. I urge you to try it yourselves because you dont have to believe anything that you dont want to or that you cant make happen youself, I did make this happen so i can see more clearly that this could work. Believing that something wont work because of something thought up over 100 years ago is blind on your part. Where would we be today if we though like people 100 years ago. Heck DNA was thought to be unimportant until the mid 1900's. I just say why not? Prove them wrong yourself or prove them right.
By NRG , 17/06/08 11:46 PM (CommentID #731873)
Nice concept if it works! Our earth needs alternatives. Although all these kind of concepts are too expensive as they are today. I wouldn't buy a used hybrid car today due to the fact that they must be very expensive to make service on (changing battery packs, etc). When speaking of interesting concepts, the (french) car that runs on compressed air is also interesting. But I just wonder... is it Jason Voorhees driving the car on the picture above?
By mike , 17/06/08 10:06 AM (CommentID #730863)
I think the car does run on water like it says. This is not new tech, take a look on you tube or google Stan Meyer. They can produce hydrogen hydroxide really fast and is a perfect fuel to burn. just my two cents
By mike , 17/06/08 9:12 AM (CommentID #730811)
@sab how do you know the car uses aluminium? I reckon it doesn't. I suppose it uses standard precharged battery because I didn't see anywhere in the videos anything connected with aluminium. The guy just poured water and nothing else.
By John Bailo , 17/06/08 8:42 AM (CommentID #730742)
People don't seem to understand the concept of a catalyst. Water contains two hydrogen molecules held together with bonds. Recently, their have been shown to be many lower energy ways of disassociating the hydrogen. Once liberated, the hydrogen can be pumped into a standard fuel cell (same as usual) to create electricity.
It's like this: if I dig for oil, the amount of energy I spend digging is not equal to the energy I find in the well. In the same way, I can release hydrogen from the H20 water molecule, but use the H2 electrons thereafter as an energy source.
The only question is how costly is Genepax's catalytic process...
By Suraky , 16/06/08 10:12 PM (CommentID #730056)
Actually, if the aluminum is consumed, it's not a catalyst, its a fuel.
And regardless, catalysts lower the spike of energy required to initiate a reaction, but to not alter the change in energy produced by the reaction.
In otherwords, if you break apart water to fuel the fuel cell, you can only at best get the same energy back from the fuel cell than you spent breaking apart the water. Due to unavoidable inefficiencies you will never even do this well.
Given this undeniable truth (known as the First Law of Thermodynamics), where does the energy come from to break apart the water? What is the real fuel?
Did anyone notice that they put their magic box into the back of an ELECTRIC CAR? ... Didn't anyone wonder if the magic box is even hooked up to anything, if the car is simply running off it's pre-charged batteries?
I can't believe the attention this fraud is receiving thanks to ignorant journalists that can't be bothered to do basic fact checking.
By Beau , 16/06/08 5:26 PM (CommentID #729791)
Although I remain hopeful this is yet another example of Japanese corporate culture perpetuating a lie because no one within the company can be seen to not be behind the idea.
There are some positives to this attitude however this situation is not one of them. After a decade of my life in this country watching nightly news in which executive after executive step forward and bow and apologise for this type of mistake you can spot it a mile away. This vehicle cannot function without another consumable other than water. To suggest otherwise defies logic but is significant of humanities powerful index of hope.
By sab , 16/06/08 6:01 AM (CommentID #728814)
This car DOES NOT RUN ON WATER! Water powered cars do not run on water. this is a total misconception, the process uses aluminum as a catalyst to break the water into hydrogen and oxygen. the real fuel is aluminum which need to be replaced. saying that this car runs on water is like saying regular cars run on air. which would be correct because you can stop the air flow to the engine and the engine stops.
without aluminum, this car would not work.
Featured Posts
Top Stories
Palm Pixi Review
Holiday shopping: our Uber10 suggestions and vote!
Wooden Induction Charger
iPhone Ocarina
Snaefell hybrid bike car
Google OSes might merge
Flare wind-sensitive electronic dress
Pogoplug 2 announced, looks great
Free In-flight Wi-fi on Virgin America by Google
Advertisement
