Car runs on water

[sgd]

[money]

hmmm where will the energy from electrolysis come from? ... solar? ... you will need to supply energy to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen

[corydorus]

He says battery. But is the story a hoax ? Sounds too good and simple to be true.

[BeDisciplined]

Hi,
This is not new. There are 2 processes; namely fission and fusion. Fission is commonly used in nuclear fission whereby element like uranium is being split up whereby giving up lots of energy. But the greatest drawback in fission technology is radiation and the expanded material remains radioactive for a very long period of time. Storing those spent material is always an environment issue. Also the risk of radiation leakage as evident in past nuclear plants disasters.

Fusion is a much cleaner process but the amount of energy released is much less. Fusion involved the combination of simpler elements to give more stable and complex ones thus releasing energy, albeit much less. It is a lot safer.

The theory of running combustion engines with hydrogen is not new. The challenge remains its economics. Pls don't forget that hydrogen does not occur naturally in great abundance. They hydrolysis process of breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen requires energy (unlike fission whereby the nuclear material is just being bombarded with electrons). So do your sums - expand energy to break water up into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn the hydrogen...net net is ?

Above is from my whatever secondary /A level science knowledge I have with me after a 30 years break. Pls do your own checking

cheers

[wysiwyg]

Hi,
This is not new. There are 2 processes; namely fission and fusion. Fission is commonly used in nuclear fission whereby element like uranium is being split up whereby giving up lots of energy. But the greatest drawback in fission technology is radiation and the expanded material remains radioactive for a very long period of time. Storing those spent material is always an environment issue. Also the risk of radiation leakage as evident in past nuclear plants disasters.

Fusion is a much cleaner process but the amount of energy released is much less. Fusion involved the combination of simpler elements to give more stable and complex ones thus releasing energy, albeit much less. It is a lot safer.

The theory of running combustion engines with hydrogen is not new. The challenge remains its economics. Pls don't forget that hydrogen does not occur naturally in great abundance. They hydrolysis process of breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen requires energy (unlike fission whereby the nuclear material is just being bombarded with electrons). So do your sums - expand energy to break water up into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn the hydrogen...net net is ?

Above is from my whatever secondary /A level science knowledge I have with me after a 30 years break. Pls do your own checking

cheers

[corydorus]

If we need oil to power the generator to charge the battery enough to power the solution. Net-net does it makes sense ?
It seems there is but i am not really sure.

I remember Hydrogen is a very dangerous gas.

[wysiwyg]

Hi,
This is not new. There are 2 processes; namely fission and fusion. Fission is commonly used in nuclear fission whereby element like uranium is being split up whereby giving up lots of energy. But the greatest drawback in fission technology is radiation and the expanded material remains radioactive for a very long period of time. Storing those spent material is always an environment issue. Also the risk of radiation leakage as evident in past nuclear plants disasters.

Fusion is a much cleaner process but the amount of energy released is much less. Fusion involved the combination of simpler elements to give more stable and complex ones thus releasing energy, albeit much less. It is a lot safer.

The theory of running combustion engines with hydrogen is not new. The challenge remains its economics. Pls don't forget that hydrogen does not occur naturally in great abundance. They hydrolysis process of breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen requires energy (unlike fission whereby the nuclear material is just being bombarded with electrons). So do your sums - expand energy to break water up into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn the hydrogen...net net is ?

Above is from my whatever secondary /A level science knowledge I have with me after a 30 years break. Pls do your own checking

cheers

Hydrolysis...you mean electrolysis.......nuclear fusion / fission....a 'good' eg of a non sequitur....

[yeokiwi]

*faint*...
Probably it is good enough to smoke his fellow countrymen.
He probably has higher chance if he uses Sh**.

[sgd]

actually I think it is possible to build your own hydrogen fuel cell. This proof of concept video shows a home built fuel cell used to charge a battery, that battery in theory could later be used to power maybe a small motor on an electric bicycle. We already have electric bicycles running on our roads.

But I'd imagine why the government and large oil companies would be anxious to see that such things outlawed or not widely integrated into the general public. They would lose their huge profits.

[georgelee]

i think this hoax has been around for a few years?