http://media.putfile.com/Water-Fuel-82

I find that very hard to believe.

Then again, i don't believe anything people tell me :|

The problem is, what energy is being used to fuel the 'electrolysis' process? Ever since Isaac Newton did his clever stuff all those years ago, people have 'invented' processes that appear to contradict his basic laws of energy transference. Yes, water is full of Hydrogen, but getting the stuff 'out' takes...energy. In fact, it would take more energy to extract it than would be available to use in the end product. Free hydrogen from water is the holy grail of energy production. If this chap really had cracked it, he'd be a nobel prize winner.

Though cutting emissions and pollution at the point of use would be groovy, there will still be an environmental price to pay somewhere else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Especially when you're trying to rewrite the laws of physics.

Disclaimer - the above is based on the oxidised remnants of A level physics from another century, corroded by years of immersion in arty farty pursuits and watching Big Brother. Proper grown up scientists are welcome to trample my comments under their expert feet, if I've cocked it up.

Not exactly been front page news this which to me is rather suspect.Still, great idea if it worked.:|

Interesting...

If it is true the petrol companies will buy him out and we will never hear of it again.

Purdyamos
Your disclaimer is worth a nobel prize in itself. :thumbsup:

Oakay, so the car runs on a minimum supply of water. Great in America, but here in England everyone knows what would happen once cars started running on water. The price of it would go up, well above the price of petrol!

The problem is, what energy is being used to fuel the 'electrolysis' process? Ever since Isaac Newton did his clever stuff all those years ago, people have 'invented' processes that appear to contradict his basic laws of energy transference. Yes, water is full of Hydrogen, but getting the stuff 'out' takes...energy. In fact, it would take more energy to extract it than would be available to use in the end product. Free hydrogen from water is the holy grail of energy production. If this chap really had cracked it, he'd be a nobel prize winner.

Though cutting emissions and pollution at the point of use would be groovy, there will still be an environmental price to pay somewhere else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Especially when you're trying to rewrite the laws of physics.

Disclaimer - the above is based on the oxidised remnants of A level physics from another century, corroded by years of immersion in arty farty pursuits and watching Big Brother. Proper grown up scientists are welcome to trample my comments under their expert feet, if I've cocked it up.
No cock up. From my similar recollections of A level chemistry, and degree engineering thermal dynamics (etc blah, could go on), hydrogen/oxygen makes for incredibly good clean fuel and oxidiser source with zero emissions BUT (as purdyamos states) the electrolysis process that must takle place to separate them needs a separate, and big, energy input to separate the water.

Water is stable for a simple reason – hydrogen and oxygen want to combine to form H2O, and they resist being separated by demanding a whole lot of energy to separate them.

We’re talking in terms of overturning the fundamentals of physics and chemistry to suggest otherwise.

It’d be great if it worked though!

Now from my O Level Physica (grade c); its always struck me as odd that we don't use magnets more often for propulsion, as they seem to provide movement without .... well anything....

Please explain...

Now from my O Level Physica (grade c); its always struck me as odd that we don't use magnets more often for propulsion, as they seem to provide movement without .... well anything....

Please explain...
They only provide movement in repsonse to an input - as springs do.

You couldn't use them for propulsion any more than springs, because there is a very finite limit to the amount of energy they can store.

Now from my O Level Physica (grade c); its always struck me as odd that we don't use magnets more often for propulsion, as they seem to provide movement without .... well anything....

Please explain...

It doesn't work because you get the odd gay magnet that just clamps onto the other magnets and turn them gay too.

Now from my O Level Physica (grade c); its always struck me as odd that we don't use magnets more often for propulsion, as they seem to provide movement without .... well anything....

Please explain...
Grade B, we do use them a lot, but we could use them to a greater extent. I know there is a train/tram thing which has magnetic rails which nearly eradicate friction, massive magnets are needed in nuclear fusion reactors to accelerate and heat the ionised chemicals further before the final phase of heating.
You can also break a tv with a relatively weak magnet, it would be funny to see someone running round currys with a massive magnet.

Grade B, we do use them a lot, but we could use them to a greater extent. I know there is a train/tram thing which has magnetic rails which nearly eradicate friction, massive magnets are needed in nuclear fusion reactors to accelerate and heat the ionised chemicals further before the final phase of heating.
You can also break a tv with a relatively weak magnet, it would be funny to see someone running round currys with a massive magnet.

I'd also find this funny...as I would if someone hit me in the head with a javelin and I would spend my last remaining minutes running round a House of Frazer department store.