Car that runs on nothing but water unveiled in Japan.

There's no mention of hydrogen fuel cells - but that can do it! Check out The Hydrogen Economy by Jeremy Rifkin - he explains why it's been restrained from production -decentralization of power means decentralization/de-concentration of wealth! Hydrogen fuel cells DO NOT use hydrogen as a fuel - so all those Hindenburg blimp analogies are their scare tactics.

actually, hydrogen fuel cells DO use hydrogen as a fuel. That's why they are called hydrogen fuel cells. There are other types that don't use hydrogen as a fuel though. It is important to note that hydrogen is no more explosive than gasoline, so the Hindenburg scare tactic is invalid for that reason.

Not if it works, no profit in water sales. LOL Sweep it under the rug maybe it will go away.

Big Oil sabotaging engineering and design?

Years ago I read a tech report about how the Germans were running a car on flour - using the explosive power of aerosolized flour for propulsion. Then no more news - they'll strategize to create wheat shortages to legitimize reliance on oil if it ever went into production.

great question

Looking at the Ocean, I doubt we will run out of water.

Obtaining sources of clean drinking water in the future might be a problem, however this car can use sea water, so I'm not sure how your point is relevant.

you can use your old washing machine water - ever think of how many gallons of potable water are just flushed away every day?

Yes, with the shortage of fresh water on the planet, we really should be using grey water systems to reduce our impact on this precious resource.

Water has been in crisis in the western U.S. and in many parts of the world for some time now.

Edit: I'm responding to Nabe. Whoops. I guess it works for your comment, too.

Think about how many people drive cars today. Think about the predictions for our population in 10 years, then in 50 years. Then think about exactly how much ocean water we have and imagine removing enough of it to power all of those cars, every day, all year.

There are far better proposals for clean energy autos. It is cool, though.

Why would it be difficult? If this thing wasn't a great big obvious faked up lie something like that would catch in seconds!
If you didn't have to pay for fuel it'd be magnificent! Why on earth would REAL system that ran on free waste water not catch on?

Unfortunately it takes only a modicum of highschool physics to tell you that what they offered here in this sound bite of a story is an insult to anyone's intelligence.

The 1st of April is a couple of days away still so that's no excuse.

Such an engine could be easily made => you only need design a difference engine that deliberately overheats. When liquid H2O blows into steam it does an 800 x instant volume expansion. That's called a "state change". Like what happens in an air conditioner or a heatpump's coolant, except the opposite direction => instead of cooling it would be purposely overheating.

=> hahahaha.

=> Once a state change commences there's no force on earth can stop it. In other words THE HORSEPOWER GOES OFF THE SCALE. You can run all your large heavy vehicles off of water with that kind of hp. Tractor-trailers zipping loaded up a mountain, SUV's, pickups, trains.

=> CARS. You see, our combustion engines today have basically been designed backwards as h^ll. Instead of cooling down the heat they need to use the heat. Such an engine could be in use today, and I don't mean "my engine", the one I usually write about.

=> This one would be easier to make. One reason automotive engineers can't make my engines is because they were schooled to think in terms of Constant Control. My engines drop the reins on the ground and let the horses run free, and hard, and without combusting any gasoline or natural gas or anything.

=> Combustion is Bad because combustion produces waste products. Like what we're watching now destroying Japan and killing Japanese citizens with a horrible slow death.

That's what gets me! Why wouldn't it catch on? Thing is, I've heard so many people scoff at the thought of driving a SmartCar or any other small, fuel efficient hybrid. Most of the people driving the giant, ridiculous megacars do so in spite of the fact that the gas mileage is unbelievably low for those vehicles...probably something to do with ego boosting, flaunting wealth/masculinity, and ostentatiousness.

Reading your comment above, I agree that there should be more information about how this thing works and how and when it was developed. It would make it more credible.

What? Yes, understanding of steam power has been around since classical Greece. It's not really that spectacular, it's what drove the industrial revolution, it's what they use to transfer energy in most nuclear reactors.

It doesn't actually provide energy though, you just use it to transfer energy you've generated some other way: Burning coal, nuclear fission etc.

We know why real tech like the Telsa and other hybrids don't catch on: they're not ostentatiously masculine, powerful and cheap enough.

Those obstacles can be overcome though; they could make a hugely overpowered line of beefy masculine hybrids or full electrics designed to appeal to that market. and to adres the cost issue they'd need to either subsidize the efficient models or make sure that everyone pay the FULL costs associated with their carbon burning vehicles by adding extra charges for the cost of the environmental damage of the carbon release- which could be used to help subsidize he cost of electric cars.

No you got it wrong, not steam power, state change power. Steam power you're thinking of is just another "controlled power".

State change power goes far beyond that.

Steam locomotives, steam cars, steam ships, the steam was pre-made before entering the cylinder. hahahaha A state change inside a closed up cylinder is a whole different animal.

Most people's minds can't conceive of the level of power I've been writing about since 2003.

Automotive engineers are taught to think of excess Heat as Bad, but engine heat can be used to supply power to change the water into 800 times instant volume expansion.

You'll never get it from Detroit. They'll make it overseas so they can continue telling everybody how stupid we are in the United States, how bad our schools are, and so on.

This is the time for US-bashing and they cause it. But every so often some little kid will accidentally stumble on some puzzle piece and they go crazy. It's just more bashing of the adult American male.

You wrote => "It (remote-generated steam) doesn't actually provide energy though, you just use it to transfer energy you've generated some other way:" and you were exactly correct.

My engines are a quantum leap into "Desktop Fusion" except they aren't nuclear, and that's what the scientists want and the universities push their professors to produce. Extra Grant monies and all that.

Mine are "physical properties fusion" that makes energy without destroying any Matter, and that is a concept above them.

They want an energy savior molded out of themselves, that propels them atop a taller pedestal from which they will never be knocked off of.

The Hadron Collider was such a pedestal they seek also. The Mueller engine uses some of the principles from my car engine but it's way watered down.

Like in the movie when Daredevil told Electra "You're holding back". The he said "Don't". Well, the people making today's engines are holding back. They put on a great act that they, like George Bush, are always "working real hard", but point of fact is they don't want to give you the engines they know are possible.

That would end their Big Money Party.

Tesla was murdered - probably by big oil

They buy up all the patents for alternative energy/fuel to keep the products off the market.

Well, after everybody's gone and they're left I reckon they'll have a party. Whip out the old spaceships and jaunt around to the Moon looking for Dick Tracy's Moon Maid.

Once the riff-raff is out of the way. Unless hmm, something really CRAZY happens and Jesus stops em.

I saw that and it seemed like a dirty trick to me.

Not big on cancer treatments?

Wow...

Where do you think the isotopes used in medical testing and treatments come from?

Chalk River Laboratories (if your residing in the US most likely). The site is, granted at not the large scale power generating facilities but you would be surprised about the size of the facility and the scale of operation. A little while back, a routine shutdown took longer than expected and their was a critical shortage in isotopes to meet medical needs in North America.

You said "no nukes power plants big or small-just ain't worth the risk!" As a person with a father who survived prostate cancer because of Iodine-125...I think you are a ninny. Its easy, without considering any information, to come up with a conclusion, and ignore the countless deaths you seem comfortable with. If you don't mind, when I go through prostrate cancer myself, I would like the option of seeing my 50's so lets not just ban medicine...if you don't mind...

It's NOT the only possible source of radio isotopes. Besides, when they legalize marijuana there will be fewer tumors & much less need for radiation oncology!

Derp?!? What?

Even the loudest medical marijuana proponent (which I am for the decriminalization of) would not claim that marijuana should be used with the notion that it magically decreases the appearance of tumors. I'm not even certain what you are attempting to claim.

Are you saying that if someone has a malignant cancer, by smoking marijuana, the cancer goes away?

Or is someone supposed to smoke medical marijuana is somehow magically protected from cancers? What type of cancers?

Please clarify...

There is no single cure for cancer, nor will there ever be.

Of course cancer treatments have side effects...basically the treatment is attempting to poison the cancer cells along with the whole body. Since the cancer has a higher metabolism rate, the cancer should die first.

Stem cell is decades away, even if we could get the fucking clowns in Washington to get their heads out of their asses.

"Although there will still be a need for isotopes for other research but America does not need 104 nuclear reactors to produce it. Medical isotopes are very small compared with those used for power generation."

Wait what?!? I think I get what you are saying...that we don't need all the facilities we currently operate if we only used isotopes for medical purposes...but what does that second sentence mean? What were you going with this? Are you actually talking size of the atoms or the half-lives...or what? I suspect your answer is going to make me laugh...

I have no clue what the stockpile of nuclear weapons have with this conversation. I thought we we talking about civilian power plants and radiation therapy. So I guess in that vein, I should bring up hot dogs and how they don't come in the same number as hot dog buns...why is that?

The whole point of this is that you said...

"no nukes power plants big or small-just ain't worth the risk!"

A nuclear reactor in a medical facility is basically the same thing as at a power plant. Honestly, the internals of a reactor are pretty darn simple. You're the one that wants to stop all forms of reactors. I just think that is a little silly.

Ah - but here's the rub - being hooked up to the grid means you can't store your own electricity in batteries - so you have to buy it back from the grid when you need it (say at night). Without allowing consumers to store their own electric in batteries they still keep us tethered to the centralized source and their money will keep rolling in - additionally - the states can tax you on your sale to the grid, and purchase from it.

there is a company called EEStor that's working on a capacitor that would charge in minutes and be competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles but it has been saying it was coming in 2006 then 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and i haven't heard any news about it lately. i was hoping this battery would change everything but i think it might be bullshit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor

There is actually a guy in Lexington, Ky that has been running a car on water, straight from the tap, since the late 80s. His system converts the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

You haven't refuted what Hammywill said, just offered another airy-fairy stroy about some "water car" that would actually run on hydrogen.
How does his "system" split the O2 from the H?
That is an enormously energy intensive process since water is such a stable bond. Normally the only real efficient ways to do that are things like solar wear energy wastage doesn't matter so much since you're storing in in a nice usable form that doesn't cause pollution.

Hydrogen fuel cells split hydrogen from oxygen, and then have it recombine - both reactions cause the release of electricity. Hydrogen itself is not the fuel used.

This is Awesome!

Bailey, read my post below... you would have to be high (and un-educated) to believe that a car can run on just water.

I love That 70's Show... =)

Yea Umm Guess what ?? I am High and i am un-educated and I still don't belive that a car will ever run on water. Being High and Un-educated has nothing to do with being Stupid. What I lack in an education I make up for with common sense

Sorry if you thought I was upset :( I'm not I too as just jokeing around. Sorry for the misunderstanding :)

Common sense can be overrated - it tells you that the world is flat.

No common sense tells you that if you know not for sure then go fourth and investagate.

Read my post below, this is a bogus claim. Splitting water requires energy input, the opposite of the claim.

They say it runs on seawater and the oceans are now rapidly rising.
Plus the exhaust is H20.
Sounds like a win/win to me!

Can you drink what comes out?

I wouldn't advise it.
Distilled water is the way to go at this point what with gas fracking, acid rain and radiation destroying our water supply.
Hydrogen is risky because it produces H20 which is as strong a greenhouse as CO2.
It all depends on how clouds respond.
If hydrogen emissions produce low lying cloud cover it will cool the planet.
If not it will contribute significantly to global warming.
No one knows the answer to this question yet.
We are witnessing what would naturally take thousands of years for climate chage happening in a few decades, releasing millions of years of fossil fuels in basically a century.
But there will always be plenty of sea water (unless we humans really fuck up big time).
Hydrogen from sea water might be even better than solar.

In that case, I agree.

Even if it can't be drank, maybe it's clean enough to use for irrigation or other purposes.

Hydrogen from sea water may be a way to store energy from solar energy generation, but it will never be an energy SOURCE. Breaking water into components requires more energy input than it supplies. Which is why this car is a lie.

It's really something is it not... Reminds me of the submarines that you add baking soda and throw them in water.... Catain Crunch cereal if I remember correctly.

I loved those.

I consider them part of Americana.

Because they're still in bed with big oil.

ahh, there is intelligent life on this blog.

"Makes more sense to generate the H2 with renewable energy at stationary fuel stations then pump into the cars."

That's why Mercedes is working on setting up fueling stations in Europe and opening that factory in Vancouver BC.

Thanks for the thorough explanation, very interesting.