Japanese Company Genapax reveals Car that runs on Water.

[Lee]

Now the price of water will skyrocket! Will be $87/kL next week!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Lee

Now the price of water will skyrocket! Will be $87/kL next week!

No doubt, and someone will try to monopolise it.

[Ian Robinson]

Originally Posted by renormalised

No doubt, and someone will try to monopolise it.

Too late.... it's already happened.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Ian Robinson

Too late.... it's already happened.

Figures!!!!

[Bassnut (Fred)]

And we are not even close to running out of oil. The 2nd biggest producer in the world (after saudi arabia) is Canada !!!, from oily sand, they have 50 billion barrels in reserve. Australia has more than that in shale oil. The only thing holding back these kind of sources is the cost of extraction, and they are very close to being viable (well, Canadas is now).

[netwolf]

Weather this particular technology is real or not, i still think that there are truck loads of patents that have been shelved in order to protect the Oil interests. I also think there are many methods on using less fuel to get more mileage and these to would not be in the interest of the Oil Tycoons to release. In computer technology we have gone from Building size computers to microchips. And yet in the Oil industry we are still using an age old technology. It is just to difficult for me to think that alternative, weather they be more efficient fuel use techniques or alternatives to fuel do not exist. One way or the other the current fuel prices warrant us to take a harder look for the truth and find alternatives. How about Tesla's Car...

[renormalised (Carl)]

Might come as a great surprise that early on in the 20th Century, there were more electric cars on the road than internal combustion engined cars. Henry Ford and Edison even wanted to produce them in larger numbers still. However, the oil companies....more importantly Standard Oil (the mother of all present day oil companies), managed to corrupt enough politicians and gain enough control of various interests to sway opinion towards using the internal combustion engine. The lead battery cartel didn't help either...much like the oil cartels rip off everyone, so they tried to do the same.

It shows you what happens when a tiny minority try to gain control of everything to their own benefit...for money and power.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Oh Guys, the conspirsey theorys run wild. If electric (in any form) was more profitable, theyd do it, in a flash. The problem is petrol is cheap to get and wildly efficient to transport, store and deliver, nothing comes within a bulls roar of the energy density of petrol. Internal combustion engines are much less efficient than any form of electric power, but the energy delivery system efficiency (batterys, hydrogen, water, whatever) is absolutely buried by petrol. Hybrid is by far the best so far, but still not the ideal. And so long as all the alternative energy scourses create more green house gass than petrol (with coal fired power stations, although once we have thermal, neuclear etc, it all changes), its all a dream.

[gman (Grant)]

Very interesting.
Looked for more and found this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb9urNUFzAM

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Oh Guys, the conspirsey theorys run wild. If electric (in any form) was more profitable, theyd do it, in a flash. The problem is petrol is cheap to get and wildly efficient to transport, store and deliver, nothing comes within a bulls roar of the energy density of petrol. Internal combustion engines are much less efficient than any form of electric power, but the energy delivery system efficiency (batterys, hydrogen, water, whatever) is absolutely buried by petrol. Hybrid is by far the best so far, but still not the ideal. And so long as all the alternative energy scourses create more green house gass than petrol (with coal fired power stations, although once we have thermal, neuclear etc, it all changes), its all a dream.

It's not conspiracy theories, Fred. It's on public record that Ford and Edison wanted to make electric cars, the lead battery makers did run a cartel that was all for profits and bugger the little bloke, and Standard Oil did "convince" many politicians of the efficacy of internal combustion engines run on petrol when those engines were initially very inefficient and sometimes very dangerous (they had a habit of catching on fire). Some of the politicians who weren't convinced by Standard Oil's practices (who formed a lobby with the battery companies and others), had Standard Oil broken up into 40 or so smaller companies. Those companies are, to name a few, Exxon-Mobile, Chevron, Caltex, part of BP etc. Henry Ford ended up using petrol engines for his cars, the electrics were priced out of business, and the rest, they say, was history. You'd be surprised what the car and oil companies have gotten upto, in order to keep their little business running.

I agree with your summation of electric powered vehicles, however it's not for want of a lack of real funding for research for the last 100 years or so. Why?? As you said, petrol is cheap and there's megabucks to be made out of it's use, or misuse as the case may be.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Grant, that has to be the most flipent bull**** story Ive ever seen, "all you need is water", bah, no mention WHATSOEVER on the energy scource used to get the oxygen out of the water. Tornado had it it one sentance, its just puffery.

Carl, regardless of there efforts to get electric up, it was doomed to failure, lead acid would have been a total disapointment, very quickely, I bet a few smart bods even back then would have realised that.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Grant, that has to be the most flipent bull**** story Ive ever seen, "all you need is water", bah, no mention WHATSOEVER on the energy scource used to get the oxygen out of the water. Tornado had it it one sentance, its just puffery.

Carl, regardless of there efforts to get electric up, it was doomed to failure, lead acid would have been a total disapointment, very quickely, I bet a few smart bods even back then would have realised that.

Oh, I agree, it takes more than just water added to an engine to get it to run. You need to design an engine that can run on water in the first place. That takes a lot of money and expertise in many fields, least of which is engineering. However, it can be done. What I'm crooked on is that it's been around for so long and the people who'd actually benefit from it the most (apart from the public) have hid it behind closed doors because it's easier and more profitable for them to exploit oil to the hilt.

I also agree with you on electrical powered vehicles. Lead acid batteries were never going to be the bees knees as far as a power source goes. But they've had, no squandered, the best part of 100 years of possible research into finding an alternative. The oil companies exploited that, and now we have what we have. With little time in order to try and remedy the situation.

[Zuts]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Henry Ford ended up using petrol engines for his cars, the electrics were priced out of business, and the rest, they say, was history.

Ford Motor Corp would have been history if good ol Henry tried to sell a model T with 400 kg odd of lead acid batteries in the boot.

Where is your proof of all these things you are saying. Basically you are making the wildest unsubstantiated claims possible and expecting us to swallow this crock.

Conspirancy theories, hidden patents, and oh yes a big old truck that gets 200 km on a cup of petrol becuase of some fancy carburettor. Show us the patent for this?

I suppose your conspiracy now includes the US patent office, because if it's not patented and if the patent is not visible then anyone could make it.

[bones]

We've all heard the reports over the years that every time someone gets a new design for an alternative vehicle that runs on something other than petrol / diesel ie reliant on the oil industry, that that the big companies buy them out and the design is thown in the cabinet whilst the designer gets the big $$$$$$ to for get all about it and get on with their new lifestyle. But at the same time there's still some companys out there actually looking at some pretty amazing designs. Check this one out - ZAP and lotus have teamed up to produce the ZAP X crossover electric car - top speed 155mph, 350mile range, 10min recharge time. If the recharge came off alternative fuel source eg solar you would imagine this would get close to zero emission? The only problems I see is firstly cost of the car (wouldn't be surprised if it was in the $60,000+ range if and when mass produced, and of course how will the government get there share from missing out on the revenue of fuel excise.

http://jalopnik.com/cars/alternative...suv-232415.php

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Carl, its the Physics, "water powered" cars run on Hydrogen, yes thats been around for yonks, thats not the problem, its the energy required to extract it from water.

Yes Zuts, its all bull. There were a few test electric cars around a few years ago that were only for lease, you couldnt buy them, and then a huge conspiricy theory why they were all suddenly withdrawn and stopped production. It was explained in detail, that to have a few weird cars around that needed a huge infrastructure in spares and support within a reasonable reach of users, was just financially impossible, with the almost zero interest in meaningfull volume sales in the near future. The media skimmed over that little detail.

Bones, its not the car, its not the car, its the inefficient, green house gas producing power to charge the batteries in the 1st place. And yes, when alternative power generation hits the straps, then its all good. They need to just forget alternative cars for a while and concentrate just on producing the juice in the 1st place, thats where the action is.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Zuts

Ford Motor Corp would have been history if good ol Henry tried to sell a model T with 400 kg odd of lead acid batteries in the boot.

Where is your proof of all these things you are saying. Basically you are making the wildest unsubstantiated claims possible and expecting us to swallow this crock.

Conspirancy theories, hidden patents, and oh yes a big old truck that gets 200 km on a cup of petrol becuase of some fancy carburettor. Show us the patent for this?

I suppose your conspiracy now includes the US patent office, because if it's not patented and if the patent is not visible then anyone could make it.

You want proof, do you??

Why not Google about Standard Oil, Ford Motor Co, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Anderson Electric Car Co, and so forth. You'll get plenty of info there. Go and buy yourself "Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black. Plus go and have a look through these:

1. Fayola, Toyin and Genova, "The Politics of the Global Oil Industry:An Introduction", Praeger 2005
2. "Electric Vehicles: Likely Consequences of US and Other Nations' Programs and Policies. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington DC". General Accounting Office, 1994.
3. Flink, James,J;"America Adopts the Automobile, 1895-1910". Cambridge, MA. MIT Press, 1970.
4. Giddens, Paul,H."Birth of the Oil Industry". MacMillan, 1938.
5. Journal of Transport History
6. Journal of the Patent Office Society
7. IEEE Monitor
8. Automobile and Motor Review
9. Saturday Evening Post (March 28, 1914), an advert.
10. New York Times Historical Digital Archive
11. Wall Street Journal...esp' the Historical Digital Archive
12. Energy Independence Now... www.energyindependencenow.org
13. "General Motors: The First 75 Years of Transportation Products": Automobile Quarterly, 1983

....and any one of a number of other journals, quarterlies, books and such I could care to mention. Ones I've picked up from different books that I've decided to look up for myself.

Might cure your myopathy.

Plus, as far as my father's friend goes, neither my father nor Arthur are alive now to defend themselves and I don't have access to the patents. Neither does anyone else, except for BP...whom I said bought the patents and put them away. Having a go at someone's statements about something they remember as a young child, that their deceased elders once did, is a little low. Considering I have no way of obtaining any patents pertaining to the articles I mentioned (and neither would yourself), plus the people concerned can't defend their reputations as they're deceased. You can believe me or not....I don't really give a hoot either way. It happened, and that's the long and short of it. Whatever you say makes no difference.

You can be as dismissive as you like too. You dismiss what others say without backing yourself up at all, then expect us to come up with all the relevant proof. The only crock I see being bandied around here is your insistence on having everything your own way without no substantive evidence to contrary of what we've written here. Proof runs both ways.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

On reflection, its easy to bag those that try to produce alternative methods of motive power, all research is good, for the survival of the planet, but efforts are wasted by public pressure aimed at magic solutions.

I think the 1st probelm is the use of cars to start with, ppl will eventually live closer to work, plan trips more and use public transport much more, theyll have too. Commercial pressure is the biggest driver in inovation, it always works.

The initial power scorce is the biggest problem, once a (some) green house gass free solution becomes viable (electric power station), everything will change, be it neuclear, geo thermal (my favourite) or some other BASE load scource, solar and wind will always be fringe, they cant provide 24/7 base power. And carbon sequestration is a joke, Carl Krusinofski explained in 1 min why it just wont happen.

Then the cars, Hydrogen fuel cell IMO just wont work, its just too hard, and way too inefficient, and ethanol creates huge problems in production, already we see countries short of food cause of more arable land being used for fuel over food crops, its a dead end.

What we need is a revolution in battery technology, the electric drive technology is efficient, mature and ready to go. Electric delivery infrastructure is already there, all it needs is friendly generation.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Carl, its the Physics, "water powered" cars run on Hydrogen, yes thats been around for yonks, thats not the problem, its the energy required to extract it from water.

Yes Zuts, its all bull. There were a few test electric cars around a few years ago that were only for lease, you couldnt buy them, and then a huge conspiracy theory why they were all suddenly withdrawn and stopped production. It was explained in detail, that to have a few weird cars around that needed a huge infrastructure in spares and support within a reasonable reach of users, was just financially impossible, with the almost zero interest in meaningful volume sales in the near future. The media skimmed over that little detail.

Bones, its not the car, its not the car, its the inefficient, green house gas producing power to charge the batteries in the 1st place. And yes, when alternative power generation hits the straps, then its all good. They need to just forget alternative cars for a while and concentrate just on producing the juice in the 1st place, thats where the action is.

I agree with you there, if you use electrolysis to produce the hydrogen for the cars. Uses up far too much energy for little return. However, there has been a few ideas about burning water (with a catalyst or without) as a fuel. Might come as a surprise but water will burn, at a high enough temperature. That's also a problem....the engineering of a suitable engine. Especially in so far as materials engineering....making manifolds and such that can take the temperature.

All cars cost a lot of money to design and initially get out into full scale production and use. Costs in order of a billion dollars to do so. That's why cars are as dear as they are, and why they tool up to produce so many. To recoup costs. Electric cars would be much the same, in some cases even dearer, given present technologies.

And so, you swap one greenhouse producing enterprise for another. Forget the batteries and alternative cars, let's just stick to producing petrol powered vehicles and make things even worse than they've already become. However, I agree that they'll have to find a better way of recharging them than using coal fired power stations to produce electricity.

[renormalised (Carl)]

There'll be no magic solutions....this is going to take a lot of money and effort. Plus some pain to implement, unfortunately.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

On reflection, its easy to bag those that try to produce alternative methods of motive power, all research is good, for the survival of the planet, but efforts are wasted by public pressure aimed at magic solutions.

I think the 1st probelm is the use of cars to start with, ppl will eventually live closer to work, plan trips more and use public transport much more, theyll have too. Commercial pressure is the biggest driver in inovation, it always works.

The initial power scorce is the biggest problem, once a (some) green house gass free solution becomes viable (electric power station), everything will change, be it neuclear, geo thermal (my favourite) or some other BASE load scource, solar and wind will always be fringe, they cant provide 24/7 base power. And carbon sequestration is a joke, Carl Krusinofski explained in 1 min why it just wont happen.

Then the cars, Hydrogen fuel cell IMO just wont work, its just too hard, and way too inefficient, and ethanol creates huge problems in production, already we see countries short of food cause of more arable land being used for fuel over food crops, its a dead end.

What we need is a revolution in battery technology, the electric drive technology is efficient, mature and ready to go. Electric delivery infrastructure is already there, all it needs is friendly generation.

I agree with what you said there entirely.