Talk:Water-fuelled car/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Genepax - back or not?

Someone recently reverted the statement in our article that said that the Genepax web site had "gone away". I just checked and there is indeed a working http://www.genepax.com web site - but I strongly suspect that it's not the original company - but instead just some domain squatters. Genepax claimed a for-real water-fuelled car - and that's mentioned on the present site - but it's also full of the usual "water hybrid" junk where they charge you $100 for a jam jar, two nails and some hoses and wires. I suppose it's good that we remove the statement that Genepax's web site doesn't exist - but is the company still there?

SteveBaker (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The website is kind of confusing, because while it does mention the Japanese Genepax in passing, the rest of the article seems to just be a clearinghouse for other systems, most of which are simply "Hydrogen enhancement" systems and therefore not appropriate to this article anyway. I move we simply delete the section. It was barely notable to begin with, and if we include every defunct water-fuelled car claim, this will become the longest article in Wikipedia.Prebys (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In their day, Genepax were pretty high profile/notable - they demonstrated several supposedly water-fuelled vehicles and got a lot of press attention. I don't think we should remove the entire section. SteveBaker (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added the best third party source I could find about the closing of the company. I've really never understood why it costs so much to "develop" a car that's already claimed to run on water.Prebys (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to choose the right paint color - do you have any idea how much those focus groups cost?!  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been wracking my brain trying to recall where I've seen such an ugly car as the Genepax machine before...it turns out it's really a G-Wiz (aka REVAi) - an electric car made in India. (I've already updated the article to mention this.) What would make this car especially well-suited to fooling the press is that its batteries are not in the trunk or under the hood where some prying journalist might spot them - they are tucked away under the seat cushions. Being an electric car already, it wouldn't have taken much to make it appear to be powered by their exotic "fuel cell" technology. To be fair though - if you really did have an exotic fuel cell and wanted to demonstrate it powering a car - starting with the world's cheapest & smallest electric car would make a lot of sense. SteveBaker (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To actually have built a car would have required far more capital than they would have wanted to put into it. Genesis World Energy took an even more economical route. Rather than show a full size car, they showed a "scale model prototype", which someone present recognized as a child's toy designed to demonstrate electrolysis.Prebys (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Aquygen Update

I noticed the Aquygen section hadn't been updated in a while, so I checked to see if there was anything new. While no one has been indicted (yet), they are no longer claiming a car can run exclusively on Aquygen and are instead marketing it as a form of Hydrogen fuel enhancement. I have updated the section, but perhaps it no longer belongs in the article at all. I find this interesting because I've used a news item about Aquygen in a public lecture I've given about free energy scams. I always introduce it by saying "Even if you know nothing about science or engineering, there's one sentence in this piece that should set off big alarm bells.". It's really disappointing how many people don't catch the line "They could run the car exclusively on water, but currently have it configured as a gas-water hybrid."Prebys (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No - a gas/water hybrid makes perfect sense...it's so convenient to simply switch to gasoline if you run out of water!  :-)

But seriously - it makes perfect sense for a company like that to switch over to making claims on the hydrogen fuel enhancement side because those claims are much harder to disprove...especially if they shift away from the claim that making the hydrogen consumes less energy than the hydrogen generates. Many of these kinds of company are now claiming that the hydrogen makes for a cleaner/leaner burn of the gasoline - and the (equally bogus) strategy of claiming that the electrolysis cell operates on "spare" electricity that the alternator produces when the battery is fully charged. Both of those things sound much more plausible than "a car that runs on water" - and are, of course, much tougher to disprove (although they are still bogus). Worst of all, they get rave reviews from their customers. People do actually buy those bogus hydrogen generators and having splashed out $100 on a jam jar, some nails and some wires and tubes - they feel reluctant to come out and admit that they were idiots for doing it. Even more subtle is the often-reported fact that when people are given entirely fictitious devices and told that they will save gas, there is some kind of automotive "placebo effect" going on where they drive more carefully and therefore actually DO improve their MPG.

From a legal perspective, if you show your investors a "water fuelled car" and they can clearly smell the gasoline exhaust fumes or see the supposedly-hidden battery pack - then you're probably going to go to jail. But if they invest in your hydrogen enhancement technology, it's MUCH harder to prove an overt deception.

So it's entirely to be expected that both Aquagen and Genepax would switch to the hydrogen-enhancement scam rather than stick with the more obviously bogus "water fuelled car" scam. However, our article isn't really about that.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here's the video. When describing his water/gas hybrid, he brags, "In a hundred mile trip, we use about 4 ounces of water", conveniently neglecting to mention how much gas it used. The other thing I wanted to teach with this example was how absolutely godawful the news media are in these matters.Prebys (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha! Yeah - it's not enough to claim that you have a water fuelled car - you also have to get a really good MPG number out of it! The lack of critical-thinking skills in the general public is truly frightening. I once spent an evening with a notepad watching adverts carefully on the History channel...fully 85% of them are easily-spotted scams of one sort or another...quite utterly amazing that you can fund an entire TV channel on the gullibility of your viewers. SteveBaker (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Reversion.

I just reverted this change...I feel I should explain why:

Although opinions around this technology are often strongly polarised, the benefits and dangers of injecting oxygen compounds into air-fuel mixtures are well understood. - Yes, but hydrogen enhancement isn't the injection of an oxygen compound - it's an oxygen mixture. Injecting water would be an oxygen compound.

Nitrous oxide is the most well know example, having been exploited and banned in some classes of motor sports. - True but irrelevant. Let us not give the impression that injecting hydrogen/oxygen mixtures is anything remotely like injecting nitrous!

Injecting pure molecular hydrogen and oxygen into an internal combustion engine has been found to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. -- Yes, but if you actually read that report, it's not talking about the quantities or methods used in these devices.

The increase in extra power and improved fuel efficiency is predominantly due to the presence of the extra oxygen, not the hydrogen. -- This is true - but HIGHLY misleading. You can do this much more easily, and effectively with a supercharger or a turbocharger...which, of course, many cars already have.

The higher oxygen saturation in the air-fuel mixture provides for a more complete fuel burn per cylinder stroke. -- but only if the car's computer knows to do that. Most of these devices do not reprogram the computer to allow for that. Hence you are typically running the engine more lean than it was designed to run - which is bad.

The hydrogen helps to reduce emissions by combining with unburnt hydrocarbons and exhaust gases to form carbon dioxide and water. The injected gases also have a cooling effect on the combustion reaction, resulting in lower nitrogen oxide emissions. -- This is highly debatable - and not backed up by the majority of our sources.

However, if the vehicle’s alternator has to supply the power to produce the gas, the benefits will be modest (around 4% improvement in fuel efficiency). This technology is termed hydrogen fuel enhancement. -- True, but we already covered that point earlier in this section.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The section is also getting rather off-topic for this article. In addition to reverting this (which I just did again), it should probably be shortened even more to a stub pointing at the hydrogen fuel enhancement article, to avoid duplicated effort.Prebys (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - the hydrogen enhancement guys are selling an entirely different kind of snake-oil than the water-fueled car nuts. They aren't claiming that the water is a "fuel" per-se. SteveBaker (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It gets a little complicated because companies like Aquygen are often purposefully vague about whether they're promising to increase fuel mileage or actually run a car on water - much like the people who claim "over-unity" motors, but somehow never get around to running them closed-loop. Nevertheless, I've shortened the section considerably, although the flow could probably use a little more work. I notice that the Hydrogen fuel enhancement article, which used to be overly long, is now quite short, so someone (other than me) might want to move some of the old content there.Prebys (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential COI.

User:BlackTomcat (who occasionally posts to this talk page) sent me a rather nasty private email indicating (amongst a great many other things) that he works for a company that (he claims) is building engines that use water as fuel. While he has not yet edited this article, we should make it clear that his involvement in actual editing of the article would constitute a severe Conflict Of Interest which would be contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines. He additionally (and predictably) claimed that I'm "an agent of "big oil"" - and believes that I'm receiving "vast sums of money from them". I'd like to point out "on the record" that nothing could be further from the truth and that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool tree-hugger who makes video games for a living and has never once talked to anyone from "big oil" (or "tiny oil" for that matter). I'd love nothing more than for a magic pixie to come along and give us all free energy powered by unicorns and rainbows - but I'm also a realist and the laws of Thermodynamics are a harsh mistress.

However, if anyone from "big oil" is listening and would like to pay me "vast sums of money" for saying that water cannot be used as a fuel, then I'm prepared to accept cash in any currency and all major forms of credit card! :-)

(That's a joke...OK?) SteveBaker (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It would definitely be a WP:COI, but he hasn't edited the article in the last 500 edits anyway, and I suspect any editing he did before that would have been quickly reverted. I'm a little disappointed that I haven't heard from him. The only nut who sent me nasty mail was User:Jobehinnend who was pretty active on the Tom Bearden and Motionless Electric Generator. He kept accusing me and others of being "Cointelpros" (whatever the hell that is), until someone pointed out that his name is an anagram (and presumably sock puppet) for John Bedinni (infamous over-unit nut), making many of his edits quite illegal. He's been quiet ever since.Prebys (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:BlackTomcat has only about a dozen edits in total - only one of which is in article space. But as a novice user, he needs to be aware of our rule about COI. (Of course, WP:AGF applies and I'm quite sure the "Tom" in "BlackTomcat" is a mere coincidence...right?) SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes needed in reference

Reference n. 17 only has the title of the article and therefore it is meaningless. The editor who put that reference needs to have the complete text of the article or cancel the reference. Note that I am a person with an interest in publications about some of the subjects in this page. Please look below to review policy on COI that gives me the right to make this entry in the discussion page. Read before making accusations and removing my entry.

From the history of another article:"Please re-read Conflict Of Interest . In fact the policy encourages people with COI to add their opinions on talk pages about how to improve articles. That's much better than having them edit articles directly; but, technically, COI doesn't even forbid that! Second, you may not remove people's comments from a talk page for having a COI. The only time you can remove comments is when the person is 1) vandalizing, 2) violating WP:BLP (and that's a tricky one), or 3) soapboxing about something not related to the article itself. In this case, the editor was clearly and directly pointing out things xe believes need to be changed in the article. Now, those changes may be wrong, and the request certainly wasn't phrased ideally, but that does not allow you to remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 123reuss (talk)123reuss123reuss (talk)

Both of your comments appear groundless:

Reference 17 is a full citation. Other references that show only the article title are actual links to those articles.

You also have no basis for complaining about accusations and comment removal. Nobody has accused you of anything, and nobody has removed your comments. I don't see anybody removing anyone else's comments either. You have (at this time) only one edit in your editing history.

Finally I must say, it is commendable that you disclose your conflict of interest up front. Thank you for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain

Not sure what you mean"other references ...." so do you mean that the article of reference 17 does not say what the article on water -fueled cars is is saying and we all need to go to other references?, Please explain. I am confused. How do we know that reference 17 "discredits" something if we cannot read it? Please place the entire article so the reader knows what you are talking about. Otherwise this reference is not notable and need to be removed. 123reuss (talk)123reuss123reuss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

If you want to read the article, go to a library and look it up yourself. We cannot post the article, as we don't own the IP rights for it, and furthermore, it is standard practice to cite articles and books without providing a full copy of them. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:32, 19

May 2011 (UTC)

YES, I went to the library and I read Calo article but I also found two articles in favor of the theory published in the same peer-refereed journal. So one against and two in favor so I added the references and changed the word from 'discredited" to "controversial" ISTAT (talk)ISTATISTAT (talk)

That's right. There is no requirement for references to be online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources in libraries and print journals are perfectly acceptable. Sources need only to be verifiable, and these sources are verifiable by anyone. Reference 17 includes a DOI link. You can click on that to access the source, but it requires payment. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Burning salt water

I think John Kanzius#Water-related discovery may warrant an entry here. I don't know of any actual attempt to power a car, although numerous web sites (just google for "kanzius car") mention the possibility. I'm skeptical that the power required for the radio waves to weaken hydrogen bonds in salt water is less than the energy produced by burning the hydrogen. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the law of Conservation of Energy, the radio waves will need to have more energy than that produced by the burning hydrogen. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you understand conservation of energy fine; it's the news media that are perennially clueless. I remember when I saw a special news feature about this nonsense, I came very close to throwing a beverage at the screen.Prebys (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's OK to do that - the waves carrying the TV transmissions would have burned up the beverage long before it hit the screen. Just don't do it if you have cable!

It's pretty clear that Kanzius either doesn't understand how much radio wave energy he's producing - or that he knows full well and is doing it anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Kanzius appears to be a sincere guy, but pretty ignorant scientifically. The "cancer treatment" is no better than the free energy stuff, and was handled just as badly by the news. They basically said "all that's left to be done is solve the targeted uptake problem" - as if that were a minor detail!!. Back to the burning salt water, it's not even that anyone lied about the amount of energy being put in by the radio waves, it's that they didn't think to mention it at all.Prebys (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda why I brought this up. I thought it might deserve a mention in this article.

While it's interesting that one can get a hot flame from salt water in an RF field, I thought it puzzling that nobody has ever mentioned the power required for the radio waves, and even more interesting that so many web sites out there mention this effect in the context of powering cars — even mainstream news sources that Wikipedia would normally deem "reliable". ~Amatulić (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact they don't mention RF power at all proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't understand the importance of this issue, and we can safely assume that the laws of physics are intact and all of the power is coming from wall plug via the RF. This is not fundamentally different from electrolysis, so if it belongs in the article at all, it's probably as a slight addition to the "What water-fuelled cars are not" section. As for "mainstream news", Joseph Newman, Stan Meyer, Aquygen, Genesis World Energy, and countless other scams have been reported by the mainstream media as fact. They are NOT considered a reliable source in these matters.Prebys (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not arguing. As I said, I thought it might deserve a mention. As I was reading this article my memory recalled a bit about Kanzius and cars from a few years back, and noticed the article didn't mention it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) There's a brief scholarly article on it available at [1], with Kanzius as one of the authors. They go to great pains to point out that they never claimed it produced more energy than it used, and it does appear to be legit--and really really neat. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That link didn't work; I think you need to be registered. Anyway, Kanzius has three scholarly articles on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=kanzius

I can't read even an abstract for one of them even though it's tagged "free article". ~Amatulić (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That link only works some of the time. I got the article on the third try and then not again. They can claim Kanzius doesn't say the power coming out is more than the power going in, but for example this news story clearly says "The only fuel is salt water" and talks about this being "a solution to the energy crisis". It's true Kanzius doesn't come right out and say that the power out is greater than the power in, but he certainly doesn't disabuse them of the notion, and mentions powering a car at some point, which wouldn't make sense otherwise. In any event, I don't know enough about chemistry or materials science to know how interesting this phenomenon is, but it clearly violates no laws of physics and doesn't provide a way to "fuel" a car. However, seeing the amount of coverage it's getting, it's probably worth mentioning in the article. I still think it belongs in the "what water fuelled cars are not" section; I'll work on some wording.Prebys (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's possible he meant the hydrogen produced by this could be used to fuel the car (perhaps it's more efficient than plain electrolysis?). Obviously it'd be a net energy loss, but the environmental benefits might be worth it. But that's neither here nor there. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that what Kanzius is doing actually produces hydrogen. When you watch his demo, the flames are clearly visible - a hydrogen flame is totally invisible. That flame is orange - which would suggest that sodium is involved. My guess is that if this is "real" then he's getting some kind of reaction out of the salt (which contains sodium). But look at the video...if it's really not a faked demo (and I suspect it is) then you wouldn't want your salty-water-filled hands within a mile of that thing - and he's waving his hands really close to it as he lights the test tube. Personally, I think he's cheating - I just don't know how yet. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The burning aspect seems to have been verified by quasi-respectable people (although the term "scholarly" is a bit strong when describing the paper). You're probably right about the Sodium, although there's a lot of red, so it may be a mix of Hydrogen and some impurities. Anyway, he's not telling, since he died two years ago. The oil industry traveled back in time to give him terminal cancer before he invented his device.Prebys (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't like it's a secret that died with him. I suspect the mechanism may be along the lines of RF at some resonant frequency weakening atomic bonds, which then need a slight additional shove from an external energy source like a flame to disassociate and react, after which the flame enables a continued reaction. But that's just my hypothesis.

By the way, hydrogen flame isn't "totally invisible". You can see it burns with an orange/yellow flame in the dark.[2][3] Ion impurities can create different colors (as shown here). ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap! That's a devastatingly good idea...maybe we could make these machines and call them...oh..."Microwave ovens"? (Actually, those don't work by resonance - but by a much better mechanism called 'dipole heating'). Water molecule resonance happens at 20GHz - and only in water vapor. It's a very well understood effect - and this most certainly ain't it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Following Noticeboard on References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Water_Fuelled_references I made the changes in the article after receiving comments from the Noticeboard. Plusside (talk)PlussidePlusside (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Changes are discussed here and not on the noticeboard. The only "discussion" was between Plusside and his sock. Just to note - Plusside is also an obvious sock. Rklawton (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Water Fuel Museum

So, we have an article about a small-town museum that was open only for 2005 before shutting down permanently, and whose website is now officially dead. I AFDed it back in 2008, but the consensus, to my shock, was snow keep. Anyway, with its own website offline now, I'm wondering if there would be support here for a merge/redirect or an AFD. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Barton Evaporation Engine

I have removed this from the "see also". It's clearly a form of steam engine, and thus OT for this article. Perhaps we should make that clear in the "Water-fueled cars are not" section.Prebys (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, it relies on evaporation, and would work (a bit, but not very well) at ambient temperature and generate a colder than ambient exhaust air flow; it's not a heat engine as you would normally understand it. It relies on the fact that air is not (usually) saturated, and that water is low entropy since it's been concentrated and purified by weather systems/the sun, so by combining the two you can generate energy. It works better when the inlet air is hotter though. -Rememberway (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, since neither of the support references are available online. The article mentions 4-5% efficiency at 30-40C above ambient, so it sounds like some kind of regular thermodynamic cycle. If they are claiming that it can extract energy from ambient air and produce cold air, then it would probably be better in perpetual motion, since it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there's still no indication it's claiming to extract any energy from the water itself.Prebys (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be perpetual motion because the air and the water aren't in equilibrium. It works, as I say, because water is low entropy, because it's been essentially distilled by the biosphere (which takes energy and raises overall entropy). -Rememberway (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, it's not using water as *fuel*, in the same way as a steam engine doesn't use steam as fuel. So I don't think it belongs. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I only added it as a see also though. -Rememberway (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

See Drinking bird - which works on a similar principle. It uses evaporation of water on the 'beak' of the bird to cool the head down - and this is transformed into motion via an arrangement of tubes partly filled with a low boiling point liquid. There is a more modern variation of the bird that works on subtly different principles - I forget the details. At any rate, the principle of extracting energy from the evaporation of water is well established. I agree that the water isn't the 'fuel' though. SteveBaker (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that encyclopedia articles are usually that precise, they're based on synonymity, and a car propelled by water would be on topic. Provided it's similar then it could be included. But I only added it as a see also anyway, particularly since I'm not aware of any use as a car engine, but I still defend it as a see-also linkage. -Rememberway (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. WP:ALSO says "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.". So I think this is a perfectly reasonable "See Also" link. WP:ALSO suggests that we add a brief explanation of why the linked article is related to this one - and that, perhaps is the place to say "Not actually water fuelled - uses water as a working fluid". But I think it's reasonable to assume that someone who is reading about water fuelled cars would be interested in reading about this crazy contraption. SteveBaker (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

From the introduction: "This article focuses on vehicles that claim to extract chemical potential energy directly from water". This in no way qualifies. As someone said, if it uses evaporation, then it's like the drinking bird. Also (minor point), it's not a vehicle.Prebys (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I see you're a fan of the Chewbacca defense! -Rememberway (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't invoking the Chewbacca defense a form of the Chewbacca defense in itself? Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No. -Rememberway (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Recursive applications of the defense to any non-zero depth still count. SteveBaker (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But seriously. Prebys is right - this engine doesn't belong in the article - it's not a water fuelled car - nor even a car nor a water-fuelled-anything. But Rememberway is also correct in saying that it has close enough ties to this article to warrant a one-line mention in "See Also" because WP:ALSO says that subjects only have to be "peripherally related" - which (IMHO), this one is. If you had such an engine with enough power to drive a car (seems unlikely!) then you'd pour a bucket of water into the tank - and you'd be able to drive around (very slowly!) until it was all gone. The general public would see that as a "water fuelled car" even though we would have to carefully explain that technically, it is not. Of course the practicality of such a device would be exceedingly minimal.

But if the drinking bird can extract heat energy and turn it into motion using evaporative techniques - then so (in principle) can this engine.

Incidentally - I believe I've also seen a demonstration someplace of a stirling engine that used the difference in temperature between a plate that was cooled by the rapid evaporation of alcohol dripping onto it and a second plate at ambient.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DISCUSSION NEEDED ABOUT THE SECTION ON MAGNECULES

It is respectfully requested that the editors review the magnecules references by keeping in mind the NPOV policy.The magnecules theory is defined in this page "discredited" by citing two references. Reference 18 is not relevant and reference 17 is from a negative article published by Elesevier in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. This section omits two additional references. In fact in the same refereed journal there are two additional articles by Prof.s Cloonan and Kadeisvili that discuss the magnecule theory and are a rebuttal of the article of Calo (reference 17). It seems to me that the NPOV policy requires to have all there articles in order to present a neutral point of view. Maybe just a link to the main page of Santilli should be done where all three references appear. The word "discredited" is not a neutral description. ____________""Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."" Santilli.Carla (talk)Carla SantilliSantilli.Carla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

The critical word in the section of WP:NPOV that you quoted is "proportionately". Proportionately, here, means that since 99.999% of mainstream scientists don't believe in magnecules - then the proportionate response is to call it unambiguously "discredited". That is the neutral position. Hence we do not violate NPOV. WP:FRINGE has much to say about the difficulties of finding reliable sources that discredit such an obviously bogus hypothesis. Our only reasonable alternative to saying that the magnecule hypothesis is discredited is to delete all mention of it because we are most certainly not allowed to leave the impression that magnecules are in any way credible mainstream physics. SteveBaker (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You have one article which does not believe (Calo, negative) and two believing (positive) Kadeisvili and Cloonan.```Carla SantilliSantilli.Carla (talk)

This is rather nostalgic. It was a link to an Aquygen news story that started my personal fascination with free energy scams...but I digress. "Discredited" is perhaps too kind a term. It implies that magnecules ever had any credence to begin with. The "theory" was essentially invented to bolster bogus free energy claims. How it ever got published in a refereed journal is beyond me. It might be more correct to simply call it a "fringe theory". However, while we're on the subject, we should check the citations. One of them is to a WorldNetDaily article (!!!!) That's certainly not a WP:RS in any universe.Prebys (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is the net company selling on line the articles published by Elsevier, a peer refereed international publisher which owns The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.Santilli.Carla (talk)CarlaSantilliSantilli.Carla (talk)

Actually, no. WorldNetDaily is a fundamentalist Christian website publishing what it believes to be "news". It has absolutely nothing to do with any physics journals, reputable or otherwise. For some strange reason, they cited [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=36226 this WND article], and I was suggesting that there must be better articles by more reputable sources. You should really check your facts before you start typing.Prebys (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to all. I thought that it was SciNetDaily (or similar) which sells articles on line by academic publishers. I agree with you that this is not reputable, as you said, and actually I cited it to show that was not relevant to the magnecules discussion. Thank you for pointing this out. Good eyes! Santilli.Carla (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)--Santilli.Carla (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. And, yes: "Uncredited" might be better than "discredited"! But whatever: We can't give undue weight to the magnecule theory, so either we have to find appropriately balanced reliable sources - or simply remove all discussion of it as "non-notable"...since, if mainstream science has not written about some theory - then it is certainly not notable. SteveBaker (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually (slaps hand to forehead), note the name of the person who started this thread. One can assume some connection to Ruggero Santilli, who invented magnecules.Prebys (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're close: Carla Santilli is a Director of MagneGas and wife of Ruggero Santilli. Still, WP:COI almost certainly applies here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

COI and talk pages , message by Qwyrxian to Guyonthesubway

Please re-read WP:COI. Your interpretation of it is flat out wrong. In fact the policy encourages people with COI to add their opinions on talk pages about how to improve articles. That's much better than having them edit articles directly; but, technically, COI doesn't even forbid that! Second, you may not remove people's comments from a talk page for having a COI. The only time you can remove comments is when the person is 1) vandalizing, 2) violating WP:BLP (and that's a tricky one), or 3) soapboxing about something not related to the article itself. In this case, the editor was clearly and directly pointing out things xe believes need to be changed in the article. Now, those changes may be wrong, and the request certainly wasn't phrased ideally, but that does not allow you to remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC) No comment needed ~~CarlaSantilliSantilli.Carla (talk)

Why exactly have you copied a bunch of non-sequitur text verbatim from another poster related to something that happened 6 months ago?Prebys (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I guess it wasn't "another poster", was it? It appears that in addition to WP:COI, you have a big problem with sockpuppetry.Prebys (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, CarlaSantilli, first, if you're going to quote me (or any other user), you should put it in quotes so that it's fully clear that I didn't actually put that note on this page. Second, how did you come to find that message, given that you registered 6 months after it was posted, and GuyontheSubway had removed it from xyr page 3 months prior to your registering? Are you a returning user, or editing on behalf another user, in particular, one of the user's previously blocked for disruption on the Santilli page? I believe I'll have to open an SPI on this later today.

Second, even if you're just related to them (not actually the same person), let me clarify my point. You clearly have a COI, that means you should not be editing any of the articles directly. Furthermore, people with the same COI have repeatedly been disruptive on talk pages related directly or indirectly to Santilli. You can comment here, but you need to do so civilly, and you have to understand that you will not be able to use Wikipedia to promote the work of Ruggero Santilli. As someone says above, magnecules meet Wikipedia's definition of fringe theories, and thus they will not appear here, or, really, anywhere outside of Ruggero Santilli. So, if you have something relevant to add to this discussion that will actually meet WP policy, you may comment here despite having a COI. If not, then you're just being disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems that I have been civil and I have no intention of editing or promoting since I do not need any of this . I found the message long time ago and again on another discussion page and I have copied in my folder on Wikipedia since it seems that clarifies some issues I have on how COI is interpreted. As publisher, editor and director of a public company it is my duty to monitor Wikipedia. . If you want to remove the section on magnecules from this page , I think it will meet Wikipedia guideline, in my humble opinion. How about just linking it with the Santilli page? The reason I appear now is that only now I decided to post. If you look at the SPI, you will find many people with the same SPI since this is a large office and Santilli has many followers and people who tried to post way back. I have already pointed out a few things that should improve the article, in my opinion, and it is up to the editors of the page change the page or not by following Wikipedia guidelines. I think this is the purpose of the discussion and I believe I improved the page by pointing out a couple of additional legitimate references that were omitted. Thank you for your time .Sorry if I did not put the quotes....as you pointed out I am new. Santilli.Carla (talk)CarlaSantilliSantilli.Carla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

You must forgive us - the rules on COI are pretty simple - you can discuss the content of the article here, on the talk page in a civil and reasonable fashion. You are not allowed to add/remove/modify significant content in the actual article (just ask one of us to do it) - and although you are technically allowed to fix minor things like spelling mistakes and typo's - I would honestly recommend that you do not...just to keep things crystal clear.

As for accusations of sock-puppetry. You must know that Ruggero Santilli has a lifetime ban from editing Wikipedia due to multiple occurrences of extremely bad behavior. This is utterly unacceptable to Wikipedia and to the established editors of these pages. Your evident close relationship to both him and to his company means that with the best will in the world, we cannot be other than exceedingly skeptical as to your motives. We assume that you'll work here in good faith - but a lot of people will be watching your account like hawks! This is perhaps unfortunate - but inevitable. SteveBaker (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to SteveBaker, but you, like many editors, have misunderstood WP:COI. WP:COI, on purpose, uses phrases like "avoid editing" and "strongly discouraged"; note, for example the sentence, "Avoid editing or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with." This explicitly allows COI editing as long as the editing is entirely consistent with our other policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:V. Now, I will say that given my past experience with Santilli related COI editors, unless Carla is quite different, it will be nearly impossible for xyr to edit neutrally, but technically, it is allowed. I've given Carla.Santilli advice on her talk page recommending that she not edit, (and some advice to pass on to her employees, as well), but I just wanted to clarify the policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Another reputable reference on magnecules

In the section on "Selected References" in the Santilli Page you can find a book published in 2001. Santilli, Ruggero (2001). Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry: with Applications to New Clean Energies and Fuels. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 1402000871. [[4]] This book is sold by Amazon and you can open the cover electronically and see the section on Magnecules. Springer Verlag [[5]] is one of the most reputable academic publishers in the world. This reference should be of interest to the editors. Santilli.Carla (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)--Santilli.Carla (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, as our guideline on Reliable Sources repeatedly points out: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - the phrase third-party is important here. If/when established, independent scientists who work in the field of particle physics and quantum theory write about Santilli's work in well-respected peer-reviewed journals - then we'll have something to report. SteveBaker (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is from the Reliable Sources under "Scholarship" ...."Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars" I think the third party refers to the peer-review that is needed and demanded by Springer Verlag (which is a well regarded academic press) before allowing a book to be published. I respect your interpretation of third party, but , respectfully, I think the scholarship section is a little different, Maybe other editors have another opinion.....Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk)--Santilli.Carla (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly honest here Carla...you are being a bit 'economical' with the truth here. I know (as I'm quite sure you do) that the book was first published under the Kluwer Academic banner in 2001/2002 - not Springer Verlag. Kluwer was merged with Springer Verlag in 2004, the 2010 version of the book would not have been re-reviewed. I very much doubt this book was ever properly peer-reviewed - and certainly never at the standards of Springer Verlag. I doubt you'll get much sympathy for your view from the majority of other editors here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Kluwer was as reputable as Springer, otherwise Springer would have not merged with Kluwer. Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

They were both bought by the same venture capital company. It was a matter of money not reputation. SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very possible that it is a venture capital co., that is why the book is now sold for over 200$. A side from your opinion, or my opinion on the value of a Monograph published by Kluwer , if you go in the "Acknowledgments" of the book, you will see that a good number of University Professors in USA and Europe reviewed the book.One of them is the Director of the Hydrogen Association. Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk)

Do we need the Aquygen section at all?

Is it a notable example of a claimed Water-fuelled car? or something else? Petecarney (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

So is your problem that it's not notable - or that it's not claimed to be a water-fuelled car? I think it's both notable and claimed to be a water-fuelled car...so what's the problem? SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We might use it as a notable scam or fraud. There's lots of g-hits, and the reliable ones all point to scam. It's a coin toss if its enough to demonstrate notability, though. Rklawton (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The primary problem is that there is no claim of a water fuelled car. The reference "Cars run on water: Miracle or scam?" uses the phrase "The gas then bonds with the gasoline in the gas tank" which suggests the device is intended as a fuel saver to be applied to a conventional car. Dennis Klein's three issued US patents 6689259, 6866756, and 7191737 all refer to electrolysers to make a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gasses. The first for welding and the second two as an additive to conventional automotive fuel. So where is the claim to a water-fuelled car? If Aquygen's feeble efforts are deemed to be notable then I'd suggest it belongs in the article Hydrogen fuel enhancement. If you want really good example of a fraud then I suggest:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=9653#

http://caps.fool.com/blogs/hydrogen-hybrid-scammer-busted/347498

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/hydrogen-hybrid-technologies/62843

Petecarney (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I see your point and agree. Rklawton (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue has come up before. Although the patent and their website don't claim they can run a caron water, they've definitely claimed this numerous times in news interviews. For example, here. I've given public talks about free energy scams, and I always play this item, telling them beforehand "Even if you know nothing about science or technology, there's one sentence in this piece that proves absolutely that it's a scam". Even with that introduction, it's depressing how few people catch the patently ridiculous line "The car can run exclusively on water, but is currently configured as a gas/water hybrid". That said, I'm not sure that Aquygen is notable any more. Cars that run on water are "invented" about once a year. They were flavor of the week a while back, but it sounds like maybe they've toned down their claims.Prebys (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We have to beware of recentism though. They made that claim, multiple times, in big public forums. They have never retracted the claim ("Oh, sorry, we made a mistake, we can't run a car on water after all") - so it remains a notable fact. You could argue, perhaps that none of the claims of being able to run a car on water is truly notable, simply because nobody has made an adequate public demonstration of so doing. So you could maybe argue that nothing in our article is notable. But I'm convinced that Aquagen's claims are entirely notable, because they were made very publicly and reported widely in otherwise perfectly respectable media. That they made the claim, didn't retract it, and continue to make a business of selling these junk systems for cars means that we should report the historical fact of that claim. If they retract the claim in a notable manner, then we should reconsider. SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew this discussion sounded familiar. I added the last paragraph to the article the last time this issue came up. Nevertheless, as you say, although they no longer make their claim (which is cited to this news report in the article), they've never actually retracted it. I agree that we should keep the article. If we remove water fueled cars every time they're shown not to work, then people will think the next claim is original. I do think the citations need some clean up. Some lead to subscription content and appear to be redundant anyway.Prebys (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Gashole

I'm not sure "Gashole" belongs here at all, since it contains claims of cars using water to increase mileage rather than as a fuel, but in any event there was way too much detail, so I trimmed it down. I recommend whoever added it put it in the "Gashole" article, which could use some expanding anyway.Prebys (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Dingel

Just as a side note... it took years for plastic chemists (a doctor at that) to realize it was a fraud... I'm flying over to Taiwan if it's so easy to get a doctorate there. And we're supposed to take chemistry products seriously... Hoemaco (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of References still needed

It seems that on July 18, 2011 an agreement was reached or hinted by SteveBaker and Qwyrxian to remove mention of magnecules in the Aquygen section rather than adding three positive references [[6]] and references 19 and 20 of Santilli's page[[7]] and [ ] Qwyrxian stated that "As someone says above, magnecules meet Wikipedia's definition of fringe theories, and thus they will not appear here, or, really, anywhere outside of Ruggero Santilli" After almost 2 months the definition of magnecules as "discredited" and "clearly bogus" is still in the Aquygen section (outside of Santilli's page) without the addition of the other three references which I have presented and which are contained in the Ruggero Santilli page. Reference 17 in the Aquygen section is the only reference and it is negative and reference 18 has no mention of magnecules , it is not relevant, it is from a non notable source and it is not clear why it is there. It is humbly suggested that maintaining only reference 17 and 18 without the other three refrences needs to be examined at the light of the policies on WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. Continuing to maintain the definition of magnecules as "discredited" and" clearly bogus" while ignoring the other peer-refereed references is damaging to the professional standing of Ruggero Santilli and needs to be examined at the light of the policy on BLP. Carla Santilli--CarlaGSantilli (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The three references you include are not reliable and so will not be included. Frankly, I don't care what Santilli has to say about how wonderful his theories are. I do care what the scientific community has had to say - positive or negative. On the positive side, I'm just hearing crickets. Rklawton (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! So you need to remove reference 17 which is the same peer-refereed journal that published reference 19 and 20 in the Ruggero Santilli page. --CarlaGSantilli (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Any news about these references? I think this lack of action and response is very damaging to the reputation of Santilli. Even if the editors of this page do not care ( as Rklawton says) there are still policies of Wikipedia to be considered and the neutral point of view needs to take priority over the opinions of the editors who, so far, have made them widely known. --CarlaGSantilli (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)CarlaGSantilli

Sorry - you are pointing to reference numbers - but the numbers change as we add or remove references. As a result, I don't know which references you are referring to. On a related note, your general approach has been to whitewash Santilli's article of any references to him being on the scientific fringe. That's probably why editors have ignored you. Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

From your first reply, it seems that you know......, but I am repeating them here by quoting again ":It seems that on July 18, 2011 an agreement was reached or hinted by SteveBaker and Qwyrxian to remove mention of magnecules in the Aquygen section rather than adding three positive references [[8]] and references 19 and 20 of Santilli's page [[ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031990700 ]] [[9]] and [ ]"Note that the reference number have not changed. The question is not whitewash but respect of the policies and the neutral point of view which, I humbly suggest, it is not taken here. I did not know that the editors "ignore". --CarlaGSantilli (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)CarlaGSantilli

They're ignoring you, not policy. Rebuttles are not peer reviewed papers, they are the opinions of the author and can not be considered as a reliable source. As a result, there's zero need to publish these three sources as they are no indication that magnecules represent anything other than fringe science. Rklawton (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice this before. I'm confused. The article currently says what is considered the consensus scientific position (as far as I know)--there is no scientific basis for magnecules, and that, therefore, the theory is discredited. WP:NPOV, especially when we consider how WP:FRINGE influences it, says that while we provide "balance" and neutrality, we don't give undue weight to any opinion, idea, etc. Since magnecules are entirely rejected by mainstream scientists, giving any positive mention to them would violate WP:NPOV. Also, as Rklawton points out, those three articles don't even meet WP:RS. So, this article seems correct as far as I can tell. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian stated that "As someone says above, magnecules meet Wikipedia's definition of fringe theories, and thus they will not appear here, or, really, anywhere outside of Ruggero Santilli" I am confused too.This is what you said.The only mainstream scientist rejecting the theory is Calo and there are two University Professors who are in favor , plus the publication of the monograph http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Hadronic-Chemistry-Applications-Fundamental/dp/9048158532/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311165913&sr=1-1]] The issue is not the definition of fringe but the definition of "discredited" and "bogus" in the Discussion. Fringe is not synonymous with discredited, but it is "out of the mainstream" "alternative" as you can see in the Fringe page of Wikipedia itself. I still maintain that the Aquygen section is not neutral. In fact, take a look at reference 18. It is a on line religious magazine and has no mention of magnecules or Santilli and yet it is next to his name.. I feel I am respectfully taking part in a debate. Thank you.CarlaGSantilli (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)CarlaGSantilli

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability. " to quote WP:RS I think the three references we are discussing meet all these criteria and to select only the negative one (as in Aquygen) is not neutral. In regard to Fringe, the current debacle of mainstream physics at the LHC of CERN gives a more positive meaning to the Fringe scientists who have been looking for alternatives to the mainstream theories and did not spend trillions of dollars in the process like in the CERN project! CarlaGSantilli (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)CarlaGSantilli

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However, that's not the opinion of the majority of editors here. Until that changes, that's the end of it. Rklawton (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:CarlaGSantilli: You keep mentioning some vague agreement that you seem to imagine has been reached. You say: "It seems that on July 18, 2011 an agreement was reached or hinted by SteveBaker and Qwyrxian to remove mention of magnecules in the Aquygen section rather than adding three positive references". I'd like to make it abundantly clear that I have not entered into any kind of agreement whatever on the content of this article. I most certainly did not agree to remove mention of magnecules or add in your specific references. I mentioned that if appropriate references cannot be found - then perhaps removal of that material might be appropriate...that is a completely different thing. Worse still, User:Qwyrxian only ever commented on the issue of your rights as an editor with an undoubted conflict of interest here. There is no "agreement" - seemingly or otherwise. Please stop distorting the truth in this manner to make it appear that you have some kind of solid rights here - you do not. SteveBaker (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said that I have a right . I also assume that you feel the same way about you and about other editors. There is only a honest debate about issues and about keeping them in line with the policies of Wikipedia. There are only different interpretations of these policies and hopefully, with honest discussion and good faith discussion the best information will be reached, if we want to keep Wikipedia's good name. CarlaGSantilli (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)CarlaGSantilli

That's pretty much what we do. On the other hand, you seem to feel it's appropriate to cite articles from a journal that is published by the subject of this discussion as well as the non-peer reviewed opinions of a few individuals. I hope, in all your intellectual honesty, you can admit that this approach is highly irregular and not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. Balanced and neutral means that if we've got reliable sources highlighting different points of view, then we represent them proportionally. In you case, we don't have reliable sources, and so it is not appropriate to include them here. Your best bet is to give up and go away. When the scientific community starts publishing peer reviewed works in reliable sources naming your husband's theories as credible, useful, etc, then come back and let us know. Until then, you'll make no headway here. Rklawton (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Genesis World Energy

Any objection if I add a section on Genesis World Energy? They were one of the larger energy-from-water scams, and certainly more notable than Daniel Dingle (who's only interesting because of how long he's been around).Prebys (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection - they clearly claim to be able to power cars because they talk about having contacts from every major car company - and they clearly claim to get all of their energy from water. So obviously they are talking about water-fuelled cars. Do it! SteveBaker (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally got around to adding it. Better late than never.Prebys (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This article feels extremely negative

it feels like i'm reading some rant made by a CEO working at a oil mill, usually wikipedia is not like this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.232.232 (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all solidly factual stuff - absolutely all claims to be fuelling a car with water are scams with no basis whatever in actual science. We know from the laws of thermodynamics (which are amongst the most solidly proven bits of science we have) that there is no possible way to generate energy from water - it's like trying to set fire to the ashes you get left over after a previous fire! (In essence, water is the ashes you get left over after you burned hydrogen). It's difficult to say positive things about people and their technologies that basically set out to con the gullible public out of their money. You're kinda asking "Why does the article on bank robberies have nothing good to say about people who steal money from banks?" - it comes with the territory. SteveBaker (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is definitely "one-sided", in the sense that scientifically and factually there is only one side. Claims of water-fueled engines have been with us since at least the 19th century, and almost all recent claims simple variations on the "Garrett carburetor", which was patented 75 years ago. They have all turned out to be some combination of willful self-deception and outright fraud. Nevertheless, your accusation of ``rant" implies an emotional tone that would be inappropriate even in an article as clear cut as this. Please give an example of the language you find objectionable.Prebys (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Science is not one-sided. It explains all other theories and evidence that they are wrong in doing the desired feat, but only as a suggestion, as to allow further experimentation. Your desire is not the same as the rest, because you are talking from a position of power, and want us to disprove it by bringing new evidence for our theory, or else be quiet. We don't have to prove us right, you have to prove us wrong in creating a car that separates hydrogen from oxygen. (shifting the) Burden of proof, argument from authority, Argument from silence, Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how science (or even rational human thought) operates. We have to assume that the most well-established, fundamental laws of physics are correct - until someone proves them to be incorrect. Burden of proof points us to Scientific burden of evidence which redirects to Scientific method - which you would do well to read. If we have to doubt these fundamental laws on every occasion that we apply them then there can be no progress. We absolutely DO require you to disprove it by bringing new evidence...that's exactly how scientific progress is made. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the opening paragraph tries to imply that just because the laws of thermodynamics, this technology shouldn't be taken seriously. But adding energy to the process of separating oxygen from hydrogen does not make the technology useless. This is the straw that the establishment tries grip on, as it uses science as a weapon. We don't have to disprove the laws of physics in order to have a new application that differs from gas cars. It could be cleaner, if not completely free energy. Fallacy of division, Nirvana fallacy The establishment is not talking science against it, it is talking about not making any applications at all. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraph doesn't just "try to imply that" - it actually says it - clearly. It's written that way because it's true, The laws of thermodynamics clearly show that since there is no chemical energy in water, energy cannot be extracted to power a car. Those laws also show that putting energy into water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen will certainly take more energy than you get from recombining hydrogen and oxygen - so any process whatever that tries to get net energy by doing that will definitely fail. The beauty of these over-arching laws is that we don't have to concern ourselves with the details of how that's done - we know because of the laws of thermodynamics that it can't ever work - no matter how it's done. In fact, making a car that's powered by energy extracted from water most certainly WOULD "disprove the laws of physics" because any violation of the laws of thermodynamics would mean that pretty much everything we understand about anything would likely be incorrect. "Fallacy of division" doesn't apply here - we have a scientific law that says that you can't get energy for free under any circumstances - so it follows that you can't get energy for free in a water powered car. There is no 'division' there. Similarly, this is not an argument from authority. The basis of this argument is the laws of thermodynamics alone - not that Cantor, Gibbs, Thompson and Clausius invented thermodynamics and they said that water powered cars are impossible. Neither does the Nirvana fallacy apply - we're not comparing water powered cars against some unrealistic, idealised alternative. The laws of thermodynamics are very real - they are the underpinnings of almost all of science - we rely on their results in all manner of everyday situations. In the past 200 years, they've never once been shown to fail despite thousands of experiments designed to do that. The bottom line is that the only way for a water-powered car to work is if it somehow does something that invalidates our understanding of the universe and overturns 200 years of solid science. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Teemu, from your comments I get the impression you don't understand the scope of this article. It specifically covers claims of cars which use water as a fuel. Thus, having to "add energy" to make the process work would indeed "make the technology useless", and not having to add energy does indeed violate the laws of physics as we currently understand them. Other applications of electrolysis to increase efficiency are discussed in Hydrogen fuel enhancement. While the evidence does not support any of those claims, the less extreme ones don't necessarily violate the laws of physics. Finally, electrolysis as a method for energy storage is discussed in Hydrogen economy.Prebys (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

SteveBaker, bad example. Australia's national hero Ned Kelly was a bank robber, the Anarchist hero Durruti was a bankrobber.....110.174.72.238 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that there were no 'good' bank robbers. I said that our article on Bank robbery has nothing good to say about them - and that's a true statement. Sadly, none of the people who scam money from the gullible by claiming to be able to run cars on water have been leading the resistance of the Irish-Australians against British tyrrany (Not that I believe for one moment that Ned Kelley was ever that!). Our article on Durruti makes no mention whatever of bank robbing. He was a mechanic, a union leader - and then an anarchist/freedom-fighter. SteveBaker (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)