Talk:Genepax

original research
This article contained original research which has been removed. Wikipedia is not an essay writing contest or a platform for conjecture but an encyclopedia.

75.61.97.61 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE before replying or reverting that section again. The problem with fringe theories (as WP:FRINGE clearly explains) is that mainstream science is not going to dignify it with analysis that we can directly reference.  Simply stating the Genepax view without indicating the mainstream scientific position is to give undue weight to a fringe theory - and that's not allowed either.  WP:FRINGE says that it's OK to put forward the mainstream view of the science even if it starts to look a little bit like WP:OR so long as the theories talked about are well referenced.


 * The section in question (which I wrote) quotes a reputable source as saying that Genepax have claimed that the machine works by reacting water with a metal hydride "catalyst" - that's certainly not OR - it's a properly sourced fact.  I was also able to show that this "well known technique" that Genepax claim to have improved upon is a chemical reaction between water and metal hydrides that results in the consumption of the hydride as a fuel (ie it is not a catalyst but the source of energy for the reaction).  Connecting those two facts is perhaps borderline OR - but perfectly justified per WP:FRINGE since to fail to do so would give undue weight to Genepax's claims and insufficient explanation of the mainstream viewpoint - which would be a disservice to our readership.  Failing the ability to describe the mainstream view, we would be required to delete the article since it would cover a predominantly scientific matter WITHOUT peer-reviewed scientific articles backing it up.  The one thing that section could use would be a decent scientific paper stating what happens when you add water to metal hydrides in order to produce hydrogen - all I was able to find was a patent, which is rather thin evidence.  However, it's pretty well known that this is the case - it's just a matter of finding the right chemistry text book...certainly not grounds for deleting this section of the article.


 * PS. In future, please add new sections at the BOTTOM of the talk page. Thanks!


 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

more information needed
The Article on Genepax definitely needs much more information. Leaving it will allow me and others to add the information and answer the questions posed about the validity of the company's claims.

Deleting the article simply because a Slashdot story notes how interesting it is that there is no Wikipedia entry is just childish.

If Genepax's claims are true, shouldn't Wikipedia have an article on the company that has revolutionized engine technology and found a limitless energy source for us all? If not, shouldn't they be exposed so that ignorant people are not scammed by them?

If this article is deleted ... so must articles about companies that sell scams like the Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet.

Interesting
If I get my Pie-In-The-Sky wacko idea / company mentioned at Slashdot, I can have a Wiki article? Proxy User (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. 76.185.205.210 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a hoax
This is a hoax of some kind. First off, you can't break up water into hydrogen and oxygen without some kind of energy input to get you started. Secondly, any energy that you would generate by putting the hydrogen and oxygen back together would be less than you expended to break them apart in the first place. As for this chemical reaction? The break up of water could be achieved by using a metal reactant, which would give you energy, but this metal reactant (probably some kind of alkaline metal) would have to be replaced in time. Thus, the claim that it runs "purely on water" would be far from true. Finally, don't you think they would have patented this idea? Or sell it off to another company? Or upgrade their webpage "http://www.genepax.co.jp/en/" to include some information. They are being intentionally unclear as to how their process works. I'm all for lowering gas prices, but this needs to be investigated more thoroughly before being taken at face value. This will probably disappear in the next few days. I'm surprised that it even picked up this much momentum. Also try taking a look at the diagram on the japanese version of the webpage:http://www.genepax.co.jp/mechanism/mechanism.html this clearly shows the only by product being water. Clear violation of principles of thermodynamics. Also, the FAQ asks about funding and how to invest. Probable Scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.233.230 (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * probable scam? Are you kidding?  I'm checking my calender and find it strange that it's not April 1st. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * what he said. -Lakeoftea (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

True
I agree,

The product Genepax is reporting, as we understand it, is not possible ... nor is the Q-Ray ionized bracelet possible (in any way), yet they've got a sadly respectable wiki page.

Genepax's MEA device is not unique to them, if their claims have any validity, it lies in their MEA having a better catalyst for breaking apart water.

Of course it still can't give free energy ... but given how low the power output of the device is (120w, a mere 1/6th of a horsepower!), and given that we don't know if you put the water in and drive away, or put the water in a day before and wait for the battery to slowly charge ... for all we know, the MEA catalyst allows environmental heat to break apart the water.

The benefit of this page existing (aside from the joy of contradicting a slashdot article), is that if and when Genepax is exposed as a true scam, it will be written as a fact right here.

It may never stop the fools of the world from believing in the urban myths surrounding cars that supposedly run on water, but it will be further proof to shove in their faces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraky (talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't scams be documented to protect people in the future?
It's so odd that people would want this page to die simply because Genepax is most probably a scam.

Religion is a scam, so why is it permitted here at all?

How about we delete all records of all scams, so that no one has any awareness, so that more people can jump in with both feet as brand new victims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraky (talk • contribs) 04:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's useful to retain information on this kind of fringe-theory topic - if for no other reason than because it certainly interests our readers. The slashdot article that turned a lot of people on to what Genepax is claiming started off by saying how remarkable it was that there was no Wikipedia article on Genepax (something that was fixed in about 15 minutes!).  But I don't think we generally need a separate article about each claim of a working water fuelled car - they are all hoaxes and most of them fade into insignificance pretty quickly.  So I'd like to see Genepax redirect to Water fuelled car and to merge a couple of paragraphs from here into that article.  The benefit of doing that it that it allows our readers to see the relevence (or otherwise) of the Genepax claim given all of the other water fuelled car debacles that there have been in the past.  By itself, Genepax doesn't really reach the level of notability that Wikipedia requires for a stand-alone article. SteveBaker (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It'll Die Out (so what ?)
If it is a hoax people will forget about it, and then there will be no need for a wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.233.230 (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Idiotic thinking. wikipedia, way-back-maching etc created to documanted & archived for future reference. so that if any body dont know it or forget it. then they will know it again. people will forget it that does not mean  use  of it finished. does not people should learn for past mistake. how does any one would know if there is no past record. why dont u use ur logic !!!! . though i think it may be another scam but people should know about it. so that they would not get cheated by the same way next time. --  Blogsd  Contact

This is how it works:

 * This report: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080613/153276/
 * says:
 * ...adopting a well-known process to produce hydrogen from water to the MEA," said Hirasawa Kiyoshi, the company's president. This process is allegedly similar to the mechanism that produces hydrogen by a reaction of metal hydride and water. But compared with the existing method, the new process is expected to produce hydrogen from water for longer time, the company said.
 * So they react a metal hydride with the water to produce hydrogen. That's possible.  This patent describes the process: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7179443.html
 * The problem is that (as the patent states) the metal hydride is the "fuel" - it is consumed by the process of reacting with the water. So, sure, you pour water into the tank, it reacts with the hydride to form hydrogen - which you can react some other way to make electricity and power the car...but the problem is that your metal hydride is being consumed in the process - so sooner or later (probably sooner) you're going to have to refill your car with more metal hydride - and the energy cost of producing that stuff is going to be greater than the energy needed to drive the car.
 * So, either this is a fraudulent attempt to get investors to part with their money by demonstrating something that LOOKS plausible - but isn't - or (more likely, I suspect) there is a glitch in the translation from Japanese and they aren't really saying what the journalists claim they are saying.


 * Unless this turns out to be somehow, magically "real" - we should roll this article into Water fuelled car along with the other water-for-fuel con tricks.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. I'd like to see Water fuelled car include a heading for each 'type' of water car scam.... 'catalytic / chemical'  'electrolytic'   etc...and show each claim (*cough* scam) in its appropriate heading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.127 (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

no glitch in the translation
I've checked out the japanese page. It clearly states that it only uses water as fuel. Furthermore, the diagrams verify that Water is emitted as exhaust. The diagrams are located on page 9 of http://www.genepax.co.jp/pdf/wes_20080613_ver1.pdf I agree with the merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.233.230 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

yeh genepax!
the proof is in the pudding y'all. if Genepax is able to find a reputable automobile manufacturer to mass produce these things, then it will be clear that it's not a hoax. . . too simple. i would like to mention that there have been a lot of apparently successful experiments with "over unity" devices (i.e. break the laws of thermodynamics). if you like surfing YouTube, i recommend searching for HHO and particularily the hydrogen fuel cell replicas made by "ravi" and "dave" (copied from US patents of the late Stanley Meyer). i know it sounds crazy, but something very interesting is about to happen in the field of energy that some people (big oil) will try to stop or even eliminate all together (i recommend the movie who killed the electric car?). i only hope that america embraces such technology and becomes a leading exporter.

--Lakeoftea (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lakeoftea ... a fitting name, as your suggestions are infinately improbable (look up Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, infinate improbability drive, tea). If Genepax's device is setting water into your supposed HHO configuration, it still requires energy to get it into this state. You will still get no more energy back from it as was consumed in making it. It's not our laws of physics that prevent over unity devices from working, the laws are just models that best fit the available evidence ... it's THE UNIVERSE that prevents it from working.


 * Why mass produce the car at all? they could simply sell all that tasty 'over unity' energy to the grid, use the money to make more devices, and eventually power the entire world for free! Oh, right, because IT Doesn't Work.  Suraky  —Preceding comment was added at 04:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are simply succumbing to Wishful thinking, the laws of physics simply do not allow "over unity devices" to work, except if some kind of nuclear fusion is going on where matter is converted to energy (remember E=MC2 ?). I don't think that is the case here, and history has learned us (or at least the people who learn from history), that anyone who claims to create energy out of nothing is usually a crackpot, or is in it for a "quick money making scheme". In all cases I would recommend to keep an open mind, but for the moment there is NO PROOF this device does what it claims. It probably simply a "battery" that uses water as a reagent, but the energy itself comes from a chemical reaction, that uses up the real "fuel", the reactant that reacts with water to make hydrogen. Time will tell. Mahjongg (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

booo genepax
The big auto companies won't touch this. No way when there are no patents and no independant test results that validate Genepax's efforts. Nothing to prove that it isn't a scam.

Without patents, if the product is real, Genepax won't risk showing exactly how the technology works to any big auto company.

Either way Genepax will suck in millions of investment dollars from fools and victims around the world who don't know any basic science, who want to believe in the product when all logic and reason indicates it's a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraky (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Let it play out i say!
All great points, but one thing is for certain: this needs a Wiki pub and if we dont monitor and Analyze this to the fullest extent, others will probably just keep bringing it up (possible over and over again). Lets get it all on the table--espically since this kinda tugs on the hearts of everyone (a.k.a. people can get Emotional over cars in general, or it would be a shame if a young bright kid kept wondering why Wiki has nuttin' on this topic despite it being in the "media" ---all because it got deleted??). Although it would be awful nice to say "HAH, told ya so" at the end.. if this doesnt get scrapped we can have a very Eloquent way of saying "hah" at the end of the article.--66.66.126.16 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Pauly


 * - see point number 4. SteveBaker (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WoW, fantastic web site steve, thanks for sharing it... I loved the "Mark 1 telephone" joke.. Especially when Ted (the boss) was dumbfounded when the engineer employees would stare into open space, and re-calculate the phone number for use on the Mark 1 telephone within mere seconds while the boss had to work hard at it and eventually resort to a crib sheet.. haha! Also the collection of FAQ was great(when will the world run out of oil was very interesting)... which leads me up to the You_know_you_are_a_crank_when... I see your point loud and clear. Thanks again. --66.66.126.16 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Pauly

Crank it up!
Steve, Your Point #4 is perfect in this situation ... On their (very crude) english homepage, Genepax does in fact claim their process will save the world from global warming.


 * Yes - it's beyond me how these crank inventors ALWAYS have to have their wonder new power source drive a car. I can't think of a single example where they said "Hey, we could replace all of the coal-fired power stations in the world by producing electricity from water."  For a small company, they could put much more effort into perfecting their power source if they didn't have to do all of the engineering to mount it into a car chassis.  But it seems that the only way to attract that particular kind of gullible investor is to stick it into a car. SteveBaker (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, regarding the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, if we speculate that the system draws power from ambient thermal energy, wouldn't this just be an endothermic reaction regulated by the availble heat (it would slow down and sputter out as the device gets cold)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraky (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It falls apart, whichever way you look at it
The demonstration vehicle was an electric car. Even if the fuel cell didn't work at all, they could have driven around with the equipment hooked up, because the car would have had fully charged batteries to start with - thanks to oil-burning fossil plants run by the Kansai Electric Power company.

The Takeoka Reva car they used takes 8 hours to charge its batteries on a 15 amp circuit at 100 V or 5 hours at 200 V (industrial power). 15 A x 100 V x 8 hours = 12 kWh, for a claimed range of 85 km, not much different from how far the car is supposed to go in an hour running on the 300 W fuel cell. Even if we assume the circuit is not fully loaded (say, only 70%) and discount for some losses during the charge (say 80%), the batteries may still store about 6 kWh, versus 0.3 kWh produced by the fuell cell in an hour. The bottom line is that the fuel cell contributed no more than 5% of the energy used during the test drive, irrespective of whether it only used water or not.

I agree to all the comments above, about there needing to be an external energy source to make hydrogen from the water you pour in, either for electrolysis or a reactant that gets used up in a chemical reaction.

Another interesting fact is that genepax.co.jp was not even registered until 08 May 2008, i.e. a little over a month before product launch. At the same time the company claims a 25 year track record in green energy research!

Whichever way you look at it, it looks like a hoax or a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewein (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

this is a Fraud, what will we do?
i would not delete the article, but i would add a section called ``criticism´´, where we can then link to the articles about the scientific facts that are contradicting this.

the main problem: water is low in energy, hydrogen is rich in energy. in this context, you could compare water with empty batteries and hydrogen with charged batteries.

so they fuel the car with empty batteries, that are charged in the first step of the process and then emptied again in the second step. and this is supposed to produce energy? what about the first step, charging the batteries, where does the energy come from?

about metal hydrides...  those do produce hydrogen when they come in contact with water. but the metal hydrides get destroyed in the process, and you get 1 hydrogen atom per molecule of metal hydride. you will probarbly end up with some kind of metal hydroxide, a very strong base (depending on the metal in question). i do not believe those claims to be true anyway, but if this would be the case, then the source of energy would NOT be the water, but the metal hydride. they probarbly use hidden batteries to fuel the car.

another thing that doesnt make sense is the car itself. they claim to have a device that produces energy out of nothing, in violation of E=mc². if they could demonstrate it in a lab, prove it to scientists, they would get a nobel prize at least for physics, and maybe also the one in chemistry. they could use anything to dump the resulting energy, they could sell that electricity to the grid. putting it in a car to drive around, and claiming that the car is the invention, wouldnt make much sense even if those people were not liars. they would clarify: ``no, no, the car is not the invention, we invented a device that produces energy out of nothing, we just put it in a car for purposes of demonstration´´. the car seems to be used just as a distraction.

i would link from this article to the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression (if i would know enough about wikipedia to do it myself). we also need to inform the people that work on that article to maybe take a look at this one.

the article CANNOT STAY AS IT IS NOW. it is obvious and clear to anyone that knows a little bit about physics can recognize that those people are liars. im against a deletion of the article, because the article can be used to warn people about the fraud and to get people interested in real science.

im probarbly not that good at doing major edits, but i will try my best to edit this article. Kurtilein (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is broad scientific agreement that this is almost certainly a hoax/fraud - or at the very least a misunderstanding about what the word 'catalyst' means in English and Japanese. I think that the practical issue for Wikipedia is that the company is in the news all over the world and people will come to Wikipedia for the truth and if we remove the article, it'll get repeatedly recreated - and if we roll it into another article, that article will be inundated with junk about Genepax and 'taken over'.  Hence, we have to keep this article - at least until all of the fuss dies down and the final outcome becomes known.   At which point we can make the decision to either keep this article, delete it - or (as my intuition says) roll it into Water fuelled car along with all of the previous frauds and hoaxes. SteveBaker (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: "they probarbly use hidden batteries to fuel the car" - as this is an electric car which comes with lead-acid batteries, there is no need for "hidden" batteries. It comes with them. The fuel cell at best provides enough energy to suppliment power by 5%, stretching battery range from 85 km to maybe 89 km. The fuel cell could be completely dysfunctional and you couldn't tell from the outside. Joewein (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not quite the point though - even if they could merely extend the range with a water-fuelled gizmo, that would still be an utterly earth-shattering, physics-busting amazing kind of a thing. For chissakes - if they could only power the turn signals with a water-fuelled system, it would still violate the laws of thermodynamics and overturn all of science as we know it!  It's not the magnitude of the energy they claim produce - it's the 'sign' of the energy they produce!  If this thing only produced a nano-watt, it would still be amazing.


 * The problem is that there simply isn't any energy in water left to extract (except by 'cold fusion' or some other mass-reducing nuclear reaction effect - and even Genepax aren't claiming that!) So at best, their fuel cell is consuming it's metal hydride "catalyst" - which means it's not water-fuelled with a metal hydride catalyst (as they claim) - but instead a metal-hydride-fuelled car with a water catalyst.


 * Incidentally, another way that this could be a fraud is that metal hydrides are very good at STORING hydrogen gas - and most designs for hydrogen-powered cars use hydrides as their storage medium. It would be very simply for Genepax to pre-charge their hydride "catalyst" with hydrogen gas and cause that gas to be released as water is added - giving the impression that hydrogen was being produced from the water when in fact it was pre-loaded into the metal hydride for storage.  That would make a MUCH more convincing demo than running off the car's batteries.  But whatever it was - it's still cheating. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Genepax and mainstream media
This story is already out in the media, ie Reuters, and transferred as breaking news all over the world.

Deleting the article ?

WHY? media reporting on it do not delete their articles, no matter the shoddy quality of their reporting, documenting, etc..

There should be also a section on the media impact, which I believe will be greater than any other impact.

If in a few months or years (sometimes this stuff takes a lot longer..)this is proven a hoax, it will only be just another testimony to the way humanity creates and consumes urban and suburban legends.

I find this subject really captivating from a social studies point of view though.

Physics aside (which we don't care much about anyways, otherwise we'd drive Hollywood into bankruptcy..) people really want to see Disney World come true and come to our little town and our streets.

as for Genepax genius.. their website says it all: they can not put together a few decent webpages, but claim to have discovered the Holy Grail of Transportation.

Aliodor (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Some info about the website
1. Turns out the website was registered on the 8th of may this year. (http://whois.jprs.jp/cgi-bin/whois_gw?type=&key=genepax.co.jp&lang=&codecheck-sjis=%A4%CB%A4%DB%A4%F3%A4%EC%A4%B8%A4%B9%A4%C8%A4%EA%A4%B5%A1%BC%A4%D3%A4%B9)

2. Their IP address (219.94.163.77) belongs to a webhosting company, Sakura Internet. Just use "ping genepax.co.jp" and watch the output for the IP. Type it into a web browser and you get a page in Japanese that says "Sakura Internet" at the top.

3. Nowhere on the Genepax website is there any contact information other than an e-mail address.

This suggests to me that it is a complete hoax.

BFeely (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Contact
It only appears that they don't have a contact b/c you're looking at the English site.

at http://www.genepax.co.jp/pdf/wes_20080613_ver1.pdf they give:


 * <大阪本社>
 * 大阪府大阪市淀川区宮原2丁目14番14号新大阪グランドビル4階
 * TEL: 06-6394-7100 (代)
 * MAIL: press@genepax.co.jp
 * <東京営業所>
 * 東京都千代田区有楽町1丁目6番4号
 * TEL: 03-3502-3922 (代)

This is very specific contact information, the first <> thing is their Osaka main office and the second <> is their Tokyo office. They have a telephone number and location for each. If I was in Japan I could walk you right to their office. Feel free to call them, it's +81 country code. Report back with results if you do ;)

You can't just make a website and get featured on international news. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve
Thanks SteveBaker for your input on this article. I'm pretty new to Wiki ... and i just couldnt pass up the slashdot challenge, or let this go while there are so many ignorant people willing to believe Genepax's story.

I agree that for now this should be it's own article, while the deluge hits, and at a later time it could be merged into the water-fuelled-cars article.

On another topic, I deleted the Criticism section.

The section itself may be warranted, but the statements that it contained today were entirely redundant ... as if perhaps the auther had not read the rest of the article. The point on the Theory of Relativity was incorrect. The theory of relativity is not specificly about conservation of energy but rather matter and energy's interchangeable relationship and how it relates to gravitational fields, along with the nature of the speed of light. If this theory is related to conservation of energy, it is through the acceptance of the First Law of Thermodynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraky (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

the statement about the theory of relativity was entirely correct. a perpetual motion device does contradict the equation E=mc², which modern science considers to be universally true. if E=mc² would be disproven, both special relativity and general relativity as well as all grand unifying theories that are currently being discussed would be completely destroyed.

the theory of relativity requires conservation of mass/energy. conservation of energy alone is a weaker concept and more specific.

i will undo some of your changes. im not sure if i will add the criticism-section again, or if i will put this information elsewhere, but i think that we need to make clear that a perpetual motion device would have ENOURMOUS CONSEQUENCES for modern physics, would receive a nobel prize, would falsify einstein, would falsify string theory, would falsify our current understanding of the universe. by removing this, you made it more difficult for the reader to understand WHY we can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that this is a fraud. Kurtilein (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The theory of relativity is not specificly about conservation of energy, it is about the relation of energy and mass and the speed of light in a vacuum. Your E=mc² reference is irrelevant to this debate because Genepax has stated that their product uses a chemical reaction. Water is the fuel, and water is the product - Mass is not being converted into energy.  Kurtilein ... breaking the first law of thermodynamics, and stating that for the product to be real, it must destroy the foundations of our understanding of the universe is enough and it is correct. Suraky  —Preceding comment was added at 03:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism-section
i think we need one section in the article that focuses on exposing the hoax.

the FACT that this device, if it is real, would falsify most of modern physics needs to be in the article. Genepax claims to have done the impossible, something that has been tried uncountable times in history, basically they claim to have performed a miracle. Science requires consistency, a single counter-example is enough to disprove a theory.


 * done

if the first law of thermodynamics falls, something like a chain-reaction starts. the first law of thermodynamics follows from and is better described by E=mc², so special relativity would fall. general relativity builds on special relativity and still requires conservation of mass/energy, so that one would have to go. black holes, gravity, big bang cosmology, ... quite a lot of what we consider to be solid science would need a new theoretical framework.


 * E=mc² requires the first law of thermodynamics, it doesn't make the first law of thermodynamics exist. These 'laws' are just models that simulate how the universe may work, agreeing better with observation than other models. They are not literally the gears turning within the fabric of the universe.


 * And solid science? Tell me exactly what is gravity? Einstein never said what it is, just how it acts AS IF matter and energy are warping the fabric of space. Tell me what happens inside a black hole ... with proof. Tell me where the energy for the big bang came from, was it created out of nothing in violation of the very theory that suggested it's occurance?


 * So your point is that there are things we don't yet understand well (how gravity actually WORKS)? Sure, I'll agree with that.  Are you also trying to claim that the laws of Thermodynamics are in the same category?  If you are - then you're claiming in essence that NONE of science works because just about every physical law and principle relies on the laws of thermodynamics.  That's a bit hard to defend because in the areas we DO understand, science works exceedingly well.  If you don't believe that thermodynamics works then you can't rely on ANY of modern technology.  If on the other hand you DO believe in thermodynamics then the Genepax thing is a crock and that's true no matter how gravity, black holes or the big bang works. SteveBaker (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ever see that Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon? You know the one, where the roadrunner doesnt fall off the cliff because he doesn't believe in gravity? Belief in the nature of the universe is irrelevant, you are still subject to it.


 * Are you saying that our 'laws' of physics are actually physical reality instead of just models that best fit observation? I agree fully that thermodynamics is a great model that agrees fully with observation, and that we'll never see thermodynamics proven wrong, but no matter how good it is, it's still nothing more than a model that just happens to coincide with all observations of the universe as finely as we are able to test.  If you deny this, than you have replaced science with faith. It is then you who has lost the essence of how science works.


 * ... the Theory of relativity is still irrelevant to the Genepax article.--Suraky (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * of course the laws of physics are models that fit the observations. however, i wouldnt use the word ``best´´, because each scientific theory needs to be consistent with ALL the facts we know about reality. a single contradiction will cause scientists to question the theory.


 * the first law of thermodynamics is not a scientific theory, it is a law, and laws are a special kind of facts. laws need to be tested, until they are accepted they need to go through more or less the same process that a theory needs to survive, but then they are considered facts as long as no violation of the law can be demonstrated. so far, no violation of the first law of themodynamics has been demonstrated. so far, not a single perpetual motion device that was proposed in history performed work. the question is: how likely is it that human failure to make such a machine continues and the fact of thermodynamics will stand, and how likely is it that Genepax actually has a working perpetual motion machine? there is no faith involved, its about evidence and facts, quite a lot of them, and about their consistency.


 * ``... the Theory of relativity is still irrelevant to the Genepax article.´´ the reason why i brought up relativity was to show how many established scientific theories would fall if the first law of thermodynamics falls. to quote from the article about the first law of thermodynamics: ``In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is an expression of the more universal physical law of the conservation of energy.´´ so conservation of energy is more universal, the first law of thermodynamics is something like a special case that is less universal and that can be directly derived from conservation of energy. in this article, you can see how it connects to E=mc² and relativity. the equations of special relativity are falsified if the first law of thermodynamics OR the law of conservation of energy is falsified. the first law of thermodynamics as well as the law of conservation of energy can be derived from special relativity. general relativity then builds on top of that. so the existence of the car as described by Genepax would falsify special and general relativity. Kurtilein (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Be careful the distinction between a scientific LAW and a scientific THEORY is not that one is definitely true and the other is "just a theory" - that's not at all the case. Einsteins THEORY of relativity is more 'true' than Newtons LAWS of motion for example (Newtons' laws fail at speeds close to lightspeed and are inaccurate at all speeds above zero).  Our article Scientific law explains that laws are essentially conclusions - they express a result.  I agree that we don't need to drag relativity into this discussion.  Genepax are (essentially) claiming to have broken the first law of thermodynamics - and what follows from that is essentially that if they are right, pretty much all of science is wrong.  That includes Relativity - but it includes a bunch of other stuff like the ideal gas laws, everything Faraday ever wrote, Gauss and Helmholtz will be turning in their graves...truly - if you can't rely on energy not popping into existance from nowhere, (and by implication, mass popping into existance from nowhere) at the 'macro scale' where cars exist - then all bets are off and nothing that we have built, invented or theorised over the past few hundred years is reliable.  It is quite sufficient to say something like "For Genepax's claim to be true they would have to have broken the first law of thermodynamics and therefore mainstream science says that their machine can't work" - and leave it at that. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

to give an analogy: what would happen to mathematics if someone proves that 4x4 = 15? do you think that this would only shred a few aspects of modern mathematics in pieces? no. mathematics would fall like a house of cards. the same happens to physics if you demonstrate that you can turn sticks into snakes, water into wine, or that you can get energy out of... well, where does it come from? extra dimensions?


 * look up the mathmatical proof about 1+1=2. I dare you. Mathmatics is NOT the universe, it is just a tool that can be used to make models of the universe that can then be checked against observations of the universe.


 * You're going to look really silly if I find that proof - right? The problem is that you COMPLETELY misunderstand what mathematics is!  In fact, I'll take your dare - the proof of 1+1=2 (or S(0)+S(0)=S(S(0)) to use formal math) is right here on Wikipedia...but before I point it out to you, you need to learn what math actually is.


 * Mathematics (as opposed to arithmetic) is a bunch of rules & methods that can allow you to take a set of axioms and produce a set of theorems that are demonstrably "true" if the axioms you choose happen to be "true".


 * You can do mathematics with axioms that represent the real world - or you can go off on some wild trip by taking a different set of axioms and see where they lead. Euclidian geometry (for example) is based on a set of axioms that represent the 'space' of our common experience of the real universe.  Lo and behold, the equation for (say) the volume of a sphere you get from applying mathematical techniques to those "real world" Euclidian axioms is indeed correct in the real world.  But there is nothing to stop you choosing a different set of axioms and you'll come up with stuff like hyperbolic geometry that's quite unlike our real universe - and the equation for the volume of a sphere if you start with those axioms looks nothing like the volume of a real-world sphere.  Mathematics doesn't care.  Now, when Einstein said that space is distorted by matter, Euclids axioms aren't strictly true anymore - and the equation for the volume of a sphere isn't true either.   If you come up with new axioms that include Einsteins distortion - then you can come up with a new equation for the sphere that truly matches the real world - even when there is a black hole nearby.  Mathematics doesn't care that the first set of axioms we gave it were wrong.  The fault wasn't in mathematics - it was in our choice of axioms.


 * So 1+1=2 is not a part of mathematics - it's a theorem that can be demonstrated to be true (with a solid proof) using the tools of mathematics IF certain axioms are taken to be true. Hence - if you found that the axioms of conventional arithmetic don't match the real universe then 1+1=2 may be false - that's not a problem with math.  But the axioms behind conventional arithmetic are chosen so as to be a 'self-evident' as possible - they are things like "For any number 'x', it is always true that x=x." - not exactly rocket science!  But if we live in a universe where some x's are not equal to themselves - then 1+1 may not equal 2 after all!


 * Anyway - the axioms of conventional arithmetic are called the Peano axioms and from them the proof of 1+1=2 is really pretty simple - and you'll actually find it right here in Wikipedia about halfway down our Peano axioms article.


 * I win! SteveBaker (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was obliquely and sarcasticly referring to the Principia Mathematica, which takes ~362 pages of preamble to set the framework that allows the mathematical proof of the theory that 1+1=2 to have meaning, but thanks for typing out the extenda-mix version. And thanks, as you say yourself it's still a theory. A theory that will never be proven wrong, but still, a theory. Self-evidence is called faith. There is still no reason to include the theory of relativity in the Genepax article. --Suraky (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1+1=2 is true if the axioms on which it's proof is based are true. Mathematics claims no more and no less.  If 4x4 turns out to be equal to 15 in the "real world", that doesn't mean that mathematics is wrong - it means that one or more of the axioms on which arithmetic is based is not in agreement with the nature of the real world.  However, the peano axioms are pretty "self evident" - it would be hard indeed to deny that any one of them is not representative of the real world.  Yet, that is precisely what happened to Euclids axioms of geometry when Einstein showed that space is curved.  At least one axiom died that day (the parallel line postulate I believe) - and all that we thought we knew about the geometry of the universe (things like the angles of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees) turned out to be false because of that.  But again, do we really believe that these guys have proven a peano axiom false?  That would be an utterly astounding claim - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  It is vastly more likely that they are a bunch of con men.  But we're not even talking about something as fundamental as that.  We're talking about the Laws of Thermodynamics.  Those can be demonstrated experimentally as well as theoretically.  Even if the axioms relating to the mathematics that underpin them were to be shown to be false, the fact that no experiment that has EVER been performed has shown them to be the slightest bit incorrect means that we can rely upon them - at least within the realms of the 'macro world'. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

the criticism-section could be renamed and/or redesigned, but i really think that the strongest and most solid ways of exposing this hoax should be in this article. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and readers need to get a grasp on how extraordinary their claims are.Kurtilein (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * On this, I agree, I have rewritten the section, keeping the correct portions of your words. Suraky


 * i like the new version of the section that you put together, i might still edit some of it, but its definitively going into the right direction. Kurtilein (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys don't need a small history lesson in science but if this actually becomes a huge breakthrough, it is merely another step in the evolution of science. We have gone from thinking the Earth was flat, to Newton's laws, to the current advanced physics such as Einstein's relativity. Yes we'd have to figure out a new system, but am I right in saying that that is what happened a century ago? Science requires skepticism but also an open mind. Personally I'll wait to see what happens before "debunking the myth". On another note, risking the attention of the US Feds, I'm supposedly going to be testing an over-unity device soon (ie. 200% or more LOL). 207.34.120.71 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This kind of post annoys me. You are saying (in effect) that the laws that enabled us to build the Internet, decode the Human Genome, send a man to the moon and detect planets orbiting stars 50 lightyears away could be so grossly wrong that we might have missed something as extreme as that all of thermodynamics is completely and utterly WRONG?!  If such a basic law was 'off' by as little as one part in a million, none of the things that science has produced over the past 50 years would have been possible.  But for Genepax to not be liars and cheats, we don't just need thermodynamics to be slightly inaccurate - we need it to be UTTERLY incorrect!!!  Don't you think that over the 180 or so years we've known these laws that we'd have found that mistake by now?  This isn't a small mistake - it would have to be a spectacular boo-boo.  If you were in any way a scientist you'd realise what a total whack-job suggestion that is!


 * But your examples demonstrate that you are in need of the history lesson. Let's take your three statements specifically:
 * Flat/Round earth: Read our article Flat earth. Basically no person whom you'd label as a "scientist" has ever believed in the flat earth. True science (based on the scientific method) started in about the 16th century - and the western world has known that the earth was round since perhaps the third century BC.  The "flat earth" error wasn't made by someone using the methods of rigorous science - it was made by someone who rode around in a chariot and belived his king was the sun god.  This is a common myth though - so you're forgiven for not knowing that.
 * Newtons' laws: Well, these are spectacularly close to being correct in the entire range of normal experience. So accurate that even our very best instruments can't tell that there's an error at "normal" speeds/masses/distances.  It takes a really rather subtle experiment to show otherwise.  Relativity produces pretty much identical results right up to close to the speed of light.  If there is an error in the laws of thermodynamics of similar magnitude to that of Newton's laws then there is STILL no conceivable way for Genepax to exploit such an error to drive a car.  It's remotely possible that our understanding of thermodynamics is incorrect at some extremes of matter - but those extremes cannot possibly be present in the realms of normal human experience or someone designing a steam engine in Victorian times would surely have figured that out.
 * Changes in science over the past century: Well, from 1908 onwards, we've pretty much left the bulk material laws unmolested. Heck, you can go back further than that.  If we used Aristotelian laws of dynamics instead of Newton - things like cars would hardly be any different - but you'd be able to tell if you were a scientist: You have to drop cannonballs off of leaning towers or be out in the frictionless, gravityless realms of space to be able to clearly tell that Aristotle was wrong.  Things like relativity and quantum theory are even worse - they have almost zero effect on scales of human existance.  That's why it's taken us so long to discover them.  String theory and repulsive gravity due to dark matter/energy are only noticable at even more extreme conditions and those took us another century to figure out.  But I can't think of ANY change in the laws of physics over the last century that was revolutionary on the scale that overturning thermodynamics would be in something as mundane as a chemical reaction in a car with the most well-understood of all chemicals - water.


 * So, go ahead - find one. Find even one physical law of the stature of thermodynamics that's EVER been completely overturned within the 'human range of experience'.  I can't think of a single one.  What history pretty much teaches us is that once science makes a major claim and backs it up - it's pretty much there for keeps.  It's very clear that at "human scales" there is no hidden magic in the world and there is no possibility whatever that Genepax have done something amazing.  Check out Stanley Meyer (another notorious water-fuelled-car fraudster) - you'll find that exactly this path has been trodden before.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * SteveBaker, thx for refuting my claims and now I feel very foolish, but I would like you to know that I obviously don't have a PhD and most of my questions are from off the top of my head that have been bugging me a bit. Ok, so in order for perpetual motion devices to work, you need a new math/science that allows for the laws of thermodynamics to run its course which in itself is contradictory and (to our knowledge), impossible or else the new math/science would be so ridiculous that we'd be blasted back to the stone age.  Then again, who are we to claim we know everything?  Evolutions in science will hopefully be made for centuries to come and more.  The only thing that keeps me from fully & truly believing you is that I will apparently be going to see an over-unity device which a friend of mine has seen and tested (and he has a degree in Electrical Engineering + an extensive knowledge in science methinks).  The energy going in, is smaller than the energy going out and he has tested this himself.  I am pretty excited to see how this works (whether true or false), and if I go there and get hypnotized or something, then farewell. 207.34.120.71 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to make you feel foolish - I just have a tendancy to tell it the way it is.


 * For perpetual motion to work, you need to overturn thermodynamics - which pretty much overturns all of science. But that's just not gonna happen.  Any error in thermodynamics would have to be something like: "if you consider an object the size of a galaxy then..." or "at temperatures higher than we are able to measure then...".   There would have to be something amazingly extreme going on.  The reason for that is that we test those laws every time we drive a car or microwave a burrito...or hit a key on our keyboard.  If thermodynamics was off by even a tiny bit - we'd know for sure because stray energy would build up in strange ways.  So when faced with something that claims to break those laws you have to ask yourself what it might be doing that's so radically different to "normal experience" that it could modify the laws enough to make a difference.  No amount of spinning magnets and coils and gyroscopes and standard chemistry, electricity or mechanics is possibly going to push the laws outside the realms within which they've been amazingly carefully tested.  So unless this machine weighs a lot more than the earth or moves at close to the speed of light or is smaller than an atom or is cooled to within a thousandth of a degree above absolute zero or something - there is no way it can be exercising the laws in ways we haven't already tested a million times before.


 * You friend's machine doesn't do what it claims. That's an absolute certainty.  The only possible remaining question is "Why?".   Is it that there is an error in his measurements?   Is someone cheating?  Is there some sneaky way energy is getting into the system that he's missed?   Be skeptical - be VERY skeptical.  Say to yourself: "Is it more likely that all the rest of science is wrong or that my friend and I are somehow being fooled?"...Remember the mantra: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - and overturning thermodynamics is one of the most extraordinary claims it is possible to make!


 * It's very easy to fool yourself. You watch the waves washing up on the beach and you think "wow - those waves have been doing that for a billion years and they haven't run out of energy yet!"...but then you put on your scientist's hat and you realise that the sun's heat and the motion of the moon is powering them.  The moon's orbital speed is gradually slowing down - the sun is slowly running out of hydrogen...this motion isn't perpetual, it's powered by this massive weight swinging around and a GIGANTIC fusion reactor.   Did you ever see one of those Drinking bird toys?  Place a glass of cold water under their beaks and they SEEM to run forever.  It's really, REALLY hard to figure out where the energy is coming from to keep them running.  The truth is that they are very subtly accelerating the movement of heat from the air into the water and the evaporation of the water and this is powering their motion.  They stop when the water reaches room temperature.  But it's REALLY easy to imagine that there is perpetual motion going on here - it's a very subtle matter.  However, it's not at all subtle when you claim to be able to extract useful energy - to light a lamp or move a car - so these cases are easier to spot.


 * If you care to describe your friend's machine, I'd be happy to explain why it's not really a perpetual motion/free energy device.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I want one
How much are these cars? Who do I call to order one here in North America? I want to buy one to drive it now. -- Stfuabm (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * HA HA HA, you gullible faggot. --64.180.226.234 (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research redux
This article is full of original research. People need to realize that their original efforts to debunk hoaxes don't belong on this encyclopedia. I placed an appropriate mention of Genepax to the lead of the water-fueled car. This article should be cut down to the facts of the company. I think citing the widespread internet opinion that this violates the first law of thermodynamics is appropriate -- there's plenty of comments on those pages (i.e. Slashdot) which say essentially the same thing which is being said here. Plus, the "violation of thermodynamics" is already well-covered in a completely similar context over at the water-fueled car, making all this soapboxing completely unnecessary. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE applies here. Please get familiar with that guideline and the ArbCom rulings relating to it. SteveBaker (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing appears on FRINGE which says what that original research is acceptable. Please point out a passage, or let me know that you don't want to do that, in which case we'll be doing a RfC. This article is highly unprofessional. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Above that, it says that "a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

Please point to the area of that page which justifies all this synthesis, Steve. I've also pointed this page out on NOR/N. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Too Early
Isn't this article popping up just a tad too early? The company made its announcement on June 13 and the article has already been written. It defineitely belongs in the water-fuel car section. It is full of OR and will lead to edit wars and lengthy discussions. It would be a saving grace for all if this were just about Genepax the company with a passing mention about the car. If the company is not even notable, then the mention in water-fuel car should suffice.I55ere (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the break of thermodynamics law here
Apparently the car is fuelled by water, and produces energy, H and O. It must use something to make it react, but this does not need to be a problem, or it can be produced by the same reaction (for instance heat or electricity).

Isn't it the same as what fuel/petrol/gas does? It takes petrol, fire, and produces energy, and dioxid of carbon.

In this case fire is used to start the reaction, but its cost is pretty negligible.

I know that this is very hard, but I do not see any fundamental law, saying that we can extract energy from petrol but not from water. Actually the energy that petrol produces is made by splitting it in to simpler elements, the same that these guys claim.

Probably there is a catch on all of this, but I do not see any fundamental difference between petrol and water... well except the fact than petrol can produce energy very easily (simply putting fire on it).

To summarize: Petrol + Fire = Energy + Dioxid of Carbon Water + "something that can be produced by the car itself" = Energy + H + O

I do not see the law break. And you can actually claim that the car runs on water. Actually you can not start a car if you have not battery, but the battery is recharged by the car itself.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.83.35.204 (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are completely missing the point. The "something that can be produced by the car itself", isn't "produced by the car", its put into the car, (into the genepax device) and the cost in energy to produce the stuff that goes into it exceeds the energy that can be won from the splitting of water into oxygen and hydrogen, where the oxiggen is bound with the stuff inside the genepax device, and "uses it up", then using the hydrogen to combine again with oxigen in a process that generates energy and water. There is no break of thermodynamics law in that case, because you put energy into the system when you generate "the stuff". The clue is that Genepax denies the existance of "the stuff", and that there is nothing that is used up, and that in essence the energy needed to split the water into oxigine and hydrogine is created out of nothing. Mahjongg (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's pretty simple - water is an ash - it's hydrogen which has been burnt. You can't burn it again to make more energy. You have to 'unburn' it first by breaking apart the hydrogen and oxygen atoms but this takes at least as much energy as is released by reburning the hydrogen produced. --212.136.106.126 (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To 147.83.35.204: your concepts are wrong because your fundamentals are wrong. We nowadays understand that "fire" is not an element element as was thought thousands of years ago. Your equations should rather be as follow:

petrol + oxygen + a little energy (spark from the plug) -> carbon dioxide + water + a lot of energy (huge increase in pressure and temperature)


 * The excess of energy is used to push the pistons to have the engine running, to turn an alternator, to power the spark plug, but also to charge the battery (and power the radio, and the wipers, and the fan, and the cigarette lighter, etc.). What remains after all that, and it's still a lot of energy, is eventually used to move the wheels.


 * Your second (and third) equation should be like this:

water + energy 1 -> hydrogen + oxygen hydrogen + oxygen -> water + energy 2


 * There isn't any possible energy left over from such a system as energy 1 = energy 2. The only way to apparently get around this impossibility is to cheat people into thinking that energy 1 does not exist or that it is very small compared to energy 2. In all hoaxes (including Genepax) energy 1 is somehow hidden or its importance minimized, for example by not clearly stating that the "catalyser" has to be renewed occasionally, and that the energy required to generate it is actually much higher than energy 2, the one that could turn the wheels.


 * I hope this helps. Sophos II (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is it breaks down water into hydrogen on the fly using some kind of catalyst.... debunkers are saying the energy needed to make this catalyst exceeds the energy produced during its full use in the fuel cell- its a complete guess by them. Say it lasts 5 years before needing to be replaced with a car usage of say 150K miles, so it takes more energy to make the catalyst than move a car that distance, yeah right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.182.199 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If the "catalyst" is a metal hydride that "breaks down water into hydrogen" you would need to replace a few ounces of it per mile, precisely because that "catalyst" is the real fuel, the source of the energy. Do the maths over 150,000 miles if you wish, the strength of the physics doesn't suffer with distance... By the way, "making fuel with just water and a catalyst" in such a way is a very old trick: calcium carbide was discovered more than a century ago: http://acswebcontent.acs.org/landmarks/landmarks/cal/index.html. Sophos II (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Which of course would make it no longer be a catalyst. From the article catalyst: What makes a catalyst different from a chemical reagent is that whilst it participates in the reaction, it is not consumed in the reaction. - in calcium carbide reactions, the calcium carbide is NOT a catalyst - it's a fuel.  If Genepax are indeed consuming the metal hydride then they shouldn't be calling it a "catalyst" either...it's the fuel. (Which is the only possible chemical pathway - and strongly implied by Genepax's statement that this is merely a well-known technology that they've improved upon).  I'm not guessing when I say that the energy required to make the metal hydride exceeds the energy that genepax will extract from it - I'm using the super-reliable physics principle of the first law of thermodynamics.


 * Broadly speaking, what the laws of thermodynamics say is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch - and Genepax are claiming that their car is free lunches all the way. Hence it can't work - period.  We don't even need to know or debate the details.  Water cannot be a fuel because it's chemical energy is already gone. SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To 147.83.35.204: Put simply, where your analogy with a gasoline powered car breaks down is that what comes out of the tailpipe of a gas powered car is not gasoline. What the Genepax car produces is water - which they presumably dump back into the tank. A car that's fuelled by its own exhaust is a perpetual motion machine - and those simply cannot exist. SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully 147.83.xxx.xxx is straightened out now, but I can't resist taking a stab at making this a little clearer:
 * 1. For a regular gasoline burning car, the overall chemical (unbalanced) reaction describing how it works is:
 * "Gasoline + O2 → H2O + CO2 + Energy"
 * 2. Genepax seems to be claiming that they "catalytically" split water into H2 and O2 and then burn this in a fuel cell. The balanced chemical reactions describing this would be:
 * "2H2O + Energy1 → 2H2 + O2 (splitting water step)"
 * "2H2 + 2O2 → 2H2O + Energy2 (fuel cell step)"
 * Overall, the net reaction is therefore: 2H2O + Energy1 → 2H2O + Energy2
 * Which of course reduces to Energy1 → Energy2. For the car to run, Energy2 would have to be greater than Energy1, which would violate the first law of thermodynamics: You can't get something for nothing.
 * 3. What's really seems to be happening in the car is that a metal hydride is being used. Here's how it shakes out:
 * "MH + H2O → MOH + H2 + energy1     (step 1)"
 * "H2 + ½O2 → H2O + energy2     (step 2)"
 * Overall
 * "MH + ½O2 → MOH + energy1 + energy2    (net)"
 * And that's very possible, very exothermic, and very much a hydride power car.Yilloslime (t) 20:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm no chemist - is it possible to estimate the amount of hydrogen - and therefore the amount of energy - you'd get from (say) a kilogram of a suitable metal hydride reacted with water?  I'm trying to get a feel for how much hydride they'd have to carry to get their claimed 80km range.  I kinda suspect that it's more than they could reasonably store in that ~50cm cube we see in the videos...but it would be interesting to know for sure.  If it's possible to go 80km on that much hydride then they may be merely claiming that they are "having trouble perfecting techniques for stabilising the catalyst" or something equally feeble (yet convincing to investors and courts of law) - but if there is no way for that much hydride to drive a car that far then we have to assume (as seems likely) that the car is actually being driven using it's on-board batteries which would be a much more damning condemnation of their supposed technology.  It's just to satisfy my curiosity though - I don't think this belongs in the article. SteveBaker (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's theoretically possible. You would need to know the Heats of Formation (ΔHf) of the metal hydride and the hydroxide product. You should be able to find these numbers on the internets if you use the google. Assuming the hydride is sodium hydride (NaH), the product would be sodium hydroxide, and the energy released by the reaction NaH + ½O2 → NaOH would be approximately equal to [ΔHf(NaOH) - ΔHf(NaH)]. That number, which should be negative, represents the amount energy released by the reaction (under standard conditions), and its absolute value is the maximum amount of energy that would be possible to extract from the system. Of course, the whole hydride to wheels spinning energy transfer is not 100% efficient, so there would actually be somewhat less energy available to run the car. Exactly hwo much that value should be attenuated, I don't know. Maybe someone with an engineering background can help you out with that part.  Yilloslime (t) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum. You are probably ending up with aqueous sodium hydroxide, not solid sodium hydroxide, so that theoretically gives you a little more energy (although that energy is probably in the form of heat, and thus not readily available to do the work of powering the car.) Anyways, that extra energy is approximately equal to: [ΔHf(NaOHaq) - [ΔHf(NaOHs)] if I'm remembering my chemistry correctly. Yilloslime (t) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum to the addendum. You actually asked a simpler question than I originally thought. If all you want to know is the amount of H2 you'd get from a certain amount of hydride, that's pretty easy. If it's a simple hydride like NaH or CaH2, you get one mole of H2 from each mole equivalent of hydride (with the other H in H2 coming from the water). So with densities and molecular weights it should be easy to figure out. Assuming CaH2 (d = 1.90 g/cm3; MW = 42.094 g/mole), 1 kg would take up a volume of 526 cm3 and release 47.52 moles of H2. This amount of hydrogen would weigh 95.78 grams and take up a volume of ~1064 L at standard temperature and pressure (i.e. 0 °C and atmospheric pressure). 1064 liters sounds like a big volume, but it's actually just over one cubic meter. Yilloslime (t) 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal.
Now that the kerfuffle about Genepax's in the press has died down, I'm proposing to merge what little of this article we need into Water-fuelled car and to delete the rest. Please join the discussion at Talk:Water-fuelled_car. Do not confuse things by discussing it here. Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

stop editing
I haven't been able too find any specifics on the components of the car or whether it is combustion or electric because the company hasn't revealled that at all so why doesn't everyone stop talking about fuel cell ratings that nobody knows anything about and stop quoting thermodynamics. Recycling water from the exhaust would add several levels of complexity and also whatever the weight of the system would be to the car. It may not be practicle. Just everyone shut up and stop refering to all of the different methods of using hydrogen as power as if they are deffinetly what is being used by the car. also don't cite pages that are not in english. You cant use citation that nobody can understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsugo (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently most of the human population (those who do not speak english) are 'nobody'. I suspect the problem lies in someone not reading the reports which are availble in english. In the demonstration, the device is shown in the car.  In various reports such as reference number 2, the details you've missed are apparent. The device is described as containing an MAE and fuel cell.--Suraky (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Itsugo: Your post is offensive and wrong in absolutely every respect:
 * Just because you were unable to find anything useful doesn't mean that nobody else can - and it certainly doesn't give you the right to demand that we stop editing!
 * It doesn't matter whether Genepax actually DO recycle the water - only that in principle they COULD.
 * We're talking about hydrogen as an intermediary because Genepax actually SAID that it produces hydrogen from the water using a metal hydride catalyst.
 * WP:CITE says: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate..
 * SteveBaker (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WHERE THE ENERGY IS
This is an old idea that has been around for a long time. Hydrogen generator United States Patent 4543246 This car gets its energy from aluminum not water. The aluminum combines with water to produce hydrogen and aluminum oxide. The aluminum oxide is converted back to aluminum using a great deal of electrical energy in an aluminum plant. This is just a way to store energy in a car like a battery. The energy content of aluminum is much higher than gasoline. The formula is as follows minus the gallium to perform the reaction. 2Al +3H2O = 3H2 + Al2O3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.73.238 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

MERGE COMPLETE.
This article has been merged into Water-fuelled car.

Please carry out any remaining discussion on Talk:Water-fuelled car.

Genepax news referrences
Here is some, this is all from the Google news servers. I have backups in case some of the links stop working.


 * How to Run Your Car on Water - Truth About Water-Powered Car, Water Fuel - Popular Mechanics
 * Genepax Unveils First Water Car
 * Finally, a car that runs on water!
 * Follow-up - Genepax President Interviewed on 'Water Energy System' -- Tech-On!
 * Petrol pricey? Japanese invent car that runs on water | Lifestyle | Reuters
 * Genepax unveils water energy fuel cell system - Fuel Cell Today
 * Gas Crisis: Genepax Unveils a Car That Runs on Water and Air
 * Japanese company creates eco-friendly car that uses water as fuel!- International Business-News-The Economic Times
 * Denver Green Living Examiner - How Dasani, Fuji and Evian will replace Exxon, BP and Shell - Examiner.com
 * Japanese company unveils water fueled car
 * Water Your Car and Go?
 * Epoch Times | Japanese Firm Tests Water-Powered Car
 * Water-fueled car: too good to be true? | Cleantech.com
 * Car That Walks - Make That "Runs" - on Water? Japanese Company Making the Claim
 * New Fuel Cell System 'Generates Electricity with Only Water, Air' -- Tech-On!
 * euronews | Sales of new cars in Europe hurting
 * Michael Graham Richard: Water-Powered Cars: Possible or Impossible? - Green on The Huffington Post
 * CityNews: Japanese Firm Demonstrates Car That Runs On Water
 * Water-Powered Car Demonstrated in Japan (Video)
 * Water-powered car hits the streets
 * Business Intelligence Middle East - bi-me.com - Race hots up to commercially produce the first car running on ordinary tap water - News, analysis, reports
 * The Daily Sprout « Earth2Tech
 * Electric cars plug in to Washington - MarketWatch
 * Genepax shows off water-powered fuel cell vehicle - Engadget

There also is slashdotting.
 * Slashdot | Japanese Company Says Laws of Physics Don't Apply — to Cars

And skeptics with the readers digest reasoning. Friday the 13th, pipe dream, to good to be true etc


 * Water-Fueled Car Too Good To Be True? - Green on The Huffington Post
 * Going Postal: Friday the 13th not unlucky, a cat's odd friend, a car that runs on water - Posted
 * Water-Powered Car a Pipe Dream | RiverWired

This clearly indicates there is note worthy controversy. I recently learn the controversy is important, it should be described in the lead per wp:lead but it should have as much sources as possible to indicate there is any.

Gdewilde (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please wait until people have commented here agreeing with you before you restore the page. You can do a WP:RFC, and perhaps dropping a note on the talkpage of water-fuelled car might help. I don't think we need to restore the page. II  | (t - c) 03:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep - the actual discussion was carried out on the water-fuelled car page (there was a prominent note to that effect on this talk page also). You can check the discussion there.  The decision was 100% unanimous. SteveBaker (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Everything that needs to be said about Genepax is covered in water-fuelled car. Notability is not temporary. If this story sticks around, or if the company sticks around and ends up in the news again and again, perhaps because they prove the thing actually works (unlikely) or because they get sued (more likely) or maybe they come out with more (notable) products, then this article could be recreated. But for now, the notable stuff is handled just fine in water-fuelled car. Yilloslime (t) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio.
The website: http://go-here.nl has an almost verbatim copy of the last version of the Genepax article before we turned it into a redirect - since the terms of the GFDL have not been honored, that makes this a copyright violation. Those who have been following events recently may recall that this website is owned by a fellow Wikipedian who REALLY ought to know better. If you contributed to the article, it is YOUR copyright that's being infringed. SteveBaker (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)