I'm always looking for leads to good stories. Also stories that the mainstream ignores. For instance, the reason the Russians stand by Assad in Syria may be because there are 50,000 Russians in the country, many of them brides of Syrian students who studied in Russia. If Assad's secular government goes, it may be replaced by Islamists, and that could be tough on those Russian wives. But to a happier story:
The NEw York Times had a piece about a car that runs on water, and I sent this to my editor at Northern Express:
MS#1677watercar/672
words
August 7, 2012
Reply
to:
Harley
L. Sachs
Apt. 328
2545 SW Terwilliger Blvd.
Portland, OR 97201
503
299 4328
A Car Powered by Water?!
a column by
Harley L. Sachs
Imagine
running your car on DiHydrogen Oxide, or HHO, commonly known as water. The
theory of HHO gas is that water is broken down into its two gassy components,
hydrogen and oxygen. When those ignite they produce a huge amount of heat
energy. In my chemistry class Professor Schmidt brought out a balloon filled
with two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Using a long pole with a gas flame
at the end, he touched the balloon. The loud explosion was so powerful it
knocked the chalk off the blackboard.
So
what if that energy could be harnessed in an automobile engine? . "HHO
gas" got its name from physicist[ Ruggero Santilli, who claimed that his HHO gas was
"a new form of water". Historically, HHO gas has worked for torches
used in working with platinum and other uses requiring small quantities. The
lime light once used in theaters used HHO but was discarded as too dangerous. For torches or limelight, yes, but the
quantities produced by electrolysis of water into its component gasses is too
small to run a car engine.
Nonetheless,
as reported in the New York Times and other newspapers, a Pakistani engineer
Waqar Ahmad claims to have done it and demonstrated his water-powered car to parliament.
“By the grace of Allah, I have managed to make a formula that converts less
voltage into more energy,” the professed inventor, Agha Waqar Ahmad, is quoted
as saying. The inventor got a degree in physics but is currently an unemployed
policeman.
He
attaches a kit to an ordinary car engine to make the conversion.
It’s
true that you can run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen, but that is a
different critter. That hydrogen wasn’t generated in a kit attached to an
ordinary engine with a tank of water.
After
seeing Ahmad’s demonstration, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the country’s nuclear weapons program told a television reporter “I have
investigated the matter, and there is no fraud involved.”
It’s taken seriously by Pakistanis but
debunked by scientists around the world. Agha Ahmad doesn’t care. He says he
ran his Suzuki for 250 miles on 10
liters of water.
If
this is a hoax, it won’t be the first. A person called Ramar Pillai once claimed to convert water to fuel and
persuaded the Prime Minister, but turned
out to be a hoax.
The
story emerges at a time when Pakistan is desperate for energy, a time that seems to
correspond to what the British call the silly season. The news has precipitated
a howl of laughter from doubters who say it’s a hoax and impossible. In that
spirit, someone produced a fake video of a cleric who said he had a car that
runs on “pious deeds.”
Such
chaos is apparently typical in Pakistan where there’s been a flood of people with dubious
college degrees ever since it was announced that all parliamentarians had to
have degrees. It’s further complicated because of the conflicts between
religious parties. Pakistan’s genuine Nobel laureate, for instance, was virtually
ignored because he belonged to a minority sect. That kind of prejudice is not
unknown in the United States, too.
Politics
and religion aside, the scientific reason for the skepticism is that though the
burning of hydrogen produces a lot of energy, electrolysis to extract the
gasses in the first place takes even more energy than it puts out. It reminds
me of the hypothetical hydrosphere which I reported on in this paper some time
ago. That, if it worked, would have been a perpetual motion machine.
Any
high school physics student can figure out that you can’t get more energy out
than you put in. Even an electrical transformer is less than 100% efficient and
it has no moving parts with energy sapping friction. It is amazing that the
story of a car that runs on water would be so widely reported and turn up in
the New York Times, presumably without tongue in cheek.
What
next? Heavier than air vehicles that fly? Duh.