I was just viewing trailers on Apple.com and I saw this. All I can say is wow.

Yea it's interesting

There's been several stories over the years of people who've created hybrid cars which run on water, none of which ever came to fruition, or

1) The patents are bought by oil companies or automotive companies, never to be heard of again
2) The creator gets threatened at gun point by people who know alot about him, his family and their movements, therefore effectively forcing him or her to scrap their design.

Sounds abit like a conspiracy theory, but it's happened a few times
Even the guy who recently featured on Fox news with a working car and blow torch which ran off water (electrolasis sp?) got threatened and I think he's done the same.

That has been the "rumor' for years... I am inclined to believe it in many cases. Since I am an "older' person... I recall when I was in High School the predictions and the promises of the Lasers and the clean energy automobiles, Etc. Even then strange things happened to cause the project to be dropped. *rolls eyes* After all, you can't make money on cars that run on sunlight.... at least not after the initial purchase...

Maybe they were doing it to preserve the job market...

Sorry for the scepticism... I believe they were/are protecting their own @r$$es, bonuses and cushy retirement funds.

You are probably right about that. Corporate self preservation, meh.

I'm not here to prove anyone wrong, however I would like to inform everyone here that a car operating solely on water is a sham.

Physics does not allow it to be a viable alternative fuel.

There is only one way a car could run off water as a fuel.

Yes by sending an electrical current through water you can split the molecule into it's bases, oxygen and hydrogen...

And yes burning hydrogen with oxygen does create heat and therefore an energy source.

However the ammount of electricity required to make one unit of useable fuel is exactly the same as the energy output of burning the fuel. That is assuming all else is equal and you harness the output of the fuel 100%... Even a greenpeacer's dream would really only allow for 70% harnessing of the energy "created"... The rest is lost as heat...

I put created in quotes because the laws of physics mandate that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms... Matter and radiation are the two types... Matter is mechanical energy and acutal matter... radiaiton is nuclear, heat, light, ect...

There was a scam years back where a doctor had a patent on a device that did the same thing... No one understood the concept and invested money... They were ripped off hard core...

Not trying to stir the pot, but there have been many alternative fuels researched and engines built which did not rely upon fossil fuels or create massive pollution. It is just like so many other things, in need of more research. But since the market has been willing to pay the fossil fuel costs in both money and environment, viable alternative fuels have been either squelched or dropped for lack of funding.

It sounds like your arguing against a "free energy source" rather than a "clean energy source." And I totally agree with you! No such thing as free energy.

The model that youve stated above is pretty much borked. It was built a nifty idea, but so were alot of other things that died quick deaths when they leapt of the drawing board and into practice.

What killed electric cars? The fact that we havent produced a more effecient battery nor a better photovoltaic cell (solar panel.)

Want to make untold millions? Make a battery thatll hold a huge charge.

OK, what I know about physics and things mechanical can fit in a thimble with room to spare, but.....

What about the old time steam boats and trains. They used coal to heat a furnace and create the steam to run the engine. What if, instead of using coal, a solar power sourse could be used?