Violating the laws of physics on national television

VivaPakistan

MPA (400+ posts)




Violating the laws of physics on national television


By Amer Iqbal (The writer is a theoretical physicist with a doctorate from MIT. He is an associate professor of physics and mathematics at LUMS)

Just a few weeks ago, the discovery of a new particle was celebrated by physicists the world over. The properties of this new particle are being studied and many expect it to be the Higgs boson predicted by the Salam-Weinberg Electroweak theory. If confirmed as the Higgs Boson, it provides for the completion of the standard model of particle physics. The standard model is the culmination of 100 years of particle physics, which began with the discovery of the electron in 1897. This theory predicts with extreme precision — in some cases one part in 100 billion — the properties and interactions of all the fundamental particles and is one of the two foundation stones of modern theoretical physics, the other being Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Once again, our understanding of the basic laws of physics was confirmed by the discovery at the Large Hadron Collider(LHC), an experiment 10 years in the making.

The basic principles on which entire physics rests, include the laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. The discovery of new particles in accelerators, such as the LHC, rests on the premise that the conservation laws of energy and momentum hold and this has been confirmed to extreme precision.
Thus, it would be utterly impossible to see a violation of this law in everyday events or even at an atomic scale. However, this is exactly what is being claimed by an engineer from Khairpur, Agha Waqar Ahmad. For the last few weeks, he has appeared in many TV programmes on national channels claiming to have developed a device, which allows a car to run on water. Apparently the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (PCSIR) has confirmed his claims as indicated by the statements of the PCSIR Chairman, Dr Shaukat Pervaiz, in the programme “Capital Talk” (July 31).
The basic idea behind the Khairpur device is not new and has been shown not to work. Here is what Agha Waqar is proposing: electrical energy, from the battery, electrolyses water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen; the hydrogen is then burned in the engine thus recombining with oxygen to produce water, while producing heat and mechanical energy to run the car. Part of this mechanical energy is used to run the alternator to charge the battery. To put it simply, the battery runs the car and charges itself. This is absurd and impossible!
The absurdity of the Khairpur device can be understood by drawing an analogy with another similar mechanism. Consider the following argument. Electricity can be used to run a car and electricity can be produced by using a wind turbine. Given these two facts does it make sense to install a wind turbine on the roof of an electric car? The flow of air due to car cruising at some speed rotates the turbine and turbine provides electricity, which allows the car to keep on cruising. Or how about an electric pump, which pumps water into a reservoir at a certain height so that when water flows down from the reservoir, it rotates a turbine, which generates electricity for the pump? What is being proposed by Agha Waqar is as absurd as the contraptions mentioned in the above thought experiments. Such hypothetical devices are known as perpetual motion machines and their existence violates basic laws of physics.
Scientific frauds are not rare and several have been able to carry on for a long time because of their sophisticated nature, but the way an ordinary engineer has been able to do it on national TV for several weeks, with scientific institutions such as the PCSIR backing him, is mindboggling. If nothing else, it demonstrates the incompetence of people running these institutions. The PCSIR chairman appeared in two different programmes (“Kyun” and “Capital Talk”) and it was clear from his statements on both programmes that he had no clue what the underlying issue with the Khairpur device is, his only “research” on the topic being the a printout about hydrogen fuel cells from the website http://www.howstuffworks.com. I hope when in coming days this claim is found to be fraudulent, the PCSIR chairman will have the decency to resign from his post. It was sad to see Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan and Dr Samar Mubarakmand display their lack of understanding of basic physics and history of scientific development on national TV channels. However, Dr Attaur Rehman’s comments and his attempt to teach Agha Waqar Ahmad some basic physics were admirable.
Groundbreaking claims require a high level of proof. It is not clear why the producers of “Capital Talk” did not ask a team of scientists, well-versed in the area, to test the claims before presenting it to the world. Contrary to the claims of minister for religious affais, Khursheed Shah (“Capital Talk”, July 30), no LUMS faculty member has seen or approved the Khairpur device as far as I know. It is not surprising that ‘water as fuel’ claims appear every few weeks on national TV since such fraudulent claims are not properly vetted and the potential payoff is huge.
Experiments sometime do contradict prevailing theoretical models. One famous example of this is the experiment determining the energy emitted, at a certain wavelength, by a black body. A black body is an object that absorbs all light that falls on it and hence appears black; it is also a perfect emitter. The results of this experiment were not in agreement with theoretical understanding of the black body radiation at that time. The reconciliation of observation and theory marked the beginning of quantum theory. However, what needs to be understood is that the new theory encompasses the old one and extends it. It is not usually the case that the old theory turns out to be completely wrong. For example, Newton’s theory of universal gravitation works very well if we would like to calculate the trajectory of, say, a cricket ball. But we know that Newton’s theory is not correct, the correct theory being Einstein’s general theory of relativity. We can still use Newton’s theory since the deviations from it are extremely tiny and become significant only when the gravity is strong such as near a black hole or when we want extreme precision such as for global positioning system.
The utter lack of scepticism regarding such claims is sad not only because it shows poor understanding of basic science by people apparently running ‘scientific’ institutions and those, who have been eulogised by folklore in this country for ‘their achievements’, but also shows how desperate we are to believe that Pakistanis can also do something extraordinary. The desperation to believe in ourselves as a nation possibly stems from an utter failure in sciences, while scientific and technological progress by others keeps on gathering pace and the gulf grows ever wider, likely to be unbridgeable by now.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 4[SUP]th[/SUP], 2012.


http://tribune.com.pk/story/417096/violating-the-laws-of-physics-on-national-television/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mrk123

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
What? its not goingo to work? Just when I figured out where I will put a bucket full of water in my car in preparation....
Damn! These MIT theoretical physicists raining on Agha Jaan's water parade!

By the way I loved hearing one of Mr. Agha's supporters on Talat's show saying that most of the ground breaking inventions and discoveries were made by "NON-PHDs"
 

awan4ever

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
What? its not goingo to work? Just when I figured out where I will put a bucket full of water in my car in preparation....
Damn! These MIT theoretical physicists raining on Agha Jaan's water parade!

By the way I loved hearing one of Mr. Agha's supporters on Talat's show saying that most of the ground breaking inventions and discoveries were made by "NON-PHDs"


That guy is some Sindhi journalist fighting the cause of 'Sindhi Science' and he is an idiot to boot.
 

salaudin

Senator (1k+ posts)
Here is what Agha Waqar is proposing: electrical energy, from the battery, electrolyses water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen; the hydrogen is then burned in the engine thus recombining with oxygen to produce water, while producing heat and mechanical energy to run the car. Part of this mechanical energy is used to run the alternator to charge the battery. To put it simply, the battery runs the car and charges itself. This is absurd and impossible!

Why is the author ignoring the lost water ??
When water is decomposed, it breaks into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is used as a fuel for engine. At exhaust, Hydrogen mixes with air to form water. The water at exhaust is not the same quantity that has been decomposed. Hence the conservation of energy still holds true in this case.

Just to clarify, I do not know if "water fuel" cars work of if Agha is right.
 

mrk123

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
That guy is some Sindhi journalist fighting the cause of 'Sindhi Science' and he is an idiot to boot.

Well, it would have been okay if that was the case - a journalist with no technical know how extolling the achievement of his Sindhi brother but it was a member of the national science foundation, Dr. Khalil ibupoto and thats the tragedy with us. Imagine the work being done at Pakistan Science foundation.
 

Believer12

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
ھم سارا وقت اس فضول سے فراڈ انجینئر پہ صرف کرنے کی بجاے کیوں نھیں سولر انرجی پر بات کرتے جسکا ھمیں بھت فائدہ ھے کیونکہ ھمارے ملکوں میں سورج کی شعاعیں بے حد چملکیلی اور طاقت ور ھیں نسبتاٌ یورپ کے ۔اسی لیے یہ لوگ اس کی ریسرچ پر زیادہ توجہ نھیں دے رھے۔ھمارے جعلی ساینسدان تو کچھ کریں گے نھیں سواے چوری کرنے کہ کچھ سیکھا ھی نھیں تو بھتر ھے کہ یورپ میں ریسرچ کرنے والے پاکستانی ھی اس فیلڈ میں کچھ کریں
 

awan4ever

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Well, it would have been okay if that was the case - a journalist with no technical know how extolling the achievement of his Sindhi brother but it was a member of the national science foundation, Dr. Khalil ibupoto and thats the tragedy with us. Imagine the work being done at Pakistan Science foundation.

All the government employed scientists in the P-XYZ organizations only wanted to be yes-men to keep the jubilant and stupid ministers happy. They didnt bother about science as long as minister sahib was having fun!
 

rfarooqi

Councller (250+ posts)
Why is the author ignoring the lost water ??
When water is decomposed, it breaks into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is used as a fuel for engine. At exhaust, Hydrogen mixes with air to form water. The water at exhaust is not the same quantity that has been decomposed. Hence the conservation of energy still holds true in this case.

Just to clarify, I do not know if "water fuel" cars work of if Agha is right.

Did you mention 'lost water' as a joke or were you serious? If it was serious then you are giving Agha Jaan credit for cold fusion. The holiest of holy grails in science ever. Period. Think about it.

I started out by calling Agha Jaan a fraud, but must confess he is sincere and not a fraud, just misguided and a very bad accountant. I believe he himself realizes now what the problem is in his method. And I sincerely hope he does no longer store the highly explosive mixture of HHO in a leaky setup stored in a 'tube' of a car tyre in the car he is driving. All those people who drove the car with him should pray and thank Allah to be still alive.

What he did was use Rs 3500 of electricity from a generator to break water in HHO at home, stored in a tyre tube, then used that HHO to run a car up to a distance which Rs 700 worth of petrol would have run. The missing link in his invention was his belief that he can somehow use the car battery to replenish the lost HHO while the car is running.
 

salaudin

Senator (1k+ posts)
Since I do not know the details of cold fusion, I would rather not comment on it. I would be grateful to you if you could explain it to me briefly. thanks in advance.

What he did was use Rs 3500 of electricity from a generator to break water in HHO at home, stored in a tyre tube, then used that HHO to run a car up to a distance which Rs 700 worth of petrol would have run. The missing link in his invention was his belief that he can somehow use the car battery to replenish the lost HHO while the car is running.

You could probably be right; I am neither challenging you nor calming that Agha's closed loop cycle has positive net power output. My concern was the missing link in the article. Let me summaries what I have understood of the "Water Fuel" concept (not necessarily what Agha did but the general concept).

1- Decompose water through electrolysis
2 - Use the mixture HHO as fuel (instead of CNG, Gasoline etc) in the ICE engine
3 - Using the car's alternator (attached to the shaft, axle etc) charge the battery (which generally is the case in cars)
Thing to be checked if it is possible to produce more electricity (point 3) than used to break water (point 1). The scientific community where people are trying to approach through "Conservation of Energy" would get stuck here.

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]How is the process violating the conservation of energy ? [/FONT]
[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]- Energy required to break water is not the same thing as the internal energy of HHO (or Hydrogen gas etc). [/FONT]
1- Energy required to break water + losses = energy required to bond the same amount back
2- Internal energy [KE and PE are assumed zero] in used Hydrogen = losses + work done on the piston
[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The amount of water retrieved at exhaust is not the same as the amount decomposed initially ? So far, I do not see any violation. If anyone can explain it to me, i would be convinced.[/FONT]

Water
 

sephirothvg

Voter (50+ posts)
Since I do not know the details of cold fusion, I would rather not comment on it. I would be grateful to you if you could explain it to me briefly. thanks in advance.



You could probably be right; I am neither challenging you nor calming that Agha's closed loop cycle has positive net power output. My concern was the missing link in the article. Let me summaries what I have understood of the "Water Fuel" concept (not necessarily what Agha did but the general concept).

1- Decompose water through electrolysis
2 - Use the mixture HHO as fuel (instead of CNG, Gasoline etc) in the ICE engine
3 - Using the car's alternator (attached to the shaft, axle etc) charge the battery (which generally is the case in cars)
Thing to be checked if it is possible to produce more electricity (point 3) than used to break water (point 1). The scientific community where people are trying to approach through "Conservation of Energy" would get stuck here.

How is the process violating the conservation of energy ?
- Energy required to break water is not the same thing as the internal energy of HHO (or Hydrogen gas etc).
1- Energy required to break water + losses = energy required to bond the same amount back
2- Internal energy [KE and PE are assumed zero] in used Hydrogen = losses + work done on the piston
The amount of water retrieved at exhaust is not the same as the amount decomposed initially ? So far, I do not see any violation. If anyone can explain it to me, i would be convinced.

Water

I dont know if i should facepalm myself or most of pakistan. Its idiots like you (trying to use 9th grade physics to decipher a complex dynamics problem) who support a complete quack like agha. There is NOTHING practical in the universe which runs with 100% efficiency because we are not in an isolated system (ever studied carnot engine? I bet you have, its in 11th grade physics book from what i remember). Energy is lost in surroundings when he makes HHO (or WHATEVER other thing from water), its lost in the engine, its lost even in the pipes hes using to transfer HHO to the engine so HOW can you expect him to run everything?
Im not even gonna bother anymore with you. Just go use google to find something scientific instead of po rn like you usually do....
 

smalltimepro

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
@salaudin
the writer has not missed anything, you are not thinking correctly about the process. Your assumption that water is being consumed in the process is incorrect and also inconsequential. If the system did not have any leakage, the amount of water broken up would be exactly the same as that coming out of the exhaust. There are other gaps in your current understanding. Let me list them out.
1. water is NOT a fuel. it is spent out fuel. similar to CO2 resulting from burning of fossil fuel. Water is the exhaust of burning hydrogen.
2. You wrote "
Hydrogen is used as a fuel for engine. At exhaust, Hydrogen mixes with air to form water". This is incorrect. If hydrogen is used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine, the hydrogen burns out in the chamber and resulting in water that is pushed out from the chamber out towards the exhaust. Hydrogen DOES NOT mix with air to form water. As stated above, it burns (i.e. oxidizes) to produce water.

Now coming to your question of conservation of energy. In simple words. The output of a closed machine CANNOT be greater than the input. From a theoretical perspective a machine is a device that converts one form of energy into another. Now let us examine Mr. Agha's claim in that light and what is wrong about it. To simplify it, i will break down the overall process into smaller part. And then join them up to show the fallacy of his argument.
For each part the output energy cannot exceed the input. keep that in mind.

PART 1 : Producing the Fuel
Inputs : Electricity (assume it to be equivalent 'E' Joules)
Output : Hydrogen(chemically stored energy as fuel assume to be 'H' + heat (produced in electrolysis assume as J)

Theoretically E = H + J

Now if we were to assume a perfect machine. i.e. efficiency of 1. then,
E = H

This however is not possible. The highest every achieved efficiency in electrolysis is about 0.7. Even theoretically it cannot exceed 0.9. Give full benefit of doubt to the man, lets say Mr. Agha performed a miracle in his water filter bottle and achieved 0.9 efficiency. Then

Input = E
Output Part 1 (H) = 0.9E

PART 2. The Internal Combustion Engine
The output of part 1 is now fed into part 2 as an input. So,
Input : Hydrogen gas as fuel with energy equivalent 0.9E
Output : Kinetic energy as movement of Piston assume as K + Heat + unburnt fuel

Now the efficiency of a normal Suzuki car engine on Petrol is around 0.4 at best. An old car would be worse. Hydrogen burns more efficiently, but can do nothing about friction and heat losses. We will again error in Mr. Agha's favor and assume that his old car was working at 0.5 efficiency. There we come with the following equation

Output (K) = 0.5 of Input (H)
K = 0.5H
Since H=0.9E from Part 1
K = 0.45E

Part 3. Feed back to the battery.
The Kinetic energy in movement of the piston is converted into kinetic energy of the car. Hence creating movement. Some of that energy is redirected to spinning an alternator which generates some electricity to recharge the battery. Do not forget that it takes energy to make the alternator spin, it doesn't just spin for free. In a normal car not more than 3-5% of the engine output makes its way to the alternator. So the electricity charge back into the battery is about
R (energy equivalent of battery recharge) = 0.05K

Since K = 0.45E
R = 0.05(0.45E) = 0.0225E

Recharge = 2.2% of electricity spent in electrolysis. With a 98% loss of spent charge on each cycle, how long do you expect the battery to last. According to Mr. Agha's claim batter recharge is equal to or greater than what he is using.. so he is implying that

R >= E

Let us for the moment assume that to be true. And work our way back

Recharge(R) = Electricity Spent (E)

Since he is using a normal car and the amount alternator takes from output of the engine is undisturbed. R = 0.05K

0.05 Kinetic output of engine (K) = E
K = E/0.05
K = 20E

We have also established that K ~= 0.5H. This is the burning efficiency of hydrogen in a combustion engine and unless Agha is a God, he cannot change it. So,
0.5H = 20E
H = 20E/0.5
H = 40 E

This brings us back to part 1 where we stated that the maximum theoretical efficiency of electrolysis is 0.9. You cannot go beyond that even in theory because water heats up in the process and part of energy is lost to heat.

However Mr. Agha claims to have achieved an efficiency of 40 or 4,000%. i.e. his input was 1 Joules and Output was 40 Joules. If you have followed the whole argument, you would realize the magnitude of absurdity in his claim and why it is against the natural law of conservation of energy. Hope you are convinced.



 
Last edited:

VoteME

Minister (2k+ posts)
@salaudin
the writer has not missed anything, you are not thinking correctly about the process. Your assumption that water is being consumed in the process is incorrect and also inconsequential. If the system did not have any leakage, the amount of water broken up would be exactly the same as that coming out of the exhaust. There are other gaps in your current understanding. Let me list them out.
1. water is NOT a fuel. it is spent out fuel. similar to CO2 resulting from burning of fossil fuel. Water is the exhaust of burning hydrogen.
2. You wrote "
Hydrogen is used as a fuel for engine. At exhaust, Hydrogen mixes with air to form water". This is incorrect. If hydrogen is used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine, the hydrogen burns out in the chamber and resulting in water that is pushed out from the chamber out towards the exhaust. Hydrogen DOES NOT mix with air to form water. As stated above, it burns (i.e. oxidizes) to produce water.

Now coming to your question of conservation of energy. In simple words. The output of a closed machine CANNOT be greater than the input. From a theoretical perspective a machine is a device that converts one form of energy into another. Now let us examine Mr. Agha's claim in that light and what is wrong about it. To simplify it, i will break down the overall process into smaller part. And then join them up to show the fallacy of his argument.
For each part the output energy cannot exceed the input. keep that in mind.

PART 1 : Producing the Fuel
Inputs : Electricity (assume it to be equivalent 'E' Joules)
Output : Hydrogen(chemically stored energy as fuel assume to be 'H' + heat (produced in electrolysis assume as J)

Theoretically E = H + J

Now if we were to assume a perfect machine. i.e. efficiency of 1. then,
E = H

This however is not possible. The highest every achieved efficiency in electrolysis is about 0.7. Even theoretically it cannot exceed 0.9. Give full benefit of doubt to the man, lets say Mr. Agha performed a miracle in his water filter bottle and achieved 0.9 efficiency. Then

Input = E
Output Part 1 (H) = 0.9E

PART 2. The Internal Combustion Engine
The output of part 1 is now fed into part 2 as an input. So,
Input : Hydrogen gas as fuel with energy equivalent 0.9E
Output : Kinetic energy as movement of Piston assume as K + Heat + unburnt fuel

Now the efficiency of a normal Suzuki car engine on Petrol is around 0.4 at best. An old car would be worse. Hydrogen burns more efficiently, but can do nothing about friction and heat losses. We will again error in Mr. Agha's favor and assume that his old car was working at 0.5 efficiency. There we come with the following equation

Output (K) = 0.5 of Input (H)
K = 0.5H
Since H=0.9E from Part 1
K = 0.45E

Part 3. Feed back to the battery.
The Kinetic energy in movement of the piston is converted into kinetic energy of the car. Hence creating movement. Some of that energy is redirected to spinning an alternator which generates some electricity to recharge the battery. Do not forget that it takes energy to make the alternator spin, it doesn't just spin for free. In a normal car not more than 3-5% of the engine output makes its way to the alternator. So the electricity charge back into the battery is about
R (energy equivalent of battery recharge) = 0.05K

Since K = 0.45E
R = 0.05(0.45E) = 0.0225E

Recharge = 2.2% of electricity spent in electrolysis. With a 98% loss of spent charge on each cycle, how long do you expect the battery to last. According to Mr. Agha's claim batter recharge is equal to or greater than what he is using.. so he is implying that

R >= E

Let us for the moment assume that to be true. And work our way back

Recharge(R) = Electricity Spent (E)

Since he is using a normal car and the amount alternator takes from output of the engine is undisturbed. R = 0.05K

0.05 Kinetic output of engine (K) = E
K = E/0.05
K = 20E

We have also established that K ~= 0.5H. This is the burning efficiency of hydrogen in a combustion engine and unless Agha is a God, he cannot change it. So,
0.5H = 20E
H = 20E/0.5
H = 40 E

This brings us back to part 1 where we stated that the maximum theoretical efficiency of electrolysis is 0.9. You cannot go beyond that even in theory because water heats up in the process and part of energy is lost to heat.

However Mr. Agha claims to have achieved an efficiency of 40 or 4,000%. i.e. his input was 1 Joules and Output was 40 Joules. If you have followed the whole argument, you would realize the magnitude of absurdity in his claim and why it is against the natural law of conservation of energy. Hope you are convinced.




Abb agla parhne ki nobat nai karey ga, kahe ga summerize karo. Jub summary btao tou ye loog khte hain ye sahi nai explain karo isay. Me ne dekh ye bhaijaan aik endless cycle hai. Inhoon nai bus qasam kha li hai k Agha jiway jiway baki sarey jain bharrr mein.
 

salaudin

Senator (1k+ posts)
I dont know if i should facepalm myself or most of pakistan. Its idiots like you (trying to use 9th grade physics to decipher a complex dynamics problem) who support a complete quack like agha. There is NOTHING practical in the universe which runs with 100% efficiency because we are not in an isolated system (ever studied carnot engine? I bet you have, its in 11th grade physics book from what i remember). Energy is lost in surroundings when he makes HHO (or WHATEVER other thing from water), its lost in the engine, its lost even in the pipes hes using to transfer HHO to the engine so HOW can you expect him to run everything?
Im not even gonna bother anymore with you. Just go use google to find something scientific instead of po rn like you usually do....

Try making an effort to read FIRST BEFORE commenting. I clearly said that " I am neither challenging you nor calming that Agha's closed loop cycle has positive net power output."
Stop behaving like Khawaja Asif !!!

let me answer your "concerns"
- I am trying to use thermofluids
- I studied Carnot cycle in Thermodynamics 1, not in grade 11.
- It does not have to have 100% efficiency. An example of a similar 100% efficient system (which is not possible) would be as follows.
  • Break water using electrolysis
  • Send hydrogen through PEM fuel cell to break it further into electrons and proton
  • Connect the fuel cell to a load, say an Electrolyser, to break the same amount of water
- Energy is lost to the surrounding and no one is challenging it. You are mixing the "energy required to break water" with "energy stored in HHO (or hydrogen)".
- try answering/arguing with logic.
- Do not answer me and i do not even care. But if you decided to do so, do it in a decent way.
- Google is not a very good source on "something scientific" anyways. No wonder you lack so much of it. Try using "Science Direct", it might help you.
 

salaudin

Senator (1k+ posts)
@salaudin
the writer has not missed anything, you are not thinking correctly about the process. Your assumption that water is being consumed in the process is incorrect and also inconsequential. If the system did not have any leakage, the amount of water broken up would be exactly the same as that coming out of the exhaust. There are other gaps in your current understanding. Let me list them out.
1. water is NOT a fuel. it is spent out fuel. similar to CO2 resulting from burning of fossil fuel. Water is the exhaust of burning hydrogen.
2. You wrote "
Hydrogen is used as a fuel for engine. At exhaust, Hydrogen mixes with air to form water". This is incorrect. If hydrogen is used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine, the hydrogen burns out in the chamber and resulting in water that is pushed out from the chamber out towards the exhaust. Hydrogen DOES NOT mix with air to form water. As stated above, it burns (i.e. oxidizes) to produce water.

Now coming to your question of conservation of energy. In simple words. The output of a closed machine CANNOT be greater than the input. From a theoretical perspective a machine is a device that converts one form of energy into another. Now let us examine Mr. Agha's claim in that light and what is wrong about it. To simplify it, i will break down the overall process into smaller part. And then join them up to show the fallacy of his argument.
For each part the output energy cannot exceed the input. keep that in mind.

PART 1 : Producing the Fuel
Inputs : Electricity (assume it to be equivalent 'E' Joules)
Output : Hydrogen(chemically stored energy as fuel assume to be 'H' + heat (produced in electrolysis assume as J)

Theoretically E = H + J

Now if we were to assume a perfect machine. i.e. efficiency of 1. then,
E = H



Thank you for the explanation. I do not support Agha's claim nor can I refute it. I am trying to understand the system and WHY it would be impossible. Claims of it being "possible" are no doubt weak but I must add the arguments of it being wrong, are dull too.
Few comments,
- I know water is not used as a fuel in ICE, it is either Hydrogen or HHO (whatever it exactly is)
- By exhaust, I meant exhaust of the piston-cylinder assembly, not the exhaust cylinder. Sorry for the confusion !
- All of hydrogen would not react with Oxygen hence the exit water /= as water broken.
- (bold) That part is not very convincing for me. But before making any claims, let me crosscheck and comeback on this.
 
Last edited:

Pak1stani

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
What about Nuclear chain reaction?

Try making an effort to read FIRST BEFORE commenting. I clearly said that " I am neither challenging you nor calming that Agha's closed loop cycle has positive net power output."
Stop behaving like Khawaja Asif !!!

let me answer your "concerns"
- I am trying to use thermofluids
- I studied Carnot cycle in Thermodynamics 1, not in grade 11.
- It does not have to have 100% efficiency. An example of a similar 100% efficient system (which is not possible) would be as follows.
  • Break water using electrolysis
  • Send hydrogen through PEM fuel cell to break it further into electrons and proton
  • Connect the fuel cell to a load, say an Electrolyser, to break the same amount of water
- Energy is lost to the surrounding and no one is challenging it. You are mixing the "energy required to break water" with "energy stored in HHO (or hydrogen)".
- try answering/arguing with logic.
- Do not answer me and i do not even care. But if you decided to do so, do it in a decent way.
- Google is not a very good source on "something scientific" anyways. No wonder you lack so much of it. Try using "Science Direct", it might help you.
 

cofcol

Councller (250+ posts)
You have a valid point Saladin. Its like saying the amount of energy in getting gasoline from crude petrol is the same as getting the enery from burning gasoline.

But in case Mr. Aga's design he is using battery constantly to produce HH2 as a fuel. where as is in case of gasoline battery is only used to start the engine. In car engine running on gasoline battery is not constantly used to run engine. The recharge of battery thru dynamo is very little just to keep the battery alive.

The real problem is that spliting water to get HH2 is more expensive than the price of gasoline.

People are mixing thermodynamics with economics.
 

laalaobulbul

Politcal Worker (100+ posts)
I am 100% convinced it is not a fraud. In fact Agha Waqar is such a fool that he even doesn't know what he is doing and whatever he is doing what is behind that. The civilized word for Agha G is intellectually confused, and common sense says he has be-fooled himself by claiming what he himself doesn't know.Time to embrace we as a nation is so far behind in serious scientific research and our media persons are so dumb/pathetic that they are fooled by a Maha fool AGHA WAQAR.
 

Back
Top