Man Who Was Working On A Car That Runs
On Water Was One Of The Victims Killed
By Buffalo Mass Shooter (Video)

We already had people who built cars with a water fuel or magnetic cars......but they all died in accidents a short time after they tried to mass-produce these cars!

"A car that runs on water".....then he was a nutcase. Didn't deserve to die, but he was wasting his time.

So OP ... Are you saying that the moron shooter was working for the government to take this ":inventor" out ?

Yeah, and the "200 mpg carburetor" guy was probably shot, too. Non-tech folks want to believe in these ridiculous fantasies, and don't know enough to see that they are impossible. And I'm sure the retort will be something like "you would have poo-pooed Edison making the light bulb, too, I'm sure". No, that was possible. Some things are not possible, and at this stage of understanding technology, it is possible to sort them into rough categories. Water powered car.....impossible, unless you have a nuclear fusion reactor, and he doesn't The CHEMICAL energy (like gasoline has chemical energy) is very, very low. Ever see any water catch fire? Gee, I wonder why? Because it is ALREADY burned.....hydrogen and water burns to form water, and then it is at it's lowest chemical energy state. Nothing there. You can ADD ENERGY.....from where??? and split it into hydrogen and water, then burn or react in a fuel cell and get a fraction of the energy you put into it back.....but that is a storage system, not "runs on water", and not a very good one. Used in the Apollo moon landings....hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells, and a few cars have been made with them, too. Ultra expensive and KEY point....hydrogen is NOT a fuel. You cannot got somewhere and "get it", you can only MAKE it at the cost of a lot of energy. Not a fuel, an energy storage medium....and an inconvenient one.

#4 posted what I came here to say in a much more complete way than I would have. There are two ways to use water to get power. Both methods involve splitting the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, an energy intensive operation. Then you can either use a fusion reaction to turn the hydrogen into helium (or a heavier element), or you can burn the hydrogen by combining it with oxygen to make water. So far, mankind has only succeeded on the first by adding more energy to the hydrogen than it releases when it forms helium or by creating an explosion (hydrogen bomb). The second releases less energy than that required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen in the first place.

Actually, it's not a new idea, though his approach me be unique. It does make you wonder, though, doesn't it? Having a working, efficient water fueled engine would also put all these liberal plans for solar and wind out the window, too. Could you imagine, not a car engine, but a commercial power plant run off this system? Put even the fossil fuel and nuclear companies on the bread line!

Tragic loss, but not for the water car thing. Even if he got there he's over 120 years too late. Stanley Motor Carriage Company beat him to it.

Oh puleeze....There is no latent energy in water. You can create steam or hydrogen from it, but it requires an external source of energy. The Stanley Steamer used kerosene or gasoline to heat the water to steam.

#8 That... much like anyone who thinks you can use water for fuel... was a Joke. :-)

Oh wait, the Stanley Steamer was already invented - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Stanley_steam_car.jpg

Turns out he was taking a bath and made motor boat sounds. Turns out to have been a euphemism.

I spent a few years of part time (government funded) 'assisting' individual inventors with their inventions for the Small Business Administration. Mostly this was writing, clear, concise, and non-rude technical explanations why you can't make their crackpot ideas for "new energy sources" work. Not insulting them was important, just stick to the technical reasons that it may be "problematic". For example....one was going to "harness the energy of buoyancy" with an endless chain of hollow tanks, which would go to the bottom of a large body of water....and then they would rise up because they were buoyant....pulling the chain around a sprocket at the bottom. So, one line of tanks going down, another coming up due to their buoyancy, and endless chain going down and up. The rising tanks pull the chain wrapped on a sprocket which is collected to a generator.....VIOLA! Energy from buoyancy. Except that the energy required to haul them DOWN was the same as the energy that you got back....less water friction and the friction between the chain and the sprocket and the energy lost in the bearings. Not a power source at all. I did about 8 or 9 of these "technical reviews" and 100% were nonsensical stuff by people who understood so little physics that they couldn't grasp that they were way off track. First thing for a would-be inventor. Take HS physics and Chem, then college level physics, about two or three semesters would be good, and a couple of semesters of college chemistry. Get A's or B's in the courses, and really UNDERSTAND them. Then go off and work on your new ideas. Sadly, you'll find that the other 500,000,000 inventors before you were born have already tried out pretty much ALL of the ideas, and the ones we are USING are the ones that are feasible, and affordable....which means cheapest to make, most durable and most useful for our purposes. Like gasoline or diesel engines, or turbine engines. And NOT windmills and electric cars. Don't let that stop you, but do understand that this is like searching for gold nuggets in a farmer's field that has been plowed for the last 500 years. Just about certain that somebody has already found all that were there. But don't let us stop you. You might be the one.

The giveaways that point to this guy's "invention" requiring more energy to run than it generates: 1. he had to start the engine with another fuel (gasoline); 2. the large bank of batteries, none of which would be needed if the hydrogen from electrolysis were truly producing a net positive amount of energy. If the electrolysis process were actually producing a net gain of energy, then he would have needed only a single small battery to generate the first few cc's of hydrogen, after which the process should have been self-sustaining.

Re #13. The electrolysis is not 100% efficient, but even if you assume that it is....the spark ignition engine will turn about 30% of the energy in the hydrogen and oxygen into mechanical work. 70% is lost to waste heat due to friction, etc. At best, he recovers 30% of the energy that went into splitting the water. And since 100% of the energy put into the electrolysis is NOT in the chemical energy of the hydrogen and oxygen....it's worse than recovering 30%. Probably recovering 25% of what he started with. So, charge the batteries....get the system running and you'll go 1/4th as far as using the energy in the batteries to directly power the wheels. Oops.

#12 "not insulting", that one is beyond my skill set. Bravo. No one should graduate high school without understanding this. Actually, no one would be allowed INTO high school without understanding this.