What's new

Engineer to show demo of car that runs on water in Abu Dhabi

Coming from family with science roots (Dad nuclear scientist and mom a professor at local univ), my whole family is enjoying the comical phenomena. Uncle whos at the front row of physics at Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, West Bengal is dying out laughing. That day when I mailed him the report he was prompt to call me and trash 4 wasting his time and spamming but when explained the whole perspective of the man he could not stop laughing and went to become that days joke-of-the-day among his colleges !!

Though on serious notes he said " If he can disprove the laws of thermodynamics which he is saying to do, then as a far-fetching consequences of those laws even quantum physics would be crushed. Also the very same laws were proved at the basic level at CERN when it reported Higgs-Boson particle. So what dose he has to say about that ?? Conspiracy theory ... or we are doing something terribly wrong some where some how.... "
 
Around a decade back similar claim was made by a kerala guy. Which ultimately turned out to be false.
 
A Law Is A Law Until It Is No Longer A Law

What we are building up to is the fact that the law of gravity is called a "law" because, in billions and billions of observations, not once has any documented event occurred where two objects did not attract each other in precisely the way predicted (we now know that gravity may not behave exactly as Newton thought, but like Newton predicted, objects do attract one another in the sense that the theory of general relativity tells us that the gravitational effect "moves" objects toward one another). We can say with an absolutely incredible degree of statistical certainty that the gravitational "force" between two objects will always cause them to be attracted toward one another. At this point in time there is probably less than one chance in l,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 10 raised to the 1,000,000,000,000,000th power that gravity will not act essentially as expected. Yet, despite the incredible certainty of gravity, we do not and cannot know whether it is or is not possible for one contrary event to occur, and thus for the law of gravity to be proven wrong!

I am not suggesting the law of gravity is incorrect and that an event whereby it is proven wrong will ever occur. In fact I would be surprised if any of the basic scientific laws of the universe are fundamentally wrong. What I am saying is no matter how many times something has been observed to be true, no matter how incredibly unlikely it is an unexpected event will occur, we have no way of knowing if such an event is possible or impossible! If the unexpected event is not possible, it will never occur, and it will never be observed. If the event is possible, and if it does occur, then it has happened, period.

We must remember it is not the "law" which makes objects behave in a certain way, fundamental forces far beyond human comprehension do that. Rather the law describes the behavior and remains valid and true only until a single unexpected observation proves it wrong. Actually the law remains only apparently valid and true, if it is later proven wrong its former truth was an illusion. The law was in fact always false. "Modifying" a theory to better fit the observations does not help render the original theory true, rather it creates a new theory that is itself either true or false. Since scientific theories are tested by observation, they are true if and only if each and every event they describe and predict, from the beginning of the universe to the end, in fact occurs exactly as expected. Theories, no matter how solid they might seem, must be discarded as false the very first time they fail to describe real events.

Science is based on observation, formulation of theories, and more observation. To observe necessarily requires the ability to perceive - to sense, feel, smell, touch, taste, see, hear. Early humans used all their senses to explore the world around them. When human senses proved inadequate, they devised better and better tools and instruments to extend their range. Microscopes and telescopes to expand vision, stethoscopes and amplifiers to increase hearing, plus thousands of other sensitive devices to enhance the senses.

The catalog of devices used to expand our human senses is enormous and growing by the minute, yet all the instruments of humankind can do no more than extend the reach of humans into the universe of which they and their instruments are a part. We know of three spatial dimensions, height, width, depth, and a forth dimension, time (which may also prove to be spatial in nature). Space (height, width, depth), and “time” all exist together as space-time and cannot exist alone. Is there a fifth, a sixth, a seventh, an eighth dimension? No one knows, for if they exist they appear to be separate and beyond human ability to sense, measure, and thus scientifically prove.

Does that mean those dimensions do not exist, the answer is no. Mathematicians and physicists use formulas to describe sub-atomic phenomena (e.g. - string theory) that can be interpreted as happening in multidimensional space. If a fifth dimension exists, it exists. If a fifth dimension does not exist, it does not exist. This is true regardless whether we can, or never can, observe that dimension and, of course, is true for any sixth dimension, seventh dimension, eighth dimension, etc. It is important to realize that no matter how many dimensions are eventually observed, one or more additional dimensions may or may not exist beyond human ability to observe.

Many of you are saying to yourselves it is one thing to say that a dimension beyond human ability to observe may exist, but an entirely different thing to say that one probably does. You are right. Most of you will go on to say it is highly improbable, maybe less than one chance in a trillion, that even one more dimension exists beyond the observable number of dimensions, however many that may eventually prove to be. If you think that, you are wrong. To be able to statistically predict the likelihood of an event happening we must first observe to see how often the event occurs during a given period of time. If we cannot observe the event when it occurs, we cannot determine how often it happens (or conversely, does not happen) and we cannot predict the likelihood of the event.

One problem with recognizing the limitations of statistical analysis is understanding the difference between not observing an event where the event watched for can be observed, and not observing an event where the event cannot be observed because it is beyond human ability to sense. The first, not observing an event which could be seen, leads to the statistically valid conclusion that the event is unlikely to occur. The second, not observing an event which is beyond human ability to perceive, cannot lead to any conclusion at all about the reality of that event. Yet it appears to be human nature to assume that things which have never been observed do not exist, or at best are highly unlikely to exist.

If something exists beyond human perception it will never be observed during our physical lifetimes. If you cannot measure something because it is beyond human perception you cannot prove it exists, on the other hand you cannot prove that it does not exist! More importantly, you cannot say that it is statistically likely or unlikely that it exists. You simply cannot say anything objective at all about that which is beyond human ability to observe.

It is very, very important to realize that it is absolutely impossible to say that it is either likely or unlikely something exists beyond human observation. We simply cannot determine in any way the probability that something exists, or does not exist, beyond our observable universe. To understand the significance of this often overlooked statement is to understand that we have no idea what, if anything, lies beyond our cognitive boundaries.

A moments thought should bring the realization that this absolute limit of statistics and science renders all "scientific proof", as well as subjective feelings, that nothing exists beyond our perception into feeble "philosophic arguments". Despite what science might claim to have "proven", and despite what we might "feel", about what lies beyond our ability to observe, we cannot say anything objective about that which is beyond human perception. We may create mathematical models of what should lie somewhere just beyond observation, yet without a means of testing these projections they can never be more than idle speculation. We simply cannot say that it is likely, or not likely, that a "world" or "worlds" exist beyond the physical world in which we live. From an analytical standpoint anything, or nothing, may exist beyond human cognition.

Human beings are limited to observing the effects of fundamental forces on matter and energy, and must draw conclusions based only on such observations. We can never "view" the forces themselves, forces whose metaphysical existence and purpose transcend human observation and comprehension. One of the consequences of being only a small part of the universe in which we live is the absolute fact that, unless revealed to us by the whole, we can never know if something or someone exists beyond the limits of our senses. No one, not you nor I nor the smartest person on earth can determine whether or not anything exists beyond that which we can observe. It follows that we cannot know if someone or something beyond our ability to perceive can and will alter the laws which govern our world.

The significance of the continued possibility that an unexpected event will occur to disprove even the best of theories, and the very fact such a possibility will always exist, renders it impossible to "prove" anything to be absolutely true or false. Since even the most incredibly supported "laws" are always subject to being disproved by the happening of a single contrary event, all laws and theorems and common sense proofs are subject to being disproved. Fundamental precepts that apples fall, water flows, fire burns, may all be disproved by future events.

Our limitations not only prevent us from exploring that which is beyond human perception, but also add to all human observations a degree of uncertainty that cannot be overcome. We can never say with total certainty that anything is true, or for that matter, untrue. In this age of science it is hard for those who have not studied the scientific method in its most intricate details to understand that, because it is a tool of human beings, it is necessarily limited in its application by the limits of human comprehension and understanding.

It is even harder to accept that, since we are only a part of the whole universe, we can never determine by ourselves what the entire universe is like. A part of something never knows what the whole is like unless the whole makes itself known to the part. We can never know what is true unless the truth is revealed to us. Being a part of the whole means that every law we construct must be built from unprovable assumptions, assumptions that may or may not hold true in the future. We can never know if something or someone outside our perception, perhaps greater than the whole, will alter all or part of what we observe, rendering untrue in an instant the very best of our proofs.

Of course, if underlying forces do exist, are not changed, and require the predicted behavior, then the laws never can and never will be disproved. Apples will fall, water will flow, fire will burn, etc. However, that does not alter the fact that it is, and always will be, beyond human ability to "prove" anything. There is absolutely no way human beings can determine if fundamental forces exist that will never change. We simply cannot determine if it is possible, or if it is not possible, for a contrary event to occur. We can never be certain that contrary events will not happen, we can never prove that anything is absolutely "true"

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...o-car-runs-water-abu-dhabi.html#ixzz22YEeFu86

BS. This article just tries to hide behind ignorance. We all know that not everything humans believed in has been true ( i am looking at you religion and alchemy) . However science being dependent on observations isnt ususally incorrect. Newtons laws of gravitation still hold. Now we know that they are not complete and relativistic effects can sometimes affect and overpower the gravitational effects. We were ignorant about relativistic effects but in the cases that relativity wasnt an issue, Newton was correct and still is.

As far as the water driven car is concerned, it simply goes against the observations that we have made over the past 300 years or so. and not only have we observed that water can not burn, we have also know exactly how much energy creating water from hydrogen and oxygen releases. We know how much energy splitting the water molecule needs. To top it off, we also know that on a macroscopic level, mass and energy are conserved.

our knowledge and theories of science might have been proven inadequate when going into subatomic domains, that doesnt mean that there might be instances where they stop acting in the macroscopic domain due to some magic.

This is not to say we know everything there is to know. This isnt even to say that everything we know is correct. Tjis is to say that in the observations and the scenarios in which the observations were made, the laws hold. They are inviolate because they hold no matter how many times they are repeated. an apple fell to the ground long before Newton observed it and came up with his laws of gravitational force. It kept falling the exact way Newton predicted even when Einstein had not told us about the relativistic effects. Newton was never proven wrong, only his set of observations was proven incomplete.

Hiding behind the argument that we can not observe everything is just arguing for the sake of argument. We can not prove anything then. Even elementary things like 1+ 1 = 2. maybe if we do that equation enough times, it will come out to be a number other than 2. why not? after all it only by observing millions and millions of times over human history that if a person has one thing and gets another thing, she now has two things. But as the above article suggests, there might be a miniscule chance that the person might end up with three
 
Any sensible Pakistani should feel sad and also ashamed at this seriously. I'm actually surprised by some of the comments from the "educated" people on this forum tbh. This is high school science.
 
Bozo if you are actually well versed in physics you would acknowledge that a car can even be run by burning wood. Why jump,to conclusions? Let the man prove himself amongst the scientific community, and if he wrong then he is wrong.

your IC engine can not run on burning wood.
 
That is called wood pyrolysis and was widely used during the Nazi era to counter fuel embargoes. It would require a small buggy hooked behind the car with the pyrolysis apparatus feed fuel into the engine. The reason why it works is because the reaction is self sustaining once it reaches full operation temperature and wood is a concentrated form of energy storage which requires significantly less energy to cut, chop, transport and extract. The reaction can be further improved by raising the temperature, pressure and introducing steam injection - but in that case it would be called steam reforming or gassification.

The fraud kit works because everyone is ignoring the magic pill - the piece of calcium carbide which generates acetylene upon reaction with water. The product he calls "catalyst" during his interview with Dr Samar on PTV. Acetylene highly explosive and flammable gas which can explode at a critical pressure of 29psi even in absence of oxygen. Therefore it is always stored as dissolved in acetone or ethanol.

Therefore the car is not water powered, but acetylene powered and there are already few companies around the world provide this technology on commercial basis.

May be Agha Fraud would receive some genuine respect and support if he did not try to make superficial claims and insult icons of science on national TV. Be honest and open about his invention. Just wait until something goes horribly wrong and someone gets killed or injured.

I am jumping to conclusion because I have the required skills to speak on this subject - with 13 patents pending on alternative energy please do not jump to silly assumptions. And engine can also run on any kind of dry bio mass like straw, agri waste, sugarcane waste, cow dung etc provided the correct apparatus has been designed and installed. So next time you get an urge to question someone physics knowledge, please run a quick google search.

I'm planning to go check this feat out and if given the chance I will ask difficult questions... Where have you read that he is using Calcium Carbide? Also do you have any literature that I as a layman can read about reacting Calcium Carbide with water to produce acetylene? Also is the mixture ultimately cheaper than gasoline? Is it cleaner?
 
your IC engine can not run on burning wood.

and when did I make that claim?

Nobody was talking about an IC engine.

Furthermore your response towards the article I posted proved that you didn't understand the main point of the article.
 
I'm planning to go check this feat out and if given the chance I will ask difficult questions... Where have you read that he is using Calcium Carbide? Also do you have any literature that I as a layman can read about reacting Calcium Carbide with water to produce acetylene? Also is the mixture ultimately cheaper than gasoline? Is it cleaner?
It is extremely explosive too. As a matter of fact fatalities have been reported when CaC2 containing bags were drenched in rains.

Also I can say from my childhood, while playing with it in my uncle's factories welding floor, I have dealt with a fair share of intended small explosions. It pissed off lots of workers and latter would be the reason for my evening's thrashing !!:help:
 
I'm planning to go check this feat out and if given the chance I will ask difficult questions... Where have you read that he is using Calcium Carbide? Also do you have any literature that I as a layman can read about reacting Calcium Carbide with water to produce acetylene? Also is the mixture ultimately cheaper than gasoline? Is it cleaner?

ACetylene is nothing but Ethyne- C2H2 ...It can be prepared by hydrolysis of CaC2 .

CaC2 + 2H2O --- Ca (OH)2 + C2H2

However production of calcium carbide is done ate very high temp ( ~2000*C )...

Ethyne is very unstable compound and hence very dangerous to play with. If this person is really using Ethyne then I would suggest you to not get close to this engine.
 
Absurdity prevails reasons in an illiterate society. Our Scientests and govt are a big shame.
I am very nervous about Pak Nuke and Missiles now.

Razpak: Scientific theories can be challanged and falsified but that too in a scientific manners not by quakery.

PCISR chairman, Pastic etc should be immediately removed from there posts. and thanks God that Dr AQ n Samar are no more part of nuke team.
 
Absurdity prevails reasons in an illiterate society. Our Scientests and govt are a big shame.
I am very nervous about Pak Nuke and Missiles now.

Razpak: Scientific theories can be challanged and falsified but that too in a scientific manners not by quakery.

PCISR chairman, Pastic etc should be immediately removed from there posts. and thanks God that Dr AQ n Samar are no more part of nuke team.
I dont think Dr AQ is stupid, he is simply playing politics with people's sentiments.
He wants to reinstate himself as a hero, and ordinary public (even literate ones) will go away thinking AQ supported a pakistani hero when others opposed him.

Its only a matter of time before zionist conspiracy is linked to this.
 
In simple terms,he will be able to drive the car,but the input will be greater than the output.

How can Hydrogen gas be used in a petrol (spark ignition internal combustion) engine?, when even diesel, whose combustion properties are close to that of petrol, cannot be used in a petrol engine. Uing Diesel in a petrol engine, which can only be used in compression ignition IC engines, will damage the engine. Even a mechanic knows this.
 
Should I be banging my head on the wall repeatedly????

Is it really necessary that we show it to a scientist in Abu Dhabi to get be-izzati rather than just writing it off through pakistani scientists, keep the matter local??

This is getting outrageous. Our government is much more daft than i thought.

Since when did Khurshid Shah become a PhD in physics/chemistry??

nah wait, you don't even need a phD to understand that this is a fraud.
 
Thank god he did not go to SA. They would have branded him 'blashphemer' or 'druggie' and hanged him. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom