Ok so why dont we have cars that can run on water by now???

The problem is a law of physics--the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that you CANNOT get more energy out o fa system than you put into it (that's phrased in a way to show the relevance in this case.) In fact, you cannot even get back as much energy as you put in--there must be at least some losses, however small. Which means there is not--and never will be--a car that "runs on water." To do that, you would have to split the water molecule: that means putting energy INTO the system. Then burn the resulting hydrogen and oxygen to produce pwer to power a car. But you CANNOT get as much energy back by burning the hydoogen and oxygen as you put into the system to split the water molecules. The "run on water' myth is a scam--its been around for decades. Con artsts use it to bilk gullible investors out of money. Andthat's all there is to it.

umm, it's cause that's going the wrong way. It takes energy to break apart water, it doesn't produce it. Hence the hydrogen fuel cell. That is where water is made by combining 2H with an O to give us the water. The problem with this though, is that the technology isn't clean anyways. Where do we get the H from? Chances are it requires energy to make the hydrogen. And where does that energy come from? I Don't think that the answer is a simple one- very few things in life are! I think that the big problem with your argument is that you don't understand some of the simple chemistry and physics.

Learn the chemistry. There is practically no potential energy in water. Water will not burn. It is already as 'burnt' as it can practically be. You would have to write a reaction like: Water + Something ---> Products + energy. What would that something be, that is also cheap and widely available? It could be something like metallic sodium, for example. There would be ways for that to work. But try buying metallic sodium cheaper than oil. And how could it be handled safely? Any process that can economically use water as a source of chemical energy, will turn conventional science on its head. If anyone actually gets one of these to work, then I want to be the first to know. Note I said CHEMICAL energy. That does not rule out nuclear processes, if they can be developed, or anything else that is outside the mainstream.

It could be done but then there is no money in that so it won't. That's the reality of this world. The oil companies have too much power. Another side of this argument is that we don't want to all of a sudden have the oil companies out of business. Much of the world economy relies on the revenue from these companies. In the long term that could be absorbed but if it happened overnight it would be a disaster. Stocks would crash, people would be out of work, millions of people. There would be a huge flow on effect like a tsunami. I think one day it will happen but many things need to change within the economy first.

It all comes down to money. The cost of R&D that is required didn't make it cost effective when oil was cheaper. When gas hits 6-8 dollars a gallon you will see a big change in the automotive industry.

the problem with that idea is the energy to convert the water into power isn't effecient enough yet. The second drawback with that idea is majority of Australia is in drought and we aren't permitted to wash our cars, limited to 200 litres of water per person per day for all household needs and with the heavy rain that we had reently has boosted our water supply to 22% capacity

I don't know honestly, I could say that it would cost to much to manufactor the cars or I could say they would cost people too much money or I could say they still have bugs in them. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, the only person or people who can truely answer this are the car makers.

good question you would have thought someone would have done it with all this tech flying round

The gas producers have a monopoly and they are trying to keep it.