It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Navy says it can now convert seawater into fuel

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   

ElectricUniverse
reply to post by interupt42
 


That would be awesome whenever, and "if" they allowed this technology to be used by civilians.

We might finally get "world peace" 20-30 years down the road whenever, and "if' this technology was made available.


I don't know. Considering it takes more energy to make the energy, it really does not have a real practical use by the average person.

This idea works for the Navy because it means they can make the fuel where and when they need it. Instead of the Navy spending the effort moving fuel around the world to where their theaters of operation are, they can now create refinery ships that can travel with their navy the make the fuel they need from a raw material readily at hand.

But like I said, these refinery ships will need to USE MORE energy to make the fuel than the fuel itself could provide, but the navy is not concerned with the conservation of energy in this case. Their concern is that they have readily-available fuel for their ships.




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 



Ummm...Thanks for the info...I already knew about the electrolysis part as I've used electrolysis to clean parts of an old steam locomotive. The process works great.....The part that I don't understand is WHY convert the hydrogen to a hydrocarbon when you already are producing both hydrogen and oxygen...hydrogen the fuel and oxygen the catalyst. If these were both liquefied for storage, then it virtually negates the explosive risk. (tests with hydrogen fuel cell ruptures show they are LESS of a spreading fire hazard when ruptured with ignition...than hydrocarbons) See this and this

An added benefit is the production of pure/clean drinking water from burning the hydrogen and oxygen....AND fewer pollutants. So why NOT use a safer/cleaner method of combustion than a hydrocarbon that would also involve less infrastructure and have added benefits as well?

The only drawback I can envision is retrofitting costs...but wouldn't these be offset by the "greener" claim to fame positive spin in the PR.....think about it...the Naval slogan could be..."Lean, Mean and Green".


YouSir



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

YouSir
but wouldn't these be offset by the "greener" claim to fame positive spin in the PR.....think about it...the Naval slogan could be..."Lean, Mean and Green".


The military's priorities:

1) Kill people
2) Stop people from killing you
...
468) Being "green"
edit on 10-4-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by YouSir
 


I would say the cost and logistics are the issues with retrofitting. The point of this process is that it makes a fuel that can already be burned by the pre-existing ships without the need to retrofit them.

As for this process (or just electrolysis) being green, there is still the issue of needing to use energy to make this energy. To make even just the process of electrolysis "green", the energy used to perform the electrolysis would need to come from green sources. The Navy's potential plan for their process of making hydrocarbon fuel from seawater involves using a nuclear reactor to produce the necessary power. While nuclear reactors are generally "emissions-free", they really can't be called "green", due to the issue of what to do with the radioactive core material, which will eventually need to be replaced.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

YouSir
reply to post by interupt42
 


The only drawback I can envision is retrofitting costs.

YouSir


My understanding and reading through the patent and some of the articles , that was one of the main goals:
1. Non Oil dependent.



The ultimate goal is to eventually get away from the dependence on oil altogether, which would also mean the navy is no longer hostage to potential shortages of oil or fluctuations in its cost.


2. retrofitting costs.



A crucial benefit, says Collum, is that the fuel can be used in the same engines already fitted in ships and aircraft.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

YouSir

The part that I don't understand is WHY convert the hydrogen to a hydrocarbon when you already are producing both hydrogen and oxygen...


The only drawback I can envision is retrofitting costs...


And there you have it. Not just retrofitting. Total ground up redesign of a lot of things that costs a lot of money to do. Like fighter jets.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
None of this seems "striking" too me ; Ive made my own Hydrogen Cell before converting a 1.8 Suzuki Esteem to run half gas and half hydrogen.. Using metal spacer "Cups" from a dollar store - A copper strip from house wiring -- and mounting carefully the cups in "gaps" (about a quarter inch or so) in rows between too produce the Air hydrogen gas. Using a PCB pipe and simple plumbing parts to seal it - between applying only 9-12 Volts- -- Sprinkle a little magic into the water (baking soda) And applying the hydrogen into the car's electronic Air Intake (no modifying or changing cars computer) I was able too gain a 30-60 % efficiency boost, not in just consumption - but the bigger eye opener was how much POWER was produced in the 1.8L engine... My god.. screw turbo, screw nitro -- Hydrogen is where it is at.. Mind you, i ran this for 3 days before the home made hydrogen cell was too hot, melting and making a mess inside... OH and sucked water into the air intake.. Seizing it for good... carburettor Cars/Trucks from 70's- mid 80's would be best for this kind of project...

Nothing new.. They just need too say "OK! FINE GIVE FREE FUEL TO ALL" -- Water will be worth like gold.. It won't be good.

Run Your Car on Water



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


So wait...now we will use the ocean as fuel.? What will the longer repercussions of this look lille?!? The earth being a desert?? I still say we need to find an infinite energy source.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Emerys
reply to post by interupt42
 


So wait...now we will use the ocean as fuel.? What will the longer repercussions of this look lille?!? The earth being a desert?? I still say we need to find an infinite energy source.


Ever notice the water dripping out of your car's exhaust? The hydrogen and oxygen don't cease to exist. They end up as water again at the tail pipe.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I don't think water is going to power ship engines or replace them anytime soon they require huge amounts of power

Perhaps It could replace on board systems thus lessening some dependancy on energy and running costs of the vessels

Still tho.. This could make huge saving cuts to the Navy's budget, probably in half



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
these technologies can transform the earth into a lifeless stone, continue to believe that eLita of humanity has no plans to destroy the earth and terramorphing new planet... you have an evacuation plan? they demotivators.to... have
edit on 10/4/14 by mangust69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 


Well because bob lazar was working on this technology, as many others did .. I mean did you never heard of cars driving on water ? They call that HH2O in technical terms as I remember correctly?



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   

0bserver1
reply to post by GetHyped
 


Well because bob lazar was working on this technology, as many others did .. I mean did you never heard of cars driving on water ? They call that HH2O in technical terms as I remember correctly?


HH2O = "I am a crank"

You can sure make hydrogen and run vehicles off of it. or synthetic petroleum. But you just can't make hydrogen for "free" or for less energy than it takes to separate hydrogen from water. Anyone who says you can is lying to you.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Who cares.......

Hmm ok that came out wrong...
I do care...BUT, would it be cheaper
to make, than a gallon of gasoline?!?
THATS the question, AND can i do
it myself....



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Miccey
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Who cares.......

Hmm ok that came out wrong...
I do care...BUT, would it be cheaper
to make, than a gallon of gasoline?!?
THATS the question, AND can i do
it myself....


If you've got your own reactor, apparently in bulk it's $6 a gallon for JP fuel.

As an individual, it's always going to be cheaper/more efficient to take that electricity and put it in a battery than to make hydrogen with the same electricity and then burn the hydrogen.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

TritonTaranis
I don't think water is going to power ship engines or replace them anytime soon they require huge amounts of power


Not too soon, but they think in about 10 years it will be even more efficient.

The huge amount of power will be provided and done by a Nuclear refining portable ship. Their goal is to not be dependent on Oil and not have to retro fit the existing power plants on their fleet. This technology does both and they already done it on small scale.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 





HH2O = "I am a crank"

You can sure make hydrogen and run vehicles off of it. or synthetic petroleum. But you just can't make hydrogen for "free" or for less energy than it takes to separate hydrogen from water. Anyone who says you can is lying to you.


No, you cannot make Hydrogen for no cost that's true. Even thinking about it, has at least some energy cost.

Although, the same old more out for less in argument rears its head again.

An example of this fallacy would be one of the most obvious and dramatic...a Hydrogen thermonuclear bomb. (or any of the trillions of stars, if you perfer)

YES...it takes energy to create the chain reaction, usually in the form of another explosive device, a small chemical explosive or fission device is used to create a self sustaining thermonuclear reaction, and liberate MANY times more energy than that given off by the trigger device.

So yeah, there's always a cost in going about liberating the true energy contained within, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a higher cost than the released energy gains, nor does it have to go against any cherished physical laws...at least in principle.

Materials, construction, methodologies employed, reasonance, modulation of current are all integral parts of the puzzle that need to be employed in HHO (AKA Browns gas, Oxyhydrogen, Hydroxy) production.

Personally, i don't think we're at the point of being able to run our vehicles purely on HHO developed on demand quite yet...but it's close, it's a matter of details and finding the correct certain little somethings that need to come together just so, to tease a little of the massive energies contained within Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms, and unlike a nuke, tease a little of it out in a very controlled way.

Fuel will be needed to make the electrical energy required to drive the HHO cells to make the HHO gas, but such is life.

I am more than content to consign the concept of any form of overunity to the box lablelled 'amusing thought exercise', as this concept seems to be the one that aggrivates the hell out of traditionalists the most and causes the most opposition, if people can discover and perfect by design, perhaps by stumbling blindly on a happy sequence of events that leads to the world being able to power itself at 1% - 10% of current fuel costs...apart from the obvious interests, who wouldn't want that?

One thing is certain, if we don't try, if we use more effort in thinking or shouting how something won't work or can't be done, instead of putting that effort into finding ways of skirting around the obstacles to deliver the impossible (as the 'impossible' often becomes obviously possible once the right method is found)..we definitely won't be making any real progress.

For one, i celebrate these pioneers in alternative energy methods...even if their attempts are ultimately proved to be a folly...it will be a magnificent folly.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 



Ummm...unless one uses solar cells and wind turbines...(land based)...to electrolyze the H2O...I know...I know, infrastructure/maintenance, initial cost of equipment, salaries...etc. But at least you remove the need for a hydrocarbon or nuclear reaction in order to produce a hydrocarbon.

Think about it...if gas stations had solar surfaces along with a wind turbine out back...they could crack water and...BE...their own refinery as well...for either hydrogen, hydrocarbon, or electrical fuel production...

But that might make too much sense.............right?


YouSir



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 



Ummm...Sorry, I suppose I should have actually read the article...I was just trying to puzzle out the...WHY. I like to try to figure things out for myself...it helps to keep this old brain active........Thanks

YouSir



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Ummm...No kidding..........Right? I believe what I was alluding to were the actual ships although I suppose I should have been more specific...

For specificities sake...Retrofit the ships...only...(at first) and leave the jets for another day. I'm sure you could even utilize most of the preexisting engine components to "burn" the hydrogen and oxygen, while replacing fluid injectors/storage containers...etc.


YouSir



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join