Diesel Fuel From Air and Water

Wes Tausend wrote:
Although now we are down to 'themal' dynamics, which is even worse than thermal.

oops. The 'm' looks like an 'rm' from a distance!

Wes Tausend wrote:
...

2oldman wrote:

BenK wrote:
The laws of thermal dynamics is known and has been known for centuries or longer

Surprising you would misspell that.

You got a little mixed up here. Ben K didn't say that, agesilaus did back here http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/28331023/gotomsg/28331462.cfm#28331462.

What's mispelled? Thermodynamics misworded as "thermal dynamics', yes.
...

Actually, no I didn't say the above. I wouldn't say it either because the three laws weren't firmly codified until late in the 1800's by Gibbs. Others like Carnot were working on the issue earlier in that century.

As for Rickover, I graduated from his Nuclear Power School in the Navy and even got to see him once. I doubt seriously that he would approve of the moonbeam school of thought. He was hard headed and practical.

2oldman wrote:

Wes Tausend wrote:
You got a little mixed up here. Ben K didn't say that, agesilaus did back here What's mispelled? Thermodynamics misworded as "thermal dynamics',

Look carefully.

agesilaus Quoted Benk but removed any indication of quoting. Afaik there's no such thing as 'themal' dynamics.

Oh, yeah. You are absolutely right.

Although now we are down to 'themal' dynamics, which is even worse than thermal. ;)

Wes
...

Wes Tausend wrote:
You got a little mixed up here. Ben K didn't say that, agesilaus did back here What's mispelled? Thermodynamics misworded as "thermal dynamics',

Look carefully.

agesilaus Quoted Benk but removed any indication of quoting. Afaik there's no such thing as 'thermal' dynamics.

...

2oldman wrote:

BenK wrote:
The laws of thermal dynamics is known and has been known for centuries or longer

Surprising you would misspell that.

You got a little mixed up here. Ben K didn't say that, agesilaus did back here http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/28331023/gotomsg/28331462.cfm#28331462.

What's mispelled? Thermodynamics misworded as "thermal dynamics', yes. ;)

Wes
...

jus2shy wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
You think the Navy is going to set up a fuel production factory inside a Carrier?! Let me guess you have never been on a Carrier or any other naval vessel.

You would be sorely mistaken. I've done the tiger cruise from Hawaii to Bremerton. CVN-68. She's a beauty. Visit the vessels that show up for fleet week in Puget Sound and Portland. I've been on plenty of vessels and my father is retired from the Navy. The carriers of today are sure as hell not equipped to do the work. However, what's to say the Navy is not working on either incorporating it into future design or designing aux vessels who's sole purpose is to produce fuel at sea. It's just like the rail gun system. Takes a huge amount of energy to power that weapon system and they're designing ships around it. Who's to say they won't retrofit the system during a mid-life rebuild of the super carriers of today? They have to rip it apart every 20 or so years to re-fuel the reactor.

All I've read is that they're trying to prove the concept out at sea, I don't know any more specifics.

Jus2shy,

You are absolutely correct about the Navy being quite interested in artificial aircraft fuel. During severe supply disruption, they wish to be able to still function independent of outside energy. In spite of new nuclear powered vessels, I believe the Navy is still the largest US consumer of diesel fuel with my former employer, BNSF Railroad still right behind.

All this is ultimately courtesy of the efforts of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover who is the father of all nuclear power and especially the exceptionally safe disciplined operation of naval nuclear propulsion. It is a given that the Navy will find a reasonable way to produce fuel out of seawater using nuclear input in spite of some backwards-thinking politicians possibly trying to interfere in the future. The Navy also is working, and will continue to work, on modifying seaports to accomodate the continueing rise in seawater expected because of global warming, a carbon dioxide consequence of burning fossil fuels. I recently ran into a fellow who currently works aboard Naval vessels and is familiar with the tech.

I would hope that most all the people on this thread realise that all hydrocarbon fuels are merely made up of three things, hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. The main byproduct of the burn is water (hydrogen & oxygen) and carbon dioxide, with more gallons of water being produced by a combustion engine than gallons of initial fuel used. It is wholly possible to recombine these ingredients to produce jet (and coptor) fuel to remain a viable Naval defense force, and we will do just that. Efficiency takes a second place to abundant available nuclear input and possible dire need. It is in the spirit of Rickover.

Some folks might find this PBS documentary quite interesting, called Rickover: The Birth of Nuclear Power.

Jus2shy, thank you for your level-headed take on this. Folks like you re-instill my faith in Amercia.

Wes
...

agesilaus wrote:
BenK don't forget pyramid power.

Is that Amway?

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

To get hydrogen in any useful quantities, it must be extracted from natural gas, water or biomass, and all of these result in a net loss of energy. It is more efficient to use these fuels in their original forms.

What part of this sentence don't some of you understand?

Hydrogen is more like a battery, an energy storage medium. Unfortunately, (for practical purposes) it is a very impractical battery, with an extremely low energy-to-volume ratio.

Or this? ^^^^

Some of you really need to read this. It's real easy reading and easy to understand.

Your article is eight years old. Do you really believe industry and science has been standing still for the past eight years? Perhaps you should read the OP's link.

Audi and Sunfire have found a way to incorporate hydrogen in a liquid hydrocarbon fuel like we are already using. So much for the extremely low energy to volume ratio.

Also

A breakthrough was recently made in the development of clean hydrogen power.

Currently, while hydrogen fuel is appealing, the production of hydrogen is incredible difficult - requiring huge amounts of energy.

But the researchers say they have made a new material that can generate hydrogen from water, meaning it is less reliant on fossil fuels.

Researchers at the University of Bath and Yale University have designed a molecular catalyst to split water in an electrolyser and create clean and storable hydrogen fuel.

The approach increases the efficiency of electrolysis of water into its constituent parts by reducing the amount of energy needed to perform the oxidation half of the reaction.

This isn't 2007 and there are people and companies out there which aren't stuck in 2007.

BenK don't forget pyramid power.

BenK wrote:
The laws of thermal dynamics is known and has been known for centuries or longer

Surprising you would misspell that.