Diesel Fuel From Air and Water

Well time will tell.

And I predict that in two years most of these programs will vanish.

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.

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.

agesilaus wrote:

And for jus2shy:

Fueling at sea and maintaining a fleet of boats that are floating gas tanks is a pain. Being able to produce fuel on demand and cut down on the fleet size....
============================================
Huh, you've lost me. Do you expect the Navy to build the infrastructure to make this material which will cost them 3 to 6 times as much as fuel costs delivered to their tanks? Why buy a cow when all you want is a glass of milk? Especially when there are plenty of private businesses which will be happy to sell you that drink.

And let me clue you in, Naval aux tankers are needed for at sea refueling not for use in port.

OK, The idea is to get rid of those aux vessels (fuel tankers). Namely for Carrier groups. The idea is that a carrier can produce all the fuel it needs for its fighter wing(s) out at sea and possibly some of its support ships that run on liquid fuel. Therefore, you have no more aux vessels to deal with, or you have maybe 1 or 2 aux vessels who's sole purpose is fuel production. The whole idea is for carriers and other ships that are nuclear (not liquid fueled) to produce the fuel out at sea. No infrastructure. The weakness of any military is how far its logistics can reach and how well its supply lines can be guarded/maintained. In regards to fuel, if it's produced out at sea, there's no more logistical hurdle in that regard. That's why the Navy is pursuing this. At least this is how I best understand it. I don't think the cow and milk analogy works in this case, this is closer to the astronauts in space and water supply issue (we all know how it was solved).

Now the issue is still getting food and human supplies to the fleet out at sea, but that's another issue. This is just another way to add resilience and reach to our naval forces.

Either way, this is a more interesting conversation.

Not a violation, but a new one...or more precisely 'new' to mankind
These have been there all the time and just needed discovery...from
folks willing to think outside of the box...not with head buried in
the sand...

Just as stated that there are bone heads with moon beam caps...as are their counter
parts...those who are highly educated but with their heads in the sand...

Look up diamond foam...my physicists also invented that as part of the same
Skunk programs...super computing and the need for super conductors

Ask if you know the why of diamond foam along with cyro liquids in
reference to chips...of course one would understand why bare silicone
and not packaged...remove some theta J's...or more fundamentally why
diamond instead of the more traditional metal?

But as stated...talking to highly educated, but stubborn and blind
smarties with their heads in the sand a frustration that is all too common to me...

There's some oversight in much of the commentary on this thread. There is no energy or matter being created with any of these processes, just stored, converted, and moved.

All those dead dinosaurs that seem to be so popular are nothing other than stored solar energy. Somehow I doubt the conversion efficiency was 100%. It just looks good because we can burn up in a day what took many years to store, but we weren't around during the storage process.

If PV cells capture energy during the day, and convert that to stored liquid fuel at a higher energy density than batteries, it's a gain. AS PV prices come down and oil prices rise, those lines will intersect and cross someday.

OTOH, I suppose we should have really stayed with coal and steam engines. After all, what was wrong with that???

The laws of thermal dynamics is known and has been known for centuries or longer
But there are other laws of physics that also play in the same arena that do
not follow the the typical known 'box'...

There are other ways to generate a phase change from gaseous to liquid without
the amounts of energy 'normally' associated via the known laws of thermal dynamics

Also, folks should read up on how many of our known laws of physics do NOT apply
or has different attributes down in the nano level
----------------------------------------------------------------

Ok here we see the difference between people who have been trained in science and technology and those who have not. Yes formally speaking there are no unbreakable laws in science. But that being said there are laws so deeply imbedded in the fabric of Physics that some showing that they are false woud shake physics from top to bottom. And the three laws of thermodynamics sit at the top of that list.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Anyone claiming that they found a violation of those three laws had better have some very very solid proof. Or be regarded as a crank.

I know I'm wasting my time, the moonbeam patrol always spouts the anything is possible line. That just shows that they were not able to make their way thru Calculus and Physics and refer to their 'feelings' as a guide.

OK first Wilbur1:

This may be a dead end but how far does has throwing up their hands and saying nothing new is possible got anyone.
=======================================================
There are many thousands of engineers and scientists that are working to come up with 'new ideas'. But they prefer to devote their time and money to ideas that can work not to perpetual motion machines.

And for jus2shy:

Fueling at sea and maintaining a fleet of boats that are floating gas tanks is a pain. Being able to produce fuel on demand and cut down on the fleet size....
============================================
Huh, you've lost me. Do you expect the Navy to build the infrastructure to make this material which will cost them 3 to 6 times as much as fuel costs delivered to their tanks? Why buy a cow when all you want is a glass of milk? Especially when there are plenty of private businesses which will be happy to sell you that drink.

And let me clue you in, Naval aux tankers are needed for at sea refueling not for use in port.

A lot depends on where/what/etc they are getting the energy...

We provided some MG sets up at Geyserville Calif and the problem is that there
is a lot of sulfur and that created lots of acid that ate our controllers and
the generators. The issue was keeping the equipment from rotting away

Folks should think outside of the box

The laws of thermal dynamics is known and has been known for centuries or longer
But there are other laws of physics that also play in the same arena that do
not follow the the typical known 'box'...

There are other ways to generate a phase change from gaseous to liquid without
the amounts of energy 'normally' associated via the known laws of thermal dynamics

Also, folks should read up on how many of our known laws of physics do NOT apply
or has different attributes down in the nano level

agesilaus wrote:
You are ignoring the thermodynamic realities of this. The inflexible laws of thermodynamics require that each time you convert energy from one form to the other you lose energy. And the efficiencies are usually terrible, something around 40% or so. So if you have 1000 joules of power from a wind generator then you get 400 joules when you convert it to battery or liquid fuel form. In general that is.

And if you think the Navy is doing this voluntarily, then you are wrong. You can be sure that they didn't want to spend $5/gal for green fuel as opposed to $1/gal for plain old naval distillate. Political appointees and political admirals are behind all of this.

Uhm, energy is neither created nor destroyed (Law of conservation of energy). It's just the issue of entropy (Energy converted to a form that can't be used). We make progress on entropy every day (hell, there are 2 stroke diesels hitting 50% efficiency now). Thermodynamics doesn't dictate any constant loss of energy in any conversion. It does dictate entropy approaches a constant as you get closer to absolute zero. So I personally have no idea what the actual loss/conversion is with this system.

The Navy is actually taking this on for a good reason and it isn't politics. It's logistics. Fueling at sea and maintaining a fleet of boats that are floating gas tanks is a pain. Being able to produce fuel on demand and cut down on the fleet size (or swap with other more useful ships) is a big boon for them. Another article sited pricing of $3 to $6 bucks a gallon equivalent. We'll see if they get there and it may be a boon for us here on land. But for the navy, the extra cost padded onto having to ship fuel from a port onto a barge to keep with a fleet is huge. However, tapping the nuclear ship's extra power capacity to produce fuel for the liquid fueled ships and aircraft could be what the Navy needs (not necessarily what's needed on land). But it's an idea none the less.