US Navy develops technology to turn seawater into fuel

[bogan]

You're talking to the porcine master of circular logic, dude, do you not recognise this exact topic/reaction from last time?

The time where dozens of people tried to educate him about hydrogen? Repeatedly? With no discernible effect whatsoever?

Give it up, you're just annoying the pig.

Oh yeh, something about lawnmowers wasn't it? Boggles the mind a bit if I'm honest...

[mashman]

No.

It's because an American aircraft carrier has a nuclear power station on board.

No doubt... but, are you certain (know for a fact) that that's all it is? There is absolutely no way to make the process more efficient, such as using various frequencies to limit the energy required for separating the elements? Or perhaps using a specific metal catalyst that enhances the reaction? Perhaps a combination of both?

[mashman]

Give it up, you're just annoying the pig.

Neither of you have the wherewithal... fun to watch you try though, even if you are scraping the barrel these days.

[bogan]

No doubt... but, are you certain (know for a fact) that that's all it is? There is absolutely no way to make the process more efficient, such as using various frequencies to limit the energy required for separating the elements? Or perhaps using a specific metal catalyst that enhances the reaction? Perhaps a combination of both?

I think you'll find the combination of both is how they have got it as efficient as they have. There is a theoretical limit of around 120% efficiency, there just isn't room for the vast increases which are required. Electrolysis of hydrogen is a dead end when it comes to energy generation, as energy transport it has some use, but has largely fallen out of favor compared to 5-10 years ago for the aformentioned reasons.

[mashman]

I think you'll find the combination of both is how they have got it as efficient as they have. There is a theoretical limit of around 120% efficiency, there just isn't room for the vast increases which are required. Electrolysis of hydrogen is a dead end when it comes to energy generation, as energy transport it has some use, but has largely fallen out of favor compared to 5-10 years ago for the aformentioned reasons.

How do you get 120% efficiency? Energy Transport?

[Winston001]

Having to store hydrogen on a warship does leave them vulnerable to Hindenburg syndrome though.

Did a bit of research on this once and hydrogen isn't as dangerous as we think.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...ogen-fuel2.htm

The problem with the Hindenburg was the coating on the fabric which was extremely flammable.

[bogan]

How do you get 120% efficiency? Energy Transport?

There is a thermal side to the process, electrolysis sucks in heat energy from the environment, while a hydrogen fuel cell put out heat energy to the environment. So the electrical to hydrogen efficiencies are 120% and 83% respectively, or 100% overall. You ever get the feeling that those of us who understand such numbers might be worth listening to when we say its a dead end?

[mashman]

There is a thermal side to the process, electrolysis sucks in heat energy from the environment, while a hydrogen fuel cell put out heat energy to the environment. So the electrical to hydrogen efficiencies are 120% and 83% respectively, or 100% overall. You ever get the feeling that those of us who understand such numbers might be worth listening to when we say its a dead end?

Sometimes practicality wins over efficiency. I guess that's where the frequency's help the electrolysis in regards to sucking in heat. Meyer claimed to have sussed it and some of his vids, if believed, show how he managed the heating issue. Would love to have the time and cash to have a real play... although a fuckerised steel bin, an old PSU, "shims", cable ties and a battery charger did the trick... just not in a spectacular way. Was a fun experiment though.

Your assumption is that I never listened in the first place and you seem to have persisted with your perception... oddly Ed like and not a concern of mine .

[R650R]

This is the bit I like



So - they are going to do a guilt-free, carbon-neutral trip to where ever they want to nuke the fuck out of huh ... that's very Green of them

This is a common thing now for various govt depts. to be involved as a token effort to get the public to buy into the lie of 'clean' green energy...
BTW the US military is the single biggest user of petroleum products worldwide. If they ended their constant intervent shenanigans there would be no 'peak oil' BS either...

I'd say that (heavy) metal catalyst will be uranium inside a nuke reactor and the excessive electric used to crudely make hydrogen, compress and store it.
I doubt it will be a major source for the fleet, justa select few vessels whose use it suits.
The real clean energy would be to put sails back on the damn boats!

[James Deuce]

Did a bit of research on this once and hydrogen isn't as dangerous as we think.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...ogen-fuel2.htm

The problem with the Hindenburg was the coating on the fabric which was extremely flammable.

You're ignoring the effect penetrating munitions has on hyper-cooled pressurised storage vessels. Hydrogen is difficult to transport and store without turning it into liquid. Hit a hydrogen tank with 8 SABOT rounds from a Mk 110 Bofors that project a stream of molten copper ahead of the projectile and it will be like a magazine on Battleships of old going up.

Normal handling is fine. Imagine if the Sheffield had been hydrogen powered? It would have evaporated.

[James Deuce]

Sometimes practicality wins over efficiency. I guess that's where the frequency's help the electrolysis in regards to sucking in heat. Meyer claimed to have sussed it and some of his vids, if believed, show how he managed the heating issue. Would love to have the time and cash to have a real play... although a fuckerised steel bin, an old PSU, "shims", cable ties and a battery charger did the trick... just not in a spectacular way. Was a fun experiment though.

Your assumption is that I never listened in the first place and you seem to have persisted with your perception... oddly Ed like and not a concern of mine .

Is Meyer's work repeatable and has it been done by anyone reputable on an industrial scale? If not it's BS or pointless mucking about. I'm not being close minded. If it is documented, peer reviewed, repeatable and most of all able to be turned into a tool for the mass production of hydrogen, then it adhere's to scientific principle. If not, it's techno-shamanism.

[bogan]

Sometimes practicality wins over efficiency. I guess that's where the frequency's help the electrolysis in regards to sucking in heat. Meyer claimed to have sussed it and some of his vids, if believed, show how he managed the heating issue. Would love to have the time and cash to have a real play... although a fuckerised steel bin, an old PSU, "shims", cable ties and a battery charger did the trick... just not in a spectacular way. Was a fun experiment though.

Your assumption is that I never listened in the first place and you seem to have persisted with your perception... oddly Ed like and not a concern of mine .

Practicality is a type of efficiency though. No, frequencies can't help it get past that theoretical efficiency. What heating issue? the poor efficiency is the issue.

So, you now recognize hydrogen is a dead end in regards to energy generation? and not much use as energy transport either? Because your earlier posts suggest otherwise. What's Ed like is your persistence in dodging any meaningful discussion; my persistence in putting a case forward with correct facts to back it up certainly isn't like him

[mashman]

Is Meyer's work repeatable and has it been done by anyone reputable on an industrial scale? If not it's BS or pointless mucking about. I'm not being close minded. If it is documented, peer reviewed, repeatable and most of all able to be turned into a tool for the mass production of hydrogen, then it adhere's to scientific principle. If not, it's techno-shamanism.

Unfortunately we end up in tin foil hat territory when we walk down that path. His brother suspects foul play, but hey, we're never going to know. Most of his documentation is available somewhere on t'internet. I had a copy at one point along with a feckload of vids, might have it lying around somewhere, but meh, yeah, tin foil territory in regards to replication and death.

Practicality is a type of efficiency though. No, frequencies can't help it get past that theoretical efficiency. What heating issue? the poor efficiency is the issue.

So, you now recognize hydrogen is a dead end in regards to energy generation? and not much use as energy transport either? Because your earlier posts suggest otherwise. What's Ed like is your persistence in dodging any meaningful discussion; my persistence in putting a case forward with correct facts to back it up certainly isn't like him

Practicality is a type of efficiency, as is political expediency and patent/IP. I wasn't asking if the limits could be surpassed by frequency use. The heating issue was that the water would start to boil as the plates/rods/metal catalysts heated without another catalyst added, like baking soda for instance. Practicality in light of there being a shortage or non-existent alternative is the line they seem to be promoting.

Not a dead end, no, but certainly have more of an appreciation for its efficiency in relation to the currently widely available alternatives. No, , that's not the Ed like thing I'm talking about at all... but hey, I can't tell you that because you know better.

[bogan]

Practicality is a type of efficiency, as is political expediency and patent/IP. I wasn't asking if the limits could be surpassed by frequency use. The heating issue was that the water would start to boil as the plates/rods/metal catalysts heated without another catalyst added, like baking soda for instance. Practicality in light of there being a shortage or non-existent alternative is the line they seem to be promoting.

Not a dead end, no, but certainly have more of an appreciation for its efficiency in relation to the currently widely available alternatives. No, , that's not the Ed like thing I'm talking about at all... but hey, I can't tell you that because you know better.

I would say more like production costs, but w/e. The heating issue is the efficiency issue, heat is where the wasted electricity goes. Exactly, hydrogen is practical in this specific military case because the alternatives are not as practical as they are everywhere else.

Then you don't understand the basic theory of it, so you haven't been listening. Hydrogen generation/useage is at its practical best a neutral sum energy transfer; you just can't generate energy with it because you have to put as much (or more) in to begin with than you get out. It's theoretical best would be a very expensive, and likely low temperature differential self powering heat pump; I think there are other more realistic and more worthy projects to pursue. Let's prove we're not Ed then, so keep to meaningful discussion and avoid flippant/insulting comments; and above all, back up things with facts

[mashman]

I would say more like production costs, but w/e. The heating issue is the efficiency issue, heat is where the wasted electricity goes. Exactly, hydrogen is practical in this specific military case because the alternatives are not as practical as they are everywhere else.

Then you don't understand the basic theory of it, so you haven't been listening. Hydrogen generation/useage is at its practical best a neutral sum energy transfer; you just can't generate energy with it because you have to put as much (or more) in to begin with than you get out. It's theoretical best would be a very expensive, and likely low temperature differential self powering heat pump; I think there are other more realistic and more worthy projects to pursue. Let's prove we're not Ed then, so keep to meaningful discussion and avoid flippant/insulting comments; and above all, back up things with facts

Money eh... you sure you wanna bring that into the equation? Meyer bumped into the heat issue and claimed to have solved it using a particular frequency, metal catalyst and metal shape. The water kept a constant temperature.

Ugh. Let's not go there again eh. My "argument" for it's usage was all based on practicality grounds, not the cost, not the efficiency, not anything other than practicality. I certainly asked questions when you and the rose tinted spectacled one were high horsing it, but never denied that you were right. Got that? Or do you still want to believe that it is/was something other than I say it is/was?