Comments on: Jet Fuel from Seawater http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robo Sapien http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-19805 Robo Sapien Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:14:21 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-19805 Thanks Dr. Novella, I barely graduated high school, and even I can understand that. Too bad the author didn't. So, has science discovered what happens to "wasted" energy? Doesn't it HAVE to go somewhere or change form? Or is the whole universe just constantly spreading out thinner, eventually to be absorbed into whatever lies beyond? Thanks Dr. Novella, I barely graduated high school, and even I can understand that. Too bad the author didn’t.

So, has science discovered what happens to “wasted” energy? Doesn’t it HAVE to go somewhere or change form? Or is the whole universe just constantly spreading out thinner, eventually to be absorbed into whatever lies beyond?

]]> By: Steven Novella http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-19800 Steven Novella Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:08:07 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-19800 Lee wrote: "your lack of knowledge of simple college level organic chemestry is remarkable. if atom A contains 70 ergs of energy and atom B contains 33 ergs and it takes 5 ergs to seperate them, where do the laws of thermodynamics enter the formula??" Lee, you are profoundly confused. The combination of your tone and misinformation is what we affectionately call the "arrogance of ignorance." We are dealing here in the realm of chemical reactions - and chemical energy is not in the atoms per se but the bonds between them. Some bonds are endothermic some are exothermic. Bonding hydrogen to oxygen is an exothermic reaction - the resultant molecule has less energy in the electron shells than the original elements, and so energy is released. In order to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, that same amount of energy has to be put back in. Thermodynamics is absolutely relevant, because it says that the amount of energy you get out cannot be greater than what you put in, in fact it has to be less. So, unless you are talking about nuclear reactions, there is no energy source to be had by splitting hydrogen from water only to burn it again with oxygen. The same is not true of hydrocarbons - that is why they are a source of energy. They can be burned directly, or the hydrogen can be split off then burned with oxygen. But if you make hydrocarbons (rather than pull them out of the ground) you have the same problem of thermodynamics. Lee wrote: “your lack of knowledge of simple college level organic chemestry is remarkable.
if atom A contains 70 ergs of energy and atom B contains 33 ergs and it takes 5 ergs to seperate them, where do the laws of thermodynamics enter the formula??”

Lee, you are profoundly confused. The combination of your tone and misinformation is what we affectionately call the “arrogance of ignorance.”

We are dealing here in the realm of chemical reactions – and chemical energy is not in the atoms per se but the bonds between them. Some bonds are endothermic some are exothermic.

Bonding hydrogen to oxygen is an exothermic reaction – the resultant molecule has less energy in the electron shells than the original elements, and so energy is released. In order to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, that same amount of energy has to be put back in.

Thermodynamics is absolutely relevant, because it says that the amount of energy you get out cannot be greater than what you put in, in fact it has to be less.

So, unless you are talking about nuclear reactions, there is no energy source to be had by splitting hydrogen from water only to burn it again with oxygen.

The same is not true of hydrocarbons – that is why they are a source of energy. They can be burned directly, or the hydrogen can be split off then burned with oxygen. But if you make hydrocarbons (rather than pull them out of the ground) you have the same problem of thermodynamics.

]]> By: lee bryant http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-19772 lee bryant Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:15:48 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-19772 dear sir, just as an after thought: we cannot create hydrogen we may only liberate it. space is absoloutely full of it and so is the ocean.hydrogen provides ALL the energy in ALL fossil fuels 220 million cubic miles of hydrogen, ever so lightly bonded to 110 million cubic miles of the universes best oxydizer.... beyond this is the fact that mort than 92% of our CO2 is in solution in the ocean. if, unlike the navy, were to disassemble the various energy components to the isotopic level. designer hydrocarbons can be produced profitably by buying low grade coal. heating the coal white hot with a lot of electricity,then heating water to live steam and injecting the steam into the coal bed. the resultant gasses contain primarily hydrogen, the actual energy of all hydrocarbons. along with a few carbon compounds that must be seperated, dried then seperated further from contaminant gasses. then compressed and finally refined into various fuels, evaporatives and waxes. Sasol of S. Africa, thanks to the Aphartide regiem, is now the worlds largest producer of designer hydrocarbons using the afore mentioned, antiquated Fishcer-Trompish method originally devised by two pre WWII german chemists and used to convert coal to run the Nazi war machine. seperating H from O is much less energy intensive than taking it from C, which is the glue of the universe. if reduced to the isotopic level with an inductive plasma field (the control of which is at this moment my sole knowledge), operated at great depth (above 300BARS) we can teach our sub- atomic particles to form much more than simple hydrocarbons: we can produce most everything on the perodic table rather cheaply (its all there in the ocean), as this whole process is powered by the perfect nuclear generator (Sol). this is a very brief explanation of one form of designer hydrocarbon. that that you put in your auto each fill up is just that, a designer hydrocarbon. want to know more? dear sir,
just as an after thought: we cannot create hydrogen we may only liberate it. space is absoloutely full of it and so is the ocean.hydrogen provides ALL the energy in ALL fossil fuels 220 million cubic miles of hydrogen, ever so lightly bonded to 110 million cubic miles of the universes best oxydizer….
beyond this is the fact that mort than 92% of our CO2 is in solution in the ocean.
if, unlike the navy, were to disassemble the various energy components to the isotopic level.
designer hydrocarbons can be produced profitably by buying low grade coal. heating the coal white hot with a lot of electricity,then heating water to live steam and injecting the steam into the coal bed. the resultant gasses contain primarily hydrogen, the actual energy of all hydrocarbons. along with a few carbon compounds that must be seperated, dried then seperated further from contaminant gasses. then compressed and finally refined into various fuels, evaporatives and waxes.
Sasol of S. Africa, thanks to the Aphartide regiem, is now the worlds largest producer of designer hydrocarbons using the afore mentioned, antiquated Fishcer-Trompish method originally devised by two pre WWII german chemists and used to convert coal to run the Nazi war machine.
seperating H from O is much less energy intensive than taking it from C, which is the glue of the universe. if reduced to the isotopic level with an inductive plasma field (the control of which is at this moment my sole knowledge), operated at great depth (above 300BARS) we can teach our sub- atomic particles to form much more than simple hydrocarbons: we can produce most everything on the perodic table rather cheaply (its all there in the ocean), as this whole process is powered by the perfect nuclear generator (Sol). this is a very brief explanation of one form of designer hydrocarbon. that that you put in your auto each fill up is just that, a designer hydrocarbon.
want to know more?

]]> By: lee bryant http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-19768 lee bryant Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:52:37 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-19768 your lack of knowledge of simple college level organic chemestry is remarkable. if atom A contains 70 ergs of energy and atom B contains 33 ergs and it takes 5 ergs to seperate them, where do the laws of thermodynamics enter the formula?? to electrolyze water (only been done since about 3 years after Electricity was first harnessed and today 3% of all oxygen ((the ultra pure stuff)) is produced by electrolysis)does not endow the seperated atoms with their energy. that energy is ambient, already there. the sceptic must be very careful to not mount blind horses. one must ask what authority you imagine you posess to make, such staatements, which in all obviousness lack any foot in the actual World. won't bother with this trash site again. this won't make the comment page now will it?? sign up for chemestry 101 and after a couple years try synthetic organic chemestry then you could study hydrocarbon compounds that is hydrogen and carbon. 92% of all freebourn carbon is in the ocean and more of the available hydrogen wait, is this not then a hydrocarbon molecule? couldn't be any energy there; and oxygen thrown in: that is the universes strongest Oxydizer and if we combine H and O and C we get lets see Heptane, Butane, Octane and 46 other hydrocarbon compounds but, we could not possibly get energy from sea water Huh??? before i get real rude, just study something before you blather, you just look real foolish with that pseudo science. check Discover dec 2009 'navy makes jet fuel from sea water' as well as several thousand google searches of accredited institutions around the world successfully doing what yu broadside so blatantly. can't research before publication????? your lack of knowledge of simple college level organic chemestry is remarkable.
if atom A contains 70 ergs of energy and atom B contains 33 ergs and it takes 5 ergs to seperate them, where do the laws of thermodynamics enter the formula??
to electrolyze water (only been done since about 3 years after Electricity was first harnessed and today 3% of all oxygen ((the ultra pure stuff)) is produced by electrolysis)does not endow the seperated atoms with their energy. that energy is ambient, already there. the sceptic must be very careful to not mount blind horses.
one must ask what authority you imagine you posess to make, such staatements, which in all obviousness lack any foot in the actual World. won’t bother with this trash site again. this won’t make the comment page now will it??
sign up for chemestry 101 and after a couple years try synthetic organic chemestry then you could study hydrocarbon compounds that is hydrogen and carbon. 92% of all freebourn carbon is in the ocean and more of the available hydrogen wait, is this not then a hydrocarbon molecule? couldn’t be any energy there; and oxygen thrown in: that is the universes strongest Oxydizer and if we combine H and O and C we get lets see Heptane, Butane, Octane and 46 other hydrocarbon compounds but, we could not possibly get energy from sea water Huh???
before i get real rude, just study something before you blather, you just look real foolish with that pseudo science. check Discover dec 2009 ‘navy makes jet fuel from sea water’ as well as several thousand google searches of accredited institutions around the world successfully doing what yu broadside so blatantly. can’t research before publication?????

]]> By: David Lloyd Paterson http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-14474 David Lloyd Paterson Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:07:58 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-14474 What about this patent? It produces substantially above 100% heat outputs (yields), also referred to as “excess heat”. Excess heat is defined as the ratio (greater than 1.0) of heat energy output to electrical power input. “System for electrolysis and heating of water” US Patent Number 5,635,038: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,635,038.PN.&OS=PN/5,635,038&RS=PN/5,635,038 From the patent: What is claimed is: 1. A system for producing excess heat in a liquid electrolyte for separate external use … AND: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS/VERIFICATION Experimental test procedures and results and graphic display of those results from my previous U.S. Pat. Nos. ‘675 and ‘688 are repeated by reference thereto. Similar tests with respect to the new multi-layer conductive microspheres were conducted which showed substantially above 100% heat outputs (yields), also referred to as “excess heat”. Excess heat is more generally defined herein as the ratio (greater than 1.0) of heat energy output to electrical power input. Independent verification of my previous experimental procedures and reliability, repeatability and heat output performance of a prototype of one embodiment of my improved system and cell were conducted and reported by Dr. Dennis Cravens, who is currently a professor at Vernon Regional Junior College in physics, chemistry, math and microbiology and Department Chairperson of Math and Science and a consultant to Los Alamos National Laboratory. This testing verification occurred in two separate experimental procedures. The first was conducted at my lab on Feb. 25-26, 1995 on a system and cell which I had previously set up. The second procedure was independently conducted at Dr. Craven’s lab where he had complete charge of equipment set-up and operation. The embodiment verified was that of a cell having conductive microspheres of nickel/palladium/nickel composition. The results of this independent verification were reported during a presentation, accompanied by presentation material entitled “Flow Colorimetry and the Patterson Power Cell Design” dated Apr. 10, 1995 at the 5th Annual International Conference on Cold Fusion in Monte-Carlo, Monaco. These presentation materials are attached hereto as Exhibit A. The text describing those experimental verification results was separately reported by Dr. Cravens in a published report entitled “Flowing Electrolyte Colorimetry” dated May 1, 1995 attached hereto as Exhibit B. In Exhibit B, Dr. Cravens reports that, during the I.C.C.F.-5 conference which I attended, this same improved prototype embodiment of my invention (nickel-palladium-nickel plated microspheres) was in continuous operational display producing excess heat. Several conference attenders were witness to this display who actually took data which clearly depicted continuous production of excess heat by the prototype. What about this patent?

It produces substantially above 100% heat outputs (yields), also referred to as “excess heat”. Excess heat is defined as the ratio (greater than 1.0) of heat energy output to electrical power input.

“System for electrolysis and heating of water”
US Patent Number 5,635,038:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,635,038.PN.&OS=PN/5,635,038&RS=PN/5,635,038

From the patent:

What is claimed is:

1. A system for producing excess heat in a liquid electrolyte for separate external use …

AND:

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS/VERIFICATION

Experimental test procedures and results and graphic display of those results from my previous U.S. Pat. Nos. ‘675 and ‘688 are repeated by reference thereto. Similar tests with respect to the new multi-layer conductive microspheres were conducted which showed substantially above 100% heat outputs (yields), also referred to as “excess heat”. Excess heat is more generally defined herein as the ratio (greater than 1.0) of heat energy output to electrical power input.

Independent verification of my previous experimental procedures and reliability, repeatability and heat output performance of a prototype of one embodiment of my improved system and cell were conducted and reported by Dr. Dennis Cravens, who is currently a professor at Vernon Regional Junior College in physics, chemistry, math and microbiology and Department Chairperson of Math and Science and a consultant to Los Alamos National Laboratory. This testing verification occurred in two separate experimental procedures. The first was conducted at my lab on Feb. 25-26, 1995 on a system and cell which I had previously set up. The second procedure was independently conducted at Dr. Craven’s lab where he had complete charge of equipment set-up and operation. The embodiment verified was that of a cell having conductive microspheres of nickel/palladium/nickel composition.

The results of this independent verification were reported during a presentation, accompanied by presentation material entitled “Flow Colorimetry and the Patterson Power Cell Design” dated Apr. 10, 1995 at the 5th Annual International Conference on Cold Fusion in Monte-Carlo, Monaco. These presentation materials are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The text describing those experimental verification results was separately reported by Dr. Cravens in a published report entitled “Flowing Electrolyte Colorimetry” dated May 1, 1995 attached hereto as Exhibit B. In Exhibit B, Dr. Cravens reports that, during the I.C.C.F.-5 conference which I attended, this same improved prototype embodiment of my invention (nickel-palladium-nickel plated microspheres) was in continuous operational display producing excess heat. Several conference attenders were witness to this display who actually took data which clearly depicted continuous production of excess heat by the prototype.

]]> By: Ray http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-12577 Ray Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:49:41 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-12577 The Navy knows that the law of the conservation of energy can not be violated. If they succeed it will ultimately consume more energy than it produces. But modern carriers have two great big reactors to get energy from. Reducing the logistic connections and the service vessels needed to provide them makes the carrier a more efficient weapon, nothing more. The Navy knows that the law of the conservation of energy can not be violated. If they succeed it will ultimately consume more energy than it produces. But modern carriers have two great big reactors to get energy from. Reducing the logistic connections and the service vessels needed to provide them makes the carrier a more efficient weapon, nothing more.

]]> By: RD http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-12301 RD Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:36:50 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-12301 Hence why they are talking about making unsaturated hydrocarbons. These can be added to one another, building up a chain until you reach the length of jet-fuel. Ever heard of methanol to gasoline? Hence why they are talking about making unsaturated hydrocarbons. These can be added to one another, building up a chain until you reach the length of jet-fuel. Ever heard of methanol to gasoline?

]]> By: RD http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-12300 RD Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:34:21 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-12300 Overall the conversion of CO2 to CyHx is exothermic. The only step which consumes loads of energy is the electrolysis (which is clearly stated in the article). Pulling plankton out of the sea-water is taking out the bottom of the food chain within the oceans - not such a good idea. CO2 is in equilibrium between the sea and the atmosphere (with oceans sucking up 90 GtC/year). Great idea from the Navy - especially if they use nuclear power. All it comes down to is a transfer of one type of energy into another (more useful for jets). Overall the conversion of CO2 to CyHx is exothermic. The only step which consumes loads of energy is the electrolysis (which is clearly stated in the article). Pulling plankton out of the sea-water is taking out the bottom of the food chain within the oceans – not such a good idea. CO2 is in equilibrium between the sea and the atmosphere (with oceans sucking up 90 GtC/year). Great idea from the Navy – especially if they use nuclear power. All it comes down to is a transfer of one type of energy into another (more useful for jets).

]]> By: Dr. T http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-12018 Dr. T Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:19:30 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-12018 On a more serious note, it would be far more efficient to filter plankton out of the seawater and use its reduced carbon-containing molecules as the starting point for fuel. Starting with carbon dioxide is like trying to roll a boulder up a sheer cliff. On a more serious note, it would be far more efficient to filter plankton out of the seawater and use its reduced carbon-containing molecules as the starting point for fuel. Starting with carbon dioxide is like trying to roll a boulder up a sheer cliff.

]]> By: Dr. T http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/08/24/jet-fuel-from-seawater/#comment-12017 Dr. T Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:11:56 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4067#comment-12017 The New Scientist headling reads: “How to turn seawater into jet fuel.” That's easy: Charter a boat and hang out near a coastal military air base where the pilots are doing maneuvers: they sometimes have to dump fuel before landing. Scoop up the sea water/jet fuel mix. Pour into a large separation funnel. Drain seawater. Retain jet fuel. Voila! The New Scientist headling reads: “How to turn seawater into jet fuel.”

That’s easy: Charter a boat and hang out near a coastal military air base where the pilots are doing maneuvers: they sometimes have to dump fuel before landing. Scoop up the sea water/jet fuel mix. Pour into a large separation funnel. Drain seawater. Retain jet fuel. Voila!

]]>