Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Navy's future: Electric guns, lasers, water as fuel » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   BadOne  
Good Luck   More Crap   Wall Bang   Were Up   Were Down    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Pagan  - posted
Navy's future: Electric guns, lasers, water as fuel
By Brad Lendon, CNN
updated 10:44 AM EDT, Thu April 10, 2014

(CNN) -- Imagine ships that fire missiles at seven times the speed of sound without using explosives, or that use lasers to destroy threats at the cost of about a dollar a shot, and vessels making fuel from the very seawater in which they're floating.
That's the glimpse of the high-tech future the U.S. Navy gave this week. And these aren't just ideas. They've all been shown to work to some degree.
Saturday, the Navy will christen its most advanced warship ever, the destroyer USS Zumwalt, which may one day be using these new technologies.
The Zumwalt, which was launched last year and is to be christened at Bath Iron Works in Maine, is the Navy's first stealth destroyer. At 610 feet long and 80 feet wide, it's about 100 feet longer and 20 feet wider than ships in the Navy's current fleet of Arleigh Burke class destroyers, but the canopy and the rest of the Zumwalt is built on angles that help make it 50 times harder to spot on radar than an ordinary destroyer.
"It has the radar cross-section of a fishing boat," Chris Johnson, a spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command, told CNN when the ship was launched last year.
In its current configuration, the Zumwalt will carry a considerable arsenal of weapons, including two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS), which can fire rocket-powered, computer-guided shells that can destroy targets 63 miles away. That's three times farther than ordinary destroyer guns can fire.
But in the future, it could be fitted with the even more advanced systems the Navy talked about this week.
The Laser Weapon System (LaWS) will be tested at sea this summer.
The Laser Weapon System (LaWS) will be tested at sea this summer.
One, a laser weapon prototype, will be tested aboard the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce in the Persian Gulf this summer, the Navy said.
"This is a revolutionary capability," Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, chief of Naval Research, said in a statement. "This very affordable technology is going to change the way we fight and save lives."
The laser weapon is design to take on aircraft or small surface vessels that may pose threats to Navy ships. Tests in 2011 and 2012 showed it can accomplish that mission.
The laser can be fired by one sailor using a video game-like console and do it at little cost, the Navy said.
"Spending about $1 per shot of a directed-energy source that never runs out gives us an alternative to firing costly munitions at inexpensive threats," Klunder said.
The Navy thinks the other weapon prototype it discussed this week, the electromagnetic railgun, will save money while providing a more potent force.
The EM Railgun launches projectiles using electricity instead of chemical propellants.
The EM Railgun launches projectiles using electricity instead of chemical propellants.
The gun uses electromagnetic force to send a missile to a range of 125 miles at 7.5 times the speed of sound, according to the Navy. When it hits its target, the projectile does its damage with sheer speed. It does not have an explosive warhead.
"The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy," Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy's chief engineer, said in a statement. "This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons."
See the railgun work
The railgun projectiles could cost about 1/100th the price of current missiles, according to Klunder.
The Navy said the railgun will be tested at sea aboard the USS Millinocket, a non-combat ship known as a joint high-speed vessel, in 2016. No decision has been made on which combat ships might eventually be deployed with a railgun.
No matter what ships are chosen, other Navy scientists said this week those vessels may someday draw their fuel from the oceans they're crossing.
Researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Materials Science and Technology Division, said this week they have demonstrated proof-of-concept on the ability to draw carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater and turn it into forms of gasoline.
Heather Willauer, a Naval Research Laboratory chemist, called the technology "game changing."
"This is the first time technology of this nature has been demonstrated with the potential for transition, from the laboratory, to full-scale commercial implementation," she said in a statement.
The lab's researchers used "an innovative and proprietary NRL electrolytic cation exchange module" to remove the carbon dioxide from the water and produce hydrogen gas in the process.
"The gases are then converted to liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst in a reactor system," the research lab's statement said.
The fuel produced was used to power the engine of a small model aircraft, the researchers said.
The process could be ramped up to produce a replacement for jet fuel at a cost of $3 to $6 per gallon within a decade, the researchers said. That step would come on land, with versions to be used on ships coming later, they said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/tech/innovation/navy-new-technology/index.html?hpt =hp_t2
 
glassman  - posted
NRL has made significant advances in the development of a gas-to-liquids (GTL) synthesis process to convert CO2 and H2 from seawater to a fuel-like fraction of C9-C16 molecules. In the first patented step, an iron-based catalyst has been developed that can achieve CO2 conversion levels up to 60 percent and decrease unwanted methane production in favor of longer-chain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins). These value-added hydrocarbons from this process serve as building blocks for the production of industrial chemicals and designer fuels.

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-fl ight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept#sthash.wgJtCoLG.dpuf


in case you missed it? it's prolly time to think really hard about how much oil stock you want to hold long-term.

this is not the only process to convert H2 and CO2 to liquid fuels. A copper based elctrode was developed at Stanford University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory this year as well...

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/04/nanocrystalline-copper-turns-co-carbon -monoxide-fuel

the revolution is here, but there's still alot more work to do before it is ready to replace oil... even so? the market looks forward, shorting is not called for YET....
 
Pagan  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
NRL has made significant advances in the development of a gas-to-liquids (GTL) synthesis process to convert CO2 and H2 from seawater to a fuel-like fraction of C9-C16 molecules. In the first patented step, an iron-based catalyst has been developed that can achieve CO2 conversion levels up to 60 percent and decrease unwanted methane production in favor of longer-chain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins). These value-added hydrocarbons from this process serve as building blocks for the production of industrial chemicals and designer fuels.

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-fl ight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept#sthash.wgJtCoLG.dpuf


in case you missed it? it's prolly time to think really hard about how much oil stock you want to hold long-term.

this is not the only process to convert H2 and CO2 to liquid fuels. A copper based elctrode was developed at Stanford University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory this year as well...

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/04/nanocrystalline-copper-turns-co-carbon -monoxide-fuel

the revolution is here, but there's still alot more work to do before it is ready to replace oil... even so? the market looks forward, shorting is not called for YET....

But can you imagine Glass....if the process works. How many economies will collapse?
 
glassman  - posted
it works. but it'll be a little longer before we see it replace oil on large scale.

the concepts have been around for years. there will be many more processes to compete with these two in the next few years.

the changeover will not necessarily leave the oil PROCESSING co's out of the game, but oil exploration and drilling will not be nearly as big as they are now. the machinery to produce these new fuels will prolly look alot like an oil refinery does now, but there should be alot less dirt (pollution) oil will still be useful, but not nealry as profitable IMO.
 
Pagan  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
it works. but it'll be a little longer before we see it replace oil on large scale.

the concepts have been around for years. there will be many more processes to compete with these two in the next few years.

the changeover will not necessarily leave the oil PROCESSING co's out of the game, but oil exploration and drilling will not be nearly as big as they are now. the machinery to produce these new fuels will prolly look alot like an oil refinery does now, but there should be alot less dirt (pollution) oil will still be useful, but not nealry as profitable IMO.

Yes...I know it works. I was speaking more along the lines of the capital outlay required for mass production. If they can keep the prices down, and with a virtually limitless supply of sea water. The effects on some oil based economies could be staggering. But you know the big oil corps would be fighting it tooth and nail.
 
glassman  - posted
they may not fight it if they can control the technology.

the process sort of mimics photosynthesis. instead of using sunlight to run the elctron pump electricity is used. that will still need to come from natgas for a few decades. solar panels will eventually be able to do it. the heavy distillates off oil will still be valuable. it is unlikely that we'll be able to produce the heavier more complicated molecules cost effectively. I'm not convinced that getting the CO2 from the oceans will be most efficeint way to collect it. it will make sense to scavenge them directly at coal and nat gas electric producing plants. it sounds good for th navy to say they'll scavenge them from th eocean, but profit-wise, they won't be spending the extra money on scavenging form the ocean till they have to. it is cleaner energy and they are required to clean up their waste already. this will make it more profitable to do so
 
Pagan  - posted
Two questions...how will the Oil corps control the tech. And second, I don't see the Navy utilizing sea water as scavenging. Sea water is virtually limitless. Can you clarify?
 
glassman  - posted
first answer;

the oil corps will perfect the processes to make it economical. that's what they have done with oil all along. they have the Capital on hand to do that IF THEY ARE SMART and want to survive.

second answer;

it isn't the sea water itself that they are using. this is why i get so frustrated with "journalism" and journalists in general. they don't care what they say as long as it makes a good sound bite.

the technology is not so far away from that balcklight project you posted about last week or the week before. in htis case electrodes are used in liquids that are water based to produce hydrocarbon liquids like ethanol or kerosenes (jet fuel) the sea water absorbs CO2 produced by burning hyrdocarbon fuels around the world. reducing CO2 to CO is relativley simple process (using the elctrodes)CO then forms th ebackbones of th ehydrocarbons and the extra H+ ion comes form the water (the elctron pump)any water will do and any CO2 source will do. so, you go to tthe soource for your CO2 whihc is coal and nat gas power plants. the seawater is journalistic soundbite made especially for the masses to feel good about...

what the real research is about is developing very specially shaped molecules for the electrodes to hold the differnt molecules in th water in just the proper position to accept or releas the appropriate molecules to build or strip away the differnt molecules.

biology figured this out and it is called either photsyunthesis or fermentation... yeasts and chloorplasts do it all day long but too slow for our economy. there's a few real geniueses worldwide (AND NO I AM NOT CLAIMING TO BE ONE OF THEM, I JUST KNOW WHO THEY ARE) who understand how the shapes of differnt molecules allow them to become Catalysts and Enzymes.... they then mimic those shapes with "nanomoleculs" that we can use elctricity on instead of sunlight like nature does.
 
Pagan  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
first answer;

the oil corps will perfect the processes to make it economical. that's what they have done with oil all along. they have the Capital on hand to do that IF THEY ARE SMART and want to survive.

second answer;

it isn't the sea water itself that they are using. this is why i get so frustrated with "journalism" and journalists in general. they don't care what they say as long as it makes a good sound bite.

the technology is not so far away from that balcklight project you posted about last week or the week before. in htis case electrodes are used in liquids that are water based to produce hydrocarbon liquids like ethanol or kerosenes (jet fuel) the sea water absorbs CO2 produced by burning hyrdocarbon fuels around the world. reducing CO2 to CO is relativley simple process (using the elctrodes)CO then forms th ebackbones of th ehydrocarbons and the extra H+ ion comes form the water (the elctron pump)any water will do and any CO2 source will do. so, you go to tthe soource for your CO2 whihc is coal and nat gas power plants. the seawater is journalistic soundbite made especially for the masses to feel good about...

what the real research is about is developing very specially shaped molecules for the electrodes to hold the differnt molecules in th water in just the proper position to accept or releas the appropriate molecules to build or strip away the differnt molecules.

biology figured this out and it is called either photsyunthesis or fermentation... yeasts and chloorplasts do it all day long but too slow for our economy. there's a few real geniueses worldwide (AND NO I AM NOT CLAIMING TO BE ONE OF THEM, I JUST KNOW WHO THEY ARE) who understand how the shapes of differnt molecules allow them to become Catalysts and Enzymes.... they then mimic those shapes with "nanomoleculs" that we can use elctricity on instead of sunlight like nature does.

Oh ok. So you have no clue. Just say that next time without all the crap.
 
glassman  - posted
LOL... Ok. i'll just cut-n-paste form your article then..

The lab's researchers used "an innovative and proprietary NRL electrolytic cation exchange module" to remove the carbon dioxide from the water and produce hydrogen gas in the process.
"The gases are then converted to liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst in a reactor system," the research lab's statement said.


the "electrolytic cation exchange module" is made with those special nanomolecules. the carbon dioxide is much more plentiful at the outlet of the exhaust gases in coal fired power plant than it is in the ocean...

the most important issue is that electricity is still required to perfomr the conversions... hence the ideal locations will benearby electricity producers - hopefully solar powered
 
glassman  - posted
burning either fuel will still produce more CO2 and water (and heat) that is the generic complete combustion formula... incomplete hyrdocarbon combustion also produces carbon monooxides- nobody found free energy here yet, but there is a way to be more efficient.... in the blacklight system, there appears to be energy coming form somewhere that we cannot identify yet... that is what's so fascinating about it...
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
burning either fuel will still produce more CO2 and water (and heat) that is the generic complete combustion formula... incomplete hyrdocarbon combustion also produces carbon monooxides- nobody found free energy here yet, but there is a way to be more efficient.... in the blacklight system, there appears to be energy coming form somewhere that we cannot identify yet... that is what's so fascinating about it...

What institution or company would you say is the leader in this technology?
 
glassman  - posted
it's too soon to tell who will make money at it.
 
NR  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
they may not fight it if they can control the technology.

the process sort of mimics photosynthesis. instead of using sunlight to run the elctron pump electricity is used. that will still need to come from natgas for a few decades. solar panels will eventually be able to do it. the heavy distillates off oil will still be valuable. it is unlikely that we'll be able to produce the heavier more complicated molecules cost effectively. I'm not convinced that getting the CO2 from the oceans will be most efficeint way to collect it. it will make sense to scavenge them directly at coal and nat gas electric producing plants. it sounds good for th navy to say they'll scavenge them from th eocean, but profit-wise, they won't be spending the extra money on scavenging form the ocean till they have to. it is cleaner energy and they are required to clean up their waste already. this will make it more profitable to do so

If you read the blog by Vice Adm. Phil Cullom,
 mentioned in the original article, he gives a very good explanation as to why the Navy would be interested in using seawater.

What better fuel source for an Naval Ship than the water it is sitting in?

I remember years ago when I was aboard my destroyer in the Adriatic, on station, prepared, with Tomahawks, ready to answer our Nation’s call to use them if necessary.

I would have to leave that station every few days to be able to rendezvous with the oiler far out in the Mediterranean. When I did that, I was no longer available for the mission. That’s what this revolutionary game changer is about – the idea that maybe you won’t have to leave station to go find the oiler – maybe you’ll be able to produce that fuel where you are – at sea.


http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/04/07/energy-independence-and-the-warfighter/
 
glassman  - posted
i understand the needs NR, I was a gunner on a destroyer.
the problem is that the process described in hte article (Navy's future: Electric guns, lasers, water as fuel
By Brad Lendon, CNN
updated 10:44 AM EDT, Thu April 10, 2014) does not actaully provide the basic energy needed to perform the electrolytic cation exchange or the conversion to liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst in a reactor system...

they still need electicity to do that... once you produce electicity on the high seas? why go thru all that other BS? right now we (mostly) produce electricity via nukes or oil-based steam.
the only reason that is obvious to me is to fuel planes on a carrier that is nuke powered.. use the nuke pile to make electricity then use htat to conver the seawater to hydrocarbon fuel.

the science is good but the practical application is not there...
 
NR  - posted
As I understood it from the blog, if it could be made small enough, it could be put on an aircraft carrier and utilize the nuclear reactor already on board to provide the electricity for the catalyst. I didn't check the math, but one person commenting on the blog calculated you could fuel 85 FA-18s in 28 hours.
 
glassman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by NR:
As I understood it from the blog, if it could be made small enough, it could be put on an aircraft carrier and utilize the nuclear reactor already on board to provide the electricity for the catalyst. I didn't check the math, but one person commenting on the blog calculated you could fuel 85 FA-18s in 28 hours.

that would make sense.it would essentially be "synthetic" fuel too. probably as good as it gets.
 



Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2013 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share