Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: US Navy 'Game-Changer': Converting Seawater into Fuel [View all]aggiesal
(8,911 posts)8. This is ridiculous. Let me explain ...
About 5-10 years ago, I came across an article where a scientist at
the University of Buffalo found that when you apply a specific frequency
to seawater it would ignite. This means burnable energy was created.
When this information was published, the government was knocking
down the door the next day.
Never heard anything about this technology ever since.
I have nothing to do with Univ. of Buffalo, so it's not like I'm bragging
for any personal or want to see some alumni or reasearch center at
thisvschool to succeed.
At the time I just felt that with an abundance of seawater this was a
viable solution to our energy needs.
I wish I could find the article and post a link.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
69 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You can convert methane to Navy distillate using the Fischer-Tropsch process
jmowreader
Apr 2014
#26
Except for Carriers and Submarines, the Navy presently use only oil burning ships
happyslug
Apr 2014
#52
If you're going to do that, you'd be better off putting the fuel maker in its own ship
jmowreader
Apr 2014
#53
If works as they say, I'd say it's safe to assume it will be used in the civilian world too
penultimate
Apr 2014
#4
This isn't it. This is premium-price fuel. $6/gal, accepting their rosy projections. nt
eppur_se_muova
Apr 2014
#47
It's not a 'solution to our energy needs'; you need electricity to run it
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2014
#16
"Inventions" like that come up all the time, reported by less than reputable sources.
pffshht
Apr 2014
#37
If anyone knocked on his door, they didn't know shit about chemistry ...
eppur_se_muova
Apr 2014
#48
From a naval point of view, it allows them to remain at sea longer
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2014
#15
I think they're saying an aircraft carrier could produce fuel for its escort ships (nt)
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2014
#19
About 150 years of science does point to CO2 causing atmospheric warming
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2014
#40
Take a stats class...there is no statistical significance, just a correlation...
hoosierlib
Apr 2014
#41
The warming effect of carbon dioxide is about physics, not statistics
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2014
#42
Specifically, "This suggests other variables (more statistucally significant) influence temperature"
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2014
#59
Are you saying that *you* understand, while the Royal Society and NAS don't?
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2014
#64
So you think you're smarter than every scientist that works at a university anywhere in the world
muriel_volestrangler
Apr 2014
#66
Models are like that, approximations, at best. That doesn't mean they are wrong.
bemildred
Apr 2014
#45
With reactors on board you wouldn't need to go around your elbow with this seawater scheme
jmowreader
Apr 2014
#28
When the present Fracking oil bubble breaks around 2017-2018, $6 a gallon will be cheap.
happyslug
Apr 2014
#54