Since task forces come and go and vary in size iaw the task, I can't answer your question. However, if you are interested in what a carrier strike group would need for SHIP fuel, you wouldn't be grossly conservative to assume ~10 ships at ~ 75MW each.Joseph Chikva wrote:If not make useful work what the matter is that exo or endo?KitemanSA wrote:Re energy in the exhaust pipe making useful work, that it YOUR idea. Please don't put your crazy words into my mouth. And yes, until you can discuss my idea (not your craziness, MY idea) knowledgeably then I think you SHOULD shut up.
knowledgeably?
I am asking once again:
How much fuel needed for Task Force per day?
Then we can go on your smart idea how to place on small chear a big ass.
Navy plans to make jet fuel from sea water
Your idea that we could get extra power from injecting NH3 into the exhaust system. That is crazy. And if you think I ever suggested we could, that is stupid to boot.Joseph Chikva wrote:And in what "idea" is crazy, my little friend?KitemanSA wrote:None, so why are you so stupid as to keep bringing it up? The only person with such crazy ideas is YOU. Shut up about it already!
Not my idea, though I'd love to own the patent. As far as I understand it, most if not all diesel manufacturers use some form of it to meet the NOx emissions limits. Keep up please.Joseph Chikva wrote:If for lowering of NOx emission you and not me proposed to use catalytic reduction after combustion cycle quoting this method? Now you do not like embodiment of your "smart" idea? Please, propose better.KitemanSA wrote:None, so why are you so stupid as to keep bringing it up? The only person with such crazy ideas is YOU. Shut up about it already!
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Hehe, that "crazy" idea to get extra power from exhaust system follows from your smart "belief" that reduction reaction is exothermic.KitemanSA wrote:Your idea that we could get extra power from injecting NH3 into the exhaust system. That is crazy. And if you think I ever suggested we could, that is stupid to boot.Joseph Chikva wrote:And in what "idea" is crazy, my little friend?KitemanSA wrote:None, so why are you so stupid as to keep bringing it up? The only person with such crazy ideas is YOU. Shut up about it already!
If you did not think to get extra power, does not matter is that reaction exo or endo.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Hehe, that "crazy" idea to get extra power from exhaust system follows from your smart "smart belief" that reduction reaction is exothermic.KitemanSA wrote:Your idea that we could get extra power from injecting NH3 into the exhaust system. That is crazy. And if you think I ever suggested we could, that is stupid to boot.Joseph Chikva wrote:And in what "idea" is crazy, my little friend?KitemanSA wrote:None, so why are you so stupid as to keep bringing it up? The only person with such crazy ideas is YOU. Shut up about it already!
If you did not think to get extra power, does not matter is that reaction exo or endo.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Hehe, that "crazy" idea to get extra power from exhaust system logically follows from your "smart belief" that reduction reaction is exothermic.KitemanSA wrote:Your idea that we could get extra power from injecting NH3 into the exhaust system. That is crazy. And if you think I ever suggested we could, that is stupid to boot.Joseph Chikva wrote:And in what "idea" is crazy, my little friend?KitemanSA wrote:None, so why are you so stupid as to keep bringing it up? The only person with such crazy ideas is YOU. Shut up about it already!
If you did not think to get extra power, does not matter is that reaction exo or endo.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
It's easy to ognor when you have nothing for answering, but as an answer on your:KitemanSA wrote:So now that we know that Joey Shitva adds nothing but crazy to the discussion, and seems to insist on it three times, I can now safely ignore whatever the crazy troll says from now on.
Anyone have a useful comment?
One more trolling.KitemanSA wrote:Since task forces come and go and vary in size iaw the task, I can't answer your question. However, if you are interested in what a carrier strike group would need for SHIP fuel, you wouldn't be grossly conservative to assume ~10 ships at ~ 75MW each.
Do you think that one or several 50-70 nuclear reactors placed on suggested by you "oilers" intented for feeding the electrolyzers producing hydrogen can feed then 10 75 MW engines with fuel? Where energy comes from?
Are you aware with energy conservation law? 75 MW makes 750 MW? Perpetuum Mobile?
My little friend, in the best case (if not considering an efficiency) one 75 MW nuclear reactor can feed only one 75 MW engine, where ammonia is only an energy accumulator.
And taking into account efficiency and also power required for e.g. compressors, etc. you will need at least three reactors feeding one warship.
Recall also size of suggested ammonia plant not allowing to be placed on any imaginable size of ships.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
All questions are rational and still are not answered.KitemanSA wrote:Troll alert!
Anyone have any RATIONAL questions? I.e., questions that haven't been answered already?
First it's appeared that 75 MW of electric power nuclear reactor should make hydrogen feeding up to 750 MW of shaft power thermal engine having efficiency 25-50%.
In reality you need not less than 1500-3000 MW of electric power taken from nuclear reactors for this.
Second: you have not idea how roomy are hydrogen making facilities via elecrolize
Third: you have not idea how roomy are ammonia making facilities
Etc.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Is “Stupid stuff” to ask what electric power is needed for making hydrogen?KitemanSA wrote:You've noticed that too, eh?In another topic, ladajo wrote:... Joseph in his never ending seeming refusal to actually read things.
He also makes up stupid stuff and pretends that others have written it.
Input data is that hydrogen feeds 75 MW shaft power engine.
The right answer is: we need 150-300 MW electric power for this.
If we should feed 10 such 75 MW engines with total installed power 750 MW, correspondently we will need 1500-3000 MW of electric power taken from nuclear.
Is this "stupid stuff" not well understood even for you, Mr. Smart?
Now about what you did and did not write.
If you talk about getting of extra power from exhaust system, that is follows from your assumption (belief) that catalytic reduction reaction is exothermic.
It's also easy for understanding for everyone (may be except you).
FYI
On Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:20 pm, after an edit at 12:39 pm, KitemanSA wrote:Not sure why you say this. Assume ~10 escort ships per CSG at ~75MW per ship, the two AONs would need to produce ~1500MW power each, given efficiencies. We put that kind of power into carriers now, shock / battle hardened, instant restartable, i.e. EXPENSIVE power now.D Tibbets wrote:The question boils down to the volume/ weight of a hydrocarbon or ammonia production facility and and it.s output rate. I have the impression that these limiting factors are far from being met, irregardless of the type of ship bearing the plant.