Navy plans to make jet fuel from sea water

[Blankbeard]

Yes, nitrogen oxide is an oxide but reduction is a process in which nitrogen reduces its "valentity" (I do not know the proper English term) thus oxidizing hydrogen in ammonia molecule.
So, NOx there is oxidizer and NH3 is fuel.

I'm pretty sure the term you're looking for is oxidation state.

Rich and poor mixes are the example when more oxidizer for poor mix would not provide more energy (lack of fuel) and more fuel would not also be exothermic when we have lack of oxidizer.
Regardless to what products we will get as result.

Again, this is wrong. The stoichiometric ratio is the ratio at which all of the fuel is consumed. The ratio for oxygen to gasoline would be different, larger, and useless. We care about burning all of the gas, not all the air.

If you were right, the excess fuel wouldn't burn at all. There would be no such thing as a rich mix.

It is true that the fuel may not burn to completion, resulting in carbon monoxide or other chemicals that lower the energy of the reaction. But it's still an exothermic reaction.

14.7 vs. 13.5? May be. This is the same order of magnitude and changes nothing.

Just pointing out the error.

[Joseph Chikva]

I didn't make the claim turbochargers were the only or even the best way to improve engine efficiency. I made the claim that turbocharging was an instance where adding energy to an exhaust stream was useful. You said there was no reason to do so.

Wrong. I said that if even reduction of NOx isexothermic reaction, their content in entire exhaust stream is neglectably small as 1000 ppm is only 0.1%. And even you would think up how to use that extra energy, its contribution in efficiency would not be significant.

In fact, I very much like turbochargers and more like twinchargers which are the combination of turbo- and superchargers. As superchargers work better at lower revolution rate, while turbochargers at higher.
But superchargers do not take power from exhaust gas but takes that from crankshaft.

But chargers commonly are useful for transport motors when you are strongly limited in weight and size (displacement e.g. for ICE).
But it is well known the solution when exhaust gas of gas turbine heats the steam (heat exchanger) that then also drives another turbine.

[Joseph Chikva]

Again, this is wrong. The stoichiometric ratio is the ratio at which all of the fuel is consumed. The ratio for oxygen to gasoline would be different, larger, and useless. We care about burning all of the gas, not all the air.

When you talk about e.g. 2.0 L Ecoboost engine namely displacment gives limitation on air inflow. Turbocharger only expands engine's ability to take more air in comparison with naturally aspirated engine having the same displacement.
And namely this ability defines the quantity of fuel that can be fed.
Give the engine more than this quantity of fuel and you will not get more power. Even if you would reach the stable combustion at very rich mix.

[Joseph Chikva]

I don't think that has an answer because the whole discussion has been wrong. You don't need to reduce output of NOx in an ammonia burning engine normally because it doesn't produce much.

Why are you so sure?
For your reference, the most efficient mode of engine is when that runs at a little poor mix. That can be described by "excess air coefficient".
But that coefficient should not be high due to high pollution of nox as result of oxidation of nitrogen presented in air.
I am asking now, if you are proposing as a fuel nitrogen containing ammonia why your mix "doesn't produce much" NOx?

[Blankbeard]

Wrong. I said that if even reduction of NOx isexothermic reaction, their content in entire exhaust stream is neglectably small as 1000 ppm is only 0.1%. And even you would think up how to use that extra energy, its contribution in efficiency would not be significant.

Wrong? This is a direct quote from your post on page 3, post 7 of this thread.

I am caught up that injecting into exhaust pipe of any media will not make any useful work even if that reaction is exothermic.

That's the statement that caused me to bring up turbocharging. A situation where you can extract useful work from an exhaust stream. Your point about the concentration of oxides of nitrogen is besides the point. If the reaction occurs, it adds heat and work can be extracted. Ammonia isn't likely to produce much NOx but that doesn't change the fact that you could usefully inject fuel into an exhaust stream.

When you talk about e.g. 2.0 L Ecoboost engine namely displacment gives limitation on air inflow. Turbocharger only expands engine's ability to take more air in comparison with naturally aspirated engine having the same displacement.
And namely this ability defines the quantity of fuel that can be fed.
Give the engine more than this quantity of fuel and you will not get more power. Even if you would reach the stable combustion at very rich mix.

Yes you will, as long as there is sufficent oxygen to at least partially burn fuel, increasing fuel will increase power. Racers run rich all the time. It lowers efficiency versus full burn and increases emissions but it works to maximize output.

Why are you so sure?
For your reference, the most efficient mode of engine is when that runs at a little poor mix. That can be described by "excess air coefficient".
But that coefficient should not be high due to high pollution of nox as result of oxidation of nitrogen presented in air.
I am asking now, if you are proposing as a fuel nitrogen containing ammonia why your mix "doesn't produce much" NOx?

Sure, running a bit lean is good for fuel economy and emissions. If you run too lean, you get high engine temperatures. Run them high enough and the disassociation rate of nitrogen gas creates the opportunity for production of oxides of nitrogen. Running rich is good for engine life and power. If you can burn more fuel, you always make more power. If you can't burn the fuel, it doesn't make power.

Burning ammonia as a fuel doesn't produce much in the way of oxides of nitrogen because ammonia is less energetic than gasoline and burns at a lower temperature. At that lower temperature, there is less disassociation of nitrogen gas. The enthapy of formation of all of the oxides of nitrogen is much higher than that of water, making them unlikely products. Also, those oxides are unstable in the presence of oxygen leading to a further disfavoring.

If you'd like evidence, I posted a link to an actual ammonia engine earlier in the thread.

And that pretty much wraps up my involvement.

[Joseph Chikva]

I am caught up that injecting into exhaust pipe of any media will not make any useful work even if that reaction is exothermic.

That's the statement that caused me to bring up turbocharging. A situation where you can extract useful work from an exhaust stream.

The problem in theoretical limit defined by Carnot cycle.
You can use turbocharger or other tricks but if you are already close to that limits all additional ways would be less effective.
All the more, if you are going to use energy of exothermic (????????) reaction of reaction (reduction) of very small fraction of entire stream.
Best regards and good night.

[Nydoc]

This is about as big of a refinery that you could float:



from http://imgur.com/a/oRQQx[/img]

[Joseph Chikva]

What's this?
Plant relocation?
Who argues that some equipment can be placed on ships?
If you read carefully you should remember that ladajo said that for providing acceptable air quality there on submarines are CO2 amine scrubbers and electrolyze cells. And because he is NAVY’s high rank officer, we should believe him

Those scrubbers are very common with ammonia plants' scrubbers. But here scale does matter. As in submarines those equipment are in scale enough for breathing of 200 men max.

Now Kiteman talks about possibility of placing on aircraft carrier's size ship of:
• 1.5GW nuclear power plant
• electrolyze cells totally consuming the power of that plant
• air separation plant providing 3 times less nitrogen (by volume) than hydrogen produce from electrolyze section
• ammonia synthesis plant
I know that Kiteman was NAVY’s technician too. But that is only his suggestion and not really existing hardware. And I've shown that only electrolyze section would be not less than 3 times roomier than total carrier's available space.

[KitemanSA]

Just as a follow-up, I contacted a company that is developing solid-state ammonia synthesis (SSAS) plants and have found out the a Panamax ship, a ship about the size of a T-AKE, would be able to carry the 1.5GW NPP, the SSAS, and a LARGE tank of ammonia. And a T-AKE is a LOT smaller than a carrier. So I guess the Navy would be able to do what I suggested. Oh, and Joey is ... wrong again.

[Joseph Chikva]

Just as a follow-up, I contacted a company that is developing solid-state ammonia synthesis (SSAS) plants and have found out the a Panamax ship, a ship about the size of a T-AKE, would be able to carry the 1.5GW NPP, the SSAS, and a LARGE tank of ammonia. And a T-AKE is a LOT smaller than a carrier. So I guess the Navy would be able to do what I suggested. Oh, and Joey is ... wrong again.

How correct is to ask company who develops new ammonia synthesis process about feasibility of placing of nuclear plants on ships? Are you sure that this is their expertise?
And you totally forgot to ask them or others about electrolyze section’s required volume - the section which would be the roomiest part of your suggestion. From where are you going to get hydrogen if you will not have such a section?
And, so, I am correct again and my opinion is well augmented with real (actual) numbers vs. words of company that as I understand did not commercialized its technology even in for ground application.

And what do you mean saying "large ammonia tank"?
How much ammonia do you think to store? 1 hour consumption, 1 day, 2 days, one week? Please provide number.
First of all the number of daily consumption.

It would be more correct to ask for example about required volume of electrolyze section this Russian company http://ekb.ru/production/14?action=small who really produces such electrolyze cells e.g. via e-mail: general@ekb.ru
I am sure that their answer will be that for loading of 1.5MW of electric power estimation of ONLY electrolyze section's required volume will have 1'000'000 m3 order vs. less than 300'000 m3 available space for Nimitz class carrier.
Good luck.

PS
Also, you know that I have trouble with English.
So, please explain me what the word "again" means?
Does the sentence "You are wrong again" mean that I was ever wrong arguing with you? Please recall me at least one event.

[KitemanSA]

Just as a follow-up, I contacted a company that is developing solid-state ammonia synthesis (SSAS) plants and have found out the a Panamax ship, a ship about the size of a T-AKE, would be able to carry the 1.5GW NPP, the SSAS, and a LARGE tank of ammonia. And a T-AKE is a LOT smaller than a carrier. So I guess the Navy would be able to do what I suggested. Oh, and Joey is ... wrong again.

How correct is to ask company who develops new ammonia synthesis process about feasibility of placing of nuclear plants on ships? Are you sure that this is their expertise?

Joey, yet again you demonstrate that you will grasp any stupidity to try to redeem yourself.

And you totally forgot to ask them or others about electrolyze section’s required volume - the section which would be the roomiest part of your suggestion. From where are you going to get hydrogen if you will not have such a section?

Wrong AGAIN!!! SSAS has no electrolyzer section. It internally reforms steam, and the steam and nitrogen and everything else generator is part of the quoted volume. Face it Joey, you were WRONG.

And, so, I am correct again and my opinion is well augmented with real (actual) numbers vs. words of company that as I understand did not commercialized its technology even in for ground application.

And so Joey you are WRONG again. (No surprise!)

And what do you mean saying "large ammonia tank"?

About half the volume of the ship.

How much ammonia do you think to store? 1 hour consumption, 1 day, 2 days, one week? Please provide number.
First of all the number of daily consumption.

No, since at this point, holding enough ammonia is just a matter of final ship size and the ship can get a LOT bigger if necessary.

It would be more correct to ask for example about required volume of electrolyze section this Russian company http://ekb.ru/production/14?action=small who really produces such electrolyze cells e.g. via e-mail: general@ekb.ru

Only if you are stupid enough to think the MUST BE an electrolyzer section. Read up on SSAS before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

I am sure that their answer will be that for loading of 1.5MW of electric power estimation of ONLY electrolyze section's required volume will have 1'000'000 m3 order vs. less than 300'000 m3 available space for Nimitz class carrier.

Which just goes to prove I would be the fool to follow your suggestions.

Good luck.

PS
Also, you know that I have trouble with English.
So, please explain me what the word "again" means?
Does the sentence "You are wrong again" mean that I was ever wrong arguing with you? Please recall me at least one event.

Too numerous to mention. Look them up yourself. (Your implication that NH3+ NOx was endothermic comes to mind).

[Joseph Chikva]

Does the sentence "You are wrong again" mean that I was ever wrong arguing with you? Please recall me at least one event.

Too numerous to mention. Look them up yourself. (Your implication that NH3+ NOx was endothermic comes to mind).[/quote]

Thanks. What about with NO2, the other part of NOx?

NO2 is listed in the link as 51.3 The higher oxides of nitrogen have smaller and eventually negative enthalpies. I assumed pure NO because that produced the reaction most likely to be endothermic. But it just ain't overcoming that much water as a product.

How significant is to consider are those reduction reactions exothermic or endothermic if NOx content in input stream has e,g. 1000 ppm order, while after that catalityc reduction reaction has e.g. 10 ppm order?
If to recall that "ppm" means "part per million".
So, if we have gas flow e.g. 1000 kg/h, input NOx content would be only 1 kg/h and after reduction 0.01 kg/h.
What contribution in energy balance will give the reduced 0.99 kg/h for a stream 1000 kg/h?

Yes, I am stupid as speak with you. As your SSAS method is extremely undeveloped.
You've seen my previous estimation of required volume of electrolyze section and did not make any remark. So, that time you did not know too that SSAS method needs not hydrogen as reactant but makes ammonia from steam and nitrogen.
Now you’ve read and proudly declare those who didn't make the same yet as stupid.
Also it is only your habit to repeat everything that others fart. I heard many and many such ideas how to make ammonia, caprolactame, nitric acid, etc. And as a rule the most of those are even more energy intensive.
Because your estimation that you need only 1.5MW may be wrong in that case.
Ok, if you need not electrolyze section at all provide then utilities consumption of SSAS method. Then, let's talk.
Can you?
And finaly, do you really believe that such a serious organization like Navy will even consider your smart idea?
Believe me, for small ships they will go to nuclear if that ever will become feasible or will stay on hydrocarbons.
And now they are studying the feasibility to make hydrocarbon based jet fuel from CO2 which reactes with steam directly or with hydrogen produced via water electrolize.
This process is undeveloped too. But as I understand only making hydrocarbons for jet fuel is NAVY's interest.

[KitemanSA]

Joey,
Read the past posts in this thread. Even you should be able to find the many ways in which your blather above is wrong. Again. Toodles.

[Joseph Chikva]

Joey,
Read the past posts in this thread. Even you should be able to find the many ways in which your blather above is wrong. Again. Toodles.

Thanks. I do not see such a necessity to reread discussion on your useless suggestion.
Again you want to win me. But I have not mutual intend and I am not your competitor at all.
But please do not suggest nonsenses so often. Nonsense like current your suggestion to make ammonia onboard of ships for its further using as intermediate fuel, suggestion on creation of enrichment facilities for couple thousands dollars, etc.
As a rule our discussion begins when I inform you how pity your suggestion are and how and where that contradict laws of the nature or/and common sense.
For example, please explain why you call "blather" my question "how significant is exothermic nature of reaction NO + NH3 if NO in exhaust stream has 0.1% (1000 ppm) order?". Significant at least in the first approach? And you lie. I didn't say that reaction is endithermic. I said that does not matter when we talk about such small contents (0.1%).

[KitemanSA]

For example, please explain why you call "blather" my question "how significant is exothermic nature of reaction NO + NH3 if NO in exhaust stream has 0.1% (1000 ppm) order?".

YOUR blather because ONLY YOU tried to make it significant while the rest of us understood we were talking about NOx emission reduction and went on our way. Are you catching up YET? Somehow I doubt it.