US Navy Makes Oil Obsolete

mosin barf too, if the atlantic ocean has anything to say about it!!!

also, *** the ocean.

If your intention is to not be rude, you have failed miserably.

You've lost credibility in my perspective so don't bother trying to persuade me into your disillusion.

Moving on...

Most people are aware of the race to the Arctic. So yeah the thirst for oil is more alive than ever.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-lags-behind-arctic-nations-in-race-to-stake-claims-to-untapped-resources/

Don't sweat it, you're going to run into people on these forums that swear up and down that "peak production" is a myth and that Marion King Hubbert is a crackpot.

Just be thankful you don't live in the U.K. where you can't even complain about your flammable running water and toxic poisoning. At least for now in the US you can claim ownership of your land to an extent.

Meh, that's nothing. I remember back in the day these forums were like a jungle!

It's a hydrogen reactor, you dipshit

They are developing the same technology for cars

If you remove H2 from water you are left with O

which stands for oxygen and everyone cheers
HURRAY! WE CAN BREATHE OXYGEN!

But it's no longer water!!

which is a finite resource... /waits for the lightbulb to come on

The process destroys the water molecule at the molecular level which BIG SURPRISE we won't be able to reverse.

I don't give a flying *** how little water you're using in a single reactor when you multiply it by every *** car/truck/boat/train on the planet and then multiply that by every day until we run out of water like the bunch of *** retards we apparently are.

Chaos is back?!? Nice! Alymorel popped in yesterday too!

Disregard. Unrelated anecdotal story based on my having misinterpreted something.

Under the laws of the conservation of energy, this is not true. This isn't exactly Nuclear Fusion here where matter is destroyed to create pure energy. What we're looking at is the energy between the bonds. If you break water to the molecular components, O2 and H2, you must add energy to it. When you combust them, they will become water again and release energy. That energy is what our cars and appliances use.

That being said, they are making fuel. But I think most fail to see is that in order to make such fuel, you need to add energy into the system. In fact, more energy is added to create this fuel than it is to actually burn it. But in the management of the system, it makes sense. Let's say you use solar power. Solar Power gives you very little energy, but stable. Solar power isn't going to power your Naval ships because the extreme amount of energy you'd need in large bursts. You'd always need an intermediate: in solar case, it's usually going to be stored in chemical energy in the form of a battery. But what if you wanted to burn it? This technology gives you another option. It acts as a way to store chemical energy as an intermediate.

You don't understand universal conservation. Seriously do some research first. Did you fail highschool physics? Your not losing anything in the process.

As for the hydrogen they are getting, you pretty much showed your ignorance here by pointing to that. Carbon is rare in water, more common then in the air but still much rared then from the land. The ration of Hydrogen to Carbon in fuels varies, Gasoline has an 8:18 ratio between C and H, so two hydrogen atoms for very carbon atom.

Here is the composition of seawater

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm

This puts an absolutely limit to how much hydrogen you can use, and you can't keep taking more because you won't get an equivalent amount of carbon, and carbon is what your really after. 63 hydrogen molecules for every 28 carbon molecules extracted which comes out to 63/110,000 as the most you could possible take regardless of production volume. That is why I said it was a small amount. And no you can't keep taking out hydrogen for every "car/blah/blah", there won't be any carbon to go with it (actually it's even less as they are making a lower C:H ratio fuel)

Finally ... your not destroying anything in the process. Matter can neither be created not destroyed outside of a nuclear reaction. Your converting CO2 and a very small fraction of H2O into hydrocarbon fuel, then later you combust that fuel in the presence of free O2 to reproduce the original CO2 and H2O (and some CO from side reactions). Both fall back to the ground and end up in the Ocean eventually.

It's like explaining high school chemistry and physics to preschoolers around here.

I learn so much from these articles *_* (sometimes)

You should check on the 'Money is speech' thread for my return ;D

What about a nuclear reaction actually creates or destroys matter?

Science is all around us and is the most accurate depiction of life, the cosmos and everything, and it's boring as hell.

if it's boring, you're doing it wrong.

I'm sciencing as right as I can, dammit!

I blame electrons with their negative attitude.

well isn't that cute, but it's wrong!

This argument got interesting. I rather thought people understood basic chemistry and the conservation of matter better than this. The array on each side is quite intriguing.

I'll stop you there as to where you went wrong.

Having something taught in school doesn't really many anyone will understand it. It's beaten in to your head so hard that they have to beat it out for anyone to even answer a multiple choice question and even then, you are just regurgitating, not learning what it means and the amazing and profound effects this knowledge might have on the world around you.

It'd be nice if school had been a bit more engaging. Nothing helps kids excel like getting motivated by discovery and understanding. But our failed system does neither and even if you get lucky and get an awesome teacher, they are bound by rules and limited in what they can actually do. Then you graduate and your dreams get splattered on the nearest low paying job.

Last time I had Chemistry was in high school. I remember some of it that was quite a long time ago.

Plus let's face it not everyone is going to excel in Chemistry. It was boring as hell when I learned it.

I was always disappointed in school that the Chemistry labs had all the cool equipment, and we never got to use it.

It's something I've discovered by being a teacher for the past year. Different students learn different ways and have strengths and weaknesses. For instance, I'm proficient in the arts, but when it comes to math and science, I'm a complete and utter knucklehead. Does that make me stupid? Hell to da no. It just means I can't grasp scientific stuff and I don't care. But, I've never made a claim to the contrary before; if you've seen me ranting and raving on this site before, you should know that I hates me anything to do with numbers. ***, I failed chemistry in high school; lucky for me, it wasn't required.

So yes, you people know more about science than I do, but I bet I could analyze the ***out of James Joyce.

That could be true but I also think people let their personal distaste for certain subjects inhibit their ability to understand them. Higher cognitive ability transfers well between academic areas, but if someone doesn't like a particular topic or has convinced themselves they don't like one, it's rather unlikely they will excel in it.

This is exactly why I can't get users to learn anything. They've convinced themselves that computers are too hard and only certain people can learn their secrets.

"Oh you want to teach me how to change my own signature so that you don't have to do it every other week when I decide I want to change my random holiday notice or note? Nah, it's easier for you to take time out of your day every time to do it for me rather than me spend 5 minutes thinking to do it on my own!"

People are dumb, willfully ignorant, go figure.

Wait, somebody thinks electrolysis of water destroys the molecules forever?