Comments on: BOAT RUNS ON SEA WATER (Aug, 1954)

By: chuck stone

chuck stone — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:16:02 +0000

It is wise for thinkers to kick ideas around in hope of discovering an alternative to the established technology. In aerospace that is called “Brainstorming”. While the first person to advocate a new idea my miss the target, hopefully that effort will motivate others to counteroffer their ideas. This is much better than having people only complain about the bad condition with no ideas to counter offer.

We are building an engine that uses water to power an otto cycle engine. That engine could well push a boat with adequate power. Go to Google and we explain why and how we are proceeding with a demonstration project. The established companies stay with what already works and what they feel is a low risk with only minor change0s.

The pressure from “BIG OIL” to keep everyone on oil based fuels is enormous. The denial that the oil will ever run out is very short sighted. America is so dependent upon oil for fuel, they waste billions in wars to gain or sustain control of foreign oil. If just a portion of that money was put into an honest effort to get off the oil, we would already have enough alternatives to oil that we would not go to war for oil in the future. Cost of transportation would drop and that means cost of goods would drop for the consumer. When $5.00 a gallon gasoline hits the consumer changes will happen for the 99% of Americans who work for a living. Smaller cars with higher mileage will come into play. Electric cars and trucks will become more common. But what will happen to the business of shipping by water when the oil wells run dry? Or the cost become too high. Someone should be working on that problem – that is what is behind the idea of using salt water to power a boat.

I for one say “GOD Bless” and full speed ahead to the inventor.

P.S.

To the critics – “The price of honest respect for your criticism is a better idea to solve the problem”.

By: Toronto

Toronto — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:26:34 +0000

No, you build a coast-to-coast canal in the form of a giant sluice box, and you slowly rock it back a forth, raising one end at a time. Cargo barges flow downhill from Long Beach to Myrtle Beach (via Phoenix, Lubbock, and of course, Roswell.) The weight of the cargo is insignificant compared to the weight of the canal and its water, and since it always returns to the same position, the energy loss is obviously zero…

By: Glen

Glen — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:36:18 +0000

Ok , Let use A Big scale , Let’s Look at the Power it will take to Run , this new Ele. Train Across country, From cost to cost? and the water at each end, and the Batteries all the way from point to point, and at each end at the water’s edges Working and making Hydrogen, as a by product and charging the batteries all the time, . With the water moving in a Great Concrete tanks, at numerous points with batteries from point to point, and the hole way from point to point of the ele. train, and by it moving it could make some of it own power also by the movement and that energy could be stored in the very same batteries, and #1 not take as much power away from the main power grid, and the excess power from point to point, could be used as an over flow back to the main power grid, at the high or low volt side of the power made over all. Float that Boat on land and push the movement in with a Propane Motor after the ele. levitates the train.

See basics use of levitating weight is to, = Levitation = Super Conductors + Earth Magnets + Liquid Nitrogen = Levitation

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:04:46 +0000

Manoj: Tell you what Edison, build it and they’ll come.

By: Manoj

Manoj — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:09:21 +0000

I’m sure its only design factor that’ll work.

By: Casandro

Casandro — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:08:40 +0000

@Firebrand38: Let’s make an estimate.

OK, this is a zinc lead battery. Therefore it has a voltage of about 0.7 volts. Assuming a required power of about a Megawatt, which is probably little for such a large ship, you have about a Megaampere of current flowing. (with some care, this can be done easily)

Now an Ampere is defined by 6.24e18 electrons per second. In the reactions taking place in the battery, you get 2 electrons out of each metal atom which reacts. So this means to get the 6.24e24 electrons a second you need 3.12e24 atoms of each metal per second. That’s about 5 mol per second, or about a kilogram of lead or 300 gramms of zinc. So about 1.3 kilograms of material would react every second. That’s about 112 tons a day for a small 1 Megawatt engine. (that’s about 1400 hp)

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:21:50 +0000

Casandro: Don’t talk about it, do it!

And yes, I was being sarcastic towards yet another brilliant poster addressing a question to the author of an article published in 1954.

By: Casandro

Casandro — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:10:28 +0000

@firebrand38 Yes you can calculate that. You need to know the chemical reaction then you can easily calculate it. Or of course you can build a small model and extrapolate. It should be linear with the charge you pull out of it.

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:07:49 +0000

Manoj: Can any man truly know how much electrode is left behind unusable before cleaning and at last when no more cleaning possible?

By: Manoj

Manoj — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:34:32 +0000

Can I know how much electrode is left behind unusable before cleaning and at last when no more cleaning possible. My idea consumes total electrode material.

By: Tom Hernon

Tom Hernon — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 03:20:18 +0000

We are building a 26 foot electric boat that has the new batteries and charging system that is being used in the new chevy Volt. We are also looking for 10 small green generators that will help recharge the batteries. 1 Sun, 2 Wind, ext… Our new batteries will move the boat at 15 knots for 16 hours on a single charge. We hope the green systems we develop can boost that to 20 knots for 24 hours. Our gas generator can then kick in. We are planing on sailing the boat through the north west passage in July 2012. If anyone has any ideas and want to be involved in this project please contact me at usdluge@yahoo.com We have several engeneers from GM helping us along with my son (mach eng) our business partner (marine eng) and more joining the team soon… We need Ideas please help…

By: salt

salt — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 03:39:59 +0000

I have tried making a wet cell battery using Mccabe theory to run a boat. I have found after several test that the zinc- carbon electrodes combination works the best.

But after running a small D.C motor for 30 seconds it stopped working. Then I gave it a rest for 5 mins , washed the electrodes and it worked again.

Can anyone tell me how I can make it run for atleast 5 mins. thanks

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:55:23 +0000

Douglas: Wow! Now that the hard part is done of imagining a material which is attracted to sodium but repels chlorine, and another which is opposite we can proceed to get financing for this thing. Thanks for taking care of the heavy lifting! That’s like I don’t know about economics but it seems to me that you could make a lot of money buying stocks when they’re priced low and then selling them when the price goes up!

Don’t be like that idiot Paul who believes that I can’t criticize a suggestion from 1954 that never took off just because I never designed a seawater powered ship.

Important safety tip, a lot of those commonplace items are here because someone knew chemistry and/or physics (or engineering).

By: Douglas

Douglas — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 23:36:31 +0000

The point to overcome here would be to develop electrodes that are able to attract the ions nessessary to generate power but do not react themselves. I have no idea if this is possible since I am not a chemist nor a physicist. Imagine a material which is attracted to sodium but repels chlorine, and another which is oppisite. Any combination of this should work including the many trace elements in seawater. As long as the electrodes themselves remain intact they could be cleaned of the attracted material. As I said, I have no idea whether this is possible or feasible. But many of todays commonplace items and processess were once thought of as impossible or unfeasable.

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:41:18 +0000

jayessell: He’s a Region 1. Probably a janitor at General Electric in Cincinnati.

By: jayessell

jayessell — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:14:29 +0000

Paul, what is your DVD region number?
(It’s not off topic.)

By: Casandro

Casandro — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 06:32:31 +0000

@robert Actually it would scale. You could build that fairly large. However it’s not free energy. It’s a simple battery. No magic or free energy there. Of course it would work, for a while until the battery runs out. Just as with any battery this would mean that the metal on one side would be corroded away. The really bad thing about that idea is that it uses sea water and that the battery is open. This means that not only the efficiency will be lower, but also many reaction by products would go into the sea. That’s probably a bad idea.

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:06:04 +0000

Nice drawings at the top of the page. The only problem is that they are just that: drawings. This would never get off the ground or water. Try scaling it up and watch the size of everything get waaaay beyond feasibility for propulsion. Man, it’s amazing how giddy even these magazines get, whenever “free” energy is supposedly mastered to cure the world’s problems. This is old news with the same results – fine for a lamp, but not feasibly possible to run a large ship – or even a normal sized runabout.

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:57:12 +0000

Paul: Very juvenile argument. At this point it’s only your opinion that the principle is sound unless of course you have a little thing called “proof”? Lot more useful than mindless enthusiasm.

By: Casandro

Casandro — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:13:41 +0000

Well I do have something that is better than this: Normal non-rechargable batteries, or Diesel engines.
This is nothing more than a galvanic cell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_cell

The principle works and you can actually build something like that at home. Just take some aluminium foil (“tin foil” will do, too) and some copper wire and put both into salt-water. Between the 2 metals you will get a voltage and probably enought current to run a small lamp. Now leave it on for a few days. What will happen is that one of the metals will dissolve while the other one will get a coating and the battery will have stopped working. Now replacing the water won’t change a thing. If you replace both pieces of metal without replacing the water it will work again.

This has nothing to do with having a closed mind. It has something to do with thinking something through and using logic and knownledge to see what will happen.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:28:40 +0000

@Casandro & Firebrand38
so what have you guys ever come up with that is better? Very little I should imagine.
The principle is perfectly sound. Although we may not be able to do it, or something similar with todays technology, doesn’t mean we will never be able to.
Open your mind!

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:45:59 +0000

“At least it is an attempt”? What’s that supposed to mean? Coming up with an invention that costs a dime to make, sells for a dollar and is habit forming is a great idea but like the great idea of low taxes requires a little more effort to make it work.

“Need to be improved”? You gotta have something in the first place to improve it.

By: Casandro

Casandro — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:55:08 +0000

@Mark

I’m sorry, but this system is total bolloks. It’s essentially a battery using salt-water. It’s just like using normal non-rechargable batteries. The only difference is that this battery is open and releases, potentionally hazardous, reaction by products into the sea.

And just like with non-rechargable batteries, you need several hundred times more energy to produce them then you get out of them.

By: Mark Fangue

Mark Fangue — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:49:14 +0000

At least it is an attempt at transportation via clean energy. I think it is a great idea, it just needs to be improved further, but when bolstered with solar panels and/or wave energy it could definitely be viable for commercial size vessels and smaller. It is true that production of the parts to make advanced systems like these are (currently) expensive and it involves less than clean processes to produce, but that is the cost of production. The terrible thing that we are trying to get rid of is the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine, the lubrication fluids it requires, and the neverending demand of oil it requires that exhales tons of pollution. I encourage everyone to continue to work on this design or system and stop bad mouthing it.

By: NobodYouWanToKnow

NobodYouWanToKnow — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:40:07 +0000

By: Jari

Jari — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:55:41 +0000

Tracy, as far as I understood, the caterpillar from the Red October used superconducting coils to induce magnetohydrodynamic force to seawater. Similar than this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_1

Really cool looking ship, don’t you agree?

By: Richard C

Richard C — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:42:17 +0000

It’s like those “potato clocks” or “lemon batteries”. Nifty little 5th grade science experiments, but there are good reasons we don’t use them for practical power on a large scale.

The expensive, energy-intensive part of a battery isn’t the electrolyte. It’s the energy needed to refine the materials that make up the electrodes.

By: Tracy B.

Tracy B. — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:40:58 +0000

yes, and the only way to recharge is to get more metal………..perhaps that is what the “caterpillar” was on the “Hunt for Red October”

By: Casandro

Casandro — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:30:46 +0000

Wow, it’s a battery. The electrodes will corrode and consume themselves.

By: Rick Auricchio

Rick Auricchio — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:36:01 +0000

Let’s see here.

100 horsepower, enough for a nice runabout, requires about 75000 watts of power. Round it up to 100kw to account for efficiency losses.

The model generates 1v * 3a or 3 watts.

So we’re probably looking at scaling the model up by a factor of 33000 to generate power for 100 horsepower. At that size, we’re looking at a boat way too large to move with only 100hp.

Modern cruise ships do indeed use electric motive power, but they generate electricity with huge diesel-driven generators.